A long awaited highway could cost as much as $16.5 billion to build through Texas, the state Department of Transportation told regional leaders at a meeting Friday.(caller. com (Corpus Christi); 10/8/10)
Construction of Interstate 69 in South Texas could begin as soon as five years from now, and the road from the Rio Grande Valley through the Coastal Bend to Texarkana is at least 20 years from completion, said John Barton, the assistant executive director for engineering operations for the transportation department.
The department expects to have about $4 billion to $5 billion to begin construction on the interstate in Texas...
$4 billion seems like a decent amount of money to get things going ...
I see from the last half of that article that the exact routing has not exactly been narrowed down for the southern end of I-69,
$4 billion seems like a decent amount of money to get things going ...
Or more alarmingly expensive. They may as well make I-69 a toll road for that price.
And....if I had to choose which corridor to South Texas out of 77 and 281 I'd upgrade first, I'd prefer 77.
Anthony
id give 77 the nod, after they upgrade 59, of course
ROBSTOWN – An overpass under construction will move U.S. Highway 77 between Corpus Christi and Brownsville one step closer to interstate highway standards.(www.caller.com; Corpus Christi, 10/14/10)
The $11.7 million project will raise the four lanes of U.S. 77 to allow traffic on Farm-to-Market Road 892 to travel underneath. The overpass is expected to open within the next three months, according to the Texas Department of Transportation.
The project will help improve traffic through an increasingly congested area, said Transportation Planning and Development Director Paula Sales Evans. It also brings the freeway closer to interstate standards by removing cross traffic from the intersection.
At a ribbon cutting Thursday, officials stood near a sign noting that U.S. 77 is the future Interstate 69 corridor...
Texas is a big state with a lot of taxpayers. Tolls build most of the urban stuff, so I guess most of the general tax money goes towards maintenance and building of rural roads. That doesn't explain how they are able to keep all the FMs up, though...
JEFFERSON, Texas–Studies estimate U.S. Highway 59 between Texarkana and Lufkin can become Interstate 69 for $4.5 billion.
The preliminary numbers were revealed Wednesday during a planning meeting for the interstate corridor’s Segment 1."
The article also discusses alternative methods of financing Segment 1:
"But with no pot of gold in sight for transportation, local committee member Bill Cork asked what new funding options are available.
Barton said a tool legislators are supporting is more public/private partnerships, which are frequently assumed to be toll roads. A builder constructs a road and charges a fee to drive on it, recouping its investment.
“But there are other options,” Barton said. “Private companies come in and build the asset and the way they generate the revenue is through a retail opportunity.”
An investor could build a convenience store along the corridor and make its profit back on a service provided rather than use of the system.
Tax increment districts can also help pay for transportation expansion. Both Texarkanas have taxing districts established that capture revenues as property values increase and put that money into expenses in specific areas.
Other options include increases in state and/or federal gas taxes, directing more of the shared tax revenues to Texas roadways and increased costs of vehicle registration.
Upgrading an existing road could turn out more expensive because you either need to build frontage roads for local traffic, or build a lot more interchanges to serve all the minor roads US 59 serves today. If you have greenfield construction, you can greatly reduce the amount of nonsense interchanges to backwater roads.
A slight tweak to language included in the 1995 law that designated U.S. 77 and U.S. 281 as future segments of the interstate highway system could be a step toward securing the long-awaited blue shield for the two Rio Grande Valley highways.
U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-Mercedes, plans to add legislative language that could accelerate the designation of the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69 by the end of this year ...
Although the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 stipulated that the two north-south highways leaving the Valley would be included as part of the I-69 corridor, it also said that they must be up to interstate system design standards and connect to an existing interstate system.
Portions of U.S. 281 and U.S. 77 and nearly all of Expressway 83 –the major route that connects them – are up to interstate design standards in the Valley. But billions in construction dollars still separate the highway’s rural portions from being up to standard before they connect with Interstate 37 outside Corpus Christi.
Hinojosa’s language would stipulate that the interstate-quality segments at the highway’s southern terminus be given the I-69 designation even though they don’t connect with I-37 ...
But the Valley’s portions of the highways – such as U.S. 281 to just outside of Edinburg and U.S. 77 to Raymondville – qualify for the interstate designation, Hinojosa said. By adding language to the federal code that allows those sections because they connect to the border, the Valley could already reap the economic benefits of an interstate ...
A Texas representative is attempting to amend federal I-69 legislation to allow designation of portions of defined corridor that are currently up to interstate standards to be signed as I-69, even though those portions do not currently connect to another interstate: http://www.themonitor.com/articles/interstate-44356-designation-valley.htmlTxDOT's website now has pdfs of Nov. 2010 Interim Reports from the five I-69 Segment Committees: http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm
"A slight tweak to language included in the 1995 law that designated U.S. 77 and U.S. 281 as future segments of the interstate highway system could be a step toward securing the long-awaited blue shield for the two Rio Grande Valley highways ... Although the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 stipulated that the two north-south highways leaving the Valley would be included as part of the I-69 corridor, it also said that they must be up to interstate system design standards and connect to an existing interstate system ... By adding language to the federal code that allows those sections because they connect to the border, the Valley could already reap the economic benefits of an interstate ..."
Looks like he will attempt to amend the law to make a border terminus the equivalent of a connection to another interstate.
A Texas representative is attempting to amend federal I-69 legislation to allow designation of portions of defined corridor that are currently up to interstate standards to be signed as I-69, even though those portions do not currently connect to another interstate: http://www.themonitor.com/articles/interstate-44356-designation-valley.htmlApparently, Hinojosa has not gotten very far with his effort; however, it appears that another Texas representative, Blake Farenthold, is about to introduce another bill to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69:
U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-Mercedes, plans to add legislative language that could accelerate the designation of the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69 by the end of this year ...
Hinojosa’s language would stipulate that the interstate-quality segments at the highway’s southern terminus be given the I-69 designation even though they don’t connect with I-37 ...
... Farenthold could file his second bill as early as today [April 14] that would designate a portion of the planned Interstate 69 corridor in the Rio Grande Valley as highway ready, making it eligible for federal funding, Farenthold spokeswoman Margarita Valdez said.
Valdez said the bill has the support of the majority of the Texas delegation ...
it appears that another Texas representative, Blake Farenthold, is about to introduce another bill to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69 ... Farenthold could file his second bill as early as today [April 14] that would designate a portion of the planned Interstate 69 corridor in the Rio Grande Valley as highway ready, making it eligible for federal fundingIn addition to trying to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as I-69, Farenthold is making it a priority to upgrade US 77 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen as I-69:
One of my highest priorities in the 112th Congress will be to upgrade US 77 to Interstate 69 in order to better serve the mobility needs of South Texans. Historically, the Lower Rio Grande Valley ... is ... the largest metropolitan area in the nation not served by the Interstate Highway System which has caused limited economic opportunities and growth. The Interstate 69 project is expected to create more than 40,000 new jobs by 2025, resulting in $12.8 billion in additional wages and $24 billion in added value. Completion of US 77 upgrades will mean that Kleberg, Kennedy, Willacy and Cameron counties are all finally on an interstate highway.
Interstate 69 in Texas is an ongoing upgrade of existing highways to interstate standards. Currently, interstate designation is being pursued for several completed sections in South Texas. The Texas Department of Transportation is also nearing completion of a successful Environmental Assessment (EA) on upgrading the US 77 sections from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi to US 83 in Harlingen. Completion of US 77 upgrades between Corpus Christi and Harlingen will serve as a model for how the rest of I-69 in Texas will become a reality.
The initiative to upgrade US 77 between Corpus Christi and Harlingen may serve as a model for how much of the rest of I-69 in Texas will become a reality.[page 5/10 of the pdf].
One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
Which makes perfectly good sense.One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
From what I have heard, the Laredo branch would be the mainline I-69, with the US 77 branch from Corpus Christi to Brownsville and the US 281 branch being x69 spurs.Seeing that US 77 and US 281 are pretty close together, they'd be better off upgrading one to Interstate standards and leaving the other as is. As for the actual designations, I could see I-37 go further down US 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville, with the rest of the US 77 corridor into Victoria being a southern I-39 or I-41. They already have two I-76s, two I-84s, two I-86s, and two I-88s, so why not two odd-numbered routes? (I'll discuss this further in the Fictional Highways section at an undetermined time.)
Personally, here's what I would do to avoid the issue of suffixing:
Laredo-Houston branch of US 59 = I-69
SH 44 between Freer and Corpus Christi + US 77 through Corpus Christi to US 59 junction = I-469
US 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville = extended I-37
Existing I-37 from US 77 to downtown Corpus Christi = I-x37
I'd keep US 281 as is, really no need to make it an Interstate route..but if you insist, try an I-x69.
Anthony
it appears that another Texas representative, Blake Farenthold, is about to introduce another bill to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69 ... Farenthold could file his second bill as early as today [April 14] that would designate a portion of the planned Interstate 69 corridor in the Rio Grande Valley as highway ready, making it eligible for federal funding
... U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi, whose district also includes a portion of Cameron County, introduced H.R. 1535, Interstate Designation for Portions of the I-69 Route, with the full support of the entire Texas delegation.
H.R. 1535 would allow portions of I-69 (US 59, 77, and 281) to be desig-nated as an interstate once segments are constructed to interstate standard, Farenthold said. If enacted, the bill would facilitate interstate signage on the multi-state I-69 corridor stretching from Port Huron, Mich., to the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas.
He said significant investments have been made and are continuing to be made in Texas using local, state and federal funding to build I-69.
“Close proximity to an interstate is arguably one of the greatest factors to encourage economic development and job creation,” said Farenthold. “Along with my colleagues in Congress, I have been working with the Alli-ance for I-69 to ensure that work on the interstate is completed in a timely manner.”
“I am also very pleased that Senators Hutchinson and Cornyn are intro-ducing a companion bill in the Senate this week. This is an example of the great work and collaborative efforts made by both members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate,” Farenthold said.
Which makes perfectly good sense.One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
The proposed bill does two interesting things. First, it increases the mileage of the I-69 corridor by adding US 83 between US 281 and US 77 to the corridor. Then, it proposes to specifically exclude I-69 from the requirement that a new segment of interstate may not be signed unless it connects to another segment of the interstate system. I had thought the amendment would consider a connection to a national border as being equivalent to a connection to the existing interstate system; instead, it appears that this introduced legislation would allow any segment of I-69 in Texas to be immediately signed after an upgrade to interstate standards, regardless of the distance from the existing interstate system.it appears that another Texas representative, Blake Farenthold, is about to introduce another bill to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69Farenthold has filed his bill
From what I have heard, the Laredo branch would be the mainline I-69, with the US 77 branch from Corpus Christi to Brownsville and the US 281 branch being x69 spurs.
Anthony
...A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central ...(https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/nhslegis.html)
"...A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central ..." (https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/nhslegis.html)This appears to require the posting of I-69 signs on I-94 from Chicago to Detroit :)
The proposed bill does two interesting things. First, it increases the mileage of the I-69 corridor by adding US 83 between US 281 and US 77 to the corridor. Then, it proposes to specifically exclude I-69 from the requirement that a new segment of interstate may not be signed unless it connects to another segment of the interstate system.
Piecing together the so-called NAFTA superhighway stretching 1,800 miles from Mexico to Canada will get a boost if the House adopts legislation submitted by Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi ... The freshman lawmaker —- and 30 bipartisan members of Texas’ congressional delegation —- are asking the GOP-led chamber to designate three segments of Texas’ long-distance highways as part of Interstate-69 ... Currently, there are 230 miles of Texas highways built to freeway standard — nearly 25 percent of the Interstate-69 route in Texas, Farenthold said ... The measure would enable portions of US 59, US 77, and US 281 in Texas to be designated part of the interstate once those segments are constructed to interstate standard.
The proposed bill ...increases the mileage of the I-69 corridor by adding US 83 between US 281 and US 77 to the corridor .... My understanding is that "nearly all of" US 83 is interstate-grade and signage-ready if legislation passes (http://www.themonitor.com/articles/interstate-44356-designation-valley.html). Any guesses as to its designation?
One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
The state will spend $9.2 million to clear another obstacle along U.S. 281 and continue upgrades to the route to make it Interstate-quality.
The Hidalgo County Regional Mobility Authority received $9.2 million in state funding to construct an overpass in Brooks County on U.S. 281 at Farm-to-Market Road 755, which stretches from Encino to Rio Grande City. Other than a relief route around Premont and a connection to Interstate 37 from George West, the intersection at FM 755 is one of the last major impediments before U.S. 281 is at expressway standards, a key step toward getting the Interstate 69 designation that economic development officials say is critical to attracting companies to the county.
“If we’re ever going to be able to make 281 part of I-69, we’ve got to start paying attention to those improvements along 281,” said mobility authority chairman Dennis Burleson. “This is one more obstacle off of 281 to make it look more like an Interstate.” ...
As far as I can tell, federal legislation (Section 1105(e)(5)(c)(i) of ISTEA) currently mandates that US 59 from Laredo to Houston will be I-69 and the US 77 (I-69 East) and US 281 (I-69 Central) routes will be suffixed:
"...A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central ..." (https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/nhslegis.html)
Farenthold's bill does not attempt to amend this portion of the legislation dealing with the identification of the routes.
The Alliance For I-69 Texas has worked closely with the Texas delegation on the two bills. I recently emailed and asked if they planned to go with either the current I-69+suffix designations or I-x69 designations.One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
Thanks for your inquiry. The priority for the Alliance and the communities along the corridor is to get the interstate designation and shield. As such, we are not as concerned at this point with the numbering (ie, I-169,I-369, etc.). As for US 83, we are attempting to add that to the I-69 Corridor designation as it serves as a vital connector between US 281 and US 77 and it is currently at interstate standards.
Jennifer Shepard
Executive Director
Alliance for I-69 Texas
... The Nueces County Commissioners Court recently supported Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority's project to enhance Highway 77, through a court resolution. We were pleased to learn that such support may have been a contributing factor to their ability to leverage $25 million of pass-through financing from the State of Texas. Texans now could soon see Interstate 69 signs on a 75-mile portion of U.S. 59 in the Houston region and a 10-mile piece of U.S. 77 in Nueces County, both of which connect to existing interstate highways ...
I'd keep US 281 as is, really no need to make it an Interstate route..but if you insist, try an I-x69.
Anthony
I-238 would fit better.
I'd keep US 281 as is, really no need to make it an Interstate route..but if you insist, try an I-x69.Some interstates already have 2 separate segments, so how about I-99?
Anthony
question is, will we ever see a state-named Texas I-69?I just finished a phone call with the public information director for the Corpus Christi district. He gave a little bit of clarity to the situation.
I did not know AASHO was approving suffixed routes still. I thought they were put on the ban list in the early 1980s, with strong pressure to remove all but the pair of 35E/W splits.I seriously doubt that they will. The only reason I included that as a possibility is that the federal legislation authorizing the I-69 Corridor speaks in terms of suffixes. It may be possible that AASHTO would feel compelled to comply with the legislation (although I doubt it). I'm primarily interested in which route will be the "main" I-69: US 59, 77, or 281.
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.The Laredo routing makes more sense though. It's a bigger city that you're connecting to.
The Laredo routing makes more sense though. It's a bigger city that you're connecting to.Not by much, and US 77 wins slightly when you add Harlingen. (Also note that, despite US 281 being another designated leg of I-69, US 77 easily serves McAllen etc.)
NJ Turnpike might consider applying for I-95W and I-95E for the Western and Eastern Spurs, though it's more to keep exit numbers aligned on both roadways versus restarting one at 0. (The Eastern Spur would likely become an x95, though the even ones are all taken in the area...)Why would they have to do that? I-276's exit numbers are measured from the state line on I-76.
I-276 is technically in violation, though. I don't know if PTC is going to fix that or be made to fix that now... I don't think they use Fed money so I have my doubts. (Same doubts I have about NJ Turnpike being forced to comply, but we'll find out)NJ Turnpike might consider applying for I-95W and I-95E for the Western and Eastern Spurs, though it's more to keep exit numbers aligned on both roadways versus restarting one at 0. (The Eastern Spur would likely become an x95, though the even ones are all taken in the area...)Why would they have to do that? I-276's exit numbers are measured from the state line on I-76.
Really, sometimes you just have to ignore the rules. However, I read 2009 MUTCD Section 2E.31 and I don't see anything requiring mileage to begin at 0, only that "interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route". I-276 follows this, beginning with 326 where it leaves I-76.
Niiiiiice - it's should, not shall. "Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State." Arizona would have been screwed otherwise.Interesting. I wonder if they had a hand in it?
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.
... County Administrator Pete Sepulveda said that, of the 123-mile section of road between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, about 24 miles are up to interstate standards, though work is under way to bring the remainder up to snuff.
A 1.8-mile section of U.S. Expressway 77 at Robstown, part of the greater Corpus Christi metro area, has been upgraded and in-cludes an overpass at FM 892. The project cost $20 million. The Texas Department of Transportation recently began soliciting bids for construction of a 3.3-mile section of U.S. Expressway 77 between Lyford and Sebastian. The cost of the project, which will also include a new overpass, is estimated at $30.4 million.
TxDOT in early 2012 will open bids for improvements to U.S. Expressway 77 in the Kingsville area. Initial plans called for up-grades, including overpasses, at Driscoll and Riviera to be paid for with private money, which would make it necessary for tolls to be charged along those sections. Sepulveda hopes federal and/or state funding can be found to make private money – and tolls – unnecessary. Ground has not yet been broken on those projects.
Sepulveda, who’s also coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority, said local officials have been meeting with political leaders in counties north of Cameron County, and working with the TxDOT district engineer in Corpus Christi, to identify funding sources to finish upgrading the remaining miles. Sepulveda said the Corpus Christi-to-Brownsville stretch is about $160 million away from being completely upgraded to interstate quality. Being so close money-wise makes it much easier to get taken seriously in Austin and Washington, he said, when it comes to asking for funding. Upgrading all 123 miles will end up costing somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000,000 Sepulveda said, adding that “it’s very doable” to secure all the necessary funding within two years. The various projects are being funded with a combination of local, state and federal dollars.
Of all the Valley’s transportation needs, being connected to interstate-quality road is the most important factor in terms of eco-nomic development, growing the tax base and industrial base, and creating jobs, he said.
“At the end of day our goal is to create jobs,” Sepulveda said.
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.Draft agenda for Aug. 25 meeting of Texas Transportation Commission indicates that they will petition AASHTO to designate the above-mentioned section of US 77 as Interstate 69 [page 5/9 of pdf]:
10. Highway Designation
Nueces County — Authorize submission of an application to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 77
from I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as Interstate 69 (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this
minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 6.2-mile segment of US 77 from
I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69. A technical
report prepared by the department, which evaluated the existing design features and operational
conditions of the route, found that in addition to being part of the High Priority Corridor 18 System, this
segment of US 77 also meets current interstate system design standards and connects to an existing
interstate system segment via a fully directional interchange with 1-37, thus establishing its eligibility for
the designation.
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.Draft agenda for Aug. 25 meeting of Texas Transportation Commission indicates that they will petition AASHTO to designate the above-mentioned section of US 77 as Interstate 69 [page 5/9 of pdf]:
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/agendas/aug25.pdf
"10. Highway Designation
Nueces County — Authorize submission of an application to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 77
from I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as Interstate 69 (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this
minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 6.2-mile segment of US 77 from
I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69. A technical
report prepared by the department, which evaluated the existing design features and operational
conditions of the route, found that in addition to being part of the High Priority Corridor 18 System, this
segment of US 77 also meets current interstate system design standards and connects to an existing
interstate system segment via a fully directional interchange with 1-37, thus establishing its eligibility for
the designation."
isn't the Laredo to Houston segment of US 59 scheduled to be designated as the main route of I-69 upon completion of the upgrade to Interstate standards??The ISTEA legisalation does indicate that Laredo to Houston is mainline I-69, but it looks like a combination of US 77 being a faster upgrade and overall population growth in Rio Grande Valley may have changed some minds. OTOH it is anticipated that there will be I-69 signs going through Houston by next summer: http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update8.12.11.html
Anthony
US 59 IN HOUSTON AREA
TxDOT is also in the process of requesting that the Federal Highway Administration approve adding completed sections of US 59 in the Houston metropolitan area to the Interstate Highway System as I-69.
The Eastex Freeway (US 59) is at interstate highway standard with full controlled access from downtown Houston to near Splendora in Montgomery County, a total of 38 miles. The Southwest Freeway (US 59) is at interstate standard from downtown Houston to Rosenberg, a total of 35 miles. These I-69 route sections connect to the existing Interstate System at I-10, I-45 and I-610.
Barton said the section north of Loop 610 has already been submitted to FHWA for review and that the highway through Houston and south to Rosenberg should be ready ready in the next two months. TxDOT has been coordinating the effort with FHWA and he expects quick action. These sections are likely to go to the AASHTO route numbering committee for approval at their semi-annual meeting next May. He expects signs to be up by next summer.
He said that getting the first sections added to the Interstate System and signed is an important milestone that marks the beginning of an era when Texas will focus on filling in the I-69 gaps rather than talking about a large corridor that is yet to be started.
Population growth is one thing, but Laredo transfers the bulk of international truck traffic between Texas and Mexico. It would make more sense for the Mexico to eastern U.S. points is best served by one continuous route.I asked I-69 Alliance about the "mainline" issue, and reply indicates that there will be some uncertainty for a while:
US 77 will still carry the I-69 name. East and Central were added to eliminate driver confusion about different roadways to the border being labeled I-69. The fact that US 77 will be signed first does not indicate a decision about the "mainline", but rather a reflection of the fact that upgrades to bring a portion of US 77 to interstate standards have been completed faster than work on US 59 to Laredo. We do expect FHWA to approve signing of US 59 through the Houston as I-69 early next year.
Thank you for your interest.
Jennifer Shepard
Executive Director
Alliance for I-69 Texas
Phone/Fax 703-580-4416
Jennifer@jgshepard.com
Here is a link to the Transcript of the August 25 meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission in which they authorized submission of an application to AASHTO for approval of the I-69 designation for the US 77 segment:Population growth is one thing, but Laredo transfers the bulk of international truck traffic between Texas and Mexico. It would make more sense for the Mexico to eastern U.S. points is best served by one continuous route.I asked I-69 Alliance about the "mainline" issue, and reply indicates that there will be some uncertainty for a while:
"US 77 will still carry the I-69 name. East and Central were added to eliminate driver confusion about different roadways to the border being labeled I-69. The fact that US 77 will be signed first does not indicate a decision about the "mainline", but rather a reflection of the fact that upgrades to bring a portion of US 77 to interstate standards have been completed faster than work on US 59 to Laredo. We do expect FHWA to approve signing of US 59 through the Houston as I-69 early next year.
Alliance for I-69 Texas
The I-69 corridor, a proposed national interstate highway extending from Michigan through Lufkin and East Texas to the Mexican border, will take a visible step toward reality this week.
The Federal Highway Administration recently granted approval for the Texas Department of Transportation to erect 14 “Future I-69 Corridor” signs along U.S. 59 in TxDOT’s Lufkin District, which includes Angelina, Nacogdoches, Polk, San Jacinto and Shelby counties.
According to a TxDOT-issued statement, the signs are intended to inform the traveling public that U.S. 59 in Texas is federally designated to become a future part of I-69 when it meets Interstate design standards.
Lufkin Mayor Jack Gorden, who serves as a member on the executive committee of the Alliance for I-69 Texas, said that the project has made some significant steps in the last two years.
“It doesn’t mean it’s going to be built tomorrow, but good things have happened,” Gorden said. “This signage issue is something that we came up a couple of years ago.”
TxDOT has previously erected “Future I-69 Corridor” signs along other segments of U.S 59, U.S. 77, and U.S. 281, which are also federally designated to become part of the future national I-69 system, according to the statement, and with this approval, TxDOT can move forward to install future Interstate signs along U.S. 59 in these five counties. The signs are expected to be installed by Friday ...
What is the plan to connect the portions of I-69 in Texas to the already signed portions of I-69 (specifically the segment south of Memphis in Mississippi, which I've seen signed)? Will 69 follow 59 all the way to Texarkana, have a concurrent segment with 30 and 40 in Arkansas and then split off and connect to the I-69/MS 304 segment in Mississippi?For Texas, go to this link http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm and the Interim Update Reports for the 5 Segment Committees all have maps. In Segment 1, the portion of the I-69 Corridor from Tenaha to Texarkana is commonly referred to as an "I-69 Spur" and may eventually link to Future I-49 in Texas to the northwest of Texarkana.
This link will lead you to maps of the SIUs in Tennessee:
North of that, I guess US 51 through Tennessee and Purchase Pkwy in Kentucky? I'm just trying to determine a rout off Google maps.
Thank you Grzrd!You are welcome OCGuy81!
On October 15, the AASHTO Highways Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering reported its approval of the I-69 designation for the above-referenced segment in Texas [page 8/8 of pdf]:Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.Draft agenda for Aug. 25 meeting of Texas Transportation Commission indicates that they will petition AASHTO to designate the above-mentioned section of US 77 as Interstate 69 [page 5/9 of pdf]:
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/agendas/aug25.pdf
"10. Highway Designation
Nueces County — Authorize submission of an application to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 77
from I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as Interstate 69 (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this
minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 6.2-mile segment of US 77 from
I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69. A technical
report prepared by the department, which evaluated the existing design features and operational
conditions of the route, found that in addition to being part of the High Priority Corridor 18 System, this
segment of US 77 also meets current interstate system design standards and connects to an existing
interstate system segment via a fully directional interchange with 1-37, thus establishing its eligibility for
the designation."
The Texas Transportation Commission took action today to add Interstate 69 to the state highway system, allowing Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) officials to label the first Texas stretch of the nearly 1000-mile interstate since I-69 received federal high-priority route designation more than a decade ago.
Today’s decision enables TxDOT to add the concurrent designation of I-69 to a 6.2-mile section of US 77 between I-37 and SH 44 in Nueces County. This concurrent designation is possible without additional funding, right of way or construction because the existing highway already meets interstate standards .... The first I-69 sign will go up in early December at the intersection of I-69/US 77 and SH 44 in Robstown .... TxDOT is also asking the FHWA for approval to add completed sections of US 59 in the Houston metropolitan area to the Interstate Highway System as I-69.
Yes! The shields will have Texas on them. This is something we encouraged TxDOT to do.
I emailed the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance and asked her if "Texas" will be on the I-69 shields. I was mildly surprised by her response:
"Yes! The shields will have Texas on them. This is something we encouraged TxDOT to do."
I emailed the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance and asked her if "Texas" will be on the I-69 shields. I was mildly surprised by her response:
"Yes! The shields will have Texas on them. This is something we encouraged TxDOT to do."
FYI. Thanks for your assistance on this matter. The Alliance leadership
strongly supports including the state name on the interstate shields.
<snip>
I wanted to let you know that we are planning to hold an event in the Corpus
Christi area at 2 p.m. on Dec. 5th to mark the posting of the first
interstate signs on a section of US 77 that will be designated as I-69.
TxDOT is preparing the invitation and I will forward it to you once it is
released. I have confirmed with TxDOT that the interstate shield will
include "Texas". Many thanks for your efforts on this!
We have gotten a commitment from Chairman Mica that he plans to include the signage legislation in his proposed reauthorization bill. The signage legislation has been introduced as stand alone bills in both the House and Senate, but we expect that it will be rolled into the reauthorization bill. However, as you have observed, timing is quite uncertain on the reauthorization bill. The Senate EPW Committee is scheduled to mark-up a two-year reauthorization bill on Nov. 9th. We will see what the House does.
I recently received an email update from the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance on the current status of the proposed bill that would allow I-69 signage on US 281, US 83, and US 77 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Basically, it is anticipated that the bill, although introduced as a stand alone bill, will be rolled into the next reauthorization bill (if and when that ever occurs... :no:). Part of her response:
"We have gotten a commitment from Chairman Mica that he plans to include the signage legislation in his proposed reauthorization bill. The signage legislation has been introduced as stand alone bills in both the House and Senate, but we expect that it will be rolled into the reauthorization bill. However, as you have observed, timing is quite uncertain on the reauthorization bill. The Senate EPW Committee is scheduled to mark-up a two-year reauthorization bill on Nov. 9th. We will see what the House does."
If the bill does pass in the relatively near future, and with US 77 definitely being signed as I-69, it will be interesting to see what interstate designations US 83 and US 281 will receive.
The map at this link shows the portions of US 281, US 83 and US 77 near the Mexican border that are currently at freeway (and presumably interstate) standard and would be eligible for I-69 signage under the proposed bill:
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/i69.html
The Rio Grande Valley came 6.2 miles closer to losing its distinction as the largest metro area in the nation without direct access to an interstate Monday with the first stretch of Interstate 69, a trade corridor promised to someday link the Valley's Mexican border cities to inland America and Canada.
The segment already met interstate standards and required no new construction, making Monday's ceremony largely symbolic. But the 10 “I-69” signs make those miles the first new interstate in Texas since 1992 ...
Only personally know of two.
I-279 (http://g.co/maps/ewjp9)
I-16 (http://g.co/maps/4tjzd)
Also, this article indicates that ten I-69 signs were installed on the section (EDIT - this link was updated after my post to include a still photo of the unveiling of a BGS with I-69 shield):
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Coastal-Bend-Valley-unveil-first-stretch-of-2346709.php
Also, this article indicates that ten I-69 signs were installed on the section (EDIT - this link was updated after my post to include a still photo of the unveiling of a BGS with I-69 shield):
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Coastal-Bend-Valley-unveil-first-stretch-of-2346709.php
it mentioned that this was the first new interstate in Texas since 1992, was that the new I-20 in SE Dallas?
On BGS? I know of none in many states, though I wouldn't say most.
Only personally know of two.
I-279 (http://g.co/maps/ewjp9)
I-16 (http://g.co/maps/4tjzd)
there are lots and lots out there. I can think of at least one in nearly every state, including some generally hard-to-find states like Massachusetts.
a quick survey of the shield gallery reveals, offhand, only ID, KY, MO, ND, OH, OR, SD, TN, WV with no state-named shields on green signs in photos taken at any time, including some examples from only the 60s (RI), but most with examples surviving into the early 2000s at least. ID, OH, OR, SD and TN are likely the results of insufficient data, as they got rid of state-named shields quite a while back. MO, ND and WV are very scrupulous in their standards compliance, and KY is a little bit of both, I think.
by BGS, do you also include side-mounted (as opposed to overhead-mounted) green signs?
for example, is this a BGS? it's B, and it's G, and it's certainly an S, but it might be a borderline example given its purpose.
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NH/NH19610934i1.jpg)
LGS. The difference between L and B, at least to me, is the makeup of the sign panel. A single sheet of aluminum is L, even if it's overhead. Extruded strips, several panels, etc. with backing reinforcement is B, even if it's side-mounted.
P.S. I'm jealous. I have a crappy photo of that sign,
and it disappeared by the time I made it back.
LGS. The difference between L and B, at least to me, is the makeup of the sign panel. A single sheet of aluminum is L, even if it's overhead. Extruded strips, several panels, etc. with backing reinforcement is B, even if it's side-mounted.
fair enough. I tend to note the distinction as "would the sign have mixed case in a jurisdiction where smaller signs have all-caps?" for example, Texas until recently had all-caps Series D on LGSes and mixed case Series E or EM on BGSes.
this NH example is indeed quite borderline, as there are no letters apart from the shield itself.
so your LGS/BGS distinction might indeed lose a few states. Washington comes to mind offhand as LGS-only.
The only place I've been without BGS is Prince Edward Island. Washington certainly has BGS, I just checked my site to make sure.
You will find an interstate shield without 'Ohio' on it
[old photo]
(ODOT's archives date this as 1959, FWIW)
Roger Beall answered that the request to add U.S. 59 through Houston to the interstate system was tentatively scheduled to be sent to FHWA in January. If the request is approved, the Texas Transportation Commission will consider submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Special Committee on Route Numbering to use the I-69 route number. The next AASHTO meeting will occur in May 2012. The committee member then asked for a letter from TxDOT regarding the redesignation and requesting local support. He explained that he would forward this letter to communities along U.S. 59 with a sample resolution and a document describing the benefits of redesignation. TxDOT agreed to send the resolution request letter. The committee member also noted that in October of 2010, the HGAC Transportation Policy Council passed a resolution of support for I-69 and the Segment Committees. He suggested that the level of support by the communities along U.S. 59 needs to be ascertained.
- Extend the U.S. 59 relief options box (as depicted on the map) further south on U.S. 59 to south of Brazoria
- Extend the U.S. 59 relief options box (as depicted on the map) further north (in Segment Two) up to Cleveland
- Include the Port of Freeport in the U.S. 59 relief options box
- Perform a study U.S. 59 relief options for Houston. It was noted that the U.S. 59 relief options for Houston might not be just a relief route and could include improvements such as widenings and interchanges.
The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) of upgrading US 77 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen is complete and five public hearings were scheduled for early February.
The Preferred Alternative recommended in the document is to upgrade the existing highway, adding to the right-of-way width where necessary. Two short highway sections would be relocated to create relief routes around Driscoll in Nueces County and Riviera in Kleberg County ....
After the review of public comments is complete later this year the Federal Highway Administration is expected to issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) which will allow individual upgrade projects on the route to move forward once they are designed and funded ....
The US 77 Upgrade Project will provide additional capacity and significantly improve safety along the 122 miles of highway covered by the assessment. Currently there are dozens of at-grade crossings and cross-overs along the route.
The EA found that the estimated cost of completing Interstate 69 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen is approximately $1 billion ....
I find it fascinating how they use off ramps to handle the many ranch "gate crossings" along the route, as well as the strategic cattle crossings they would have. In Louisiana, they probably would have used frontage roads with intermediate interchanges and grade-seperated "crossunders" for that purpose.
I did not know AASHO was approving suffixed routes still. I thought they were put on the ban list in the early 1980s, with strong pressure to remove all but the pair of 35E/W splits.I seriously doubt that they will. The only reason I included that as a possibility is that the federal legislation authorizing the I-69 Corridor speaks in terms of suffixes. It may be possible that AASHTO would feel compelled to comply with the legislation (although I doubt it). I'm primarily interested in which route will be the "main" I-69: US 59, 77, or 281.
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.
The Laredo routing makes more sense though. It's a bigger city that you're connecting to.Not by much, and US 77 wins slightly when you add Harlingen. (Also note that, despite US 281 being another designated leg of I-69, US 77 easily serves McAllen etc.)
As for travel into the interior of Mexico, US 59 to Laredo does look like a better route; Houston to Monterrey is about 50 miles shorter via Laredo than via McAllen.
... regarding the recent addition of US 77 as I-69. Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of ISTEA amended, designates future Interstate routes along High Priority Corridor (HPC) #20 as “I-69” , HPC # (c)(18)(D)(i) as “I-69 East” , and HPC # (c)(18)(D)(ii) as “I-69 Central” . These three future I-69 corridors correspond to US 59, US 77, and US 281 respectively. Since there are no other approved additions along the “I-69” or “I-69 Central” Texas corridors, the US 77 segment was added as I-69 to avoid To avoid driver confusion. Once segments are added along the other two corridors the State will need to sign the routes accordingly.
TxDOT's website now has pdfs of Nov. 2010 Interim Reports from the five I-69 Segment Committees: http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm
The Committees also recommend immediately signing the following freeway sections as I-69 ... Committee 4: ... US 281 from Mexican border to north of McAllen; US 77 from Mexican border to south of Lyford ... Apparently, the final two would be dependent upon the proposed legislation that would make a terminus at the Mexican border equivalent to an interstate junction.
TxDOT's website now has pdfs of Nov. 2010 Interim Reports from the five I-69 Segment Committees: http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm
The Committees also recommend immediately signing the following freeway sections as I-69 ... Committee 4: ... US 281 from Mexican border to north of McAllen; US 77 from Mexican border to south of Lyford ... Apparently, the final two would be dependent upon the proposed legislation that would make a terminus at the Mexican border equivalent to an interstate junction.
I-69
Construction of the proposed Interstate 69, the so-called NAFTA Superhighway from the Texas-Mexico border north into the American heartland, would move forward under MAP-21. The bill allows for segments to be deemed “Interstate” if they meet federal, access-controlled standards. This provision will allow for development along unfinished corridors.
Longer answer: Both highways can easily be converted to Interstate grade without much difficulty, and both already have Interstate freeway-grade sections. So, why pick and choose?But why does either need to be freeway in the first place? Are there problems with the occasional at-grade that currently exists?
Why did they build the parallel highways (281 and 77) in the first place? They could have upgraded one and built spurs to the towns that were on the 2 lane route.
I think a lot of freeways would have been built differently with more foresight. I would have sent I-20 west from Fort Worth, north of Midland/Odessa straight west to El Paso, to avoid all that extra mileage.
I think a lot of freeways would have been built differently with more foresight. I would have sent I-20 west from Fort Worth, north of Midland/Odessa straight west to El Paso, to avoid all that extra mileage.This would have added at least 60 miles of Interstate, with two parallel routes into El Paso from the east (like the two parallel routes of I-69). All to save at most about 25 miles of driving.
I think a lot of freeways would have been built differently with more foresight. I would have sent I-20 west from Fort Worth, north of Midland/Odessa straight west to El Paso, to avoid all that extra mileage.This would have added at least 60 miles of Interstate, with two parallel routes into El Paso from the east (like the two parallel routes of I-69). All to save at most about 25 miles of driving.
I-20 meeting I-10 in West Texas makes a lot more sense than paralleling it all the way to El Paso. At least there's a fork in the road that gives you a choice of a nonstop trip to Dallas or San Antonio.
I think a lot of freeways would have been built differently with more foresight. I would have sent I-20 west from Fort Worth, north of Midland/Odessa straight west to El Paso, to avoid all that extra mileage.
I disagree on this, because when you take into consideration that the I-10 segment west of the 10/20 split had to be built only once, you're saving mileage.
as the traffic quantity isn't anywhere near so heavy as to need more than four lanes, you may as well bring 20 into 10. it adds actual miles per user, but saved a lot of miles to be built.
as the traffic quantity isn't anywhere near so heavy as to need more than four lanes, you may as well bring 20 into 10. it adds actual miles per user, but saved a lot of miles to be built.
Minor little update type thing I thought was cool (to me at least). I recently recieved the official state map from TXDot and it has the short section of IH 69 near Corpus Christi marked. Hopefully soon we will see some new signage here in Houston.AASHTO SCOH's Special Committee on US Route Numbering (USRN) has posted its agenda for its Spring Meeting next week online at: http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf) Page 14 includes an application from TxDOT for signing I-69 along 35 miles of US 59 from I-610 north to just north of the Liberty County line. (The proposal document links are not active as of yet). There are also applications involving US 377.
There is also a proposal to designate part of US 59 near Texarkana as part of I-69. It appears in today's Texarkana Gazette (behind a paywall).
Here is the article:You beat me to the punch. I posted this a few minutes ago but typed the whole article from the newspaper itself since I don't subscribe to the Gazette and didn't allow me access to the entire article.
MPO to mull I-69 designation
By: Brandy S. Chewning - Texarkana Gazette
The Metropolitan Planning Organization is considering whether to support designating a small section of U.S. Highway 59 as Interstate 69.
U.S. 59 bypass (originally known as Loop 151), connecting U.S. 59 and Interstate 30, is already built to interstate standards, and the local committee for planning I-69 in Texas has requested that MPO support designating it I-69.
Jerry Sparks, chairman of the Segment 1 corridor committee, said part of the southern portion of the route, around Houston, has already been designated I-69.
"We’re going to show people that Texas has it tagged at the top and bottom; all we have to do is connect the dots, Sparks said.
To get a legitimate designation as I-69, not just as a future corridor, will likely take 18 months, Sparks said.
"It is an awareness that I-69 is moving forward, he said. "It’s a very small piece, more for recognition value than anything else. It is my understanding that the recognition of the north and the south ends of I-69 being built to interstate standards is a positive factor in helping secure more federal funds.
The proposed resolution says all that will be designated is the short section of the bypass (Loop 151) and calls for continued study of a relief route west of Texarkana. Various routes have been considered, and all have met with public opposition.
In other action at an upcoming meeting, the MPO technical committee is expected to recommend a project for spending $2.2 million received from the Texas Transportation Commission.
Though it sounds like a lot of money for most pocketbooks, MPO Director Brad McCaleb told MPO members last month that $2.2 million is minimal in the transportation world.
Two billion dollars is being divvied out to MPOs in Texas, but qualifying projects will have strict criteria and tight timelines. McCaleb said there has been discussion of allowing MPOs to loan their funds if they do not have qualifying projects themselves.
"You have one MPO and they don’t have any projects that they can get ready to meet this timeline, but you have another MPO, they have a project, it’s ready to go out the door but they’re short on funding, McCaleb explained. "The first MPO would transfer their allocation to the second MPO ... part of the agreement being that that second MPO then, at a particular point in time in the future, would send a portion of their allocated funds back to the first MPO.
"Basically, you’re buying yourself time to develop that project that you don’t currently have ready, he said.
Texarkana’s portion of the state funding will likely be used to rebuild the intersection of U.S. 59 and Kings Highway.
The MPO technical committee meets at 10 a.m. Thursday and the policy board will take final action at 10 a.m. May 17. Both meetings will be at the Texas Municipal Building, 220 Texas Blvd.
Published: 05/09/2012
Odd part is that they want to sign US59 north of I-610 as I-69, yet the freeway is built south halfway to Victoria. You would think they would make the whole city of Houston one number instead of doing a Dallas split like I-45.
TxDOT has broken the I-69 route into 3 segments through the Houston region stretching from the Liberty County line on the north to just south of Rosenberg due to some of the complexities in getting approval for a large stretch. As you indicated, the northern section is on AASHTO's spring agenda. TxDOT is finalizing the documentation to submit to FHWA in June for the southern segment which stretches from I-610 on the south side of Houston to just south of Rosenberg. They will then proceed with the documentation necessary for the middle section which could be more complicated since it is an older section.
I hope this clarifies things.
Problem is that Grand Parkway seems to be a tollway and US59 is non tolled. It would be faster, smarter, and cheaper resigning US59 than to build another highway that is WAY outside the city of Houston. It would be smarter than to use Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway than to wait on the Grand Parkway which might only be 2 lanes anyways.
Only other option from what they are labeling as I-69 would be part of I-610. Which would be worst than US59 as way too much traffic is on that road. Especially south and west of downtown.
The governing board of the Texas Department of Transportation on Thursday approved the department's plan to request cost quotes for improving a 12-mile stretch of U.S. 77 between Driscoll and Kingsville as part of the Interstate 69 corridor expansion .... during the next few months, the department will receive, analyze and select a list of quotes for use in developing a formal request for pricing ... the project will cost about $50 million but, until proposals are received, a more accurate cost estimate is not yet available.
The department's goal is to have financing for the project secured by the end of the year, he said, and for work to be under way sometime in 2013.
This article (http://www.caller.com/news/2012/may/31/state-gives-go-ahead-for-i-69-work-near-driscoll/) indicates that the 12-mile US 77 to I-69 upgrade is planned to be between Driscoll and Kingsville
other Nueces County projects south of I-37 are funded ... a $35 million project to upgrade 6.5 miles of US 77 to interstate standard between Robstown and Driscoll .... planned to go to bid in 2013
I'm not so happy with the proposed toll bypasses for Driscoll and Rivera, but I'm guessing that because they will be short, the toll won't be so bad...and there will be TxTollTag available for the locals to avoid mail sticker shock.
Anthony
The environmental assessment for the overall US 77 Upgrade calls for new relief routes at Driscoll and Riviera. The Driscoll route would connect on the north with the $35 million project planned to go to bid in 2013 and on the south with the 10-mile design-build project.
Cameron County Commissioner David Garza urged the transportation commissioners to allocate an additional $15 million for engineering and right of way for the two relief routes in order to get them ready for future construction. He pledged that Cameron County and the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority will assist TxDOT with planning and design necessary to move these two projects forward.
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-037_sb_exit_014_01.jpg)Ugh... In this case, I actually prefer neutered shields. The numerals are so huge within the shield that it just makes the state name look really cramped and an afterthought. The only good state name shields are the original '57 specs.
The results are out. (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Report%20to%20SCOHSM2012%205-19-2012.pdf) All applications where approved, with the three Interstate applications receiving conditional approval pending final approval by FHWA (who has final approval authority for all Interstate route numbering changes).(above quote from AASHTO Meeting May 18, 2012 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6658.msg150401#msg150401) thread)
A request to dually designate US 59 as I-69/US 59 northeast of Houston has been sent to FHWA. Because AASHTO meets twice a year to consider interstate numbering, AASHTO conditionally numbered this section of highway as I-69 dependant on FHWA adding it to the interstate system. Once FHWA approval is acquired, the Texas Transportation Commission will also have to approve the dual designation of this section of highway as I-69/US 59 before interstate signs are posted. TxDOT is hoping to receive FHWA approval later this summer.(bold emphasis added by me)
In addition to the northeast portion of US 59 in the Houston area, US 59 southwest of Houston and through Houston are also under review for interstate standards. It is anticipated that a request to add the southwest section to the interstate system will be done later this year and the section through Houston will be done in 2013.
Toronto Transit Commission? Trident Technical College? The Tetris Company?reading the post.
Or maybe this thing Wikipedia call the Trans-Texas Corridor?
Note: those three are all real organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TTC).
Toronto Transit Commission? Trident Technical College? The Tetris Company?
Or maybe this thing Wikipedia call the Trans-Texas Corridor?
I want to see the "sex lane" area. TxDOT may have struck gold and a new way to raise funds :sombrero:(above quote from I-10 From Houston to Louisiana (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4309.msg94673#msg94673) thread)
(US 59) Liberty County line to south of Cleveland freeway upgrade - $6 million
(US 281) Premont relief route - $41 million
(US 77) Design-build Driscoll to Kingsville - $60 million
(US 59) Priority project development services - Corrigan - $5 million
(US 59) Priority project development services - Lufkin - $6 million
(US 59) Priority project development services - Nacogdoches - $6 million
(US 59) Ramps, frontage roads, remove cross overs from north of SL 463 to south of US 87 - $11.62 million
(US 59) Priority project development services - Fort Bend and Wharton counties - $6 million
Farenthold has filed his bill, and the two US Senators from Texas are apparently filing a companion bill in the Senate:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/immigration-126797-country-portion.htmlQuote... U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi, whose district also includes a portion of Cameron County, introduced H.R. 1535, Interstate Designation for Portions of the I-69 Route, with the full support of the entire Texas delegation.
H.R. 1535 would allow portions of I-69 (US 59, 77, and 281) to be desig-nated as an interstate once segments are constructed to interstate standard, Farenthold said. If enacted, the bill would facilitate interstate signage on the multi-state I-69 corridor stretching from Port Huron, Mich., to the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas.
Today, the House of Representatives voted on a two year agreement to fund our transportation systems. Included in the H.R. 4348 Conference Report, is language, proposed by Congressman Blake Farenthold (TX-27), allowing highways that meet interstate standards and approved by the Secretary of Transportation, to be signed as an interstate. Many South Texas communities along US 59, 77 and 281 will soon have access to an interstate ....
A link to H.R. 4348 can be found here (http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/CRPT-112hrpt-HR4348.pdf).
The language referenced in this release is on page 23 - (b) Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate system(1)(B) [in the second sentence, by striking ”˜”˜that the segment’ and all that follows through the period and inserting ”˜”˜that the segment meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code, and is planned to connect to an existing Interstate System segment…]
The Alliance For I-69 Texas has worked closely with the Texas delegation on the two bills. I recently emailedQuoteThanks for your inquiry. The priority for the Alliance and the communities along the corridor is to get the interstate designation and shield ... As for US 83, we are attempting to add that to the I-69 Corridor designation as it serves as a vital connector between US 281 and US 77 and it is currently at interstate standards.
Jennifer Shepard
Executive Director
Alliance for I-69 Texas
”˜”˜(4) INTERSTATE SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS.–
”˜”˜(A) ADDITIONS.–If the Secretary determines that a highway on the National Highway System meets all standards of a highway on the Interstate System and that the highway is a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, the Secretary may, upon the affirmative recommendation of the State or States in which the highway is located, designate the highway as a route on the Interstate System.
I recently received an email response from FHWA's National Systems and Economic Team to a question about I-69 signage in Texas. If I read the response correctly, it looks like, in the absence of an amendment to current I-69 legislation, in the future not only will the current US 77/I-69 corridor have to be re-signed, but also the US 77 and US 281 corridors will have some interesting shields indeed:Quote... regarding the recent addition of US 77 as I-69. Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of ISTEA amended, designates future Interstate routes along High Priority Corridor (HPC) #20 as "I-69, HPC # (c)(18)(D)(i) as "I-69 East, and HPC # (c)(18)(D)(ii) as "I-69 Central. These three future I-69 corridors correspond to US 59, US 77, and US 281 respectively. Since there are no other approved additions along the "I-69 or "I-69 Central Texas corridors, the US 77 segment was added as I-69 to avoid To avoid driver confusion. Once segments are added along the other two corridors the State will need to sign the routes accordingly.It is conceivable that the "I-69 terminus at the Mexican border" provision could be included in the extension. Doing so would raise two immediate related questions: (1) what interstate designation do you give the US 281 border segment (will FHWA really mandate "I-69 Central"?), and (2) would the current US 77/I-69 segment have to be re-signed as "I-69 East" because of the interstate signage of the US 281 section?
A third question would be whether the Texas delegation would have the foresight to include language that would do away with the mandatory designations.
Rep. Farenthold's office has issued a press release (http://farenthold.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1350:rep-farenthold-encouraged-i-69-language-included-in-two-year-transportation-bill&catid=126:press-releases) in which he expresses his pleasure that more I-69 signage can soon take place now that the bill has been passed (and will become law as soon as Obama signs it):QuoteMany South Texas communities along US 59, 77 and 281 will soon have access to an interstate ....
Rep. Farenthold's office has issued a press release (http://farenthold.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1350:rep-farenthold-encouraged-i-69-language-included-in-two-year-transportation-bill&catid=126:press-releases) in which he expresses his pleasure that more I-69 signage can soon take place now that the bill has been passed (and will become law as soon as Obama signs it)
In a major victory for Texans, language sought by the Alliance for I-69 Texas is included as part of the two-year $140 million MAP-21 highway funding bill approved by Congress this week.
The language changes existing law by removing the requirement that completed highway segments must be connected to an existing interstate highway before they can be added to the Interstate Highway System.
Now the law allows sections of the I-69 routes that are at interstate standard but are not connected to an existing interstate to be designated as part of the Interstate Highway System and signed.
This change in federal law will facilitate the designation and signing of about 100 miles of I-69 routes that are already at or near interstate highway standard. Completed sections of US 59, US 77 and US 281 that could be considered are in Cameron, Hidalgo, Willacy, Kleberg, Brooks, San Patricio, Jackson, Wharton, Fort Bend, Liberty, San Jacinto, Polk, Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties. The longest of these sections is more than 40 miles of existing US 77 freeway through Brownsville and Harlingen. There is a 16 mile long completed section of US 281 in the McAllen-Edinburg area.
FUTURE SIGNAGE
When other upgrade projects are completed in the future it will be possible under the new law to routinely add them to the Interstate System. This approach to signing disconnected completed sections was common when the original Interstate System was being built in the 1960 and 1970s ....
Several I-69 projects are included in TxDOT's Projects Selected for $2 Billion Allocation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf) list:Quote...It looks like the most immediate progress will be on the US 281 Premont relief route and the US 77 Driscoll-Kingsville design-build projects.
(US 281) Premont relief route - $41 million
...
Some of the Coastal Bend's highest priority transportation projects have been funded, including a controversial plan to reroute U.S. Highway 281 in Premont ....
The state also approved $41 million for ... Upgrading the stretch of U.S. Highway 281 that runs through the center of Premont.
The route has yet to be decided. The state has narrowed the options to two: One calls for an overpass over town with access roads on both sides that could displace highway restaurants and gas stations while the other calls for rerouting the highway around the town's eastern edge. City Council has approved a resolution supporting the eastern route.
Although some in town hoped the state wouldn't proceed with the project, doing nothing is not an option, especially now the project is funded, City Councilman Matthew Pérez said. He said the town now must come to terms with which is the best option, the eastern relief route or the through-town option.
A committee member reported that there is a large ready mix concrete plant in Rosenberg, Fort Bend County, which depends upon U.S. 59 for transportation. A representative from the plant notified the committee member that the plant’s transport fleet of vehicles is permitted to use U.S. routes but have restictions on interstates. It was further explained that the plant would need to modify its entire fleet in order to utilize the interstate with an advanced lead time of up to 18 to 24 months to complete the installation process. In response, Marc Williams indicated that the committee could call attention to this issue in their report. Another committee member suggested that TxDOT explore possible courses of actions that could be taken to potentially resolve this issue. This information could also be included in the report. The concrete plant representative further explained that an interstate restriction along the currently designated U.S. 59 route would affect several concrete companies in the Houston region. To utilize the interstate, the concrete companies would need to reduce their loads by 40 percent which would not be economical. Consequently, the only other options would be to find alternative routes or to modify their entire fleets by adding an extra axle. It would cost approximately $20,000 per vehicle to retrofit it with the extra axle. It was further emphasized that the concrete industry in the region would need enough lead time to either work with federal and state legislators to modify the current regulatory restrictions and/or to modify the their fleets.
James Carlow, who represents the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce for the I-69 project .... said he expects funding for the I-69 project to partially come from a dedicated 20 percent fee directed from freight revenue transferred from the Port of Houston to Texarkana.
After sending out an email with some questions about the I-69 Spur, I eventually was referred to and had a very interesting conversation with an individual who serves on both the I-69 for Texas Alliance and the TxDOT I-69 Segment 1 Committee ... The thought is to pursue the notion of TexAmericas Center becoming an inland port ... The idea is to lease the air space over the I-69 Corridor from Texarkana to an as yet undetermined Texas Gulf port. A private group of investors would then build an elevated Freight Shuttle (http://freightshuttleinternational.com/) track within the ground-level ROW of I-69 between Texarkana and the Gulf port. The money from the air rights would be used to at least partially fund I-69 construction along the route of the track. Also, the hope is that TexAmericas Center would also be the location of a manufacturing plant for the shuttle cars. The cost per mile for freight using the Shuttle is estimated to be 30 cents per mile and the cost per mile by truck is estimated to be $2.30 per mile. Apparently, this idea is being studied very seriously.
This article (http://www.news-journal.com/panola/news/carthage-loop-designated-as-part-of-future-i/article_0fb0095d-1389-56d7-9e8b-707440038030.html) indicates an interesting form of alternative financing for I-69, a dedicated freight fee:Wow! Very interesting.QuoteJames Carlow, who represents the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce for the I-69 project .... said he expects funding for the I-69 project to partially come from a dedicated 20 percent fee directed from freight revenue transferred from the Port of Houston to Texarkana.
I have spoken with Judge Carlow, and I believe that, in his comments from the above article, he was probably speaking about the Frieght Shuttle as indicated in this post from the "Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)" thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg134152#msg134152):After sending out an email with some questions about the I-69 Spur, I eventually was referred to and had a very interesting conversation with an individual who serves on both the I-69 for Texas Alliance and the TxDOT I-69 Segment 1 Committee ... The thought is to pursue the notion of TexAmericas Center becoming an inland port ... The idea is to lease the air space over the I-69 Corridor from Texarkana to an as yet undetermined Texas Gulf port. A private group of investors would then build an elevated Freight Shuttle (http://freightshuttleinternational.com/) track within the ground-level ROW of I-69 between Texarkana and the Gulf port. The money from the air rights would be used to at least partially fund I-69 construction along the route of the track. Also, the hope is that TexAmericas Center would also be the location of a manufacturing plant for the shuttle cars. The cost per mile for freight using the Shuttle is estimated to be 30 cents per mile and the cost per mile by truck is estimated to be $2.30 per mile. Apparently, this idea is being studied very seriously.
TxDOT also has a US 77 Upgrade (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/) page with pdfs of the Draft Environmental Assessment.
Officials said they have received environmental clearance to upgrade a portion of U.S. 77 between Corpus Christi and Brownsville to interstate standards.
The Federal Highway Administration on July 10 issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” for the improvements to the segment, officials said.
This is huge for South Texas,” said David E. Allex, chairman of the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority ....
The environmental approvals just announced are for a list of upgrades to Expressway 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville, Allex said. Those projects include improvements to overpasses, underpasses and the frontage road to eventually turn Expressway 77 into a limited-access highway that will become part of I-69, which is planned to connect South Texas to the Midwest and Canada, he said.
I find it fascinating how they use off ramps to handle the many ranch "gate crossings" along the route, as well as the strategic cattle crossings they would have.
An interesting element of the schematic plans included in the EA is the way ranch access is to be accomplished in the 42-mile passage through Kenedy County where there are no public roads crossing US 77. This highway passes through sections of the King Ranch, the Kenedy Ranch and the Armstrong Ranch, all of which span the highway and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad. Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction. Below is a simplified drawing of a ranch gate access point. This arrangement will avoid the need to build long stretches of dual frontage roads that have little transportation value.
The EA found that the estimated cost of completing Interstate 69 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen is approximately $1 billion. Several upgrade projects are in various stages of completion and are already being advanced under separate environmental documents.
(above quote from I-69 in TN (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3841.msg161600#msg161600) thread)Is there a real need for US 77 to be a freeway? Isn't it a 4 lane divided road from Victoria to Harlingen except for a few short stretches? From the looks on the map, there are long stretches of nothing. Isn't that good enough? What is the speed limit (I'm guessing 70.) If there are small towns it still goes through, then by all means bypass them but building a new interstate next to a perfectly good 4 lane highway seems wasteful to me.I believe the road in between the small towns will be upgraded to interstate standards, but bypasses will be built around the towns.
Pete Sepulveda, county administrator and coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority, said the roughly 130 miles between Corpus Christi and Harlingen is some $175 million away from being ready for the I-69 moniker.
That cost breaks down to around $10 million for engineering and design, $15 million for right-of-way acquisition and $150 million for construction, he said.
The remaining construction projects, mostly concentrated in a 30-mile stretch of U.S. 77, include bypasses at Driscoll and Riviera and overpasses at Kingsville and Sarita, Sepulveda said ....
Also, the Texas Transportation Commission recently approved ... $60 million ... for designing and building interstate-quality freeway on U.S. 77 between Driscoll and the north side of Kingsville.
As for obtaining permission from the government to erect I-69 signs sooner than would have been possible otherwise and why it’s important, county officials say it’s largely about marketing.
“A lot of times when you’re trying to lure a business or industry to your community one of the first questions that’s asked is what is the interstate that goes into your community,” Sepulveda said.
“Well, we don’t have one. That’s a major turn-off for companies that require good access to deliver their products. It’s huge ....
“Having an interstate that goes directly into our international bridges will be a major accomplishment. It’s a priority for us and we’re going to try to have all the improvements funded and completed within the next three to five years,”
This article also indicates that the Corpus Christi to Brownsville stretch of US 77 is only $160 million away from being completely upgraded to interstate quality:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/interstate-129742-closer-push.htmlQuoteSepulveda said the Corpus Christi-to-Brownsville stretch is about $160 million away from being completely upgraded to interstate quality.
The Alliance article also estimates the total cost of the upgrades to be in the neighborhood of $1 billion:QuoteThe EA found that the estimated cost of completing Interstate 69 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen is approximately $1 billion. Several upgrade projects are in various stages of completion and are already being advanced under separate environmental documents.
TxDOT also has a US 77 Upgrade (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/) page with pdfs of the Draft Environmental Assessment.
The estimated cost for the US 77 Upgrade Project proposed improvements is $1.06 Billion,
which includes:
- construction including: excavation, embankment, pavement, retaining walls, structures, drainage
- construction engineering
- miscellaneous costs (including supplemental work, cost escalation, bond options, contingencies)
- signing, striping, barricades, signs, and traffic handling
- environmental mitigation
- environmental analysis
- ROW acquisition
- mitigation of hazardous materials sites
- design including preliminary engineering
- utility relocations.
....
TxDOT is in the process of developing a project development plan to complete the US 77 upgrade program. This plan will identify the construction phasing, project costs, and reasonably anticipated funding for the next 25 years (2037).
AASHTO SCOH's Special Committee on US Route Numbering (USRN) has posted its agenda for its Spring Meeting next week online at: http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf) Page 14 includes an application from TxDOT for signing I-69 along 35 miles of US 59 from I-610 north to just north of the Liberty County line.
I recently received an email update from TxDOT regarding their efforts to receive FHWA approval for adding the section northeast of Houston to the interstate system; TxDOT hopes for FHWA approval later this summer and approval from the Texas Transportation Commission will still be necessary after FHWA approval in order for the dual I-69/ US 59 signage to occur
Don't forget Houston. I-69 will turn it from a cow town into an oil town.(above quote from Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg163916#msg163916) thread)
... In December, I-69 signs went up on a 6.2-mile section of U.S. 77 in Robstown.
"It's not an accident that the first sign was put up there," Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin said, saying South Texans are ahead of other areas of the state in terms of local leaders working together with state and federal officials to agree on project specifics and move them forward.
Thursday, the commission, holding a rare meeting outside Austin in Corpus Christi, authorized naming a 35-mile section of U.S. Highway 59 north of Houston as I-69. A key provision of the I-69 plan is to minimize new construction through the use of existing highways, many of which already are close to interstate highway standards. The roads may have interchanges and overpasses but lack on/off ramps, or vice versa.
It's now possible to start on I-69 in Robstown, pick it up again outside Houston, drive all the way to Mississippi without seeing it again, pick it up briefly there, briefly again in Kentucky, and then hit it again in Indianapolis, where it continues on to Canada.
The Texas Transportation Commission has checked the final box to add 35 more miles of I-69 to the Interstate Highway System.
The new interstate segment starts at Interstate 610 North in Houston and extends north past Bush Intercontinental Airport and through Humble, Kingwood, Porter, New Caney and Splendora. The north end is just beyond the Montgomery-Liberty County Line ....
Designation of this new section as Interstate 69 was previously approved by the Houston-Galveston Area Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The highway will be known concurrently as I-69 and US 59. ....
Two additional sections of US 59 in the Houston area that have long been at interstate highway standard are currently under review. The next to be added to the Interstate System is likely to be the Southwest Freeway from the I-610 Loop South down through Sugar Land and on to Rosenberg. The final Houston section is expected to be the part of US 59 inside Loop 610. Each designation requires an extensive submittal by the TxDOT and an exhaustive review by the federal FHWA to see that standards are being met.
As far as I can tell, it looks like the "US 83 as part of I-69 Corridor" provision did not survive the final bill. However, I think that, because US 83 is currently at interstate standards, the following provision from the bill ... may allow designation of US 83 as an interstate in the near future:Quote”˜”˜(4) INTERSTATE SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS.–TxDOT would have to convince FHWA that US 83 would be a "logical addition or connection" to the interstate system, but that should be relatively easy to do once the border sections of US 77 and/or US 281 are signed as interstates.
”˜”˜(A) ADDITIONS.–If the Secretary determines that a highway on the National Highway System meets all standards of a highway on the Interstate System and that the highway is a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, the Secretary may, upon the affirmative recommendation of the State or States in which the highway is located, designate the highway as a route on the Interstate System.
Dually Designate US 83 as Interstate in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties — The committee members advocated the need to seek interstate designation for US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley noting its role in serving major metropolitan population centers and border traffic. It was recommended that designating US 83 as an interstate would include consideration of US 83 from its interchange with US 77 in Cameron County to west of Mission in Hidalgo County.
will routes 281 (from McAllen area) and 77 (from Brownsville) be dual parts of I-69, functioning like I-35W and I-35E in the Dallas/Fort Worth area? It's understood that the lower Rio Grande valley is quite populous now, but I'm kind of confused at what the TxDOT is trying to do.
Seeing that US 77 and US 281 are pretty close together, they'd be better off upgrading one to Interstate standards and leaving the other as is.
Why are they building 2 parallel interstates in south Texas? They're just a few miles apart. Wouldn't a 4 lane expressway with bypasses be enough for one of the two roads?
why does either need to be freeway in the first place? Are there problems with the occasional at-grade that currently exists?
I recently received an email response from FHWA's National Systems and Economic Team to a question about I-69 signage in Texas. If I read the response correctly, it looks like, in the absence of an amendment to current I-69 legislation, in the future not only will the current US 77/I-69 corridor have to be re-signed, but also the US 77 and US 281 corridors will have some interesting shields indeed:Quote... regarding the recent addition of US 77 as I-69. Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of ISTEA amended, designates future Interstate routes along High Priority Corridor (HPC) #20 as "I-69, HPC # (c)(18)(D)(i) as "I-69 East, and HPC # (c)(18)(D)(ii) as "I-69 Central. These three future I-69 corridors correspond to US 59, US 77, and US 281 respectively. Since there are no other approved additions along the "I-69 or "I-69 Central Texas corridors, the US 77 segment was added as I-69 to avoid To avoid driver confusion. Once segments are added along the other two corridors the State will need to sign the routes accordingly.
the original I-69 is supposed to use the US 59 corridor from Laredo to Houston..and that is nowhere near even 4-lane, never mind Interstate compatible.
US 59 from Mexico Border to East of Laredo — Due to limited right-of-way and congestion along existing US 59 in Laredo, committee members recommended that future I-69 planning in Laredo consider an eastern relief route that could potentially utilize existing Loop 20, provide an interchange with I-35 and connect to the World Trade Bridge border crossing with Mexico.
US 59/SH 44 Relief Route at Freer — An interchange with US 59 and SH 44 and a relief route for Freer was recommended by the committee members to be incorporated into future planning. The members noted that limited right-of way along existing US 59 through Freer required consideration of a relief route around the community.
SH 44 Relief Route at Alice — A relief route for SH 44 at Alice that includes an interchange with US 281 was identified as a priority section by the committee due to limited right-of-way and congestion along SH 44 in Alice. As noted above, the planning for the relief routes of Alice and San Diego should be a coordinated effort.
TxDOT has updated its I-69 Segment Committees page (http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm) by adding notes from November, 2011 meetings of the five committees .... Regarding Houston relief options ... Committee 3 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg3/notes_110411.pdf)discussed that an Early Implementation Opportunity would be to study relief options and not just potential relief routes [page 4/30 of pdf]:Quote- Perform a study U.S. 59 relief options for Houston. It was noted that the U.S. 59 relief options for Houston might not be just a relief route and could include improvements such as widenings and interchanges.Committee 2 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg2/notes_111511.pdf) also views the study of relief options for Houston as a Recommended Priority [page 4/32 of pdf].
QuoteThe Texas Transportation Commission has checked the final box to add 35 more miles of I-69 to the Interstate Highway System.
The new interstate segment starts at Interstate 610 North in Houston and extends north past Bush Intercontinental Airport and through Humble, Kingwood, Porter, New Caney and Splendora. The north end is just beyond the Montgomery-Liberty County Line .... The highway will be known concurrently as I-69 and US 59.
Relief Options in Houston — In the first few months of meeting, the committee discussed highways they recommend serving as I-69, highways to be part of the I-69 program and important connections to the I-69 system. In developing recommendations for the Houston area, committee members from that area met to discuss their recommended highway to serve as I-69 and also discussed the importance of providing connectivity to the Port of Houston and other ports along the Texas gulf coast. This discussion concluded with the committee recommending that US 59 through Houston serve as I-69 and that relief options within and around the Houston area be studied and considered to provide convenient, vital access to the sea ports along the coast, as well as additional options for through travelers to bypass Houston instead of having to use US 59 or other routes to travel through Houston. Such a study should include financial and technical participation from TxDOT.
Will there be enough 'I-x69' numbers available in Texas to give all of those 'I-69' routes numbers? The US 281 part for example, IMHO, would do better as an 'I-x37'.
Mike
Will there be enough 'I-x69' numbers available in Texas to give all of those 'I-69' routes numbers? The US 281 part for example, IMHO, would do better as an 'I-x37'.How about this:
How about this:
I-69 Shreveport-Houston-Corpus Christi-Laredo
I-169 Texarkana spur
I-269 reserved for Houston belt
I-469 Freer-Victoria
I-37 San Antonio-Corpus Christi-Brownsville
I-237 George West-McAllen-Harlingen
I-337 rump I-37 in Corpus Christi
I-537 spur at McAllen (US83)
I-737 spur at McAllen (to border)
I-937 spur at Brownsville
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.
I have a hard time seeing the Harris County Toll Road Authority wanting to give up their cash cow. (Unless they were still able to toll it and keep it.)I-185 in South Carolina.
I did not know AASHO was approving suffixed routes still. I thought they were put on the ban list in the early 1980s, with strong pressure to remove all but the pair of 35E/W splits.
will routes 281 (from McAllen area) and 77 (from Brownsville) be dual parts of I-69, functioning like I-35W and I-35E in the Dallas/Fort Worth area?
Thank you for your interest in I-69 Texas. In June 2012, Congress amended the law that established High Priority Corridors 18 and 20, including US 59 throughout the state and US 77 and US 281 in South Texas, as future Interstate 69.
The new legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) states that these routes can be designated as part of the I-69 system if the route or a segment of the route meets current Interstate design standards and connects to, or is planned to connect to, an existing Interstate within 25 years.
By allowing segments that are planned to connect to the Interstate to be designated I-69, the legislation permits the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to move forward with the designation process on segments of roadway that were not previously eligible because they did not directly connect to an Interstate. This recent legislation changed nothing else in the Interstate designation process.
The Interstate Designation Process
Currently, about 50 miles of US 59 in the greater Houston area and five miles in Texarkana are under review for Interstate designation. A section in the greater Houston area was approved to be added to the state highway system by the Texas Transportation Commission July 26, 2012. The process has three basic steps:
Like the previously designated section of US 77 in Robstown, new sections must undergo an extensive engineering review to confirm that the highway meets Interstate standards. TxDOT must submit this review and a request for Interstate designation to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) before any route segment can be added to the Interstate system.
TxDOT and FHWA then coordinate with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official’s (AASHTO) Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering to identify an Interstate number for the highway.
Finally, the Texas Transportation Commission adds this newly numbered Interstate to the state highway system.
Designating Interstates in South Texas
In South Texas, US 77 and US 281 are part of the Congressionally Designated I-69 System. US 83 is not part of this Congressionally designated route, but TxDOT can still request that it be designated as an Interstate highway under different criteria.
The number of requests for Interstate designation will depend on the number and types of design issues that deviate from Interstate standards for each individual highway. If there are few design issues for all highway segments combined, it is likely one group of requests for Interstate designation will be submitted at the same time for all three highways - US 77, 83 and 281. If there are numerous design issues on one of the three highways, individual requests for Interstate designation will be sent to FHWA separately so Interstate designation of the other highways is not delayed. The number of design issues, if any, will be known later this year once the engineering review is complete.
How will these roads be numbered as Interstate?
Ultimately, the Interstate numbering scheme will be decided by AASHTO’s Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering. Later this year, a segment of US 59 near Houston will be "signed" as I-69/US 59 along with the current section of I-69/US 77 near Robstown. Once highway segments in different corridors of the I-69 system have been granted Interstate designation, it is likely TxDOT will work with AASHTO to renumber the segments concurrent with US 77 as I-69 East, and those concurrent with US 281 as I-69 Central. US 83 Interstate route numbering will also be decided jointly by FHWA, TxDOT, and AASHTO and may be numbered as a spur of I-69, or designated a completely new Interstate, giving the Rio Grande Valley multiple Interstate highways. Because the primary national I-69 route extends into Louisiana south of Texarkana, US 59 north of US 84 will be on the I-69 system but its specific numbering will be determined in consultation with FHWA, AASHTO and TxDOT. US 59 from Texarkana to Tenaha may be designated in a manner that is consistent with an interstate spur, e.g. I-369.
What is the timeline for Interstate designation?
US 77, 83 and 281 in South Texas are currently undergoing an extensive engineering review to confirm that these highways meet Interstate design standards. This review is anticipated to be completed in fall 2012. Depending on the type and number of design issues identified during the reviews, one or multiple requests for Interstate designation will be submitted to FHWA by the end of the year. Approval for adding highways to the Interstate system will depend on FHWA’s timeline and the number of design issues that need to be addressed. This process has typically taken approximately six months.
TxDOT plans to submit Interstate route number applications to AASHTO for consideration at their November 2012 meeting. Earlier this year, AASHTO conditionally numbered US 59 north of Houston as I-69, dependent upon FHWA’s official designation of US 59 as I-69. TxDOT anticipates seeking a similar conditional approval for the three highways in South Texas.
What highways are being considered for Interstate designation?
Highways currently under consideration for Interstate designation are:
US 59 in Texarkana,
US 59 from I-610 on the north side of Houston to near Rosenberg,
US 77 in South Texas,
US 83 in South Texas and
US 281 in South Texas
These highways are under consideration because they likely already meet Interstate standards and they are included in a corridor development plan that meets the legislative requirement of connecting to the Interstate system within 25 years. The Houston and Texarkana segments already connect to an existing Interstate. US 77 has a 25-year program development plan to upgrade to Interstate standards and connect to existing I-69 in Robstown. A feasibility study has started on US 281 to develop a program of upgrade projects in the coming months.
Adding additional segments of I-69 to the Interstate system will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as careful consideration must be given to satisfying the federal requirement that all proposed segments connect to the Interstate system within 25 years.
Please let me know if you have additional questions or need further details. Thanks.
No mention of TX44 there.
I-69 should run on what was originally intended: US 59 from Laredo to Carthage/Tenaha, then US 84 to Louisiana.The original I-69, as defined by TEA-21, included all three branches: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ178/html/PLAW-105publ178.htm
I-69 should run on what was originally intended: US 59 from Laredo to Carthage/Tenaha, then US 84 to Louisiana.The original I-69, as defined by TEA-21, included all three branches: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ178/html/PLAW-105publ178.htm
No mention of TX44 there.I have already sent a followup email regarding TX 44 and will post info if and when I receive a reply.
SH 44 does not have a 25 year plan and is not part of the Congressionally Designated I-69 route. SH 44, like US 83, potentially could be added to the interstate highway system, once it's at interstate standards. Its numbering would be decided jointly by FHWA, TxDOT and AASHTO. Currently, because SH 44 is not a controlled access facility and does not have a 25 year plan, it is not under consideration for interstate designation.
So, sorry, but this is MADNESS.
in my view, very, very wrong.
Suffixed interstates are just plain wrong. As far as I'm concerned, I-35E and I-35W are abominations of the system as bad as I-99 and I-238 that should be removed. There's no need for more.
Speaking of Laredo, it is interesting (and practical) that, in the combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf), the Segment 5 Committee recommends that (among their top five priorities), because of ROW and congestion problems along US 59 in Laredo, instead of having I-69 end at the current southern terminus of US 59 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.530803,-99.502975&spn=0.003587,0.004823&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=18), perhaps I-69 could be routed along Loop 20 from the Mexican border to the current Loop 20/ US 59 interchange (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.562461,-99.488754&spn=0.114743,0.154324&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=13) (page 46/165 of pdf; page 40 of document):QuoteUS 59 from Mexico Border to East of Laredo — Due to limited right-of-way and congestion along existing US 59 in Laredo, committee members recommended that future I-69 planning in Laredo consider an eastern relief route that could potentially utilize existing Loop 20, provide an interchange with I-35 and connect to the World Trade Bridge border crossing with Mexico.
It would also be similar to the southern terminus of I-49 (I-10 interchange in New Orleans) in that one would need to make a significant drive south in order to drive north. :-P
Grzrd,
I keep wanting to commend you on the information dig up or come across in research, etc. You and Bob Malme are great researchers.
My guess though is that ... ( ... Freer-Victoria doesn't get built at all - my sense from my time in Laredo is nobody really cares that much about a slightly-shorter Houston route, while Corpus is a major priority).
Don't most in the hobby like oddities and peculiarities ... ?
I am against ... the idea of simply dropping Interstate shields on roads that aren't even completed.
I certainly do; that's why I am entertained by the Congressional legislation regarding I-69 in Texas. It has designated and/or produced the following:Also: the requirement to post I-69 shields along I-94 between Chicago and Detroit.
Thankfully Michigan has its own I-69 segment, reducing the length of the pointless multiplex to a few miles.I certainly do; that's why I am entertained by the Congressional legislation regarding I-69 in Texas. It has designated and/or produced the following:Also: the requirement to post I-69 shields along I-94 between Chicago and Detroit.
(Don't most in the hobby like oddities and peculiarities - i mean after all a lot of people wish the color us route shields were still around).Oddities, yes. Disorder and trashing the interstate numbering system (I had hoped the interstates would never become like US routes, but it seems that is happening), no.
Thankfully Michigan has its own I-69 segment, reducing the length of the pointless multiplex to a few miles.Actually the law requires them to post I-69 shields on any segment of Corridor 18 or 20 that is connected to the Interstate system ("A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas."). Corridor 18 includes "from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to Chicago, Illinois."
(Don't most in the hobby like oddities and peculiarities - i mean after all a lot of people wish the color us route shields were still around).Oddities, yes. Disorder and trashing the interstate numbering system (I had hoped the interstates would never become like US routes, but it seems that is happening), no.
Is it possible that they renumber the spur to Laredo as I-6, and the central spur as something like I-906 (to keep the reference to I-69 intact)? Then you could have the Freer-Alice connector as I-269 (i.e. "to I-69")?
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) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route .... The language regarding Houston relief options in the two Committee reports is identical:QuoteRelief Options in Houston — In the first few months of meeting, the committee discussed ... the importance of providing connectivity to the Port of Houston and other ports along the Texas gulf coast. This discussion concluded with the committee recommending that ... relief options within and around the Houston area be studied and considered to provide convenient, vital access to the sea ports along the coast, as well as additional options for through travelers to bypass Houston instead of having to use US 59 or other routes to travel through Houston ...
I figured the Grand Parkway would be the I-x69 loop (I-669?) since it'll eventually roll near the refineries in Baytown, Pasadena, La Porte, and Texas City in its southeast quadrant while those wanting to bypass Houston can hit its northwest quadrant
Regional Highways — Committee members recognized that their segment is served by a number of important regional highways where future connections and interchanges with I-69 will be important planning objectives. Interstate highways I 10 and I-45 in the Houston area and I-37 just southwest of the segment provide important regional connections for future I-69 planning. 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 as well as provide connections to I-10, I-45, US 290 and SH 288.
*As a rule, most American railroad traffic goes between east and west. Don't know that same rule applies to highway traffic as well. KCS also has a key corridor between Dallas/Fort Worth into Birmingham (and therefore Atlanta) so they've got a good chunk of that sector. If, may God forbid, the New Madrid fault blows and affects St.Louis and/or Memphis (and somehow leaves the KCS/I-20 Vicksburg/Tallulah bridge standing) that railroad will get even more critical.
KCS "Meridian Speedway" actually runs from Shreveport, LA to Meridian, MS. West of Shreveport it transitions to UP, and in Meridian it transitions to NS.Nope - a KCS predecessor got the old MKT from Shreveport to DFW in 1923: http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/eql08 You're right about the east end though - KCS did have a (since spun off) branch into Birmingham, but it wasn't the main line.
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) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief routeMy 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.
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.
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.
*As a rule, most American railroad traffic goes between east and west. Don't know that same rule applies to highway traffic as well. KCS also has a key corridor between Dallas/Fort Worth into Birmingham (and therefore Atlanta) so they've got a good chunk of that sector. If, may God forbid, the New Madrid fault blows and affects St.Louis and/or Memphis (and somehow leaves the KCS/I-20 Vicksburg/Tallulah bridge standing) that railroad will get even more critical.
KCS "Meridian Speedway" actually runs from Shreveport, LA to Meridian, MS. West of Shreveport it transitions to UP, and in Meridian it transitions to NS.
As regards relief options in Houston ... I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf)the Segment Two Committee ...incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
To quote an aphorism, measure twice, cut once. And by cut, we mean construct a massive highway along the outer edges of greater Houston.
As U.S. 59 becomes part of Interstate 69 ... projections show traffic in some areas growing by up to 150 percent over the next 20 years ....
a grass-roots committee appointed by the Texas Transportation Commission has mentioned a bypass on the city's east side.
This bypass would divert I-69 traffic away from Houston's city center while also improving necessary transportation access to our booming port areas.
But it seems like we've already got something along those lines underway with the Grand Parkway. While there's still a lot of construction remaining on the planned 180-mile third loop around Houston, some parkway segments have been completed, including one in Baytown.
Because plans are not yet set in pavement, we still have some flexibility to construct the Grand Parkway in a manner that can best serve some of the needs of I-69, particularly the influx of long-haul trucking and port commerce that is a near-inevitable part of Houston's future.
And even if we cannot build the parkway as close to the ports as would be optimal, additional investment in service roads could help this third loop both bypass and provide port access.
Doing it right once, instead of building it twice, can save taxpayer dollars and help ensure that this increased traffic will drive Houston's growth rather than hold it back. After all, the increased traffic is going to come from the people, ports and businesses that power Houston's economy, not to mention the long-haul trucks that are part of healthy international trade ....
So as the Legislature starts up next session, we hope that our representatives won't starve the goose that lays the golden egg. We need to fund Houston's transportation infrastructure.
I have been trying to get a better grip on the recommendations regarding relief "options" for Houston.
And even if we cannot build the parkway as close to the ports as would be optimal, additional investment in service roads could help this third loop both bypass and provide port access.
Interstate 69 signs have now popped up in Houston. These photo locations are along eastbound Beltway 8.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8439/7974641373_921fdb3ccb.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974641373/)
Distance to IH 69 & US 59 on Beltway 8 Eastbound - 1.5 Miles (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974641373/) by FreewayDan (http://www.flickr.com/people/22306412@N07/), on Flickr
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8447/7974642645_ac6daf6250.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974642645/)
Distance to IH 69 & US 59 on Beltway 8 Eastbound - 1 Mile (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974642645/) by FreewayDan (http://www.flickr.com/people/22306412@N07/), on Flickr
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8462/7974646356_1f09ff40c4.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974646356/)
Approach to IH 69 & US 59 along eastbound Beltway 8 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974646356/) by FreewayDan (http://www.flickr.com/people/22306412@N07/), on Flickr
The individual is correct about the KCS from SHV to D/FW (was the old "Louisiana and Arkansas" railroad and I think there was an acquisition that got KCS to the Alliance yard near Fort Worth) and according to the KCS web site todayConcerning the KCS railroad stuff, the aquesition that got them to the Alliance yard was the former "Santa Fe Connection" (now the KCS Alliance Sub); which runs fron Dallas to Metro JCT north of Krum.
The agenda for TTC's meeting next week includes this item: Highway Designations
(1) Bowie County - Authorize the submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 59 in Texarkana as ... I-369. The proposed route will act as a spur within the developing Interstate Highway 69 System.
The Texarkana spur may be designated as I-369.
Cameron, Hidalgo and Starr Counties - Authorize the submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate one or more segments of US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as an Interstate Highway (MO) In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and AASHTO, this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include segments of US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as part of the Interstate Highway System. FHWA's designation is contingent upon a finding that the segments meet current Interstate design standards and approval to add the segments to the Interstate System.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.26.12%20houston.html) also has a map and an article about the addition:Quote(http://i.imgur.com/29c4e.jpg)
... Two additional sections of US 59 in the Houston area that have long been at interstate highway standard are currently under review. The next to be added to the Interstate System is likely to be the Southwest Freeway from the I-610 Loop South down through Sugar Land and on to Rosenberg. The final Houston section is expected to be the part of US 59 inside Loop 610. Each designation requires an extensive submittal by the TxDOT and an exhaustive review by the federal FHWA to see that standards are being met.
The Texas Transportation Commission, in its revision of the 2012 Unified Transportation Program (UTP) gave approval for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to move forward with additional funding identified earlier this year. Several I-69 projects are included in TxDOT's Projects Selected for $2 Billion Allocation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf) list:Quote(US 59) Liberty County line to south of Cleveland freeway upgrade - $6 million ...
A portion of Hwy. 59 in Liberty County is expected to soon become I-69 according to state officials.
Cory Taylor, TxDot Liberty Area Engineer and Tucker Ferguson, district engineer for Beaumont TxDOT, addressed the Cleveland City Council on Oct. 9 to discuss upcoming projects for the area.
Ferguson discussed Hwy. 59 through Liberty County and the roadway eventually turning into I-69. The first designation was made last year in the Corpus Christi area. The next area to be developed in the Houston area is on Hwy. 59 from the border of Liberty County to the 105 Loop.
Ferguson explained that once a designer was in place, they can begin doing the preliminary engineering and environmental studies, followed by right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation. Once these items a re completed, TxDoT can then put together a bid package for the construction to bring Hwy. 59 up to interstate status.
As regards relief options in Houston... the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf)... the Segment Two Committee. Below is a map included in their report ... (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area that will involve extensive construction (the two remaining I-69 signage applications for US 59 southwest of Houston and through Houston will only involve minimal construction, if any) will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC) (Bing Maps)
Important interchanges with other highways include ... SH 105 through Montgomery and Liberty counties. 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 ....
Local Relief Routes — Committee members identified potential future long-term consideration of options for Cleveland ...
Jeff Royston photographed this assembly today from just north of Interstate 610.
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX19700691i1.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=TX19700691)
The Texas Transportation Commission, in its revision of the 2012 Unified Transportation Program (UTP) gave approval for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to move forward with additional funding identified earlier this year. Several I-69 projects are included in TxDOT's Projects Selected for $2 Billion Allocation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf) list:This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area ... will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC)Quote(US 59) Liberty County line to south of Cleveland freeway upgrade - $6 million ...
(US 59) Ramps, frontage roads, remove cross overs from north of SL 463 to south of US 87 - $11.62 million
Texas Department of Transportation will have an open house Tuesday to allow residents to learn more about plans to build four miles of one-way frontage roads along U.S. Highway 59 ....
Stretched from U.S. Highway 87 to Loop 463, the project includes removing median cross-overs and connecting existing driveways to the new frontage roads.
The U.S. 59 overpass at U.S. 87 will also be replaced with a new structure. Construction is scheduled to begin in August 2013.
The proposed work would take place within existing right-of-way. No additional right-of-way would be required for this project ....
I think what he is getting at, that it wouldn't make sense to make SH99 I-69 due to how outside of Houston(which is saying something) that parkway will be. Its cheaper to overlay it over US59 in greater Houston since it is already an highway to interstate standards for a large stretch. I don't think Grand Parkway will be X69 as I don't even think the whole thing will be built.
Speaking of Laredo, it is interesting (and practical) that, in the combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf), the Segment 5 Committee recommends that (among their top five priorities), because of ROW and congestion problems along US 59 in Laredo, instead of having I-69 end at the current southern terminus of US 59 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.530803,-99.502975&spn=0.003587,0.004823&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=18), perhaps I-69 could be routed along Loop 20 from the Mexican border to the current Loop 20/ US 59 interchange (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.562461,-99.488754&spn=0.114743,0.154324&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=13) (page 46/165 of pdf; page 40 of document)
Definitely more practical; there are already substantial plans to "freewayize" Loop 20 with minimal relocations.
2012-R-093 Expressing the City of Laredo’s intent and commitment to work jointly with Webb County to create a Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) or zones along Loop 20 from its intersection with I-35 to its intersection with U.S. Highway 59 and U.S. 59 from its intersection with Loop 20 east to its intersection with the Webb County line which said sections are being considered for I-69 status once they meet U.S. Interstate Highway standards.
Discussion and possible action to approve a Resolution expressing Webb County’s intent and commitment to work jointly with the City of Laredo to create a Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) or Zones along Loop 20 from its intersection with IH-35 to its intersection with U.S. Highway 59 and from U.S. Highway 59 from its intersection with Loop 20 East to its intersection with the Webb County line which said sections are being considered for I-69 status once they meet U.S. interstate highway standards.
Here are the other I-69 projects marked for funding by the Commission:
> WEBB COUNTY - $9 million to construct an overpass on Loop 20 at McPherson Road on the north side of Laredo, a location one mile east of Interstate 35. Loop 20 is the final leg of I-69 connecting to Interstate 35 and Webb County international border crossings.
From the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering Annual Meeting (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/SCOH%20Report%2011-16-2012.pdf), it looks like I-69 has gotten conditional approval for... (conditional on FHWA approval) ... Raymondville to Brownsville
Also an I-69C has gotten conditional approval between McAllen and Edinburg.
I just noticed that a a June 28, 2012 article on the Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update6.28.12.html) expresses in certain terms that Loop 20 will be the final leg of I-69:QuoteHere are the other I-69 projects marked for funding by the Commission:
> WEBB COUNTY - $9 million to construct an overpass on Loop 20 at McPherson Road on the north side of Laredo, a location one mile east of Interstate 35. Loop 20 is the final leg of I-69 connecting to Interstate 35 and Webb County international border crossings.
[T]he Texas Transportation Commission will also consider an interstate designation application for US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley (http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2012_meetings/documents/agendas/sept27.pdf), but a specific numerical request will apparently not be considered: (page 6/14 of pdf)
Establishment of Interstate Route (#TBD)
Route will begin at 0.5 mile west of the U.S. 83/Showers Road junction in Palmview, TX. Route will extend 46.8 miles to the east. Existing facility is a four-lane to six-lane divided, controlled access route. Route will travel west to east. Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Harlingen are four focal point cities. Route will extend 46.8 miles. Route will end at the junction of U.S. 77 in Harlingen, TX.
Disapproved
Application incomplete without an interstate number and Texas needs to provide a map showing that interstate routes are interconnected.
AASHTO has officially gone crazy. And the interstate numbering system is now dead.
AASHTO has officially gone crazy. And the interstate numbering system is now dead.In that case, I want I-287 to be renumbered I-0, just so I live next to the coolest Interstate ever.
AASHTO has officially gone crazy. And the interstate numbering system is now dead.In that case, I want I-287 to be renumbered I-0, just so I live next to the coolest Interstate ever.
Wouldn't that have to be a motorway?AASHTO has officially gone crazy. And the interstate numbering system is now dead.In that case, I want I-287 to be renumbered I-0, just so I live next to the coolest Interstate ever.
Nah, the coolest Interstate number would be I-007. ;)
I want an imaginary interstate...I-i.You got it, cap'n.
I just noticed that a a June 28, 2012 article on the Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update6.28.12.html) expresses in certain terms that Loop 20 will be the final leg of I-69:QuoteHere are the other I-69 projects marked for funding by the Commission:
> WEBB COUNTY - $9 million to construct an overpass on Loop 20 at McPherson Road on the north side of Laredo, a location one mile east of Interstate 35. Loop 20 is the final leg of I-69 connecting to Interstate 35 and Webb County international border crossings.
The ultimate goal is to build all major State Loop 20 intersections in Laredo to interstate highway standards. In fact, on October 31, 2012, the Texas Department of Transportation Laredo District hosted an I-69 Laredo briefing to continue their quest to bring Loop 20 from US 59 to I-35, and US 59 (I-69) to interstate highway standards. Webb County Judge Danny Valdez and City of Laredo City Manger Carlos Villarreal each stated their entities support for the project.
As decided in cooperation between TxDOT, the City of Laredo and Webb County, Loop 20 from US 59 to west of IH 35 is under consideration to become a portion of the IH 69 corridor. The only portion of this corridor that has construction funding is the Loop 20 overpass at McPherson (which will be constructed to interstate standards). In addition, Webb County has initiated environmental and schematic studies and project design for Loop 20 interchanges at the IH 35/U-P railroad and the International Blvd. crossings. Also, Webb County is in the consultant selection process to hire a consultant engineering company to begin work on the schematic, environmental and preliminary project design for Loop 20 from east of International Blvd. to US 59. It is TxDOT's, the City's and County's intention that all of the design for the Loop 20 upgrades from US 59 to west of IH 35 will be to interstate standards so that this section can be included as a future portion of the IH 69 corridor without any substantial changes or improvements to the roadway itself.
Also, the City of Laredo and Webb County are cooperating in an effort to develop tax reinvestment zones (TRIZs) along some of the major highway corridors within the Laredo city limits in order to develop local sources of funding that can help to leverage additional state and/or federal monies to advance the major highway projects within Laredo (including but not necessarily limited to the Loop 20 efforts). We don't know a firm timeline when funding will be available for the Loop 20 upgrades, the finalization of the TRIZs except for the McPherson interchange that goes to bidding this December 2012.
Or they could pull an I-10 in west Texas and keep the at-grades. Why were those allowed to be grandfathered there but not here?
The Advisory and Segment Committee members recommend designating existing sections of highway as I-69 when they meet Interstate standards. Committee members also encourage TxDOT to work with FHWA to gain exceptions to some Interstate standards required for portions of highways recommended for I-69 in South Texas, such as highway sections within ranch areas, where Interstate standards today may not be warranted but Interstate designation is still needed.
TxDOT officials are seeking feedback on two possible routes through Angelina and Nacogdoches counties. One route would involve upgrading U.S. 59 to interstate standards with continuous access roads. The upgrade would include a six-lane highway in the current footprint of U.S. 59 through Lufkin and a four-lane highway in the current footprint of U.S. 59 through Nacogdoches. The other option, dubbed “new location” by TxDOT officials, would involve construction of a interstate-standard relief route east of Diboll and Lufkin and west of Nacogdoches, meeting with U.S. 59 just north of Appleby.
“The commitment from TxDOT is that in the development of I-69, we will look at development of existing corridors or the existing footprint before we start looking at anything that deviates from that,” Cooley said. “We went through the process with the segment committees – the Segment Committee Two and the Segment Committee One have this area – and both recommended that we go on the new location. Now that we have funding, we can start the process. We’re taking the information that the segment committees recommended, and we’re starting to drill down by working with this stakeholder group to do an outreach to the public, more so than what we’ve done in the past, to be sure that as we go forward, we’re going the direction that the communities want.”
When might we expect to see those I-369 shields?
(above quote from Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg190337#msg190337) thread)QuoteThis is a very rough timeline that’s dependent on several entities but we hope to have I-369 signs up sometime before the end of 2013.
The US 59 section southwest of Houston, and the US 77 and US 281 sections are on the same timetable as the Texarkana section; we hope to have those also designated as Interstate by the end of 2013. For US 83, TxDOT has not yet decided on the number to request for its Interstate numbering. This should be decided in the next few months though.
I-2 or I-x69 could both work. I-2 might work as well since I don't see ANY interstate being built SOUTH of that one. Or best answer, US83 since it is called that.
^ I wouldn't say this (https://maps.google.com/?ll=27.527698,-99.445431&spn=0.004086,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=27.527698,-99.445431&panoid=4pYrJxLPGhj8vvNt9tidBQ&cbp=12,6.17,,0,5.32) is quite up to interstate standards.
New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001): I-69E (US 77), I-69C (US 281), I-169 (US 83). In all cases TxDOT is using three-digit shields even for the routes (I-69E and I-69C) which are notionally two-digit with suffix.
New shields coming to the Pharr District ... I-169 (US 83).
why can't Louisiana sign the freeway from Raceland to Morgan City as I-49? State preference?
why can't Louisiana sign the freeway from Raceland to Morgan City as I-49? State preference?
Assuming it is interstate-grade freeway, under FHWA's current interpretation of the MAP-21 legislation enacted this past summer, Louisiana could do so if it would commit to FHWA that it will connect that section to the currently existing interstate network within twenty-five years. MAP-21 has similar, yet separate, provisions regarding I-69 and I-11 that are being followed regarding I-69 in Texas.
The legislation is of such recent vintage that Louisiana may not even be aware that it can do so.
QuoteToday’s decision enables TxDOT to add the concurrent designation of I-69 to a 6.2-mile section of US 77 between I-37 and SH 44 in Nueces County.
my sense from my time in Laredo is nobody really cares that much about a slightly-shorter Houston route, while Corpus is a major priority
New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001): I-69E (US 77), I-69C (US 281), I-169 (US 83).
There is plenty of precedent for two suffixed branches (I-35W and I-35E in both DFW and the Twin Cities), and a mainline with one suffixed branch (I-80 and I-80N out west, I-35 and I-35W in Kansas). Is there any precedent for a splitting of routes with one route suffixed "C" and no unsuffixed route?
Is there any precedent for a splitting of routes with one route suffixed "C" and no unsuffixed route?
US 59 from Victoria to Laredo is still statutorily designated as the continuation of the unsuffixed I-69. I find it interesting that there is currently scheduled to be: the unsuffixed I-69 prong, an I-69E prong, and an I-69C prong, but no I-69W prong. Our Congressional representatives in action!And TX DOT won't upgrade Freer - Victoria for quite some time, preferring to upgrade the TX44 route to Freer.
when will the good people in the TXDOT engineering department rise above their political oppressors and number the routes something logical?Surely Texans would revolt over EU-style bureaucracy/technocracy, symbolised by the FHWA/TXDOT, ignoring the wishes of a representative democracy?
There is plenty of precedent for two suffixed branches (I-35W and I-35E in both DFW and the Twin Cities), and a mainline with one suffixed branch (I-80 and I-80N out west, I-35 and I-35W in Kansas). Is there any precedent for a splitting of routes with one route suffixed "C" and no unsuffixed route?
I have never heard of a C suffix. closest I can think of is the Portland, OR area having US-99, 99E, and 99W all at the same time.
76C is for Connector, actually, not Camden. (Not only is it not within the City of Camden, but it feeds traffic in from points south and east largely.)There is plenty of precedent for two suffixed branches (I-35W and I-35E in both DFW and the Twin Cities), and a mainline with one suffixed branch (I-80 and I-80N out west, I-35 and I-35W in Kansas). Is there any precedent for a splitting of routes with one route suffixed "C" and no unsuffixed route?
I have never heard of a C suffix. closest I can think of is the Portland, OR area having US-99, 99E, and 99W all at the same time.
Isn't there a "NJ 76C" spur of I-76 in Camden? Not that that really counts.
Tennessee presently has US 70, US 70S, AND US 70N, with US 70S concurrent with US 70 in Nashville.
I think the focus right now is on I-49 North instead of South. I wouldn't be surprised if a bypass of Logansport and a highway connecting I-49 in Shreveport to I-20 in the form of a loop through the port and around Barksdale are completed before I-49 South gets shields. Once Arkansas starts construction of I-69 near the Louisiana line, I think our state will jump on the ball for it.why can't Louisiana sign the freeway from Raceland to Morgan City as I-49? State preference?
Assuming it is interstate-grade freeway, under FHWA's current interpretation of the MAP-21 legislation enacted this past summer, Louisiana could do so if it would commit to FHWA that it will connect that section to the currently existing interstate network within twenty-five years. MAP-21 has similar, yet separate, provisions regarding I-69 and I-11 that are being followed regarding I-69 in Texas.
The legislation is of such recent vintage that Louisiana may not even be aware that it can do so.
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?US 83.
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?US 83.
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?US 83.
What interstate number will it be labled?
I think the focus right now is on I-49 North instead of South. I wouldn't be surprised if a bypass of Logansport and a highway connecting I-49 in Shreveport to I-20 in the form of a loop through the port and around Barksdale are completed before I-49 South gets shields. Once Arkansas starts construction of I-69 near the Louisiana line, I think our state will jump on the ball for it.why can't Louisiana sign the freeway from Raceland to Morgan City as I-49? State preference?
Assuming it is interstate-grade freeway, under FHWA's current interpretation of the MAP-21 legislation enacted this past summer, Louisiana could do so if it would commit to FHWA that it will connect that section to the currently existing interstate network within twenty-five years. MAP-21 has similar, yet separate, provisions regarding I-69 and I-11 that are being followed regarding I-69 in Texas.
The legislation is of such recent vintage that Louisiana may not even be aware that it can do so.
I, for one, cannot wait to start seeing work done on a Logansport Bypass.
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?US 83.
What interstate number will it be labled?
I-169 signs were ordered for it; mentioned here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg191601#msg191601) earlier in the thread.
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?US 83.
What interstate number will it be labled?
I-169 signs were ordered for it; mentioned here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg191601#msg191601) earlier in the thread.
Would it be easier to just have one seamless number for US 83 (McAllen to Brownsville) and US 281 (McAllen to I--69 or I-37) instead of having two different Interstates (I-169 and I-69C)?
US 59 from Victoria to Laredo is still statutorily designated as the continuation of the unsuffixed I-69. I find it interesting that there is currently scheduled to be: the unsuffixed I-69 prong, an I-69E prong, and an I-69C prong, but no I-69W prong. Our Congressional representatives in action!when will the good people in the TXDOT engineering department rise above their political oppressors and number the routes something logical?Surely Texans would revolt over EU-style bureaucracy/technocracy, symbolised by the FHWA/TXDOT, ignoring the wishes of a representative democracy?
The Hidalgo County Commissioner’s Court heard a report from members of the I-69 Texas Department of Transportation Advisory Committee in their Tuesday, Jan. 15, meeting of the court.
Spokesperson for the three members of the I-69 Advisory Committee was Cameron County Commissioner David Garza ....
Nearly half of the length of the corridor is in Texas. In South Texas, I-69 is to have three branches. I-69-E is to run along US 77 to Harlingen. I -69-C is to run along US 281 into McAllen. I-69-W will move west to Laredo.
The Texas Department of Transportation also announced that the newest 28-mile segment of I-69, along U.S. 59 from the 610 Loop to south of Rosenberg, recently received federal approval.
An ambitious, multibillion-dollar effort to push forward the state-spanning Interstate 69 was highlighted at the Texas Capitol Wednesday even as lawmakers struggle with transportation funding needs.
The Texas leg of the 1,600-mile interstate would stretch from the Lower Rio Grande Valley to Texarkana, tracking U.S. 77 and U.S. 281 in South Texas and U.S. 59 in the Houston area north.
State officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.
The majority of the freeway will follow existing federal highways.
TxDOT's Williams said most of the work involved in constructing I-69 is taking those highways and bringing them to federal standards with divided lanes, separation from local streets and other safety upgrades.
Those efforts require engineering and construction, which TxDOT will handle as funding becomes available. Essentially, the one interstate is dozens of widening, redesign and rebuilding jobs across Texas. About 200 miles of the highways already are up to federal freeway standards, or close to it.
My idea:
US 59 stays US 59
US 77 stays US 77
US 281 stays US 281
And, I suppose, they all stay 2- to 4-lane highways, right??
My idea ...And, I suppose, they all stay 2- to 4-lane highways, right??
US 281 stays US 281
no, they get upgraded as necessary, but not given silly numbers.
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards, with the eventual goal of designating and signing these highways as part of the I-69 system .... A draft of the plan will be completed in the summer of 2013 with the final report complete in late 2013.
regarding the redesignation of US 59 as I-69 through Houston, Committee 3 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg3/notes_110411.pdf) is aiming for AASHTO approval by AASHTO's May 2012 meeting [page 2/30 of pdf]:QuoteRoger Beall answered that the request to add U.S. 59 through Houston to the interstate system was tentatively scheduled to be sent to FHWA in January. If the request is approved, the Texas Transportation Commission will consider submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Special Committee on Route Numbering to use the I-69 route number. The next AASHTO meeting will occur in May 2012.
when do you think the section of US 59 inside 610 will receive approval?
State officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.
QuoteState officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.
Whoa, 1,000 miles? That must include the spurs in the south, otherwise that'll be the longest one-state segment in the nation. How about a 4-digit exit number?
QuoteState officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.
Whoa, 1,000 miles? That must include the spurs in the south, otherwise that'll be the longest one-state segment in the nation. How about a 4-digit exit number?
The entire length of US 59 in TX is 612 miles, US 77 from Victoria to Brownsville is 231 miles, and US 281 from George West to Pharr is is 151 miles. That all adds up to 994 miles. Not to mention the bypasses that when built will add extra miles. Also, that number also doesn't include US 83, US 84, of TX 44, which will all add up past 1000 miles. I think 1000 miles refers to all the spurs in addition to the main route, which adds up past 1000. There won't be a 4 digit exit number, though.
QuoteState officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.
Whoa, 1,000 miles? That must include the spurs in the south, otherwise that'll be the longest one-state segment in the nation. How about a 4-digit exit number?
The entire length of US 59 in TX is 612 miles, US 77 from Victoria to Brownsville is 231 miles, and US 281 from George West to Pharr is is 151 miles. That all adds up to 994 miles. Not to mention the bypasses that when built will add extra miles. Also, that number also doesn't include US 83, US 84, of TX 44, which will all add up past 1000 miles. I think 1000 miles refers to all the spurs in addition to the main route, which adds up past 1000. There won't be a 4 digit exit number, though.
Crap. I'd love to see a guide sign with a four digit exit number. That would actually be interesting.
Crap. I'd love to see a guide sign with a four digit exit number. That would actually be interesting.
Actually, do you mind letter digits? We have a few in NY, such as exit 130A on NY 17.
I drove some of proposed I-69's in South Texas today as part of a larger road trip. From Corpus, south down current 69/77 to Kingsville, West on SR 141, then north on 281.
-the 77 corridor certainly had the traffic counts and the truck traffic in a heavily industrialized area to warrant a freeway, which only extends to Robstown. Otherwise, its a typical rural Texas divided highway: high speed limits and bypasses around towns. There is a stoplight in Driscoll at FM665 which I'm guessing is the last one on the way to Brownsville. If you're going to run an interstate down to the fast-growing Brownsville/McAllen/Harlingen area so it can be linked to the Interstate System, that is the route I would choose.
-traffic drops off precipitously to the west, and despite being 20 miles to the west, 281 has a small fraction of the traffic all the way up to George West. ROW is quite narrow and there is plenty of private access onto 281 currently.
I drove some of proposed I-69's in South Texas today as part of a larger road trip. From Corpus, south down current 69/77 to Kingsville, West on SR 141, then north on 281.
-the 77 corridor certainly had the traffic counts and the truck traffic in a heavily industrialized area to warrant a freeway, which only extends to Robstown. Otherwise, its a typical rural Texas divided highway: high speed limits and bypasses around towns. There is a stoplight in Driscoll at FM665 which I'm guessing is the last one on the way to Brownsville. If you're going to run an interstate down to the fast-growing Brownsville/McAllen/Harlingen area so it can be linked to the Interstate System, that is the route I would choose.
-traffic drops off precipitously to the west, and despite being 20 miles to the west, 281 has a small fraction of the traffic all the way up to George West. ROW is quite narrow and there is plenty of private access onto 281 currently.
One thing to bear in mind is that 281 serves substantially different traffic flows than 77; 281 is the route you'd take from McAllen/Edinburg/Mission/Freer etc to San Antonio and Austin, while 77 serves Brownsville and Harlingen to Corpus and Houston and other points north. The McAllen etc traffic headed to Corpus & Houston typically cuts over to 77 either taking 83 or one of the parallel routes further north, while Brownsville etc traffic headed to SA/Austin wouldn't bother with 281 at all.
281's usage may also go up a bit once the Falfurrias toll bypass is open (if it isn't already; it was well along two years ago last time I trekked down that way), which would leave George West as the only real slowdown from US 83 to I-37.
None of that means 281 needs to be a full freeway, let alone an interstate.
FHWA has approved the 28 mile US 59 section from 610 to south of Rosenberg (looks like they haven't approved the concurrent section on 610 yet). The TxDOT press release says it's already been designated I-69 (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-room/news/statewide/006-2013.html).
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Interstate-69-coming-piece-by-piece-4257896.php
Harris and Fort Bend Counties - Designate a segment of US 59 from I-610 West in Houston to north of Spur 529 in Rosenberg as I-69 (MO)
The commission will consider the designation of a segment of the state highway system as I-69, concurrent with US 59 from I-610 West in Houston to the US 59 access control approximately 0.2 mile north of SS 529 in Rosenberg, a total distance of approximately 28.4 miles. The Houston-Galveston Area Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.
Several I-69 projects are included in TxDOT's Projects Selected for $2 Billion Allocation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf) list:Quote...
(US 77) Design-build Driscoll to Kingsville - $60 million
...
Design-Build Contract Award
Nueces and Kleberg Counties - Approve the selection of the developer who submitted the best value proposal to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade from Kingsville to Driscoll Project, upgrading US 77 to interstate standards from north of Kingsville in Kleberg County to south of Driscoll in Nueces County and authorize the executive director of the department to execute a Design-Build Contract and Capital Maintenance Agreement with the selected proposer (MO) (Presentation)
On September 5, 2012, the department issued a request for proposals to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade in Nueces and Kleberg Counties. The department has completed its review and evaluation of proposals, and is presenting its best value recommendation to the commission.
I drove some of proposed I-69's in South Texas today as part of a larger road trip .... There is a stoplight in Driscoll at FM665 which I'm guessing is the last one on the way to Brownsville.
TxDOT's Public Hearing Notice (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/notice.pdf) notes that the Driscoll and Riviera relief routes may be tolled
At Driscoll and Riviera, relief routes are proposed to the east of each community. These relief routes may be tolled and would require approximately 400 feet of new right of way.
This (behind paywall) article (http://www.lufkindailynews.com/news/local/article_27eb9798-4412-11e2-b3c0-001a4bcf887a.html?success=1?success=2) reports on a recent meeting of a committee of representatives from Angelina and Nacodoches counties to review I-69 options in their area:QuoteTxDOT officials are seeking feedback on two possible routes through Angelina and Nacogdoches counties.
The study includes two broad options for consideration:
Upgrade the existing US 59 roadway and expand it to meet present and future needs.
Build relief routes around Nacogdoches and Lufkin and Diboll.
The final recommendation may be one option or the other or a combination of the two.
After the Texas Department of Transportation launched an online survey to gauge Nacogdoches and Angelina County residents’ interest in the development of I-69, the majority of participants favor improvements to U.S. 59 over construction of a new corridor.
the US 83 application was rejected because no number had been requested:QuoteEstablishment of Interstate Route (#TBD)
Disapproved
Application incomplete without an interstate number and Texas needs to provide a map showing that interstate routes are interconnected.
New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001) ... I-169 (US 83)
The applications have been posted (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx).(bottom quote from AASHTO Committee on Route Numbering (Nov. 2012) Actions (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8157.msg206045#msg206045) thread)
in accordance with the referenced FHWA regulations and criteria, TxDOT is making the request that this 46.8 mile segment of U.S. 83 be recognized as part of the Interstate System, the Interstate route number to be assigned by AASHTO.
Although it will be a ways off, when I-69 is connected from Corpus to Shreveport, are the control cities on the Southwest and Eastex freeways in Houston going to still stay Victoria (South) and Cleveland (North), or will they change them to the "correct" control cities of Shreveport (North) and Corpus Christi (South)? I hope they say Corpus and Shreveport.
Although it will be a ways off, when I-69 is connected from Corpus to Shreveport, are the control cities on the Southwest and Eastex freeways in Houston going to still stay Victoria (South) and Cleveland (North), or will they change them to the "correct" control cities of Shreveport (North) and Corpus Christi (South)? I hope they say Corpus and Shreveport.
Victoria is a perfectly reasonable control city.
^ I wouldn't say this (https://maps.google.com/?ll=27.527698,-99.445431&spn=0.004086,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=27.527698,-99.445431&panoid=4pYrJxLPGhj8vvNt9tidBQ&cbp=12,6.17,,0,5.32) is quite up to interstate standards.That's the overpass over US 59 and probably wouldn't be part of I-69 .... the McPherson overpass is desperately needed; trucks frequently stack up almost all the way down to I-35 trying to turn north on McPherson there or to make a U-Turn. With more residential and commercial development occurring in that area, things are becoming a bit of a mess.
On Friday, representatives from the Texas Department of Transportation Laredo District, the City of Laredo, Webb County and I-69 dignitaries broke ground marking the official start construction the Loop 20-McPherson Rd. Overpass Project.
The McPherson Interchange project is part of a larger effort between the TxDOT — Laredo District, the City of Laredo and Webb County to upgrade the northern section of Loop 20 from US 59 to the World Trade Bridge IV to Interstate standards.
This portion of Loop 20, when upgraded, would then be designated as part of the IH 69 system .... Loop 20 is major arterial and is currently designated as a Truck Route for the city of Laredo providing north / south connectivity through the city. As a result of this signalized intersection at Loop 20 and McPherson Blvd., traffic including EMS, fire and police, regularly experience delays in getting past the backed up line of vehicles at this intersection .... The project will consist of the construction of an overpass and associated improvements at the Loop 20-McPherson Rd. intersection, which is currently an at-grade intersection with a traffic signal .... Project completion is anticipated in December 2013, weather permitting.
City, county and Alliance for I-69 Texas representatives broke ground this week to start construction of a diamond interchange overpass facility on Loop 20 at McPherson Avenue in the north side of Laredo.
Loop 20 is designated as the future route of Interstate 69 in Laredo. The Loop 20 freeway has already been completed from the World Trade Bridge to an interchange with Interstate 35.
281's usage may also go up a bit once the Falfurrias toll bypass is open (if it isn't already; it was well along two years ago last time I trekked down that way), which would leave George West as the only real slowdown from US 83 to I-37.
Agenda item 9c would remove the toll designation from a segment of US 281 in South Texas from south of FM 3066 northward through the City of Falfurrias to the Brooks County line. The main lanes of this 5.9-mile segment were originally designated as a toll project on the state highway system in 2007 in order to support the segment's improvement from an undivided four-lane road to a freeway.
In 2009, previously unanticipated federal funding became available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and this was used to help expedite and support construction of the freeway project in Falfurrias. In October 2011, a study concluded that the cost to install and maintain an electronic toll collection system on this segment is higher than forecasted toll revenues. Staff, therefore, recommends that the toll designation be removed from the mainlanes of US 281 from 0.9 miles south of FM 3066 northward to the Brooks County line, and that the segment operate as a non-tolled freeway on the state highway system.
Amazing -- a non-neutered Houston interstate shield, and a Houston interstate *with* a signed US route overlap.
QuoteAmazing -- a non-neutered Houston interstate shield, and a Houston interstate *with* a signed US route overlap.
Excellent point. Always bugged me how US-90 disappeared in Houston.
Is I-69 signed on the BGS for any interchanges that I-69/US-59 encounter in the Houston area yet?
Is I-69 signed on the BGS for any interchanges that I-69/US-59 encounter in the Houston area yet?
Amazing -- a non-neutered Houston interstate shield, and a Houston interstate *with* a signed US route overlap.
The February 28 Agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/022813.pdf) indicates that on that date the TTC will provide the final agency approval needed for the I-69 designation of US 59's I-610 to Rosenberg section (page 10/16 of pdf)
The Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of an additional 28.4 miles of US 59 as part of Interstate 69.
The existing section of US 59 from the south side of Rosenberg in Fort Bend County north to Loop 610 in southwest Houston is now part of the Interstate Highway System and will soon be signed as both I-69 and US 59. This entire section is known locally as the Southwest Freeway, much of which is now 16 lanes wide including frontage roads and HOV lanes.
The southern 10 miles of this section has only two travel lanes in each direction and in some areas does not have frontage roads. Environmental clearance work has been underway for several years to expand this section in the future to match to urban section that exists through Sugar Land .... There were five design issues identified and exceptions were approved by FHWA.
What is the issue preventing I-69 from being signed inside the I-610 loop?
The February 28 Agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/022813.pdf) ....
The Feb. 28 TTC Agenda also indicates that the TTC will decide whether to approve TxDOT's recommendation for the developer of the Driscoll-to-Kingsville project (page 2/16 of pdf):QuoteDesign-Build Contract Award
Nueces and Kleberg Counties - Approve the selection of the developer who submitted the best value proposal to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade from Kingsville to Driscoll Project, upgrading US 77 to interstate standards from north of Kingsville in Kleberg County to south of Driscoll in Nueces County and authorize the executive director of the department to execute a Design-Build Contract and Capital Maintenance Agreement with the selected proposer (MO) (Presentation)
On September 5, 2012, the department issued a request for proposals to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade in Nueces and Kleberg Counties. The department has completed its review and evaluation of proposals, and is presenting its best value recommendation to the commission.
U.S. Highway 77 in the Kingsville area is getting upgrades as part of the Interstate 69 development, Texas Department of Transportation officials said.
Texas Transportation Commission selected Austin Bay, JV to design and reconstruct eight miles of the highway between Driscoll and Kingsville. Austin Bay is a collaboration between Austin Bridge & Road, L.P. and Bay Limited.
The work includes bridge replacements, eliminating crossroad traffic on main lanes and expanding the roadway as part of about 122 miles of project upgrades between Corpus Christi and Harlingen.
Nearly 70 miles of the new interstate work has been approved in areas near Robstown and Houston.
Also, following traffic studies, the 65 mph speed limit on southbound U.S. 77 will be extending to the southern Kingsville city limits, where it has been 75. The change goes into effect when new speed limit signs are installed in about a week.
A new contractor to finish “I-69” projects on Expressway 77 in Willacy County should be on the job by the end of March, a state transportation official said Thursday.
The new contractor will finish projects that were 60 percent complete when Ballenger Construction Co. filed for bankruptcy and stopped work in December, Texas Department of Transportation District Engineer Mario Jorge said ....
Juan Bosquez Jr., the TxDOT area engineer based in San Benito, said the projects include an underpass at Lily Road/County Road 1500 and an overpass at Spur 56, which is near Rodriguez Ford just south of Raymondville. Also, a bridge was being constructed over a drainage canal between the overpass and underpass, he said.
Also a section of roadway in the same area near Lyford is being built to carry high speed traffic between the existing lanes of the expressway, he said.
The existing lanes in the Lyford area will become the frontage road, Bosquez said.
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) ....
This Feb. 26 article (behind paywall) (http://dailysentinel.com/news/article_a8c1ff2c-8096-11e2-b98f-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that the majority of local respondents to the online survey favor upgrading US 59 over building relief routes
“As we cross the Angelina River, it’s obvious we should stay on the 59 footprint,” said Nacogdoches City Manager Jim Jeffers, a member of the committee. “It’s difficult to compare (the two designs) because we don’t have cost estimates. The longer we stay on the 59 footprint, the quicker the project will be built.”
... as Nacogdoches City Manager Jim Jeffers, a member of the local I-69 committee, put it, “The longer we stay on the 59 footprint, the quicker the project will be built.”
Either way, the project is going to be expensive, but it appears now that the funding is the only huge obstacle standing in the way of I-69 passing through our two counties. According to a scoping study fact sheet put together by the Texas Department of Transportation, the four steps of the construction process – planning and environmental, engineering and design, obtaining right-of-way and moving utilities, and construction – could all be done within six to 15 years if the money is there at the beginning of each step.
Dumb question, but is that 498 seen on the reassurance shields mileage? Is that a milepost for US 59?
Texas is bringing back the state name. all new shields should be state named within a few months; any new installs which are not state named are just them using up the older stock.
TxDOT's Public Hearing Notice (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/notice.pdf) notes that the Driscoll and Riviera relief routes may be tolled.
The February 28 Agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/022813.pdf) ....
The Feb. 28 TTC Agenda also indicates that the TTC will decide whether to approve TxDOT's recommendation for the developer of the Driscoll-to-Kingsville project (page 2/16 of pdf):QuoteDesign-Build Contract AwardThis article (http://www.caller.com/news/2013/mar/02/us-highway-77-construction-speed-limit-change-in/) reports that the TTC chose a developer for the project at its Feb. 28 meeting
Nueces and Kleberg Counties - Approve the selection of the developer who submitted the best value proposal to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade from Kingsville to Driscoll Project, upgrading US 77 to interstate standards from north of Kingsville in Kleberg County to south of Driscoll in Nueces County
... the next project that we hope to have before you sometime in the not to distant future would take the construction from north of Bishop and around Driscoll, and with that project and this project, that will be a significant increase of Interstate 69, basically from I-37 to south of Kingsville.
MR. AUSTIN: Ed, I have a question. I'm going to back to your map, it shows on 77, when it comes into Kingsville, I remember we drove this when we had our commission meeting down in Corpus, there's a couple of bridges coming through Kingsville. Is that section going through town, is that up to interstate standards as well?
MR. PENSOCK: The section from Farm to MarketRoad 70 south -- I'm sorry -- the section from Farm to Market Road 1898 south is currently up to interstate standards. That ties back into 77 south of Kingsville. So we have a short piece that is up to interstate standards that gets us to the northern part of Kingsville, what's shown on the map as Farm to Market Road 1898
MR. AUSTIN: So when we make the application to dual designate it as I-69, we'll include that section as well?
MR. PENSOCK: With the construction of this project, in combination with that southern piece coming out of Kingsville, it would be eligible to be designated as I-69. Yes, sir.
Drove through downtown Houston last night, that part is not yet 69.
By this summer, I-69 signs south of 610 and AAHTO approval for the inner loop section. Hopefully by Fall, all of it is signed in Houston, and US59 signs coming down within the Houston area to make it simpler on directions.
Curious how 69 will be signed for thru traffic on US 59, as I-69 is built. Will traffic on say SB 59 see JCT I-69 reassurance shields at the start of each segment? Makes me think of traffic in central Wisconsin. SB 51 suddenly has a JCT I-39 shield pop up...
By this summer, I-69 signs south of 610 and AAHTO approval for the inner loop section. Hopefully by Fall, all of it is signed in Houston, and US59 signs coming down within the Houston area to make it simpler on directions.
The US 59 signs won't be coming down.
There is a possibility that TxDOT will do the necessary sign revisions for I-69 in Houston by maintenance contract, as it did with the three I-69 branches in the Rio Grande Valley and SH 130 as an IH 35 alternate. I have been monitoring TxDOT's maintenance lettings but so far nothing has surfaced--I will post again if something does.
There is a possibility that TxDOT will do the necessary sign revisions for I-69 in Houston by maintenance contract, as it did with the three I-69 branches in the Rio Grande Valley and SH 130 as an IH 35 alternate. I have been monitoring TxDOT's maintenance lettings but so far nothing has surfaced--I will post again if something does.
So you're saying 59 through Houston may not be signed as I-69 mainline?
Do you by chance have copies of the maintenance contracts from the Rio Grande Valley I-69 designations? The only I was able to find was from Cameron County for all the BGS.
So you're saying 59 through Houston may not be signed as I-69 mainline?
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.28.13.html) reports that the TTC made the I-69 designation official today:QuoteThe Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of an additional 28.4 miles of US 59 as part of Interstate 69.
The existing section of US 59 from the south side of Rosenberg in Fort Bend County north to Loop 610 in southwest Houston is now part of the Interstate Highway System and will soon be signed as both I-69 and US 59. This entire section is known locally as the Southwest Freeway
Workers from the Texas Department of Transportation are installing blue Interstate 69 signs on the Southwest Freeway.
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) page
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area ... will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC)
The Texas Department of Transportation — Beaumont District (TxDOT) will conduct a public meeting on Tuesday, May 14, 2013, to discuss proposed roadway improvements along 4.281 miles of the existing alignment of US 59 extending from Fostoria Road in Montgomery County, Texas, to State Highway 105 South Cleveland Bypass in Liberty County, Texas .... This section of US 59 is proposed as a portion of I-69. Preliminary study indicates that additional right-of-way would be needed. The proposed US 59 as I-69 would be converted from a four-lane divided highway to a six-lane divided, access controlled freeway, with one-way frontage roads.
The purpose of the meeting is for the public to express their views and concerns, become informed about the proposed project and development process, and ask questions of project representatives. Project exhibits will be displayed and TxDOT staff will be available to answer questions.
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) page:QuoteThe study includes two broad options for consideration:
Upgrade the existing US 59 roadway and expand it to meet present and future needs.
Build relief routes around Nacogdoches and Lufkin and Diboll.
The final recommendation may be one option or the other or a combination of the two.
TxDOT recently posted the Materials from the March 25 and March 26 Open Houses (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59_meetings.htm).
Tuesday representatives from Nacogdoches and Angelina counties met to decide the next phase of development for the I-69 region.
TxDOT presented two options that included an upgrade of the existing U.S. 59 and adding capacity, or a new location that would include building relief routes around Lufkin and Nacogdoches ....
The counties could also choose a combination both options.
Each county is expected to make recommendations on their preferred option on the route before moving the project into the next phase which is the environmental process.
List of applications:(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread)
....
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001) ... I-169 (US 83) ...
I now have an OT question: if any I-169 "Texas" shields have already been manufactured, would one be a valuable addition to a collection? Sort of a rough coin collecting analogy: "minted, but not released"?
Sorry, but this is a stupid decision.Oh for gosh sake, where else is I-2 going to go where I-6 wouldn't work better?
An I-2 that has less mileage than even I-12?? And...a suffixed route???
Better to make US 77 from Robstown southward an extension of I-37, and keep US 83 as is..Also, make TX 44 and the eastern corridor of US 77 from Robstown/Corpus Chirsti to Victoria I-269, and keep I-69 for the Laredo/George West/Victoria/Houston US 59 corridor, as originally intended.
Save I-2 for another day.
If you are going to do that, might as well renumber I-12 as "I-10N" and bring back the other original suffixed Interstates, too.
Sorry, but this is a stupid decision.
An I-2 that has less mileage than even I-12?? And...a suffixed route???
Better to make US 77 from Robstown southward an extension of I-37, and keep US 83 as is..Also, make TX 44 and the eastern corridor of US 77 from Robstown/Corpus Chirsti to Victoria I-269, and keep I-69 for the Laredo/George West/Victoria/Houston US 59 corridor, as originally intended.
Save I-2 for another day.
If you are going to do that, might as well renumber I-12 as "I-10N" and bring back the other original suffixed Interstates, too.
Totally agree!!!Sorry, but this is a stupid decision.
An I-2 that has less mileage than even I-12?? And...a suffixed route???
Better to make US 77 from Robstown southward an extension of I-37, and keep US 83 as is..Also, make TX 44 and the eastern corridor of US 77 from Robstown/Corpus Chirsti to Victoria I-269, and keep I-69 for the Laredo/George West/Victoria/Houston US 59 corridor, as originally intended.
Save I-2 for another day.
If you are going to do that, might as well renumber I-12 as "I-10N" and bring back the other original suffixed Interstates, too.
Amen
Better to make US 77 from Robstown southward an extension of I-37, and keep US 83 as is..Also, make TX 44 and the eastern corridor of US 77 from Robstown/Corpus Chirsti to Victoria I-269, and keep I-69 for the Laredo/George West/Victoria/Houston US 59 corridor, as originally intended.Yes, save that I'd route I-69 via Corpus Christi and TX44, with the US59 corridor that is bypassed being I-269. And give US83 a 3di (as well as US287), because they form a useful route and will be up to standards.
Interstate 2 had a "brief existence" along the Glendale Freeway in Los Angeles:
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/161/348581082_5b28a43eb1.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atwatervillage/348581082/)
This is not the correct sign for highway 2, Glendale Freeway, since there is no such thing as Interstate 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atwatervillage/348581082/) by Atwater Village Newbie (http://www.flickr.com/people/atwatervillage/), on Flickr :-D
This was from 2007 and it has since been corrected. My comments on the page were, "I would rather see "Interstate 2" in Texas along the U.S. 83 corridor and connecting McAlllen, Bronwsville and other Rio Grande Valley cities."
I-2 would be a good number for the U.S. 83 corridor to link Laredo with the Rio Grande Valley. But the proposed I-2 right now from Harlingen to Mission is about 47 miles. That's longer that I-97 in Maryland (17.62 miles)
This is Texas. Instead of suffixed routes, they should just pull out I-33 and I-31. After all, they got I-27 and I-37 as in-state Interstates, and now I-2 as well.
^ There's always the possibility some decades later a new freeway might come about along the US 57 corridor or along US 90 from San Antonio to Del Rio.
I should have said I-4 for Victoria-Laredo (since the current I-4 in Florida won't be getting extended anywhere) so I-6 is kept in reserve.
I'm going to enjoy driving on the new Interstates since they're within a day's drive from me.
Y'all can let your OCD keep you riveted to your chairs with rage.
Y'all can let your OCD keep you riveted to your chairs with rage.
I was kind of curious what a C-suffixed Interstate Shield would look like, what with Texas opting for letters under the numerals on their state highway signs.
Yeah, that was kind of what I imagined.
I bet it's the small letter underneath.
I hope it's that way.I bet it's the small letter underneath.
The signage plans from TxDOT that have been previously posted suggest it will be a I-35E/W style suffix, not the "tiny letter" design used for business routes.
I bet it's the small letter underneath.
The signage plans from TxDOT that have been previously posted suggest it will be a I-35E/W style suffix, not the "tiny letter" design used for business routes.
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220302#msg220302) thread)They provided the authority for TxDOT to submit the application. Now that it has been approved, they need to rubberstamp AASHTO's decision. It seems like an inefficient way to do things. They have followed this procedure with prior I-69 Corridor designations.The final formality needs to be approval by the Texas Transportation Commission.I would assume that they're the ones who requested it, no?
8. Transportation Planning
Various Counties - Designate various Interstate Highways concurrent with existing US Highways (MO)
The commission will consider the designation of new Interstates on the state highway system concurrent with existing US Highways. Once designated, these highways will operate as part of the Interstate System in Texas. Action is subject to approval of these designations by the Federal Highway Administration.
Has there ever been an explanation on why they feel it is better to use the I-69C & 69E instead of another interstate number?
Has there ever been an explanation on why they feel it is better to use the I-69C & 69E instead of another interstate number?
As I mentioned up thread, it's Rio Grande Valley politics, essentially the same reason why Dallas & Fort Worth and Minneapolis & St. Paul split I-35 between them ~60 years ago. Or why I-81 goes between Kingsport and Johnson City, rather than going through either.
Case in point: Texas is going to build a new medical school in the Valley (assuming Gov. Perry doesn't veto the bill). Rather than McAllen get it or Brownsville get it, instead each will get half of the med school. This, I expect, may only work out slightly better than splitting the baby would've.
So Harlingen gets the whole thing?
More big news came in the form of a surprise announcement by Victor Mendez, administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, invited to the event by U.S. Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville, as part of a tour of his district’s transportation projects.
Mendez said that the FHWA has authorized redesignating U.S. 77 from University Boulevard in Brownsville all the way to Raymondville to Interstate 69 East.
“That’s the full 53 miles,” he said. “The importance of that from an economic development standpoint is just having an interstate shield on a highway is really important, positive thing in terms of future development.”
It’ll also mean a much safer road in light of the FHWA’s strict standards, Mendez said.
The redesignation puts the Lower Rio Grande Valley a major stride closer to being connected to the rest of the nation by an interstate route.
U.S. 57 should stay as is even in the event of a freeway upgrade. The entire logic of it having an out of place number is because it connects to MEX-57. An unsigned interstate I wouldn't mind.
U.S. 57 should stay as is even in the event of a freeway upgrade. The entire logic of it having an out of place number is because it connects to MEX-57. An unsigned interstate I wouldn't mind.
Now there's a road that should be a state highway
FHWA has approved designating US 77 as I-69E from Raymondville to Brownsville.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.htmlQuoteMore big news came in the form of a surprise announcement by Victor Mendez, administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, invited to the event by U.S. Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville, as part of a tour of his district’s transportation projects.
Mendez said that the FHWA has authorized redesignating U.S. 77 from University Boulevard in Brownsville all the way to Raymondville to Interstate 69 East.
“That’s the full 53 miles,” he said. “The importance of that from an economic development standpoint is just having an interstate shield on a highway is really important, positive thing in terms of future development.”
It’ll also mean a much safer road in light of the FHWA’s strict standards, Mendez said.
The redesignation puts the Lower Rio Grande Valley a major stride closer to being connected to the rest of the nation by an interstate route.
List of applications:(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
....
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
Approved by AASHTO
So does that mean a change is needed for the I-69/US 77 section in Chorpus? Or does that mean 69 will cut over on TX 44 vs. a split in Victoria?
List of applications:(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
....
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
Approved by AASHTOSo does that mean a change is needed for the I-69/US 77 section in Chorpus? Or does that mean 69 will cut over on TX 44 vs. a split in Victoria?
AASHTO has already approved the change to I-69E for the section near Corpus (FHWA already approved it as interstate grade for the initial I-69 signage) and the Texas Transportation Commission probably approved the change at its meeting earlier today (the transcript should be posted in a couple of days).
Since SH 44 is not part of the statutorily defined I-69 Corridor, I'm guessing it may eventually be designated as I-6, and that the I-69/I-69 E split will remain in Victoria.
AASHTO has already approved the change to I-69E for the section near Corpus (FHWA already approved it as interstate grade for the initial I-69 signage) and the Texas Transportation Commission probably approved the change at its meeting earlier today (the transcript should be posted in a couple of days).
Since SH 44 is not part of the statutorily defined I-69 Corridor, I'm guessing it may eventually be designated as I-6, and that the I-69/I-69 E split will remain in Victoria.
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") May 30, 2013 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/053013.pdf) suggests that the TTC may slightly alter their past practice and grant approval to several interstate designations that will be contingent upon later FHWA approval
Jeff emailed us the commission notes (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/I-69.pdf), which includes the redesignation of I-69 in Corpus Christi as I-69E. The notes also involve I-2, I-69C and I-369:
As of May 24, 2013, AASHTO and the FHWA Administrator have issued the required approvals.
I know it would be a pain, but could someone do up a simple map of whats going on down there.
The combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf) has .... A map showing the proposed border designations is below (page 45/165 of pdf; page 39 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/94Tt6.png)
List of applications:(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
....
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
Notable by its absence is an application for US 59 to be signed as I-69 "inside" I-610.
The 11-mile section of US 59 through downtown Houston is under engineering review by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. It is anticipated it will be added to I-69 within the coming year.
I know it would be a pain, but could someone do up a simple map of whats going on down there.In the below map, the Nov. 2011 Robstown I-69 designation is now I-69E, the US 83 designation is I-2, the US 281 designation is I-69C, and the US 77 designation is I-69E (the eventual designation is actually a bit longer; it extends from north of Raymondville southward instead of from south of Lyford southward):The combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf) has .... A map showing the proposed border designations is below (page 45/165 of pdf; page 39 of document):
This article (http://www.alicetx.com/news/article_463f00d1-4572-5d83-80b3-d6fbeddf84d8.html) provides an update on the "inside I-610" section through Houston:QuoteThe 11-mile section of US 59 through downtown Houston is under engineering review by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. It is anticipated it will be added to I-69 within the coming year.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
1. Still mildly amusing that Texarkana's getting I-69 (sort of) before Shreveport does.
2. Looking at Kenedy County on maps.google.com, it's still interesting to contemplate what will have to be done, and what won't have to be done in a 1,900+ square mile county with under 500 residents, to get that County's section of highway up to I-69 standards. I wonder how long it will take.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas also has an article about the issuance of the FONSI (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html) and it discusses the method of ranch access:QuoteAn interesting element of the schematic plans included in the EA is the way ranch access is to be accomplished in the 42-mile passage through Kenedy County where there are no public roads crossing US 77. This highway passes through sections of the King Ranch, the Kenedy Ranch and the Armstrong Ranch, all of which span the highway and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad. Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction. Below is a simplified drawing of a ranch gate access point. This arrangement will avoid the need to build long stretches of dual frontage roads that have little transportation value.
(http://i.imgur.com/nATsg.jpg)
In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too lateI'm still annoyed over US 66 not being 60 west of Springfield.
I wonder what part the total of those items are going to cost out of the $1 billion between Harlingen and CC?
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too late
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too late
If we all start a letter writing campaign, they might get 100 letters!!!!
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too late
If we all start a letter writing campaign, they might get 100 letters!!!!
Think of the difference we can make!
Grzrd,
1. Well, Arkansas-side Texarkanans are always complaining that the Texas side gets everything first. :sombrero:
2. Thanks for the Kenedy County info. I wonder what part the total of those items are going to cost out of the $1 billion between Harlingen and CC? (EDIT: What's also interesting is that the Interstate is now going to currently be signed to above Raymondville, Kleberg's County seat. I think the old King ranch was in Kenedy and Kleberg Counties (both are King Ranch names). Don't know how many public roads cross between the Kenedy border and the new Interstate access point above Raymondville, but once the Sarita-Raymondville section is finished that will be nearly one 12th of the Texas section of I-69 right there!)
Grzrd,
1. Well, Arkansas-side Texarkanans are always complaining that the Texas side gets everything first. :sombrero:
2. Thanks for the Kenedy County info. I wonder what part the total of those items are going to cost out of the $1 billion between Harlingen and CC? (EDIT: What's also interesting is that the Interstate is now going to currently be signed to above Raymondville, Kleberg's County seat. I think the old King ranch was in Kenedy and Kleberg Counties (both are King Ranch names). Don't know how many public roads cross between the Kenedy border and the new Interstate access point above Raymondville, but once the Sarita-Raymondville section is finished that will be nearly one 12th of the Texas section of I-69 right there!)
Kenedy Ranch is apparently an offshoot of the original King Ranch. Historic details on Wiki are unfortunately pretty spare.
The county seat, Sarita, was named for the matriarch of the Kenedy family.
The county seat, Sarita, was named for the matriarch of the Kenedy family.I keep reading this as Santa.
1. Still mildly amusing that Texarkana's getting I-69 (sort of) before Shreveport does.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an article about the recent designations (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update5.30.13RGV1.html), which includes a more straightforward map showing Interstates 2, 69C and 69E in the Lower Rio Grande Valley:
(http://i.imgur.com/Lrnc2yg.png)
Interstate 69 is here and it's a first for the Rio Grande Valley.
The 111 mile stretch of interstate highway is being touted as the gateway to economic growth in the region.
Once completed, the I-69 system will run from border to border... Canada to Mexico.
Designated parts of 77, 281 and 83 will be re-named to reflect the interstate ....
Officials tell NewsCenter 23 the interstate signs will be up in 30 to 60 days.
List of applications:(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
....
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
Notable by its absence is an application for US 59 to be signed as I-69 "inside" I-610.
This article (http://www.alicetx.com/news/article_463f00d1-4572-5d83-80b3-d6fbeddf84d8.html) provides an update on the "inside I-610" section through Houston:QuoteThe 11-mile section of US 59 through downtown Houston is under engineering review by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. It is anticipated it will be added to I-69 within the coming year.
FHWA has approved designating US 77 as I-69E from Raymondville to Brownsville.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html
18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada ....
to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69] ....
D. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall- ....
iii. include ... FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
The Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority (CCRMA) has opened the first leg of the SH 550 Toll Road leading from US 77 to the Port of Brownsville. This connector is identified in federal law as part of the I-69 corridor.
Wednesday’s ribbon-cutting ceremony for State Highway 550 couldn't have been windier if it had taken place in a wind tunnel.
But organizers persevered and local luminaries took turns at the podium, buffeted by gale-force winds, praising the completion of the second phase of a project touted as creating a more efficient and safer link for commercial trucks between U.S. 77/83 and the Port of Brownsville.
The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year, according to David Garcia, deputy county administrator and assistant coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority.
I know there's the little county seat (Sarita) but what all needs to be done there again?
I took a look at the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_vol1.pdf) and ran across the following cost estimates (pages 13-14/271 of pdf): ....
(http://i.imgur.com/lC433TD.jpg)
Engineering work is underway on a new overpass on US 77 at Sarita. It would allow Sarita School Road to pass under the freeway lanes. No funding has been identified for this safety project.
I'm guessing that, somewhere along the historical way, the SH 550 corridor replaced the FM 511 corridor as satisfying the statutory I-69 mandate. Any historical insight into that transition would be appreciated.SH 550 is (mostly) toll lanes in the middle of FM 511.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html... ongoing SH 550 work from I-69E/US 77 to the Port of Brownsville (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Port+of+Brownsville,+Capt+Donald+L+Foust+Road,+Brownsville,+TX&hl=en&ll=25.987521,-97.464695&spn=0.119277,0.153637&sll=25.987366,-97.474308&sspn=0.119278,0.153637&oq=ort+of+Brownsville,+TX&t=h&hq=Port+of+Brownsville,+Capt+Donald+L+Foust+Road,+Brownsville,+TX&z=13) .... the SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:Quoteorganizers persevered and local luminaries took turns at the podium, buffeted by gale-force winds, praising the completion of the second phase of a project touted as creating a more efficient and safer link for commercial trucks between U.S. 77/83 and the Port of Brownsville.
The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year.
I'm guessing that, somewhere along the historical way, the SH 550 corridor replaced the FM 511 corridor as satisfying the statutory I-69 mandate. Any historical insight into that transition would be appreciated.SH 550 is (mostly) toll lanes in the middle of FM 511.
State Highway 550 (SH 550) is an under construction highway that, when complete, will be a limited access toll route around the northern and eastern edges of Brownsville, Texas, partly replacing and expanding Farm to Market Road 511 (FM 511). It is to provide a new entry point for truck traffic to the Port of Brownsville ....
SH 550 is being constructed on the same routing as FM 511 from its connection with US 77 and US 83 southeastward to Farm to Market Road 3248. Separated travel lanes, intended to be the frontage roads, are the first stage of construction from US 77/83 to Farm to Market Road 3248. Flyover bridges have been constructed at Farm to Market Road 1847 and at two rail crossings. The second stage of construction will build a new divided limited-access highway, which will split from FM 511 at FM 3248 and travel southeast to a new entry point for the Port of Brownsville, and a new crossover bridge at Old Port Isabel Road. The third stage will complete the mainlanes on the Stage one portion, and construct exit ramps directly to and from US 77 and 83 at Olmito. The route is a toll route, but the second and third stages of the route are being funded with $36 million of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ...
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) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route... 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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
According to the Texas Department of Transportation, I-69 will enter the Houston area from the southwest on the current U.S. 59 (Southwest Freeway). It will also leave the area on U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway).
In the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
- Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
- Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
- Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...
QuoteIn the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
- Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
- Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
- Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...
I assume the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway study includes the routing suggested by the Segment Two Committee.
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) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route... 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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/tomball/news/cornyn-lauds-continued-work-along-i--corridor/article_42ea779e-cbb2-11e2-b612-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that five alternatives are being considered for Houston's I-69 relief route:QuoteAccording to the Texas Department of Transportation, I-69 will enter the Houston area from the southwest on the current U.S. 59 (Southwest Freeway). It will also leave the area on U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway).
In the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
- Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
- Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
- Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...
I assume the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway study includes the routing suggested by the Segment Two Committee.
Seeing how slow they are at building the grand parkway(over 30 years), I could see I-69 using US59 between 610, but if they want to use a relief route, use the Beltway. Which could end up being a Federal, State, and County road all in one.
I think they should go around the cities. Why push the major traffic into town?
But with the hub and spoke style of Houston highways, what is a bypass of Houston traffic when the city limits could be a full hours drive straight through it.
As you well know, there is NO bypass of Houston traffic. It exists on all Houston freeways (and even the Sam Houston in places).I-69 along US 77 and US 79!
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) page:
The page also includes a map of the study area:
(http://i.imgur.com/hgia44h.jpg)
This Feb. 26 article (behind paywall) (http://dailysentinel.com/news/article_a8c1ff2c-8096-11e2-b98f-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that the majority of local respondents to the online survey favor upgrading US 59 over building relief routesAn interesting observation from the above article:Quote"As we cross the Angelina River, it’s obvious we should stay on the 59 footprint, said Nacogdoches City Manager Jim Jeffers, a member of the committee. "It’s difficult to compare (the two designs) because we don’t have cost estimates.The longer we stay on the 59 footprint, the quicker the project will be built.
^ Probably has to do with not having to do as much environmental work for upgrading an existing facility versus building an entirely new one.
I think they should go around the cities. Why push the major traffic into town?It makes sense to me to have the major highways go through the major cities
I took a look at the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_vol1.pdf) and ran across the following cost estimates (pages 13-14/271 of pdf)
I took a look at the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_vol1.pdf) and ran across the following cost estimates (pages 13-14/271 of pdf)
This I-69 Funding Program map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf) shows which I-69 projects are funded as of January 24, 2013, including I-69E/US 77 projects in Kenedy County.
The Grand Parkway will become I-69F. Guess what the F is for.
:eyebrow:
The Grand Parkway will become I-69F. Guess what the F is for.
:eyebrow:
Or I-69P.
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.
or I-69NWO
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.
or I-69NWO
I-69SOL.
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.
or I-69NWO
AHTD has posted the Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf).
Texas and Kentucky (except for the Ohio River Bridge) were excluded from the analysis:(above two quotes from the Multi-State I-69 Innovative Financing Study (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9001.msg217602#msg217602) thread)QuoteNo tolled traffic and toll revenue forecasts were developed for Texas SIUs as TxDOT is not considering the use of tolling as a funding mechanism for any currently planned portion of the I‐69 route in Texas.
the FHWA High Priority Corridors page (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm) provides the relevant part of the statutory I-69 definition:Quote18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada ....
to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69] ....
D. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall- ....
iii. include ... FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
I'm guessing that, somewhere along the historical way, the SH 550 corridor replaced the FM 511 corridor as satisfying the statutory I-69 mandate. Any historical insight into that transition would be appreciated.SH 550 is (mostly) toll lanes in the middle of FM 511.
I think Cameron County RMA runs SH 550. I have not found and read the agreement between them and TxDOT so as to see how that works ... I have not only an interest in roads, but also in law, so these arrangements are of double interest to me.(above quote from US route on a toll road? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9587.msg225704#msg225704) thread)
wxfree - If you can find the SH 550 tolling agreement, then it would be interesting to look at it with an eye as to whether it is consistent with the MAP-21 Tolling Provisons (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidetoll.cfm) for interstates. If it is, then I have a strong suspicion that local officials might see appeal in having an I-2 dual designation with SH 550 (along with an I-69E overlap) that would give the Port of Brownsville an I-2 E-W designation to serve as a complement to the I-69E N-S designation. Since SH 550 is already tolled, and only road enthusiasts would care/notice that it is part of the Texas I-69 "system", then I don't think doing so would trigger alarms that the Trans-Texas Corridor is returning. Good luck in finding it!
This is the minute order that designates the Interstate Highway System, of which SH 550 is a part.
And why were they designating an Interstate Highway System in 1945?http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/archstories/late_roads/interstate_system.asp
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 included three important steps leading to the development of an interstate highway network.
In 1945 the Wisconsin State Highway Engineer submitted tentative route designations for approval and inclusion in the interstate system.
And why were they designating an Interstate Highway System in 1945?http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/archstories/late_roads/interstate_system.aspQuoteThe Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 included three important steps leading to the development of an interstate highway network.
In 1945 the Wisconsin State Highway Engineer submitted tentative route designations for approval and inclusion in the interstate system.
Thus, it was proposed that steps be taken to plan and develop a system of highways so constituted as to be national in scope, but so located as to render the maximum local service possible. The whole would be built as a modern express highway system, including portions to and through urban areas, embodying features of design and construction to provide, insofar as feasible, facilities capable of serving safely and efficiently a mixed traffic of automobiles, buses and trucks in the volumes, weights and speeds to be expected 20 years from the date of construction.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 includes provisions for the designation of "A National System of Interstate Highways" and for the expansion of the Federal-aid highway system to include the whole of such a system. (The character and extent of the system to be designated agree identically with the recommendations of the Report on Interregional Highways; so that change in description from "Interregional" to "Interstate" is without significance.) With the passage of this Act in December 1944 the way has been cleared for the designation and beginning of work on the system. Other sections of the Act authorize substantial amounts for planning and post-war construction of highway projects on the Federal-aid system, in both rural and urban areas, as found necessary in the several States.
TxDOT is in the process of conducting an interstate development plan for US 281 (and a small piece of US 59) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/281/fact_sheet.pdf), with a final report anticipated to be completed in late 2013:QuoteThe purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards, with the eventual goal of designating and signing these highways as part of the I-69 system .... A draft of the plan will be completed in the summer of 2013 with the final report complete in late 2013.
The Texas Department of Transportation is conducting a study to determine what upgrade improvements will be necessary to bring US 281 up to interstate highway standards along the Interstate 69 Central route.
The study area begins at the intersection of US 59 and Interstate 37 in Live Oak County. It extends west on US 59 to George West and then south on US 281 to the intersection with Interstate 2/US 83 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley as shown on the adjacent illustration.
A draft Interstate Development Plan will be compiled in the coming months and a final Feasibility Study Report is scheduled for completion by the end of the year.
Projects to upgrade sections of US 281 to freeway standard are currently underway at Alice, Rachal and at the north edge of Edinburg. The Alice project includes an overpass at FM 1554, now approximately 50% complete. Work on an overpass at FM 755 in Rachal began earlier this year. The $20 million Edinburg project will deliver 2.4 miles of new freeway near the Edinburg Airport.
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=919619
Signs are officially going up on the 15th on the new I-69E & I-69C segments, according to this link.
The I-69C and E and I-2 signs will be installed beginning Monday in the Rio Grande Valley. The major overhead signs at intersections will be the first to be installed and those major directional signs will be installed by the fall. The route marker signs along the road are anticipated to be completely installed by the end of the year. There are a big number of those signs, along a long stretch of road, so it will take a few months to complete that installation. The I-369 signs near Texarkana will probably beginning being installed in the fall. I'm checking in with our local office in Corpus to see when they plan to make the transition from I-69 to I-69E and will send you that information once I receive it.
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=919619
Signs are officially going up on the 15th on the new I-69E & I-69C segments, according to this link.
Are they planning to bypass it around Premont or take the existing ROW through the town?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/972032_10151746194800874_1437003302_n.jpg)
New I-69 signs unveiled today in Harlingen symbolize more than just the first interstate in south Texas - they mean enhanced connectivity, better commerce and more economic development for our great state!!
I take it there isn't enough old alignment to justify a relocation instead of a truncation?
I think that Interstate 69 will have to be completed in Texas before decomissioning will happen. First you will have to have the "getting used to" period in which residents will start associating the new route numbers with the old route numbers. So it may take a while, but those US highways will be decommissioned. I think US 281 will be truncated in George West, US 77 in Victoria and US 59 in Texarkana.
I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C
If that's the case, US 59 will be truncated in Page, OK.US 59 was supposed to use US 259 anyway. (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0059.htm)
Why not George West?
TxDOT is in the process of conducting an interstate development plan for US 281 (and a small piece of US 59) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/281/fact_sheet.pdf)The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.4.13%20study281.html)QuoteThe purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards ...QuoteThe Texas Department of Transportation is conducting a study to determine what upgrade improvements will be necessary to bring US 281 up to interstate highway standards along the Interstate 69 Central route.
The study area begins at the intersection of US 59 and Interstate 37 in Live Oak County. It extends west on US 59 to George West and then south on US 281 to the intersection with Interstate 2/US 83 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
Will 281 end in San Antonio or Pleasanton?
Why not George West?
I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C
By seeing how the I-69 Aliance has never considered the section of US 281 from its break from I-37 near Three Rivers to George West for interstate upgrade, I am guessing that section of US 281 will stay.
TxDOT is in the process of conducting an interstate development plan for US 281 (and a small piece of US 59) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/281/fact_sheet.pdf)The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.4.13%20study281.html)QuoteThe purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards ...QuoteThe Texas Department of Transportation is conducting a study to determine what upgrade improvements will be necessary to bring US 281 up to interstate highway standards along the Interstate 69 Central route.
The study area begins at the intersection of US 59 and Interstate 37 in Live Oak County. It extends west on US 59 to George West and then south on US 281 to the intersection with Interstate 2/US 83 in the Lower Rio Grande ValleyWill 281 end in San Antonio or Pleasanton?Why not George West?I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69CBy seeing how the I-69 Aliance has never considered the section of US 281 from its break from I-37 near Three Rivers to George West for interstate upgrade, I am guessing that section of US 281 will stay.
It's interesting to note that the Alliance for I-69 Texas slightly misreported the US 281 upgrade to I-69C study area by incorrectly indicating that the US 59 to I-37 segment of US 281 is not included in the study area. Here's a snip of the map of the actual TxDOT study area (from the TxDOT link in the top quote):
(http://i.imgur.com/uFhaqtZ.jpg)
Assuming the entire TxDOT US 281 study area is upgraded to I-69C, I'm guessing Pleasanton. I also assume that a major question to be addressed by the study is whether an upgrade to the George West to Three Rivers section of US 281 would even be necessary in light of the comparatively short US 59 "I-69" section included in the study. If it is deemed not necessary, then George West.
I think that Interstate 69 will have to be completed in Texas before decomissioning will happen. First you will have to have the "getting used to" period in which residents will start associating the new route numbers with the old route numbers. So it may take a while, but those US highways will be decommissioned. I think US 281 will be truncated in George West, US 77 in Victoria and US 59 in Texarkana.
If that's the case, US 59 will be truncated in Page, OK. From that point to Texarkana it's all concurrencies with US 270 and 71, and AHTD does not officially recognize the existence of US 59.
That makes more sense for through traffic, but interestingly enough, it would make for a weird numbering situation. I-69C would actually become a spur of I-37.US 25E is a spur of I-75, so why not?
I think that Interstate 69 will have to be completed in Texas before decomissioning will happen. First you will have to have the "getting used to" period in which residents will start associating the new route numbers with the old route numbers. So it may take a while, but those US highways will be decommissioned. I think US 281 will be truncated in George West, US 77 in Victoria and US 59 in Texarkana.
If that's the case, US 59 will be truncated in Page, OK. From that point to Texarkana it's all concurrencies with US 270 and 71, and AHTD does not officially recognize the existence of US 59.
Don't you mean Heavener, OK?
Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).
I'm curious to find out what they do with US-59 from Victoria to George West once that eventually gets upgraded. I'm guessing it will end up being I-69W and I-69C will split off of that at George West, but they could make it mainline I-69 or co-sign the whole road as I-69W & I-69C.
The more than $700 million project will eventually consist of three I-69 legs; East, West and Central as well as US 83 converting to I-2.
Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).
That's correct - though even if they were regular I- numbers, 76, 84, 86, 88 are all duplicated, so I don't think even that would have in theory precluded an I-1, I-2, or I-3 on the mainland.
The federal legislation that numerically designates I-69 indicates that Victoria to George West will be I-69. However, this July 15 TV video report (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=921845#.UeVeub7D-M8) reports that it may be I-69W...
It seems clear to me that the original law gave a general corridor and the states were to build I-69 in some path within that corridor - not build up every nook and cranny in the corridor as Texas is doing. I would have just picked whatever would give the most bang for my buck and told the other communities "screw you".You're right about the original law (ISTEA, 1991), but it was amended by TEA-21 (1998):
(D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
(i) include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via U.S. Route 77;
(ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; and
(iii) include the Corpus Christi Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
You're right about the original law (ISTEA, 1991), but it was amended by TEA-21 (1998):Quote(D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
(ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards
First, does Google Maps incorrectly show a TX 241/US 281 overlap into Hidalgo, and then presumably to the Rio Grande?
Then, 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?
Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan, southwesterly along Interstate Route 69 through Indianapolis, Indiana, through Evansville, Indiana, Memphis, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Shreveport / Bossier Louisiana, to Houston, Texas, and to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69]Right, that makes sense. Sarnia - Port Huron - Indianapolis - Evansville - Memphis - MS - AR - Shreveport / Bossier - Houston - Lower Rio Grande Valley (unspecific where in that valley) is I-69 and I-69 is the corridor. The bit through AR is a defined future bit of the corridor, but not currently part of the corridor as it isn't I-69.
A. In Michigan, the corridor shall be from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, southwesterly along Interstate Route 94 to the Ambassador Bridge interchange in Detroit, Michigan.So I-94 is the route of I-69 between Sarnia and Indianapolis? Chicago wasn't mentioned in the summary above. Nor Windsor...
B. In Michigan and Illinois, the corridor shall be from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to Chicago, Illinois.
C. In Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the Corridor shall--Fine, though does that mean that the I-530 extension is part of I-69?
i. follow the alignment generally identified in the Corridor 18 Special Issues Study Final Report; and
ii. include a connection between the Corridor east of Wilmar, Arkansas, and west of Monticello, Arkansas, to Pine Bluff, Arkansas
In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall-I-69 E defined in law from Victoria to the border.
i. include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 77; [I-69 East]
ii. include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central]wait a minute. I-69C is legally defined to Victoria, and includes a three-way junction with itself at George West (or does it then, on arriving at I-37 north of Three Rivers take I-37 to US 59?)
andWhere's Laredo? Laredo isn't explicitly defined as part of the I-69 corridor 18, and can therefore have whatever number TX DOT, AASHTO and the FHWA choose to give it. Ditto the Texarkana spur, US 83 and TX 44. However, the North-side Highway is part of I-69 (with no legally defined suffix).
iii. include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
The federal legislation that numerically designates I-69 indicates that Victoria to George West will be I-69. However, this July 15 TV video report (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=921845#.UeVeub7D-M8) reports that it may be I-69W...Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18)
Unlike with I-69E and I-69C, there is no legal authority requiring, or even allowing, AASHTO or FHWA to designate an "I-69 West" or any variant thereof. It seems to me that legally mainline I-69 would have to go to Laredo, unless ISTEA is modified to designate an "I-69W."
20.United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]
QuoteIn the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall-wait a minute. I-69C is legally defined to Victoria, and includes a three-way junction with itself at George West (or does it then, on arriving at I-37 north of Three Rivers take I-37 to US 59?)
ii. include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central]
Really poor writing.
Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18)
I could see that happening too! As CA 1 is an iconic number, I-3 would be a better fit, seeing that the out-of-place highway in GA will most likely never be built.Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).
That's correct - though even if they were regular I- numbers, 76, 84, 86, 88 are all duplicated, so I don't think even that would have in theory precluded an I-1, I-2, or I-3 on the mainland.
There's also the fact that I-2 is a spur; I can't imagine a scenario where a hypothetical I-1 or I-3 don't at least start out as spurs.
Wouldn't a corridor and a finished route be different things though? I'm aware of other states (I'm looking at you, WV) that have explicitly refused to build similar interstates mandated by legislation, and they don't seem to have trouble.It seems clear to me that the original law gave a general corridor and the states were to build I-69 in some path within that corridor - not build up every nook and cranny in the corridor as Texas is doing. I would have just picked whatever would give the most bang for my buck and told the other communities "screw you".You're right about the original law (ISTEA, 1991), but it was amended by TEA-21 (1998):Quote(D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
(i) include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via U.S. Route 77;
(ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; and
(iii) include the Corpus Christi Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
I still don't understand why Texas is building three I-69s in the valley.
I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
35e is the "implied main route" though thru traffic would more likely go through Fort WorthThe funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
To be fair, 35E was built later with three different routing possibilities at the time 35W was finished, so they may have had to choose one route to carry on the miles and stick with it.No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
Whoops! My mistake.
I do not know why they do not leave I-69C as mainline I-69 and the other two as suffixed routes. Then again, why can't the I-69W be I-6 or an x69 and I-37 be an I-37 extension either, this is a precident for sure.
No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
In a nutshell, yes, but when all the work at the 35W-62 ramps was taking place, your best bet was to take 35E. Has there ever been a situation like this in Texas?No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
But you drive 35W because 35E is the practice freeway with a 45 MPH speed limit in saint paul
In a nutshell, yes, but when all the work at the 35W-62 ramps was taking place, your best bet was to take 35E. Has there ever been a situation like this in Texas?No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
But you drive 35W because 35E is the practice freeway with a 45 MPH speed limit in saint paul
QuoteThen, 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.
This minute order authorizes the department to petition the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering to recognize one or more segments of US 83 as logical additions to the Interstate System, with the condition that FHWA finds that each segment meets the criteria contained in Appendix A to Subpart A of 23 CFR Part 470 and approves the addition to the Interstate System. It is further recognized that it is the purview of the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering to assign an Interstate route number to the designated highway in coordination with FHWA.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the Texas Transportation Commission (commission) that the department is authorized to submit an application to the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering requesting the recognition of one or more segments of US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as logical additions to the Interstate System.
IT IS UNDERSTOOD that following approval by the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering and FHWA, the commission will designate the segments with the assigned Interstate route number by minute order.
Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18)
Unlike with I-69E and I-69C, there is no legal authority requiring, or even allowing, AASHTO or FHWA to designate an "I-69 West" or any variant thereof. It seems to me that legally mainline I-69 would have to go to Laredo, unless ISTEA is modified to designate an "I-69W."
english si's observation strengthens the case for an I-69W designation.QuoteIn the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall-wait a minute. I-69C is legally defined to Victoria, and includes a three-way junction with itself at George West (or does it then, on arriving at I-37 north of Three Rivers take I-37 to US 59?)
ii. include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central]
US 59 from Victoria to George West can be I-69 or I-69C, which ever Texas Department of Transportation requests.
US 59 from George West to Laredo can be I-69, but not I-69W or I-X69 (spur). This is based on the current law.
But the current law does not allow for I-369.
But if TxDOT chooses I-69C for Victoria to George West ..................... :bigass:... for someone from 1,500 miles away - does that mean there would be a gap in 69?
does that mean there would be a gap in 69?
Quote18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan ....
D.In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall ....
iii. include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181
(above quotes from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg231246#msg231246) thread)I'm not sure what the reference to the "Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor" means.The red road here, I think: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.8373&lon=-97.4984&zoom=13&layers=M
This is a proposed Interstate 69 connector for the existing “Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor” that connects at US 181 on the east end and I-37 on the west end at Carbon Plant Road. I-37 then proceeds northwest and connects to US 77 (proposed I-69 E).
A dream of Port of Corpus Christi commissioners more than 15 years ago will become an achievement Friday when the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor opens to the public .... The 11.8-mile road and rail project has cost the port more than $51 million and adds an alternate route for vehicles and rail lines wanting access to the north side of the Inner Harbor, where 1,000 acres of previously inaccessible land await development.
Prior to the corridor, vehicles relied on the Harbor Bridge and the Tule Lake Lift Bridge, which also was used by railcars. Neither gave access to that 1,000 acres .... The corridor runs from U.S. Highway 181 along the north side of the Inner Harbor to Carbon Plant Road, where it connects to Interstate Highway 37.
The TxDOT I-69 Driven By Texans website has posted a May 7, 2013 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/050713_materials.pdf) for the US 59 Scoping Study. A comparison of the direct route vs. the relief routes sets up an interesting choice of lower cost/longer environmental review for the relief routes vs. higher cost/shorter environmental review for the direct US 59 route (page 43/43 of pdf)
Sounds to me like the Upgrade US 59 option would be the most warranted, but with retaining the Dibold bypass.
The number one priority of Angelina County Committee members is advancing the development of the Diboll Relief Route. TxDOT completed the environmental process and had approved schematic design plans in 1999 for this project, but because of the elapsed time, an environmental reevaluation will be required. TxDOT is proceeding forward with preparing a reevaluation of the environmental assessment and with ROW mapping updates.
The TxDOT I-69 Driven By Texans website has posted a August 19 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/081913_materials.pdf) for the US 59 Scoping Study in which it appears that the two committees have both selected the US 59 upgrade option with "option refinements"
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.
2. From SH 21 to just north of the US 259/US 59interchange.
3. From the Angelina County line to SH 7
4. From SH 7 to SH 21
5. From north of US 259 to Appleby
ANGELINA COUNTY
1. Diboll relief route
2. Upgrade US 59/Loop 287 from US 69 to north of SH 103
3. Section from Burke to near Lufkin High School
4. Sections of US 59 north of Loop 287 to the Angelina River
Will I-69E in Kenedy County have interchanges being that there are no major crossroads in the entire county? I know that on other Texas interstates they have named interchanges with the two frontage roads with an underpass between the ramps to allow U turns and such, will they do that here?
I noticed that Kenedy County seems more like a private residence as its lack of towns roads and the fact it has a very low population. Most of all its lack of businesses along the current US 77 that is the county's only through route and highway.
Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction.
One thing that amazes me about the county is NO GAS. It even states it on signs along US 77 entering the county that there are NO SERVICES for 50 plus miles. You would figure for the benefit of the few that live there that they would at least have one!
It must be awkward for them to have to drive to either Kingsville or Raymondville to gas up and buy groceries.
I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.
To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.
Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.
]I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.
To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.
Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.
It does seem wasteful to spend all that money, especially when the ranchers will probably drive over the median anyway. The speed limit there, except through Sarita, is 75, which is as high as it would be after the upgrade. Spending all that money on ramps and overpasses, and then spending more money on cable barriers to prevent illegal turns, and accomplishing nothing but making life a little harder for ranchers, seems silly to me.
A few Interstates have grade crossings due to isolation, light traffic, and the inordinate cost of providing grade separations for so small a benefit. This road could be left as it is, other than one overpass at Sarita. It could be another exception while in no way degrading service, and improved some day when conditions warrant.
I disagree...an Interstate designated highway with at-grade crossings (other than I-180) is a disaster waiting to happen.I-10 and I-40 in west Texas have had them since they were built.
]I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.
To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.
Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.
It does seem wasteful to spend all that money, especially when the ranchers will probably drive over the median anyway. The speed limit there, except through Sarita, is 75, which is as high as it would be after the upgrade. Spending all that money on ramps and overpasses, and then spending more money on cable barriers to prevent illegal turns, and accomplishing nothing but making life a little harder for ranchers, seems silly to me.
A few Interstates have grade crossings due to isolation, light traffic, and the inordinate cost of providing grade separations for so small a benefit. This road could be left as it is, other than one overpass at Sarita. It could be another exception while in no way degrading service, and improved some day when conditions warrant.
I disagree...an Interstate designated highway with at-grade crossings (other than I-180) is a disaster waiting to happen. If that is the case, then it would be better to leave it as US 77 and run I-69 along US 59 to Laredo as originally planned.
Actually, if there is that much of a concern about illegal turns, the solution is to provide continuous one-way frontage roads on both sides of US 77, with intermittent grade-seperated "crossunders" to connect them and allow for cross traffic movements. I'd rather that than either the current setup of ramps or allowing at-grade crossings.
Recently (back in July) went to South Padre Island for a summer break and encountered highway signs showing part of I-69E? & I-69C? on the highway down there :hmmm::
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/
I rode US 77 from Robstown all the way to the Border and there is hardly any traffic that really warrants upgrades at intersections.
Very nice photos, Ethan! Is there some contextual thing I'm missing with the I-369 LED sign in the back of the truck? That's sort of a mystery because it seems to be in the middle of nowhere.
Very nice photos, Ethan! Is there some contextual thing I'm missing with the I-369 LED sign in the back of the truck? That's sort of a mystery because it seems to be in the middle of nowhere.
Very nice photos, Ethan! Is there some contextual thing I'm missing with the I-369 LED sign in the back of the truck? That's sort of a mystery because it seems to be in the middle of nowhere.
Very nice photos, Ethan!
I just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 shoots down an I-69W notion in flames ...:Quote....
US 59 from George West to Laredo can be I-69, but not I-69W or I-X69 (spur). This is based on the current law.
High Priority Corridor 20 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l20) requires:(bottom quote from Interstate 22 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=724.msg250185#msg250185) thread)Quote20.United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]If I interpret Google Maps correctly, the current US 59/Loop 20 interchange is within Laredo's city limits, which would comply with the statute (at the other end, an interchange with I-30 near the TexAmericas Center (located in New Boston, west of the Texarkana city limits) may have already been contemplated as reflected by the language "to the vicinity of Texarkana"). OTOH it looks like a new connector from Loop 20 to US 59 outside of the city limits would make sense, and by a common-sense standard would be an exception that would comply with the "United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo" requirement.
Am I nitpicking? Probably. However, FHWA might nitpick, too.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.28.13.html) reports that the TTC made the I-69 designation official today:QuoteThe Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of an additional 28.4 miles of US 59 as part of Interstate 69.
The existing section of US 59 from the south side of Rosenberg in Fort Bend County north to Loop 610 in southwest Houston is now part of the Interstate Highway System and will soon be signed as both I-69 and US 59. This entire section is known locally as the Southwest Freeway ... There were five design issues identified and exceptions were approved by FHWA.
Notable by its absence is an application for US 59 to be signed as I-69 "inside" I-610. I assume it will eventually be signed.
I-69 "inside" I-610 was also absent from AASHTO's recent posting of its route numbering decisions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20USRN%20AM2013%20Oct18.pdf). I suspect FHWA has not to date granted as many design exceptions as TxDOT needs for an immediate I-69 designation of this section of US 59. Maybe it will all be resolved in time for next Spring's AASHTO meeting......
TxDOT is continuing to study the existing US 59 to determine if it meets Interstate quality and also continuing the development of the Interstate designation request. These processes include discussions with FHWA. Although we had anticipated a Fall 2013 submittal, we are now looking at Spring 2014.
Will it be co-signed I-69/US-59? If so, will the US59 eventually be dropped?
Will it be co-signed I-69/US-59? If so, will the US59 eventually be dropped?
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that I-69 is designated on the state highway system concurrent with US 59 from I-610 West in Houston to north of Spur 529 in Rosenberg
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg231217#msg231217) thread)Is there a good map yet showing the entire proposed length of I-69, including the three splits in Texas? I've not been able to find any yetNot quite sure how well this January 2013 map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) will work for you. (pp. 7-8/122 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/wSGwd7B.jpg)
... It's difficult to see on my snip of the map, but the tiny, easternmost "fourth prong", SIU 32, is SH 550 from the Port of Brownsville to I-69E/US 77, and can be more easily seen at the linked version of the map.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.htmlthe SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:QuoteThe third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year
With the State Highway 550 Connector project taking shape, officials say portions of the east and westbound lanes of the expressway will close to help construction.
Cameron County Administrator Pete Sepulveda Jr. said the east and westbound lanes nearest to the frontage roads on Interstate 69 East, formerly Expressway 77/83, will close Wednesday for approximately 10 months or until the completion of the connectors ....
SH 550, formerly known as FM 511, will connect to Interstate 69 East once done and facilitate traffic flow to and from the Port of Brownsville ....
Brownsville Economic Development Council .... Executive Vice President Gilberto Salinas said his office envisions an industrial corridor in the area that his office is marketing as the North Brownsville Industrial Corridor ....
Port of Brownsville Deputy Director Donna Eymard said the creation of SH 550 is tremendous for the port and its construction gave the facility access to land that it didn’t have access to before the transportation upgrades ....
Laredo-Freer-Alice-Corpus is a much greater priority for traffic relief and connectivity than Laredo-Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria, given the finite pot of money available.
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted an I-69 in South Texas Initiatives Presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/3a-presentation.pdf) that was presented at its September 26 meeting in McAllen. It provides updates of ongoing I-69C, I-69E, and I-2 projects. One slide that caught my eye included an "I-69 Implementation Plan" based on stakeholder priorities, in particular the planned south-to-north progression for I-69C/US 281 (page 12/12 of pdf)
As previous reports have shown, Victoria has a need for more high-paying, skilled labor jobs. The city is focusing on bringing in more companies, and some future developments will help in our hometown's efforts. The proposal for I-69, which would run down U.S. Highway 59, around Loop 463 and then follow U.S. Highway 77, would attract even more companies because of the proximity to the interstate.
Wouldn't that put the split at the current south end of US 59 Biz? It does make more sense to have the split at the south end of US 77 Biz and eschew Loop 463 altogether, as http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/i69%20Progress%20Report%205.14.13.pdf shows. Maybe the entire loop is known locally as Loop 463?
I just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 ... allows TxDOT to choose between I-69C and I-69 for the Victoria to George West segment of US 59:QuoteUS 59 from Victoria to George West can be I-69 or I-69C, which ever Texas Department of Transportation requests.
Wouldn't that put the split at the current south end of US 59 Biz? It does make more sense to have the split at the south end of US 77 Biz and eschew Loop 463 altogether, as http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/i69%20Progress%20Report%205.14.13.pdf shows. Maybe the entire loop is known locally as Loop 463?
Laredo-Freer-Alice-Corpus is a much greater priority for traffic relief and connectivity than Laredo-Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria, given the finite pot of money available.
.... around Loop 463 and then follow U.S. Highway 77
I don't believe the portion inside of the 610 loop are ready to be designated yet, is it?
TxDOT completed its US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) in October (it should be posted on the TxDOT website in the relatively near future).
TxDOT completed its US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) in October (it should be posted on the TxDOT website in the relatively near future).
TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/us281-us59-district.pdf).
I'm pleasantly surprised that TxDOT no longer calls their Interstates as IH (ie. IH-37, IH-69C, IH-2, etc.)They've always been inconsistent about it: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atxdot.gov+%22IH+69%22
I guess because people would get confused between IH-2 with the I-H2 in Hawaii.Yeah, that's it. And they might think SH is a command to be quiet.
The Texas Transportation Commission February 28, 2013 Minutes (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minutes/feb28.pdf) show that the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") ordered that I-69 and US 59 have a concurrent designation along the Southwest Freeway (page 45/48 of pdf; page 105 of document):QuoteIT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that I-69 is designated on the state highway system concurrent with US 59 from I-610 West in Houston to north of Spur 529 in Rosenberg
The Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf) has been updated to show I-2, I-69C, and I-69E:
I-369 in Texarkana is also shown on the map.
Yay I-blank.
Any local knowledge regarding Loop 463 is welcome, particularly if US 59 on the east side is considered part of the Loop.
I-blankblank7 is even better!where do you see that?
I-blankblank7 is even better!where do you see that?
A few interesting comments:(above quote from Draft Highway Primary Freight Network (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11125.msg265037#msg265037) thread)
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FHWA-2013-0050-0003QuoteWe at ALDOT have noticed the omission of I-22 Memphis to Birmingham from the proposed network miles, and attribute this to the uncompleted section and the interchange where it ties into I-65. If there are additional sections or miles added to the network, we want to make sure I-22 is included. This could be a high volume corridor (Memphis I-22 Birmingham I-20 Atlanta) with completion of the interchange.
Russell Zapalac, TxDOT's Chief Planning and Projects Officer, recently made a presentation to the Texas Transportation Commission (http://txdot.swagit.com/play/09262013-617). At about the 7:55 mark of the "Item 3 - Discussion Items" video (as of this post, the Transcript of the presentation has not been posted on the website), he comments that he is "working with the Laredo folks to develop I-69W" and that "within the next year or so" TxDOT intends to "sign Loop 20 to the World Trade Bridge as a portion of I-69".
c. Regional Priority Projects
Staff will outline state and local plans for the development of Interstate 69 through upgrades to State Loop 20.
Russell Zapalac, TxDOT's Chief Planning and Projects Officer, recently made a presentation to the Texas Transportation Commission (http://txdot.swagit.com/play/09262013-617) .... he comments that "within the next year or so" .... TxDOT intends to "sign Loop 20 to the World Trade Bridge as a portion of I-69" ....
Congress did not specifically include Loop 20 in HPC 20; will FHWA require an interim I-x35 designation?
The Texas Transportation Commission's February 26, 2014 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0226/agenda.pdf) reflects that the meeting will be held in Laredo and a presentation will be made about Loop 20/I-69
Webb County - In the city of Laredo, redesignate a segment of State Loop 20 as US 59 and redesignate a segment of US 59 as Business US 59-Z (MO)
This minute order redesignates a segment of State Loop 20 as US 59 from the World Trade Bridge to the junction of State Loop 20 and US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 10.9 miles and redesignates a segment of US 59 as BU 59-Z from the junction of State Loop 20 and US 59 to the southern terminus of US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 3.6 miles. This begins the process of designating US 59 concurrent with the I-69 system in Laredo.
the FHWA High Priority Corridors page (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm) provides the relevant part of the statutory I-69 definition:Quote18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada ....
to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69] ....
D. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall- ....
iii. include ... FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_2d6a45cc-4112-11e3-81d6-001a4bcf6878.html) reports that work is beginning on the ramps that will connect SH 550 to I-69E ....
Another I-69 Corridor Section of Independent Utility ("SIU") nearing completion ...... :bigass:
Tractor-trailer rigs were expected to start rolling in at 6 a.m. today through the Port of Brownsville’s new primary entrance: the State Highway 550 connector entry ....
SH 550, formerly known as FM 511, is an alternate route between the Port of Brownsville and Interstate 69 ....
Truckers coming from the ports of Houston or Corpus Christi can now reach the Brownsville port without ever having to leave I-69, he said.
“We do hope and anticipate increased direct access by truck traffic to the Port of Brownsville,” he said ....
The remaining SH 550 connector could wrap up at the end of the year and would be 10 miles with four tolled, general purpose main lanes – two in each direction – and direct connectors at I-69.
“It’s my understanding that it would probably be toward the end of the year,” Campirano said of the final piece of the project. “And when that happens, it will be a really nice connection.”
Webb County - In the city of Laredo, redesignate a segment of State Loop 20 as US 59 and redesignate a segment of US 59 as Business US 59-Z (MO)This means that unless US59Bus is extended past US59's current terminus (say, via I-35, and FM1472 (or not)), it'll only connect to its parent at one end. Not unprecedented for TXDOT, but what would AASHTO have to say?
This minute order redesignates a segment of State Loop 20 as US 59 from the World Trade Bridge to the junction of State Loop 20 and US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 10.9 miles and redesignates a segment of US 59 as BU 59-Z from the junction of State Loop 20 and US 59 to the southern terminus of US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 3.6 miles. This begins the process of designating US 59 concurrent with the I-69 system in Laredo.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.23.13%20Laredo.html) also has an article about the project:QuoteCity, county and Alliance for I-69 Texas representatives broke ground this week to start construction of a diamond interchange overpass facility on Loop 20 at McPherson Avenue in the north side of Laredo.(http://i.imgur.com/O5yPtQR.jpg)
Loop 20 is designated as the future route of Interstate 69 in Laredo. The Loop 20 freeway has already been completed from the World Trade Bridge to an interchange with Interstate 35.
The Texas Transportation Commission's February 26, 2014 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0226/agenda.pdf) reflects that the meeting will be held in Laredo and a presentation will be made about Loop 20/I-69:Quotec. Regional Priority Projects
Staff will outline state and local plans for the development of Interstate 69 through upgrades to State Loop 20.
The $14.5 million overpass at Loop 20 and McPherson opened Friday to the traveling public.
A ribbon-cutting ceremony was held in the afternoon by local and state officials to celebrate the opening of the overpass, which will improve mobility and reduce traffic congestion.
Melissa Monteamyor, district manager for the Texas Department of Transportation in Laredo, said the project was an effort by Webb County and the City of Laredo, which worked with TxDOT to get more state and federal funding for the project. The project is part of a larger one that includes improving the northern section of Loop 20, from U.S. 59 to the World Trade Bridge.
The project began one year ago. It can be designated as part of the Interstate 69 system.
I don't understand, a "south" highway is heading north ... Are you sure it won't head north of Lake Casa Blanca? That would make much more sense.
More than likely I-69 will have to run a little to the north of existing US 59 to avoid some residential areas near Loop 20, either between Lake Casa Blanca and US 59 or north of Lake Casa Blanca. Personally I'd swing it away from US 59 WNW around here (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=27.560463133519903,-99.395), and connect to Loop 20 about 1/2 mile south of Del Mar. It's far more direct, and there's nothing much but scrubland out there, so there's plenty of room for a fully directional interchange at Loop 20. Plus it would reduce the concurrency of through trucks to Corpus & Houston with local commuter traffic from south Laredo to the airport, arena, and university.
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC"), in its February 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0227/agenda.pdf)*, indicates that it will redesignate Loop 20 as US 59 over the "I-69" portion of US 59 (thereby complying with the HPC 20 statutory "US 59" language)(page 2/13 of pdf)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that:
1. A segment of SL 20 is redesignated on the state highway system as US 59 from the entrance to the World Trade Bridge (approximately 0.6 miles west of FM 1472) to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 10.9 miles, as shown in Exhibit A.
2. A segment of US 59 is redesignated on the state highway system as BU 59-Z from the junction of SL 20 and US 59 to the southern terminus of US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 3.6 miles, as shown in Exhibit A.
This means that unless US59Bus is extended past US59's current terminus (say, via I-35, and FM1472 (or not)), it'll only connect to its parent at one end. Not unprecedented for TXDOT, but what would AASHTO have to say?
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the department shall forward this minute order, along with all other pertinent information, to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Special Committee on US Route Numbering for consideration.
Wait a second. Isn't that bridge trucks-only?
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC"), in its February 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0227/agenda.pdf) ... indicates that it will redesignate Loop 20 as US 59 over the "I-69" portion of US 59 (thereby complying with the HPC 20 statutory "US 59" language)(page 2/13 of pdf)The TTC has posted the proposed Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0227/5b.pdf) regarding the redesignations
If Loop 20 is given an interstate number, it will probably be I-69W.
I-35A?
A couple of tweets with pictures of sign pr0n:
https://twitter.com/TxDOTLaredo/status/437989092484067328 (https://twitter.com/TxDOTLaredo/status/437989092484067328)
https://twitter.com/TxDOTLaredo/status/437984484395200512 (https://twitter.com/TxDOTLaredo/status/437984484395200512)
What I can't understand is where they stuck the sign; it appears to be in the median of the future main lanes west of I-35, which probably is a good place for a photo op but you'd never see it from the road.
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_fb1273f2-99e4-11e3-b98c-001a4bcf6878.html) reports that the SH 550 entrance to the Port of Brownsville recently opened and that the entire SH 550 project should be completed by the end of the year
Officials say a direct connector that will link Interstate 69 and State Highway 550 is 55 percent completed.
The direct connector, formally known as the SH 550 Connector Project, will make it easier for motorists driving on the expressway to connect with SH 550 because the new connection will eliminate having to get off the expressway, drive underneath the expressway and then having to get onto SH 550, officials said.
“It’s coming along very well and within budget,” Cameron County Administrator Pete Sepulveda Jr. said. “Hopefully, come September, it will be complete." ....
The project calls for 199 beams and the project is only 25 beams away from completion, Sepulveda said, adding that the remaining beams will stretch over I-69, formerly known as Expressway 77/83, and the highway will close for that part of the project.
“That will happen at night,” Sepulveda said, adding that he is not sure when that part of the project is scheduled ....
A little more than a week ago, the Port of Brownsville officially opened its new entrance which links up with SH 550. When the connector wraps up at the end of the year, it will be 10 miles long with four tolled, general purpose main lanes – two in each direction – with direct connectors at I-69.
The TTC has posted the video from its February 27 meeting (http://txdot.swagit.com/play/02272014-711) and in Item 5 (approximately five minutes in length), it is explained that the redesignation of Loop 20 as US 59 was "necessary" for Loop 20/US 59 to ultimately be designated as part of "the I-69 system". The speaker appears to take great pains to use the phrase "I-69 system", which might portend a temporary interstate designation before it is ultimately signed as I-69 (simply my guess). The proposed Minute Order for the redesignation, not surprisingly, was approved. On to AASHTO .......
The 2-mile section of Loop 20/US 59 from I-35 to the border crossing was built to interstate highway standard and is now being evaluated by TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration for addition to the Interstate Highway System as Interstate 69.
I-69 "inside" I-610 was also absent from AASHTO's recent posting of its route numbering decisions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20USRN%20AM2013%20Oct18.pdf). I suspect FHWA has not to date granted as many design exceptions as TxDOT needs for an immediate I-69 designation of this section of US 59. Maybe it will all be resolved in time for next Spring's AASHTO meeting......TxDOT is now aiming for Spring 2014; here is an email update I just received:QuoteTxDOT is continuing to study the existing US 59 to determine if it meets Interstate quality and also continuing the development of the Interstate designation request. These processes include discussions with FHWA. Although we had anticipated a Fall 2013 submittal, we are now looking at Spring 2014.The good news is that it seems like they are working closely with FHWA in order to develop a successful submittal.
Transportation Planning
Various Counties - Authorize the submission of applications to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to establish segments of I-69 (MO)
In accordance with the procedures established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include various route segments in Texas as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69.
I-69 "inside" I-610 was also absent from AASHTO's recent posting of its route numbering decisions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20USRN%20AM2013%20Oct18.pdf). I suspect FHWA has not to date granted as many design exceptions as TxDOT needs for an immediate I-69 designation of this section of US 59. Maybe it will all be resolved in time for next Spring's AASHTO meeting......TxDOT is now aiming for Spring 2014; here is an email update I just received:QuoteTxDOT is continuing to study the existing US 59 to determine if it meets Interstate quality and also continuing the development of the Interstate designation request. These processes include discussions with FHWA. Although we had anticipated a Fall 2013 submittal, we are now looking at Spring 2014.The good news is that it seems like they are working closely with FHWA in order to develop a successful submittal.
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") has posted its March 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/agenda.pdf). It is anticipated that the TTC will authorize TxDOT to submit applications (yes, plural) for segments to receive respective I-69 designations (page 6/14 of pdf; page 6 of document):QuoteTransportation Planning
Various Counties - Authorize the submission of applications to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to establish segments of I-69 (MO)
In accordance with the procedures established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include various route segments in Texas as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69.
I anticipate "inside I-610" in Houston will be one of the applications; any guesses regarding other applications?
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") has posted its March 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/agenda.pdf). It is anticipated that the TTC will authorize TxDOT to submit applications (yes, plural) for segments to receive respective I-69 designations (page 6/14 of pdf; page 6 of document)
Texas routes currently identified as part of the future I-69 alignment include segments of US 59, US 77, US 84 and US 281.
AASHTO applications will be submitted as route segments are determined to meet current interstate design standards, connect to an existing segment of the interstate system, and be of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public. Since the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering meets only twice a year, the department is seeking approval from the commission to submit applications for those segments already identified as part of the I-69 corridor as they become eligible for inclusion on the interstate system, rather than request commission action each time an individual segment becomes eligible. This will allow the department to proceed in the most efficient manner possible and avoid delays in adding future I-69 segments to the interstate system ....
The Texas Department of Transportation (department) proposes to designate several segments of highways in Texas as INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 69 (I-69) in the next six years.
This minute order authorizes the department to petition the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering to recognize those designated segments as I-69 that comply with federal regulations and are of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that the department is authorized to submit applications to the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering requesting the recognition of I-69 along various existing routes through Texas as those route segments become eligible for inclusion on the interstate system.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that following approval of the applications by the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering, the commission will designate such route segments as I-69 by minute order.
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") has posted its March 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/agenda.pdf). It is anticipated that the TTC will authorize TxDOT to submit applications (yes, plural) for segments to receive respective I-69 designations (page 6/14 of pdf; page 6 of document)
The TTC has posted the proposed Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/15c.pdf) and it does not specify specific segments for TxDOT to petition AASHTO for designations; instead, it appears to give TxDOT standing permission to petition AASHTO as segments become interstate-grade:QuoteTexas routes currently identified as part of the future I-69 alignment include segments of US 59, US 77, US 84 and US 281.
AASHTO applications will be submitted as route segments are determined to meet current interstate design standards, connect to an existing segment of the interstate system, and be of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public. Since the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering meets only twice a year, the department is seeking approval from the commission to submit applications for those segments already identified as part of the I-69 corridor as they become eligible for inclusion on the interstate system, rather than request commission action each time an individual segment becomes eligible. This will allow the department to proceed in the most efficient manner possible and avoid delays in adding future I-69 segments to the interstate system ....
The Texas Department of Transportation (department) proposes to designate several segments of highways in Texas as INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 69 (I-69) in the next six years.
This minute order authorizes the department to petition the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering to recognize those designated segments as I-69 that comply with federal regulations and are of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that the department is authorized to submit applications to the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering requesting the recognition of I-69 along various existing routes through Texas as those route segments become eligible for inclusion on the interstate system.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that following approval of the applications by the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering, the commission will designate such route segments as I-69 by minute order.
I-369 in Texarkana may be the current shortest segment to meet the "be of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public" standard.
I suppose that it is still possible that specific applications (US 59 in Houston?) will be submitted in time for AASHTO's May meeting.
281's usage may also go up a bit once the Falfurrias toll bypass is open (if it isn't already; it was well along two years ago last time I trekked down that way), which would leave George West as the only real slowdown from US 83 to I-37.
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2012_meetings/documents/transcripts/mar29.pdfQuoteAgenda item 9c would remove the toll designation from a segment of US 281 in South Texas from south of FM 3066 northward through the City of Falfurrias to the Brooks County line. The main lanes of this 5.9-mile segment were originally designated as a toll project on the state highway system in 2007 in order to support the segment's improvement from an undivided four-lane road to a freeway.
In 2009, previously unanticipated federal funding became available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and this was used to help expedite and support construction of the freeway project in Falfurrias. In October 2011, a study concluded that the cost to install and maintain an electronic toll collection system on this segment is higher than forecasted toll revenues. Staff, therefore, recommends that the toll designation be removed from the mainlanes of US 281 from 0.9 miles south of FM 3066 northward to the Brooks County line, and that the segment operate as a non-tolled freeway on the state highway system.
I anticipate "inside I-610" in Houston will be one of the applications; any guesses regarding other applications?My guesses would be US 281 in Falfurious I-69C
The US 281 Falfurrias project is scheduled to be complete next month. It will be constructed to Interstate standards and will not be tolled.
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.Methinks they'll wait until the other upgrades from Houston south are complete.
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.There's some evidence of an upgrade at the US 59/69 split north of town:
Has anybody gotten photographs proving that the first I-69 segment in Robstown, TX has been converted to I-69E?When was this supposed to have happened? It was I-69 at the end of last October. Kind of on the same topic, have reassurance markers for 69E and I-2 been posted? Only major interchange guide signs had the shields when we were there last fall.
Thank you Yakra and Henry.Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.There's some evidence of an upgrade at the US 59/69 split north of town:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/31.36981/-94.70953
http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.37064,-94.708951&t=k&z=16
No idea whether it will be part of I-69 though.
Has anybody gotten photographs proving that the first I-69 segment in Robstown, TX has been converted to I-69E?When was this supposed to have happened? It was I-69 at the end of last October. Kind of on the same topic, have reassurance markers for 69E and I-2 been posted? Only major interchange guide signs had the shields when we were there last fall.
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.There's some evidence of an upgrade at the US 59/69 split north of town:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/31.36981/-94.70953
http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.37064,-94.708951&t=k&z=16
No idea whether it will be part of I-69 though.
TxDOT is proposing adding frontage roads along US 59 through El Campo. The proposed project would construct frontage roads and convert the existing US 59 lanes into a controlled access road that meets interstate standards.
TxDOT proposes improving US 59 in Wharton County to interstate standards. The project would include frontage roads and divided highway with two main lanes in each direction.
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.There's some evidence of an upgrade at the US 59/69 split north of town:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/31.36981/-94.70953
http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.37064,-94.708951&t=k&z=16
No idea whether it will be part of I-69 though.
Has anybody gotten photographs proving that the first I-69 segment in Robstown, TX has been converted to I-69E?When was this supposed to have happened? It was I-69 at the end of last October. Kind of on the same topic, have reassurance markers for 69E and I-2 been posted? Only major interchange guide signs had the shields when we were there last fall.
From The TxDOT Facebook page:
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1071480_10151746298405874_1936754542_o.jpg)
(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1072293_10151746298375874_1384879324_o.jpg)
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1071480_10151746298405874_1936754542_o.jpg)That's funny, it looks more like a scene from southern FL (with the palm trees and all), which triggers an old memory of my younger self imagining I-2 being signed on the Alligator Alley, long before that road was made into an extension of I-75.
Also noticed overhead I-69 N/S cosigned with US59 on the BW8 southbound to 69/59 interchange. I don't recall seeing that about a week ago. Glad to see the interstate shields finally showing up. Hopefully they will paint the blue shields on the roadway next.
Nexus 5
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/tomball/news/cornyn-lauds-continued-work-along-i--corridor/article_42ea779e-cbb2-11e2-b612-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that five alternatives are being considered for Houston's I-69 relief route: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) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route... 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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)QuoteAccording to the Texas Department of Transportation, I-69 will enter the Houston area from the southwest on the current U.S. 59 (Southwest Freeway). It will also leave the area on U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway).
In the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
- Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
- Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
- Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett addressed the importance of Interstate 69.
"It's pretty much agreed now that we need to have a bypass around the Houston area," he said. "It needs to go south and east instead of west, so it can support the port."
An honest question. Are the I-69W and C necessary. It's almost as short just to take I-35 and I-10 via San Antonio. I 69 C is also pretty close to the E. The E route is the only necessary routing of I-69 in Texas.
I suppose that it is still possible that specific applications (US 59 in Houston?) will be submitted in time for AASHTO's May meeting.I heard from a contact in the I-69 Alliance that there are two submitted sections of US 59. First is the section between the 610s in Houston and the other is Loop 20 in Laredo.
there's a good chance no "I-69W" ever gets built per se. Laredo-Freer-Alice-Corpus is a much greater priority for traffic relief and connectivity than Laredo-Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria, given the finite pot of money available.
South Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold has introduced legislation has been that would add 73 more miles to the Interstate 69 system of routes in Texas and ultimately provide an interstate connection between Laredo and Corpus Christi ....
Congressman Farenthold’s bill applies to the section of State Highway 44 between US 59 in Freer and the SH 358 Freeway in Corpus Christi.
If enacted the legislation would designate this section of SH 44 as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System and designate it as a Future Interstate. The Alliance for I-69 Texas and the statewide I-69 Advisory Committee have been instrumental in moving the legislation forward ....
SH 44 is already at interstate highway standard in Corpus Christi and is a four-lane divided highway westward to the city of San Diego. The 23 miles from San Diego to Freer is a two-lane section passing through sparsely populated ranch land. Upgrades recommended by the committees include relief routes around Alice, San Diego and Freer plus a new link at Robstown.
The legislation, H.R. 4523, is being referred to as the “44 to 69 Act of 2014.”
South Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold has introduced legislation has been that would add 73 more miles to the Interstate 69 system of routes in Texas and ultimately provide an interstate connection between Laredo and Corpus Christi ....
Congressman Farenthold’s bill applies to the section of State Highway 44 between US 59 in Freer and the SH 358 Freeway in Corpus Christi.
Unless they just really want I-69F or something.
Article from the Victoria Advocate yesterday about small business owners in Victoria (my daughter's name :colorful: ) who are less than enthralled by what the future I-69 will do for their retail traffic...feel for them. I didn't know I-69 construction was so full-bore there. There is a significant petrochemical presence in that city, too, enough that a large barge canal has been dug some time back...I'm sure there will be some happy I-69 shippers there eventually:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2014/may/03/frontage_road_mc_050414_238470/?business
An honest question. Are the I-69W and C necessary. It's almost as short just to take I-35 and I-10 via San Antonio. I 69 C is also pretty close to the E. The E route is the only necessary routing of I-69 in Texas.Laredo is not only a boomtown (from <70,000 in 1970 to pushing 250,000 today -- just the city proper, not counting suburbs, Mexico, etc.), but it's also the busiest inland port of entry in the U.S.; it needs I-69W just to relieve current I-35 truck traffic. Maybe I-69C is overkill, but Laredo needs I-69W just as much as the Valley needs I-69E.
This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%204.30.14%20sh44bill.html) reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:
This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%204.30.14%20sh44bill.html) reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:
Oh no, not again.
I-6 would make sense, especially with I-2 now in the Valley.This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%204.30.14%20sh44bill.html) reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:
Oh no, not again.
I-69Uhoh
Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes
Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes
NC is the worst. I'm glad all states aren't doing that. If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di. The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road. US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644. The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.
I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.Well, given that I-74 has a missing link to Cincinnati, the current route of I-73 is entirely east of I-77 (and I-75, for that matter), and I-69 may not be built back to Indianapolis in most of our lifetimes, I will agree that all these routes are really not necessary. Sure, having a new Interstate is nice, but there is such a thing as overdoing it. Then again, this was attempted in many large cities and ended up becoming a major failure for the most part, thanks to community and/or environmental opposition.
I recently emailed TxDOT to ask about progress on the Falfurrias Expressway Project (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update1.html) and it should be open to traffic in approximately a month:QuoteThe US 281 Falfurrias project is scheduled to be complete next month. It will be constructed to Interstate standards and will not be tolled
Q: I just wanted to check and see if the US 281 Falfurrias project is now open to traffic. I have not been able to find any information about it on the internet.
A: Yes, the project is now open to traffic. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/us281-us59-district.pdf).
I never said they don't overdo it. I said the eventual routes make sense in the overall system (in TX and NC, that is). And I-73 isn't too bad in the grid as it is. Not everything has to be 100% perfect.Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes
NC is the worst. I'm glad all states aren't doing that. If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di. The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road. US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644. The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.Well, given that I-74 has a missing link to Cincinnati, the current route of I-73 is entirely east of I-77 (and I-75, for that matter), and I-69 may not be built back to Indianapolis in most of our lifetimes, I will agree that all these routes are really not necessary. Sure, having a new Interstate is nice, but there is such a thing as overdoing it. Then again, this was attempted in many large cities and ended up becoming a major failure for the most part, thanks to community and/or environmental opposition.
Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes
NC is the worst. I'm glad all states aren't doing that. If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di. The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road. US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644. The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.
I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.
Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes
NC is the worst. I'm glad all states aren't doing that. If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di. The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road. US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644. The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.Well, given that I-74 has a missing link to Cincinnati, the current route of I-73 is entirely east of I-77 (and I-75, for that matter), and I-69 may not be built back to Indianapolis in most of our lifetimes, I will agree that all these routes are really not necessary. Sure, having a new Interstate is nice, but there is such a thing as overdoing it. Then again, this was attempted in many large cities and ended up becoming a major failure for the most part, thanks to community and/or environmental opposition.
What exactly is the point of I-2?Not this again. This is about the only corridor that makes any sense for an I-2 to follow within the next century...
What exactly is the point of I-2?Not this again. This is about the only corridor that makes any sense for an I-2 to follow within the next century...
What exactly is the point of I-2?Not this again. This is about the only corridor that makes any sense for an I-2 to follow within the next century...
I agree with that. But what's the real point? I don't believe it will serve an economic purpose. The roadway was already limited access. So what's the point? Because 2 isn't used yet? That's my point. There doesn't have to be a 2. We don't need to put a blue and red sign on every highway.
iPhone
if y'all were around when they formed the interstate system you'd be complaining about how no one is driving out west and why would we every build I-25 & I-15?
This project, from Kingsville to Driscoll, is approximately eight miles in length and spans from E. Corral Avenue / Farm-to-Market Road 1898 in the northern portion of Kingsville in Kleburg County north to County Road 12/FM 3354, just south of the City of Driscoll in Nueces County. The project will consist of:
Reconstruction of and improvements to the existing road to include
Two main lanes in each direction
Discontinuous frontage roads
Construction and overlay of main lanes and frontage roads
Construction and widening of bridges, which will eliminate crossroad traffic on main lanes of travel
Construction of at-grade ramps and intersection improvements
The improvements will also include wider road shoulders and increase safety for disabled vehicles and motorists needing to pull over to the shoulders.
Construction for the project is anticipated to run April 2014 - August 2016 with a projected opening date of October 2016.
The estimated total project cost is approximately $79 million.
In May, TxDOT will hold public meetings about their plans to upgrade US 59 to I-69 in El Campo and Wharton County (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=El+Campo,+TX&hl=en&ll=29.196527,-96.269073&spn=0.974624,1.234589&sll=29.351357,-96.134491&sspn=0.24329,0.308647&oq=el+campo,+TX&t=h&hnear=El+Campo,+Wharton+County,+Texas&z=10).
El Campo (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/el-campo-050614.html)
Wharton County (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/wharton-050614.html)
I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time. I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls. It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.
I was thinking the same thing too! Except it would be an extension of I-12. (And the existing I-12 does a pretty good job of helping motorists avoid New Orleans altogether.)I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time. I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls. It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.
I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap! No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate. I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW). Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise. Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."
I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time. I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls. It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.
I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap! No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate. I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW). Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise. Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."
I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time. I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls. It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.
I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap! No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate. I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW). Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise. Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."
finally most of us agree on something.
If the "there has to be significant traffic to upgrade to an interstate" argument was used in 1957 when they laid out the interstate highway system, Interstate 10 would not have been built between Kerrville and Junction (or Lordsburg, NM and Benson, AZ for that fact) because here wasn't a single car driving on that guy's ranch out there.
I have no problem with the separate I-69C and I-69E Interstate highway corridors other than perhaps the numbering choices (pushing a number like I-69 that far West is just plain strange, but it is what it is). Population growth in the far South end of Texas is as rapid as anywhere else in the Lone Star State. There is a lot of people and traffic down there. Further, I can certainly see the validity in building I-2 and even extending it North up to Laredo. Going farther than that, I think I-27 and its Ports to Plains Corridor needs to be upgraded to Interstate level standards at some point, either in terms of a freeway or some kind of turnpike. Same goes for extending I-44 South into Texas, at least down to San Angelo and an extended I-27 corridor or down to the border at Del Rio. Just sayin'.
Of course this infrastructure building would work better with some improved trade dealing with Mexico and Canada and not having quite so much manufacturing production exporting to far away continents.
The problem with this logic (which I agreed with until I lived in South Texas and saw it for myself) is that the 69C/281 and 69E/77 corridors serve fundamentally different traffic flows. 69C serves the Hidalgo County to/from San Antonio + (with TX 44) Corpus Christi + (with US 59) Houston flows, 69E serves the Cameron County to/from San Antonio + Corpus Christi + Houston flows. If you only had 69C or 69E, a lot of those flows would require backtracking 40+ miles in the wrong direction, and people just aren't going to go that far out of their way unless the non-freeway corridor is gridlocked. So you're still going to have more or less the same traffic on both corridors, even if one is upgraded and the other isn't.
(To put it another way, 69C and 69E are only really redundant for SW to NE or NW to SE movements, because of I-2/US 83 and I-37. They are not redundant for NW to SW and NE to SE. Nobody would take I-37 to I-69E to I-2 to get from San Antonio to McAllen or vice versa. They'd take US 281. Hence why US 281 needs to be upgraded through Falfurrias, Alice, George West, etc.)
By similar logic, you could argue that I-35 should have gone through Fort Worth, and there should be no I-35E or I-x35 through Dallas, since if you wanted to access Dallas, you could use I-20 or I-30 from Fort Worth to get there. The folks who'd be in Waxahatchie and Desoto sitting in US 77 traffic in that scenario would likely disagree.
All that leaves aside the RGV politics which dictate that Hidalgo can't have anything Cameron doesn't already have, and vice versa.
The problem with the theory of "build it and they will come" boils down to money and logic. It cost a lot of money to upgrade these state and US highways to interstate grade. State and Federal level have a lot of people complaining about money being spent. Less money is going into road funds, why build what isn't needed when you can't be sure that the money for needed projects is there?
If you are building 1 to the RGV, why build a second so close? Why build a highway to bypass traffic that isn't there on the western half of San Antonio/Austin? Why build an interstate all the way to Texarkana from Houston when traffic would not go that route, plus 49 would not be that far away north of the 69 diverge into LA?
If I am not mistaken from the years I lived in Texas, most traffic flows within the NBA triangle. Only one interstate is really needed beyond East and West. Only one is really needed South.
To the argument that a divided highway with just a few bypasses is good enough argument: apparently you haven't traveled US 281 between Alice and George West lately. Yea it is a divided highway with 2 lanes in each direction with a 75 mile per hour speed limit, but it is full of rolling blind hills and you are lucky to have an inside shoulder for most of the trip. I am not talking about big hills in some cases, just small quick hills with blind driveways and rough sub standard pavement. If I drove a truck between the valley and San Antonio daly, I would want a gun to shoot myself because the road is very rough even for a car, much less a fully loaded 18 wheeler. Again, the interstate shield means something. In Texas, the thinking is make a road as cheaply as possible. If it is not an interstate, then we will not build it to the standards. That's why 281 has all the bumps and hills. With an interstate designation, those poor design flaws will be eliminated.
I used to work as a land surveyor for a company who's corporate office was in Florida. All we had were two wheel drive F150 pickups and we were beggin for heavy duty 4 wheel drive pick ups, or at least just 4 wheel drive trucks, and corporate said no. They said we didn't need them because Austin wasn't like Florida so they deemed spending the money for a place they concidered to be dry (because I swear the whole world thinks it never rains in Texas and the whole state is one big flat rock) was a waste, even though it does rain here. Because of that, I do get offended when people who don't live in an area tell the people of that area "you don't need that ". In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently.
To the argument that a divided highway with just a few bypasses is good enough argument: apparently you haven't traveled US 281 between Alice and George West lately. Yea it is a divided highway with 2 lanes in each direction with a 75 mile per hour speed limit, but it is full of rolling blind hills and you are lucky to have an inside shoulder for most of the trip. I am not talking about big hills in some cases, just small quick hills with blind driveways and rough sub standard pavement. If I drove a truck between the valley and San Antonio daly, I would want a gun to shoot myself because the road is very rough even for a car, much less a fully loaded 18 wheeler. Again, the interstate shield means something. In Texas, the thinking is make a road as cheaply as possible. If it is not an interstate, then we will not build it to the standards. That's why 281 has all the bumps and hills. With an interstate designation, those poor design flaws will be eliminated.
I used to work as a land surveyor for a company who's corporate office was in Florida. All we had were two wheel drive F150 pickups and we were beggin for heavy duty 4 wheel drive pick ups, or at least just 4 wheel drive trucks, and corporate said no. They said we didn't need them because Austin wasn't like Florida so they deemed spending the money for a place they concidered to be dry (because I swear the whole world thinks it never rains in Texas and the whole state is one big flat rock) was a waste, even though it does rain here. Because of that, I do get offended when people who don't live in an area tell the people of that area "you don't need that ". In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently.
What I meant was that if its already a divided highway, putting in exits is much cheaper than a whole new build.
Everyone seems to think that the “build it and they will come” idea is a pipe dream. Like they are building roads and praying people will use it. No, it is more like the second this is finished it will be one of the most heavily traveled roads in America. I hear you that you think I-69e and I-69C are redundant and on a map they sure look redundant, but their existence is quite needed. I-69E serves two purposes: for traffic going from Corpus Christi to Houston and traffic going from Corpus Christi to the valley, no more than that. It serves a link between 3 metro areas. I-69C would be better if it were numbered an I-X37, because it is more of a branch of I-37. Ask any truck driver who drives the route between San Antonio (or Austin, or Waco, or Dallas/Ft. Worth) and the valley day in and day out which way he goes to the valley from I-37: US 77 or US 281. I bet you 10 out of 10 drivers will tell you US 281. So if you said you were going to upgrade one of them to and interstate, they would emphatically ask for US 281, because it is straighter and more direct. So, since I-69E is vital for the Corpus Christi connection, with truck traffic that is related to the Valley/Corpus/Houston/Shreveport corridor, then I-69C is just as vital for the Dallas/Ft. Worth/Waco/Austin/San Antonio/Valley corridor. I think they are much needed, and as for money, that I can’t tell you about!
With an interstate designation, those poor design flaws will be eliminated.
In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently.
The other thing about the " build it and they will come" idea is how many people will use it now that a better road is in place. Let's take all the hundreds of thousands of trucks that come from Tamulipas (Cuidad Victoria or Monterey) that are bound for DFW or even Houston that cross the border at Nuevo Laredo because they can get on the interstates earlier, and avoid the valley because they don't want to drive the US 77 to US 59 corridor to get to Houston. We are talking. 300 plus miles of lights, intersections, driveways and blind hills. Like it or not, the red white and blue shield means something.
People will go out of their way to stay on interstates because the roads are faster and better.
Everyone seems to think that the “build it and they will come” idea is a pipe dream. Like they are building roads and praying people will use it. No, it is more like the second this is finished it will be one of the most heavily traveled roads in America. I hear you that you think I-69e and I-69C are redundant and on a map they sure look redundant, but their existence is quite needed. I-69E serves two purposes: for traffic going from Corpus Christi to Houston and traffic going from Corpus Christi to the valley, no more than that. It serves a link between 3 metro areas. I-69C would be better if it were numbered an I-X37, because it is more of a branch of I-37. Ask any truck driver who drives the route between San Antonio (or Austin, or Waco, or Dallas/Ft. Worth) and the valley day in and day out which way he goes to the valley from I-37: US 77 or US 281. I bet you 10 out of 10 drivers will tell you US 281. So if you said you were going to upgrade one of them to and interstate, they would emphatically ask for US 281, because it is straighter and more direct. So, since I-69E is vital for the Corpus Christi connection, with truck traffic that is related to the Valley/Corpus/Houston/Shreveport corridor, then I-69C is just as vital for the Dallas/Ft. Worth/Waco/Austin/San Antonio/Valley corridor. I think they are much needed, and as for money, that I can’t tell you about!
A related question: Should the US 69 freeway in eastern Kansas be extended to I-44 in northeastern Oklahoma? This highway appears to be redundant to the US 71/I-49 corridor in Missouri, but should it be extended as an alternative?
The other thing about the " build it and they will come" idea is how many people will use it now that a better road is in place. Let's take all the hundreds of thousands of trucks that come from Tamulipas (Cuidad Victoria or Monterey) that are bound for DFW or even Houston that cross the border at Nuevo Laredo because they can get on the interstates earlier, and avoid the valley because they don't want to drive the US 77 to US 59 corridor to get to Houston. We are talking. 300 plus miles of lights, intersections, driveways and blind hills. Like it or not, the red white and blue shield means something.
It doesn't mean anything that a good US highway or state highway freeway doesn't. Would, say, OK 51 suddenly become a better road if it were designated as I-144?QuotePeople will go out of their way to stay on interstates because the roads are faster and better.
That's because they are stupid. A good freeway is a good freeway no matter what type of highway it is: a city freeway, county freeway, state or US highway freeway, or an interstate. And interstates aren't necessarily better than non-interstate freeways. For example: the aforementioned US 69 freeway in Kansas is a far better road than I-44 in Missouri, which is just awful.
I understand what you mean, but to the out of state driver (or out of country ) a US highway can be anything from a freeway to a curvy two lane road with no shoulders. The US or state highway shields can't really be trusted. At least with an interstate highway, you know at the absolute least you are garunteed (sic) a freeway. Maybe it isn't the absolute best road in the world (Bronx-Queens Expressway) but you are garunteed (sic) not to have a traffic light in every powdunk (sic) community you drive through.
I understand what you mean, but to the out of state driver (or out of country ) a US highway can be anything from a freeway to a curvy two lane road with no shoulders. The US or state highway shields can't really be trusted. At least with an interstate highway, you know at the absolute least you are garunteed (sic) a freeway. Maybe it isn't the absolute best road in the world (Bronx-Queens Expressway) but you are garunteed (sic) not to have a traffic light in every powdunk (sic) community you drive through.
First, a red-white-blue shield does not guarantee a freeway. I-180 and I-78 say hi. Second, a good map has the same colored line for an interstate as it does for a non-interstate freeway. If you can't look at a map and tell that a blue line means a freeway then maybe you shouldn't be driving.
A related question: Should the US 69 freeway in eastern Kansas be extended to I-44 in northeastern Oklahoma? This highway appears to be redundant to the US 71/I-49 corridor in Missouri, but should it be extended as an alternative?
First, a red-white-blue shield does not guarantee a freeway. I-180 and I-78 say hi. Second, a good map has the same colored line for an interstate as it does for a non-interstate freeway. If you can't look at a map and tell that a blue line means a freeway then maybe you shouldn't be driving.
This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.
(http://oscarmail.net/photos/20140519_0010_i69_sign.jpg)
This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.
(http://oscarmail.net/photos/20140519_0010_i69_sign.jpg)
Will this designation just affect the Southwest Freeway, or any regional/statewide section of I-69 in TX?
This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.
(http://oscarmail.net/photos/20140519_0010_i69_sign.jpg)
A sign you would never see in Arkansas.
This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.
(http://oscarmail.net/photos/20140519_0010_i69_sign.jpg)
Will this designation just affect the Southwest Freeway, or any regional/statewide section of I-69 in TX?
Arkansas gets this guy:
Arkansas gets this guy:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3572/3821889656_59777dcbfa_d.jpg)
Arkansas gets this guy:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3572/3821889656_59777dcbfa_d.jpg)
Too bad he isn't around for the Bella Vista Bypass and Arkansas River Bridge
english si's observation strengthens the case for an I-69W designation. An argument might go as follows: Since US 59 from Victoria to George West (approximately 80 miles) is statutorily defined as I-69C in HPC 18, and Victoria is also where I-69E begins its US 77 route to Brownsville, then Congress must have intended that "mainline" I-69 end in Victoria where the Central and East prongs branch off. With that in mind, Congress surely did not intend an eighty-mile I-69/I-69C overlap and must have intended that a US 59 western spur would branch off of I-69C at the George West US 59/US 281 junction where I-69C begins its US 281 southward route toward the border. A natural designation for the US 59 western spur would be "I-69W".
I just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 shoots down an I-69W notion in flames, and it allows TxDOT to choose between I-69C and I-69 for the Victoria to George West segment of US 59:QuoteUS 59 from Victoria to George West can be I-69 or I-69C, which ever Texas Department of Transportation requests.
US 59 from George West to Laredo can be I-69, but not I-69W or I-X69 (spur). This is based on the current law.
Documents now up http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx(bottom quote from AASHTO Numbering Committee Spring '14 Meeting (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12521.msg302814#msg302814) thread)
Approved if not otherwise stated, details via the document ....
TX I-69 extension (inside I-610) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69C extension (Edinburg) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69E extension (Robstown) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69W extension (Laredo) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX US59 relocation (Laredo) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX US59 Business recognition (Laredo)
...TxDOT is currently coordinating with FHWA to process a request to add this segment of U.S. 59 to the IH 69 system in Texas and to designate it as Interstate Highway 69 West (IH 69-W). The IH 69-W designation is being requested based on the following rationale:
This segment of U.S. 59 is part of National IH 69 Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 30, U.S. 59 Laredo Connector, as established within the IH-69 (Corridor 18) Special Environmental Study - Sections of Independent Utility (1999). SIU 30 is the southernmost segment of High Priority Corridor 20, extending from Laredo to the junction of U.S. 59 and U.S. 281 in George West, Texas and is intended to function as a connecting route (e.g.,spur) to the IH 69 Corridor.
According to the IH 69 system naming convention established in Section 1211 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) Restoration Act (PL 105-178), which amended Sections 1105(c) and 1105(e)(5) of ISTEA, the section of U.S. 281 extending south of George West and the section of U.S. 59 extending north of George West to U.S. 77 in Victoria (SIUs 24, 25, and 26) are to be designated as IH 69-C at such time it is determined that a segment of SIUs 24, 25, and 26 meets the above-referenced legislative criteria and FHWA regulations. Likewise, U.S. 77 south of Victoria (SIUs 21, 22, and 23) is to be designated as IH 69-E.
As such, this segment of U.S. 59 would be part of the third and most western leg of the IH 69 system, along with IH 69-C and IH 69-E, that is intended to serve the major population centers and international border crossings in South Texas. Consequently, the designation of this segment of U.S. 59 as IH 69-W would maintain continuity in the naming convention already established for the IH 69 system in South Texas with the 2013 designations of IH 69-E and IH 69-C. Also, such a designation would be intuitive thereby meeting a driver’s expectation and the already expressed expectations of the population centers in South Texas.
With the 2013 designation of a segment of U.S. 59 as IH 369 in Texarkana, it has been demonstrated that there is latitude in interpreting the intended naming convention protocols of Section 1105(e)(5) of ISTEA, as amended, when establishing a route number on the IH 69 system. The application of such latitude in designating this segment of U.S. 59 as IH 69-W would be reasonable, intuitive, and consistent with the intent of Section 1105(e)(5) of ISTEA, as amended.
TxDOT has coordinated with FHWA on its concurrence for the IH 69-W route number to be consistent with the existing two legs of the IH 69 System in South Texas (i.e., IH 69-E and IH 69-C). It is therefore proposed that this 1.4-mile segment of U.S. 59 in Laredo be recognized as IH 69-W.
Upon further review and discussion with Chief Counsel, FHWA is willing and able to approve a request by TxDOT for the designation of U.S. 59 as I-69 West between George West and Laredo. Thanks.
when did we get to Alanland
OK, so it's not OK to have I-80S to Denver, I-15E in Idaho, I-5W through the Bay Area, but it is OK to have I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E without an I-69 south of the point I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E branch off?
So, tell me, when did we get to Alanland and let AlanlandDOT make decisions for FHWA?
OK, so it's not OK to have I-80S to Denver, I-15E in Idaho, I-5W through the Bay Area, but it is OK to have I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E without an I-69 south of the point I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E branch off?
So, tell me, when did we get to Alanland and let AlanlandDOT make decisions for FHWA?
I-5W was a true loop though (including what would later be built as 505, and the new-terrain 580 between Altamont and Vernalis).
And yeah, the existence of I-69W/I-69C/I-69E as suffixed spur routes...is a complete 180 from the 1980 directive to remove all suffixed spurs from the Interstate system. (Back then, the only suffixed Interstates grandfathered in were all loops: the I-35 pairings, and I-15E in California)
Sheesh...like a dummy I hadn't even though of how I-69 (and maybe parts of I-49 as well) will become the highway to South Padre Island. This article tells of how they're considering a second bridge for "SPI" linkng to I-69. (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_b587e940-e86b-11e3-b12b-0017a43b2370.html)
Following the precedent in the Dallas area, the 3di wouldn't take the lettered suffix: it's I-635, not I-635E.
Following the precedent in the Dallas area, the 3di wouldn't take the lettered suffix: it's I-635, not I-635E.
IIRC, the only ever planned suffixed 3di of a suffixed 2di was the old I-180N in Idaho, which was built as I-184.
Following the precedent in the Dallas area, the 3di wouldn't take the lettered suffix: it's I-635, not I-635E.
IIRC, the only ever planned suffixed 3di of a suffixed 2di was the old I-180N in Idaho, which was built as I-184.
Wasn't there to be an I-H1A or something like that?
I just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 ... allows TxDOT to choose between I-69C and I-69 for the Victoria to George West segment of US 59:QuoteUS 59 from Victoria to George West can be I-69 or I-69C, which ever Texas Department of Transportation requests ... This is based on the current law.
Glad they're going with the I-69W spur naming. Makes no sense for that to be mainline I-69 considering there's a "I-69C".
That still leaves the question of what the route from George West to Victoria will be named. I'm in favor of that being I-69W.
I don't mind the I-69E, I-69W & I-69C names as long as they all connect to the parent I-69 route. Any 3di route stemming from them should merely be a standard number, like I-169, I-269, etc. A four character name like I-269E would stink. The 3di shields are not designed to handle it properly, especially if the shields are neutered and have enlarged numerals. I can't stand how the characters look on those I-H201 shields.
TxDOT has posted a March 27, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf) which color-codes the various I-69 projects into three categories: (1) Constructed/ Under Construction, (2) Funded Construction, and (3) Project Development.
LONG article from the Victoria Advocate yesterday about small business owners in Victoria (my daughter's name :colorful: ) who are less than enthralled by what the future I-69 will do for their retail traffic...feel for them. I didn't know I-69 construction was so full-bore there. There is a significant petrochemical presence in that city, too, enough that a large barge canal has been dug some time back...I'm sure there will be some happy I-69 shippers there eventually:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2014/may/03/frontage_road_mc_050414_238470/?business
Texas Department of Transportation put the brakes on a proposed change to the future Interstate 69 corridor in Victoria.
Area business owners were rooting for TxDOT to change the flow of traffic on frontage roads, which are currently under construction, to two-way. Without two-way traffic or an overpass, customers could end up traveling an almost eight-mile loop to access some businesses along U.S. Highway 59.
However, TxDOT officials point to the state roadway design manual: any frontage road constructed as part of the state highway system will be designed and constructed for one-way traffic ....
TxDOT cannot agree to the construction of two-way frontage roads, Chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission Ted Houghton Jr. said in a letter addressed to County Judge Don Pozzi ....
"As we move to eliminate all existing two-way frontage roads to greatly improve the safety of the state highway system, it is not reasonable for us to consider creating unnecessary safety risks on other highways by adding two-way frontage roads to them," Houghton said in the letter ....
The transportation chairman said he believes other options exist to provide access to properties along the new frontage road, but business owners and the county judge are less optimistic ....
Still, John New is hopeful the state will elaborate on their options.
"The overpass is the solution, and I hope there's enough wisdom to see that needs to get done," New said. "I just hope they have the wisdom to get that overpass built in a reasonable period of time."
In reading the tea leaves, it seems like FHWA initially pushed back against an I-69W designation, but TxDOT eventually persuaded them to change their interpretation of the law. It does make intuitive sense that FHWA now views this section as being a "spur" that warrants the "I-69W" designation.
Will this make US 59 a border-to-border highway once again?
Since the bridge is limited to commercial traffic, and isn't even open 24/7 (the Sunday afternoon I was there, it closed for the day at 2pm), it made sense to end at least I-69W at the minor at-grade crossing just east of the World Trade Bridge.
Since the bridge is limited to commercial traffic, and isn't even open 24/7 (the Sunday afternoon I was there, it closed for the day at 2pm), it made sense to end at least I-69W at the minor at-grade crossing just east of the World Trade Bridge.
If that bridge is really commercial vehicles only, there seems to be an extreme lack of signage warning non-commercial vehicles of this restriction.
According to the City of Laredo web site, that bridge is open only to commercial traffic, and has limited hours. Two non-commercial bridges are open at all times. All bridges for commercial traffic have limited hours. There probably should be signs, but I'd guess that if you want to cross the border, you're expected to know which bridge to use and at what time.
http://www.cityoflaredo.com/bridgesys/bridges.html (http://www.cityoflaredo.com/bridgesys/bridges.html)
the June 26, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda (http://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/txdot/asset_collection/about_us/commission/agendas/agenda-062614.pdf) indicates that the TTC also needs to sign off on I-69W (page 2/17 of pdf)
The Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of a key 1.4-mile section of freeway in Laredo as part of the Interstate 69 system. The Federal Highway Administration approved the designation on June 17 ....
The American Association of State Highway Officials committee that approves the numbering of federal highways voted in April to designate the Laredo highway as Interstate 69 West (I-69W).
That still leaves the question of what the route from George West to Victoria will be named. I'm in favor of that being I-69W.
The 69W section will eventually run on US 59 from Laredo to Victoria.
The TxDOT Laredo District has developed a plan for upgrading Loop 20/US 59 to interstate standard from I-35 to the connection with the rural section of US 59. Phase 1 will included completion of the interchange at I-35 and development of expressway main lanes east to International Blvd., a section which includes the recently completed overpass bridges at McPherson Road. Phase 2 will include main lanes and interchanges at Shiloh Road, Del Mar Blvd, University Blvd., Jacaman Blvd. and Airport Drive. None of these projects are currently funded.
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.This August 19, 2013 Angelina County map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf) probably qualifies as older info, but it does include two short sections that are "under development to meet interstate standards and funded through construction"
The Texas Department of Transportation is moving forward this week with the next phase of highway construction at U.S. Highway 59 north and FM 2021 and is urging motorists to be extra careful from Loop 287 north to the Redland area.
Kathi White, TxDOT public information official, said contractors working to build an overpass at the intersection of U.S. 59 and FM 2021 could, as early as today if weather conditions allow, move FM 2021 traffic to the northbound ramp. That will keep traffic on FM 2021 from crossing the high-volume, fast-moving traffic on U.S. 59, she said.
White said excavation work at the intersection for the bridge construction has been hindered by rain, but the project is still six weeks ahead of schedule and due to be completed by December 2015 ...
This article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/Growth-presents-transportation-challenges-for-the-5439353.php) reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port:QuoteHarris County Judge Ed Emmett addressed the importance of Interstate 69.
"It's pretty much agreed now that we need to have a bypass around the Houston area," he said. "It needs to go south and east instead of west, so it can support the port."
isn't there some controversy over upgrading US 77 in Refugio, where some folk have expressed opposition to a freeway upgrade there??
Whether Refugio gets involved in long-term planning for Interstate 69 will determine what happens in 20 to 40 years.
That was the gist of an I-69 update at City Hall Monday evening, June 23.
Presenting the update, at the request of Refugio County Community Development Foundation executive director Victor Garza, was Judy Hawley, who chairs the State I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and many other statewide transportation boards. Hawley also is a commissioner of the Port of Corpus Christi.
Joining Hawley was Roger Beal, Texas Transportation Department’s advanced project development director, and Christopher Caron, deputy district engineer of the TxDOT Corpus Christi District.
I can’t imagine a community in this day and age in our environment not wanting to be a part of I-69,” Hawley said.
“It’s a growing thriving sustainable economy, and it behooves you to pull I-69 into your plan,” she added.
“But if you prefer to stay the way you are, which is fine, you can. We’re talking about a 20-, 40-, 60-year growth plan. Long-term planning placed in your lap,” she said.
Hawley and Beal agreed that infrastructure was key to a sustainable economy, and getting involved in I-69 planning would ensure the well being of the community.
“It’s one of the few variables you can control,” Hawley said.
For example, Hawley said $32 billion was going on right now in Corpus Christi, including I-69, I-35, deep water ship channel and other freight routes and sources, including rail.
Other examples of cities that were reluctant but then became involved were given. Those included Laredo, Freer, El Campo, Sinton and Marshall, to name some of the examples.
However, early I-69 segment committees left no consensus where Refugio wanted to be in the process.
“We are looking at a relief route for this community,” Beal said.
Hawley said the best action is to get involved in the I-69 process to plan now for the location and infrastructure ....
Refugio County Judge Rene Mascorro noted it was easy to say get involved when it isn’t TxDOT land ....
The term “relief route” really seemed to refer to a bypass exit.
And one such relief route is on the I-69 planning map as a possible solution to Refugio.
That relief route could be close to Refugio, farther east or west of Refugio or completely out of Refugio County. Hence, that is why it is important to become part of the planning process.
Hawley suggested meeting with and getting more information from Corpus Christi District Engineer Lonnie Gregorcyk, who could inform officials who owns the rights of way and what would be the best plan going forward, as well as any financial advice ....
“Just decide you want to move forward. Solving the problems comes later,” Hawley said.
“I-69 is going to happen whether it goes through, around or outside the county,” Garza said.
Beal suggested to plan relief routes through downtown Refugio.
Mascorro said downtown Refugio as it is now would dry up if bypassed ....
isn't there some controversy over upgrading US 77 in Refugio, where some folk have expressed opposition to a freeway upgrade there??
This June 26 article (http://www.mysoutex.com/view/full_story_landing/25352277/article-Refugio-urged-to-plan-for-I-69) reports on a June 23 meeting during which I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and TxDOT officials encouraged Refugio officials to become involved in planning for I-69E:QuoteWhether Refugio gets involved in long-term planning for Interstate 69 will determine what happens in 20 to 40 years.
That was the gist of an I-69 update at City Hall Monday evening, June 23.
Presenting the update, at the request of Refugio County Community Development Foundation executive director Victor Garza, was Judy Hawley, who chairs the State I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and many other statewide transportation boards. Hawley also is a commissioner of the Port of Corpus Christi.
Joining Hawley was Roger Beal, Texas Transportation Department’s advanced project development director, and Christopher Caron, deputy district engineer of the TxDOT Corpus Christi District.
I can’t imagine a community in this day and age in our environment not wanting to be a part of I-69, Hawley said.
"It’s a growing thriving sustainable economy, and it behooves you to pull I-69 into your plan, she added.
"But if you prefer to stay the way you are, which is fine, you can. We’re talking about a 20-, 40-, 60-year growth plan. Long-term planning placed in your lap, she said.
Hawley and Beal agreed that infrastructure was key to a sustainable economy, and getting involved in I-69 planning would ensure the well being of the community.
"It’s one of the few variables you can control, Hawley said.
For example, Hawley said $32 billion was going on right now in Corpus Christi, including I-69, I-35, deep water ship channel and other freight routes and sources, including rail.
Other examples of cities that were reluctant but then became involved were given. Those included Laredo, Freer, El Campo, Sinton and Marshall, to name some of the examples.
However, early I-69 segment committees left no consensus where Refugio wanted to be in the process.
"We are looking at a relief route for this community, Beal said.
Hawley said the best action is to get involved in the I-69 process to plan now for the location and infrastructure ....
Refugio County Judge Rene Mascorro noted it was easy to say get involved when it isn’t TxDOT land ....
The term "relief route really seemed to refer to a bypass exit.
And one such relief route is on the I-69 planning map as a possible solution to Refugio.
That relief route could be close to Refugio, farther east or west of Refugio or completely out of Refugio County. Hence, that is why it is important to become part of the planning process.
Hawley suggested meeting with and getting more information from Corpus Christi District Engineer Lonnie Gregorcyk, who could inform officials who owns the rights of way and what would be the best plan going forward, as well as any financial advice ....
"Just decide you want to move forward. Solving the problems comes later, Hawley said.
"I-69 is going to happen whether it goes through, around or outside the county, Garza said.
Beal suggested to plan relief routes through downtown Refugio.
Mascorro said downtown Refugio as it is now would dry up if bypassed ....
Maybe Refugio will evolve into a kinda-sorta I-69 Breezewood.
A snip from this Segment 3 Committee map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf) describes the corridor near Refugio as an "I-69 potential program route" instead of a "committee suggested I-69 route" (page 21/157 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/JlMhOmN.jpg)
This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%206.26.14Laredo.html) .... also discusses the long-range plan for upgrading former Loop 20/US 59/Future I-69W
Webb County - Designate State Loop 20 (SL 20) on the state highway system concurrent with US 59 from the entrance to the World Trade Bridge to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in the city of Laredo (MO)
Minute Order 113852 redesignated a portion of SL 20 as US 59 from the entrance of the World Trade Bridge to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in Laredo, which began the process of designating applicable portions of US 59 as part of the I-69 system. However, the minute order did not reference maintaining the LP 20 signage so that addresses would not need to be changed. This minute order corrects that oversight and designates a portion of SL 20 on the state highway system, concurrent with US 59.
Thank you for the updates. I greatly appreciated it.
TxDOT is studying alignment alternatives for the US 59 Corrigan Relief Route (future I-69) on a new location. The relief route would be designed to meet interstate standards for possible future designation as I-69, which would alleviate congestion through the Polk County community of Corrigan, as well as increase safety and mobility along the US 59 corridor ....
The new location alignment would be a four-lane access controlled roadway with no frontage roads.
- Photos and images posted in forum threads should not exceed 800 pixels in width or 600 pixels in height. Everyone is not using the same monitor. To reference larger images, just add a link from the 800x600 sized image to the larger file in question.
The I-69 Driven By Texans website (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us77-kingsville-driscoll.htm) 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
DRISCOLL RELIEF ROUTE - A relief route around the town of Driscoll will be built in the future. It will close a gap in highway upgrades of about six miles and will create a connected freeway from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi south through Kingsville. The relief route will run through open farm fields and cross Petronila Creek on the east side of Driscoll.
Speaking of Grzrd's last post above, I wonder how the (unique, with its ranch and cattle lane construction) Kenedy County part of this is going?
The Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf) has been updated to show I-2, I-69C, and I-69E:
(http://i.imgur.com/Ekpuokx.png)
Look where I-2 meets I-69E.I-blankblank7 is even better!where do you see that?
Speaking of Grzrd's last post above, I wonder how the (unique, with its ranch and cattle lane construction) Kenedy County part of this is going?
The only part I've seen was on the aerial part of Google Maps, they've made the turnoff at Sarita (La Parra Ave.) into a grade-separated exit ( http://goo.gl/maps/IlXba ), while, if you try the Street View ( http://goo.gl/maps/4KDDp ), it is only the previous version that shows.
Documents now up http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx(bottom quote from AASHTO Numbering Committee Spring '14 Meeting (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12521.msg302814#msg302814) thread)
Approved if not otherwise stated, details via the document ....
TX I-69W extension (Laredo) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed ....
I find it really interesting that TxDOT sought, and received, FHWA approval to depart from the "I-69" statutory designation in favor of an "I-69W" designation for the Laredo section (pages 3-5/10 of Texas I-69W pdf)
The I-69 route numbering scheme, whether one likes suffixes or not, is pretty much set in stone.Which now answers the question: Per Wikipedia, the official split (E and W branches) will occur in Victoria, and C splits from W in George West...
While "I-6" would make sense for the Victoria to Laredo segment of I-69W in terms of grid purity the numbering grid itself is all whacked out already with a few congressionally legislated route designations. There's also no rule saying we have to use up all the potential single and two digit route designations between 1 and 99 either. I think its better to use as few of those numbers as possible so they can be used many years or decades later as population centers and transportation corridors change.
This article (http://www.kgns.tv/home/headlines/New-sign-unveiled-in-North-Laredo-272625461.html) reports that the I-69W shield was unveiled today
The newly designated interstate section begins near the busy World Trade Bridge on the west side of Laredo and extends east to an interchange with Interstate 35. New Interstate 69W signs are going up on this section and on I-35 and other roadways approaching 69W. The Alliance for I-69 Texas was instrumental in working with Laredo community leaders to push for early designation of the new 69W section.
This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%206.26.14Laredo.html)That still leaves the question of what the route from George West to Victoria will be named. I'm in favor of that being I-69W.The article indicates that you will get your wish:QuoteThe 69W section will eventually run on US 59 from Laredo to Victoria.
The 69W section will eventually run on US 59 from Laredo to Victoria. In South Texas I69 is being created by updating US 59 (69 West), US 281 (69 Central) and US 77 (69 East).
One more question, Grzz......what's going to happen with TX 44 between Freer and Robstown? That was recently added into the "I-69" system as a possible freeway upgrade in order to provide direct access between Laredo and Corpus Christi. Is it still scheduled to be included in the mix (possibly as an "I-x69")??
This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.26.14Laredo69W.html) reports that, in addition to the large ceremonial I-69W sign, signage is currently being installed along the newly designated I-69W section, I-35, and other roadways:
I think I read that 59 was going to be rerouted as well.
The most recent action was a May 1, 2014 referral to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/all-actions). Mercifully, a specific numerical designation is currently not included in the text of the bill (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/text). I suspect that the bill will eventually be part of the next large multi-year highway reauthorization (which will hopefully occur in May, 2015; however, I'm not holding my breath .........). I think an I-x69 designation is a distinct possibility, with an I-6 designation as a darkhorse (which would in turn put a nail in the coffin for I-49 South to somehow be redesignated as I-6. :-P)
This shows the recommended alignment in Lufkin. The Diboll bypass and a section southeast of Lufkin is the only part on a new alignment. Based on my exposure to the area, the Diboll bypass is by far the most urgent need. A pdf is available at http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf)If I'm reading this correctly, does this mean an I-69/US 69 concurrency in Lufkin is now almost certain (assuming TxDOT doesn't renumber US 69)?
http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_lufkin.jpg (http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_lufkin.jpg)
this January 2013 map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) ... (pp. 7-8/122 of pdf) ....
the tiny, easternmost "fourth prong", SIU 32, is SH 550 from the Port of Brownsville to I-69E/US 77 ....
Another I-69 Corridor Section of Independent Utility ("SIU") nearing completion ......
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_fb1273f2-99e4-11e3-b98c-001a4bcf6878.html) reports that the SH 550 entrance to the Port of Brownsville recently opened and that the entire SH 550 project should be completed by the end of the year:QuoteThe remaining SH 550 connector could wrap up at the end of the year and would be 10 miles with four tolled, general purpose main lanes – two in each direction – and direct connectors at I-69.
“It’s my understanding that it would probably be toward the end of the year,” Campirano said of the final piece of the project. “And when that happens, it will be a really nice connection.”
The placement of massive steel girders as part of the SH 550 Direct Connector Project will entail shutting down northbound and southbound lanes of I-69 East (U.S. 77) beginning Sept. 16 and extending into October.
The affected stretch is between Rancho Viejo and the Brownsville Sports Park where SH 550 will soon link with I-69 at the old FM 511 intersection. Motorists will be forced to detour along the frontage road ....
In July, lanes of I-69 were closed for construction of the SH 550 “center bent” between the northbound and southbound lanes. The work commencing this month will involve the placement of steel girders over the interstate, Sepulveda said.
“That’s the last segment that’s needed,” he said. “Once we do that then all the columns will be in place.”
After it’s complete, probably in early December, the SH 550 toll way will connect I-69 to the Port of Brownsville.
How will the south to north increasing numbers get assigned with I-69 E/C/W taking up the southern portion? I assume each leg will be numbered S-N and then I-69 will start from 0 at some point after the separate legs merge.
This is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system:
I-69W in Laredo: Just east of the World Trade Bridge
I-69C in McAllen: Intersection of I-2/US 83
I-69E in Brownsville: Intersection of University Blvd/US 77, just north of the Veterans International Bridge
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77
So mainline I-69 will start at zero at the merger, and not carry forward one of the legs' numbering?
Not only that, but you pass Exit 1 twice. I'd carry forward the numbering from whichever leg ends up being longest to avoid this problem.
It's as analogous as you can get, since the two I-35 splits (DFW and Minneapolis-St. Paul) are the only other remaining interstate directional splits. But then I still wonder why I-69C is even needed at all, except to keep some RGV politician happy; I understand I-69E as RGV interstate access and I-69W as I-35 relief, but not I-69C...Not only that, but you pass Exit 1 twice. I'd carry forward the numbering from whichever leg ends up being longest to avoid this problem.
I agree. It seems like that would be somewhat similar to what was done in DFW where I-35 carries its numbering through the longer branch - I-35E - and I-35W carries its own numbering. Granted it's not exactly analogous but it seems the most comparable situation I can think of.
It's as analogous as you can get, since the two I-35 splits (DFW and Minneapolis-St. Paul) are the only other remaining interstate directional splits. But then I still wonder why I-69C is even needed at all, except to keep some RGV politician happy; I understand I-69E as RGV interstate access and I-69W as I-35 relief, but not I-69C...I-69C is for RGV access from San Antonio and west. I've tried but have been unable to find a way to build only one route into the RGV without significantly adding to the Houston-Brownsville or San Antonio-McAllen distance.
That, or prefix the E/C/W legs' mileposts with the corresponding tag, so the east end of I-2 would join at milepost E-26.9 (or Exit 27) of I-69E...So mainline I-69 will start at zero at the merger, and not carry forward one of the legs' numbering?
Following the exit numbers from the north, you will think that you are getting close to the end when all of a sudden whichever leg you take, you are still a long way from the end. Talk about a mind bender!
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.28.13.html) reports that the TTC made the I-69 designation official today:QuoteThe Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of an additional 28.4 miles of US 59 as part of Interstate 69.
The existing section of US 59 from the south side of Rosenberg in Fort Bend County north to Loop 610 in southwest Houston is now part of the Interstate Highway System and will soon be signed as both I-69 and US 59 .... There were five design issues identified and exceptions were approved by FHWA.
Now all we need is the approval for I-69 within the I-610 loop in Houston. Any word on when that might come down? :hmmm:
I'm just wondering why they wanted I-69, do they want signs stolen?
Originally planned to go to Memphis, but the project was combined with the US 59 development in TX, so HPCs 18 & 20 (respectively) will become I-69, maybe in our children's lifetime...I'm just wondering why they wanted I-69, do they want signs stolen?
Extending I-69 all the way down to Texas was the scheme that people in Southwest Indiana came up with to get their road from Indianapolis to Evansville, since the Federal government wasn't interested in funding an I-69 extension in just Indiana.
Nueces County - Designate a segment of the state highway system as I-69E, concurrent with US 77 from existing I-69E terminus in Robstown to south of FM 892 (MO) (Map)
The commission will consider the designation of a segment of the state highway system as I-69E, concurrent with US 77 from the existing I-69E terminus in Robstown to south of FM 892, a total distance of approximately 1.6 miles. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.
Hidalgo County - Designate a segment of the state highway system as I-69C, concurrent with US 281 from the junction of FM 490 to the existing I-69C terminus in Edinburg (MO) (Map)
The commission will consider the designation of a segment of the state highway system as I-69C, concurrent with US 281 from the junction of FM 490 to the existing I-69C terminus in Edinburg, a total distance of approximately 4.5 miles. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.
The November 20, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/agenda.pdf) indicates that the TTC will approve a 1.6 mile addition to I-69E and a 4.5 mile addition to I-69C (pp. 3-4/13 of pdf; pp. 3-4 of document) ....
Here's a map of the two additions from the Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/11a-presentation.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/zzGcZ0N.jpg)
Two new sections totaling 6.1 miles have been added to Interstate 69 in South Texas. The Texas Transportation Commission voted Nov. 20th to designate 1.6 miles of newly finished freeway near Robstown in Nueces County as I-69E/US 77. A 4.5 mile section of new freeway on the north side of Edinburg in Hidalgo County was designated at I-69C/US 281. This action means 192 miles of the I-69 System route in Texas have been added to the Interstate Highway System.
According to some notes I took after the results of the May 2014 AASHTO SCOH USRN meeting were published, the I-69C and I-69E extensions were to open Feb 2015 and Nov 2014 respectively. I'm unsure now what the source of my info was, as the USRN applications both (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=1179) say (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=1180) "Date facility available to traffic Existing facility currently open to traffic".
Is this (still?) the case? Or have opening dates changed?
How will the south to north increasing numbers get assigned with I-69 E/C/W taking up the southern portion? I assume each leg will be numbered S-N and then I-69 will start from 0 at some point after the separate legs merge.I recently received an email clarification from TxDOT:QuoteThis is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system:
I-69W in Laredo: Just east of the World Trade Bridge
I-69C in McAllen: Intersection of I-2/US 83
I-69E in Brownsville: Intersection of University Blvd/US 77, just north of the Veterans International Bridge
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77
four separate I-69 Corridor "mile zero"s in Texas:
four separate I-69 Corridor "mile zero"s in Texas::banghead:
I wouldn't be surprised if TX-44 was upgraded into a I-69 system route, but it would almost certainly be a 3-digit route, like I-469 or I-669. In the near term I would only expect the segment of TX-44 between I-69E in Robstown and TX 358 to be signed as a 3-digit I-x69 route. It could be conceivably given an odd 3-digit number if routed onto the TX 358 freeway down to its end at Padre Island.
It may be a long time before an Interstate class highway is built linking Robstown, Alice and Freer.
SH 550 (I-69 SIU 32 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg256570#msg256570))
This article (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/premium/article_5d8f6844-3906-11e4-981d-0017a43b2370.html) reports that SH 550 is on track to be completed in early December:QuoteAfter it’s complete, probably in early December, the SH 550 toll way will connect I-69 to the Port of Brownsville.
The SH 550 corridor is already in its final stage, as stated by the director of marketing and communications Regional Mobility Authority Transport Cameron County, Michelle Lopez. Lopez said the work is in its final stage, where it is estimated that the road line is operating for the month of December under the scheduled times ....
Upon completion of the work, will be the fastest route traffic I69E the Port of Brownsville, since it estimates a running time of 10 minutes, depending on the days and hours of traffic, instead of the 30 minutes it currently performed.
There is a public meeting on 29-July-2014 to collect public feedback on the two remaining alignment options in Nacogdoches, one following the existing west loop and one on a new alignment just west of the west loop. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/072914-display-adver.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/072914-display-adver.pdf)
New alignment option
http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_new_location_full.jpg (http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_new_location_full.jpg)
Option using the existing alignment
http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_upgrade_full.jpg (http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_upgrade_full.jpg)
In August 2013 the local guidance committee recommended the US 59 upgrade option, which eliminated nearly all new alignments for the corridor.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/081913_materials.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/081913_materials.pdf)
My preference was for a new alignment bypassing the entire region on either the west of east side, but the locals want to upgrade US 59.
This shows the route in Nacogdoches from the 2013 recommendation. Based on the new map, the southmost of the two options south of Nacogdoches is eliminated.
http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_nacogdoches.jpg (http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_nacogdoches.jpg)
The proposed Interstate 69 project took center stage at the Nacogdoches City Council meeting Tuesday night.
The council discussed a proposal to agree with TXDOT on the proposed route of the project. 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.
"I don't think people are going to be able to imagine the positive results because of I 69," said mayor Roger Van Horn.
The plans discussed at the meeting also included the construction of a connector ramp from 59 to the west loop.
The project's cost on Nacogdoches and the county will be large. it is estimated at $21 million, with $6 million of that being charged to the city. ....
City officials say the best way to form a new stream of income is to increase the road and bridges fee charged to residents. Right now, the fee is $10 per year. The proposal calls for an increase to $20 per year. The change would result in an added $500,000 per year. City Manager Jim Jeffers said the proposed rate would not go into effect until the project started and would only go until the $21 million was raised.
"It's going to have a term limit after the road is built but I don't want people to think it is going to be three years," Van Horn said.
The proposed rate change would not happen unless it passed a special election by the residents of Nacogdoches. Jeffers said the special election could not happen until the state legislature approves the plan for a special election.
"I'd say six months to a year [is what it will take]," Jeffers said. "I think it would be a full year before you actually see a vote, and that's if the legislature approves."
Jeffers told council members construction on the project could start as early as 2017 or 2018.
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.
TxDOT has scheduled a public meeting for a 4.87-mile section of I-69C in south Texas. This will be a new-location bypass of the town of Premont along current US 281 ...
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/121114.html (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/121114.html)
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg231246#msg231246) thread)Quote18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan ....
D.In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall ....
iii. include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181
I just received a FHWA email ...QuoteThis is a proposed Interstate 69 connector for the existing “Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor” that connects at US 181 on the east end and I-37 on the west end at Carbon Plant Road. I-37 then proceeds northwest and connects to US 77 (proposed I-69 E).This 2007 article (http://www.caller.com/news/2007/oct/17/fulton-corridor-will-open-now-land-can-be-port/) reports on the opening of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor ... Here is a map of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor from the article:
(http://i.imgur.com/HIyRdeS.jpg)
SH 550 (I-69 SIU 32 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg256570#msg256570))
Q: In HPC 18(d)(iii), what is essentially the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor in Corpus Christi and SH 550 in Brownsville are designated as part of the I-69 Corridor:
"A. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall ....
iii include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville."
My understanding is that SH 550 (for the most part built along FM 511) is I-69 Segment of Independent Utility 32; however, I do not believe that the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor has been designated as an I-69 Segment of Independent Utility. If this is indeed the case, then why is it not deemed a Segment of Independent Utility?
A: Your recent email dated December 7, 2014 regarding I-69 in Texas has been referred to the Texas Division Office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for a response.
Please let me start with a brief explanation of the Federal-aid highway program. Our working relationship with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is prescribed by Federal law (Title 23, United States Code-23 U.S.C. and 23 Code of Federal Regulations). Under the Federal-aid highway program, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is responsible for project planning, design, construction and maintenance. Our role is to work with the TxDOT to ensure those program actions comply with applicable Federal requirements and to provide technical advice and grant approvals at key stages of project development.
The question raised in your recent email related to a section of I-69 and Independent Utility. The Texas Department of Transportation conducted feasibility studies on both facilities after the identification in the 1995 legislation. For the Corpus Christi Northside (Joe Fulton International Trade) Corridor, it was determined not be feasible as a freeway or interstate quality facility due to significant environmental issues. The recommendation was for a two-lane highway with a center turn lane. Since it was not feasible as an interstate quality facility, it was not identified as an I-69 Segment of Independent Utility.
SH 550 (I-69 SIU 32 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg256570#msg256570)) receives a distinct interstate designation (I would prefer that it be an I-2 extension, but I am hearing strong, unconfirmed rumors that I-169 is the frontrunner)
This November 25 article (http://elperiodicousa.com/news/2014/nov/25/estiman-que-el-conducto-carretero-sh-550-operara-p/) reports that SH 550 is still on track to be completed in December
Pete Sepulveda Jr., Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority executive director, said work on the final phase of the $44 million 550 connector project started in March 2013 and is expected to be complete this month in terms of establishing direct connectivity between the interstate and the port.
The most recent step was the installation, nearly complete, of a “center bent” over I-69 East between Rancho Viejo and the Brownsville Sports Park.
It was part of the third and final phase of a $44 million project to connect I-69 with the Port of Brownsville via direct toll road along the old FM 511 route.
“The next step after that is to work with TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) to design the portion that connects 550 with I-69 East to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road,” Sepulveda said. “That will be designated as Interstate-169. It’ll be about three miles long.”
In all, two more segments of the project have to be finished before the 550 connector can be designated as interstate along its entire length, he said. That construction will start the first quarter of this month.
The purpose of the connector project is largely to create a faster, safer route for 18-wheelers between the interstate and the port, though it’s convenient for passenger vehicles as well, Sepulveda said.
Wonder how long it will be before an I-569 is announced somewhere in Texas?
I wonder where I-969 could wind up in Texas.SH 288 to Freeport.
QuoteWonder how long it will be before an I-569 is announced somewhere in Texas?
That developing freeway spur of TX-44 off of I-69E in Robstown going toward Corpus Christi looks like a very obvious I-569 candidate. Going one better, if TX-44 was turned into I-569 then TX-358 could conceivably get turned into I-769.
I wonder where I-969 could wind up in Texas.
Personally, I'd prefer I-69 to stick with US 59, the US 77 corridor south of Corpus Christi to be an I-37 extension, US 281 remain US 281 (yet upgraded), and the combination of SH 44 between Freer and Robstown, and US 77 east of CC to Victoria, to be an even I-x69. Plus, no need really to change any of the Houston freeways, IMO.That's not a bad idea, but I'd do something like this:
The more I look at the system - what exactly is the point of I-69W, specifically the route between Victoria and Freer? Is it just to save 20 minutes between Laredo and Houston?It'll probably save more than that if built, but then you'll end up right in Houston. All this nafter traffic might end up taking US 77 to SH 21 or something to bypass Houston.
The more I look at the system - what exactly is the point of I-69W, specifically the route between Victoria and Freer? Is it just to save 20 minutes between Laredo and Houston?It'll probably save more than that if built, but then you'll end up right in Houston. All this nafter traffic might end up taking US 77 to SH 21 or something to bypass Houston.
The only new alignment in the area is south of Lufkin for the Diboll bypass, which is by far the most urgently needed project.
TxDOT will have a January 22 Open House (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/012215-display-adver.pdf) for the Diboll Relief Route
When is this project slated to start construction?
Complete the Diboll Relief Route – The number one priority of Angelina County committee members is advancing the development of the Diboll Relief Route. TxDOT completed the environmental process and had approved schematic design plans in 1999 for this project, but because of the elapsed time an environmental re-evaluation will be required. TxDOT is proceeding with preparing a re-evaluation of the environmental assessment (environmental document) and with right-of-way map updates. The Lufkin District will be hosting an upcoming public meeting on January 22, 2015 to display the proposed alignment to the public, explain where TxDOT is in the project development process, answer questions, and gather local citizen input.
It should be noted that design and construction funding has not been identified for any of the projects above.
One more question, Grzz......what's going to happen with TX 44 between Freer and Robstown? That was recently added into the "I-69" system as a possible freeway upgrade in order to provide direct access between Laredo and Corpus Christi. Is it still scheduled to be included in the mix (possibly as an "I-x69")??The most recent action was a May 1, 2014 referral to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/all-actions). Mercifully, a specific numerical designation is currently not included in the text of the bill (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/text). I suspect that the bill will eventually be part of the next large multi-year highway reauthorization (which will hopefully occur in May, 2015; however, I'm not holding my breath .........). ... Here is the current Corridor 18 statutory language (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18), which will help to interpret the language in the 44-to-69 bill.
Yesterday, January 13, 2015, Congressman Blake Farenthold (TX-27) re-introduced legislation that would expand Interstate 69 to include Texas State Highway 44. This bill would designate State Highway 44 as a future segment of I-69, known as the “44 to 69 Act.” Under the Congressman’s legislation, both the city of Corpus Christi and Corpus Christi International Airport would be included in the I-69 interstate highway system.
Congressman Farenthold offered the following statement on his introduction of the “44 to 69 Act” :
“The ’44 to 69 Act’ better connects Corpus Christi’s airport and port to the rest of the country. As Texas’ economy continues to grow, so does the need for surface transportation and modern infrastructure to move freight and people. Extending and completing I-69 now will better position Texas’ ports to enjoy the economic benefits coming with the expansion of the Panama Canal. I am proud to author this piece of legislation.”
One more question, Grzz......what's going to happen with TX 44 between Freer and Robstown? That was recently added into the "I-69" system as a possible freeway upgrade in order to provide direct access between Laredo and Corpus Christi. Is it still scheduled to be included in the mix (possibly as an "I-x69")??The most recent action was a May 1, 2014 referral to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/all-actions). Mercifully, a specific numerical designation is currently not included in the text of the bill (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/text). I suspect that the bill will eventually be part of the next large multi-year highway reauthorization (which will hopefully occur in May, 2015; however, I'm not holding my breath .........). ... Here is the current Corridor 18 statutory language (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18), which will help to interpret the language in the 44-to-69 bill.
Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release (http://farentholdforms.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398450) that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this year:QuoteYesterday, January 13, 2015, Congressman Blake Farenthold (TX-27) re-introduced legislation that would expand Interstate 69 to include Texas State Highway 44. This bill would designate State Highway 44 as a future segment of I-69, known as the “44 to 69 Act.” Under the Congressman’s legislation, both the city of Corpus Christi and Corpus Christi International Airport would be included in the I-69 interstate highway system.
Congressman Farenthold offered the following statement on his introduction of the “44 to 69 Act” :
“The ’44 to 69 Act’ better connects Corpus Christi’s airport and port to the rest of the country. As Texas’ economy continues to grow, so does the need for surface transportation and modern infrastructure to move freight and people. Extending and completing I-69 now will better position Texas’ ports to enjoy the economic benefits coming with the expansion of the Panama Canal. I am proud to author this piece of legislation.”
How about making the Laredo-Freer-Robstown-Corpus Christi-Victoria segments of US 59/TX 44/US 77 into I-69, and the Freer-George West-Victoria segment an I-269? Then, US 77 south of Corpus to Brownsville can become an I-37 extension, and US 281 can stay as it is. Problem solved, without any suffixes.
But, since the suffixes are now official, probably convert TX 44 into an even I-x69 or a western I-4.
Neither route NEEDS to be built. The only reason for the overpasses in Kenedy County is FHWA anality.
Neither route NEEDS to be built. The only reason for the overpasses in Kenedy County is FHWA anality.
And full control of access standards for Interstate-grade highways. Personally I'd prefer FHWA "anality" to 65 mph crashes.
Neither route NEEDS to be built. The only reason for the overpasses in Kenedy County is FHWA anality.
And full control of access standards for Interstate-grade highways. Personally I'd prefer FHWA "anality" to 65 mph crashes.
Do you have stats on how many crashes have happened on this road?
Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release (http://farentholdforms.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398450) that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this year
No...but the very definition of Interstate is full control of access (I-70 Breezwood, I-180 in WY, and a few at-grade farm roads intersecting I-10, I-20, and I-40 in TX excepted). If you are going to say that US 77 should be part of I-69 yet retain at-grades, then you should do the same for all other less-traveled Interstate highways.US 77 in Kenedy County is a few at-grade farm roads (really driveways)...
Neither route NEEDS to be built. The only reason for the overpasses in Kenedy County is FHWA anality.
And full control of access standards for Interstate-grade highways. Personally I'd prefer FHWA "anality" to 65 mph crashes.
Do you have stats on how many crashes have happened on this road?
No...but the very definition of Interstate is full control of access (I-70 Breezwood, I-180 in WY, and a few at-grade farm roads intersecting I-10, I-20, and I-40 in TX excepted). If you are going to say that US 77 should be part of I-69 yet retain at-grades, then you should do the same for all other less-traveled Interstate highways.
Neither route NEEDS to be built. The only reason for the overpasses in Kenedy County is FHWA anality.
And full control of access standards for Interstate-grade highways. Personally I'd prefer FHWA "anality" to 65 mph crashes.
Do you have stats on how many crashes have happened on this road?
No...but the very definition of Interstate is full control of access (I-70 Breezwood, I-180 in WY, and a few at-grade farm roads intersecting I-10, I-20, and I-40 in TX excepted). If you are going to say that US 77 should be part of I-69 yet retain at-grades, then you should do the same for all other less-traveled Interstate highways.
I don't think US 77 should be a part of the I-69 clusterfuck. There is very little along the highway other than a couple of small towns that should be bypassed. A 4 lane divided highway is good enough. Converting it into a freeway (basically building new freeway lanes in the median of the current expressway) is a colossal waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.
they could pull an I-10 in west Texas and keep the at-grades. Why were those allowed to be grandfathered there but not here?
US 77 in Kenedy County is a few at-grade farm roads (really driveways)...
Do you have stats on how many crashes have happened on this road?
this I-69 Funding Program as of March 27, 2014 map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf)(above quote from Interstate 369 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10684.msg2030138#msg2030138) thread)
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_62f4b928-92f3-11e4-967c-cff11f6ba46b.html) reports that SH 550's direct connection with I-69E should be completed in January, 2015; after that, work will begin on a new section to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0261865,-97.5160353,3735m/data=!3m1!1e3), the completion of which will be necessary for an I-169 designation
This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.26.14Laredo69W.html) reports that, in addition to the large ceremonial I-69W sign, signage is currently being installed along the newly designated I-69W section, I-35, and other roadways
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an updated I-69 System Funding Program as of September 1, 2014 map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.TxDOT%20Funding%20Program%20Map.%20Nov2014.pdf)
I would imagine that US 77 will also be cut back to Victoria as well when I-69E gets completed.
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 is totally concurrent with I-3, US 77, and umm I-69E.
Agreed. But at least cut US83 back to the I-2/69E interchange, eh?That is what I said agreeing with Oscar. That interchange is located at Harlingen, TX.
I-69E stops short of the border, with US 77/83 continuing through one major at-grade intersection (University Blvd.) and a minor one before reaching the border.Really no different from I-35 in Laredo. US 81 was cut back and the last bit became I-35 Biz. I-69E Biz wouldn't even have to be signed.
I would imagine that US 77 will also be cut back to Victoria as well when I-69E gets completed.
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 US9383 is totally concurrent with I-3, US 77, and umm I-69E.
It'd be best to put it back on US 83 Biz. But ASSHTOLE says no.
What happened to US 81 may I ask? If I remember correctly it went all the way to Laredo at one time.I would imagine that US 77 will also be cut back to Victoria as well when I-69E gets completed.
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 US9383 is totally concurrent with I-3, US 77, and umm I-69E.
That's fucking stupid. Of course they're not going to do that.
What happened to US 81 may I ask? If I remember correctly it went all the way to Laredo at one time.I would imagine that US 77 will also be cut back to Victoria as well when I-69E gets completed.
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 US9383 is totally concurrent with I-3, US 77, and umm I-69E.
That's fucking stupid. Of course they're not going to do that.
81 didn't end at the beginning of a dead end freeway. It ends at I-35W north of Fort Worth. I don't know any examples of an interstate turning into a US route without a duplex of some sort.I-345/US 75.
81 didn't end at the beginning of a dead end freeway. It ends at I-35W north of Fort Worth. I don't know any examples of an interstate turning into a US route without a duplex of some sort.I-345/US 75.
US 75 used to exit onto city streets at the north end of I-345. It now ends there.
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
When was I-345 finished? When was US 75 trunked?Kurumi says it was finished in 1971. It was probably signed as US 75 north, since it was essentially a long ramp.
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.
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.
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 “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.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0075.htmProof? I disagree; I interpret the info differently:QuoteFrom 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.
STATE HIGHWAY SPUR NO. 559This only tells us where SS 559's mileage came from, that it used to be part of US 75.
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.
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).
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).
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 US9383 is totally concurrent with I-2, US 77, and umm I-69E.
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 US9383 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.
Or the coast. 69/96/287 annoys me. :P
TxDOT will have a January 22 Open House (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/012215-display-adver.pdf) 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.
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.
Among the Materials are a Schematic of the relief route (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/diboll-map-schematic.pdf) 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.
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.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update9.5.13%20Lufkin%20Nacog.html) has posted ... a priority list from each county:QuoteThe 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.
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.
A Windows executable? Tacky.
Use WinRAR to open it if you want to be cautious.
(edit) I-2 has more than a mile missing between sheets 31 and 32 (files 39 and 40).
The Alliance for I-69 Texas recently posted a Status of National I-69 System map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.National_Status_Map.July2014.pdf) 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:QuoteThe “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 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
On I-2, Showers Road is Exit 130 ....
On I-69C, the I-2 interchange is Exits 1A-B
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
I'm too lazy to check upthread ATM. Any knowledge on when these will be posted?
[poo] exit numbers now added to:I-69E Exit 11:
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
I-69E Exit 11:The plans show FM 803 shields on the replacement signs. Perhaps they'll be greened out.
OSM suggests there a relocation of FM 803 planned or under construction, but nothing is visible yet in Bing or Google aerial imagery. FM 803's designation file lists still describes the southern terminus as Olmito. BGSes shown in GMSV just say "Ramcho Viejo". Looks like listing FM 803 for this exit is premature, and FM 803 should be removed from the description. Yes?
Edit: I have looked at the Wikipedia articles with the updated exit numbers. This is not something that needs attention urgently, but at some point it would be a good idea to update the citations to make explicit the county and CCSJ (Hidalgo 6273-50-001) for this project, since the link provided will go dead in about five months and anyone who wants to go back to the source will have to request the plans from TxDOT. Plans stay on the Plans Online FTP server for six months maximum (not something I agree with or particularly like but, again, part of the way TxDOT has been doing things since long before 2002).By that time they'll be signed, and nobody really seems to care about referencing the exit numbers. I only added the reference because otherwise people might think I made them up.
It is interesting to compare I-2's theoretical future western terminus in Laredo (which results in the Exit 130 designation for Showers Road, etc.) to I-69C's lack of a theoretical future southern terminus at the border (which results in the Exits 1A-B designations at the I-2 interchange). Such a southern extension for I-69C must truly not even be on TxDOT's long-range radar.Perhaps they expect that to be a spur of I-2, since a continuation straight down US 281 would phuck up Pharr. FM 396 looks like it's already planned as a freeway to the Anzalduas Bridge.
A Windows executable? Tacky.
Curious if it's been posted already, but any idea what the highest exit number on mainline 69 will be? In the 500s?
Thanks, Grzrd. For some reason, I thought there were more miles at play in TX, but I guess having 69 essentially end in Victoria truncates a lot of those.
If 69 ran to the Mexican border, that might make it one of the longer interstates in TX (though still lacking well behind I-10 I imagine)
Per the AASHTOs, when you are in a suffixed interstate situation, and they are labled as E and W, the E branch gets the mainline milage.[citation needed]
mile zero for mainline I-69 will be in Victoria (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2007814#msg2007814)
The zero milepost will not be in Victoria.
Q:
It is my understanding that mileage for east-west interstates begins at the western terminus in the state. Regarding Interstate 2, I cannot imagine it going all of the way to New Mexico.
Does TxDOT intend to keep the current US 83 mileage markers, or do you intend to install mileage markers based on the mileage on Interstate 2? If Interstate 2, where would be the location of "mile zero"?
A:
Yes, interstate mileage markers for east and west interstates begin with 0 at the western end and build eastward. For I-2, there is the possibility of carrying it along US 83 up to Laredo, but very long term. Therefore, the “0” mile marker for I-2 begins at the intersection of I-35 and US 83 in Laredo. The mile marker for where I-2 begins on the western end west of Mission is Mile Marker 131. The actual mile marker may not be present. As resources are made available, these will be installed.
Recently, you were kind enough to inform me that the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo will be "Mile Zero" for Interstate 2. Similarly, where will "Mile Zero" be located for I-69: Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville, or Victoria?
Yes, mile zero will be in all four of those cities because of I-69 plus the three additional legs. This is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system:
I-69W in Laredo: Just east of the World Trade Bridge
I-69C in McAllen: Intersection of I-2/US 83
I-69E in Brownsville: Intersection of University Blvd/US 77, just north of the Veterans International Bridge
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77
There is a mile marker for mile 514 on the trenched section of the Southwest Freeway in Houston, but that's probably a state reference number, given that none of the potential mile zeroes are 514 miles away.That's how Texas does mile markers: north to south, with the start defined based on lat/long. For US 59, there are actually a few exit numbers posted in Shepherd, Livingston, and Lufkin that use this mileage.
mile zero for mainline I-69 will be in Victoria (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2007814#msg2007814)The zero milepost will not be in Victoria.
To help put TxDOT's I-69 email answer to me in context, here is a Q & A I had with TxDOT re I-2's "mile zero" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg316300#msg316300):QuoteQ:
It is my understanding that mileage for east-west interstates begins at the western terminus in the state. Regarding Interstate 2, I cannot imagine it going all of the way to New Mexico.
Does TxDOT intend to keep the current US 83 mileage markers, or do you intend to install mileage markers based on the mileage on Interstate 2? If Interstate 2, where would be the location of "mile zero"?
A:
Yes, interstate mileage markers for east and west interstates begin with 0 at the western end and build eastward. For I-2, there is the possibility of carrying it along US 83 up to Laredo, but very long term. Therefore, the “0” mile marker for I-2 begins at the intersection of I-35 and US 83 in Laredo. The mile marker for where I-2 begins on the western end west of Mission is Mile Marker 131. The actual mile marker may not be present. As resources are made available, these will be installed.
I then later asked the same individual about "mile zero" for I-69:QuoteRecently, you were kind enough to inform me that the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo will be "Mile Zero" for Interstate 2. Similarly, where will "Mile Zero" be located for I-69: Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville, or Victoria?
Here is the complete TxDOT answer:QuoteYes, mile zero will be in all four of those cities because of I-69 plus the three additional legs. This is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system:
I-69W in Laredo: Just east of the World Trade Bridge
I-69C in McAllen: Intersection of I-2/US 83
I-69E in Brownsville: Intersection of University Blvd/US 77, just north of the Veterans International Bridge
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77
There is always the possibility that the TxDOT rep misunderstood my question in terms of what I meant by "mile zero". Maybe FHWA will approve I-69's "inside I-610" segment in the near future and TxDOT will then install some mileage markers in Houston to provide a final answer. We can only hope. :sombrero:
But is it a different situation since the E and W don't reconnect to a mainline ala DFW or Minneapolis/St Paul? 69 doesn't reconnect on the south ends of those legsI had presumed (before checking the maps) that in each case (DFW, MSP) the larger city (in population) would get the mainline mile exits: but Minneapolis (on I-35W, separate #) is larger than St. Paul (I-35E, continued #) (roughly 400K-294K). But since, as stated by Grzrd, that I-69's (non-suffixed leg) zero milepost WILL BE IN VICTORIA, that led me to the idea of (previously posted) of prefixed mileposts for the legs (not without precedent: the section legs that branched off of the NYS Thruway mainline had similar designations: N - Niagara, NE - New England, B - Berkshire)...
With all the population growth taking place in the far South end of Texas it's pretty obvious TX-DOT really needs to start thinking about the long term possibility of building a South loop relief highway for I-2. Border towns like Grajeno, Hidalgo, Progreso and others along US-281 are probably going to grow.
There is already a couple or so limited access interchanges along TX-241 in Hidalgo and US-281 farther East.
I thought the I-35Es carried the mainline mileage because each is longer than its W counterpart.MN's 35W longer than 35E by about 2 miles.
This article (behind paywall) (http://www.etypeservices.com/SWF/LocalUser/Fortbend1//Magazine43785/Full/index.aspx?id=43785#/1/zoomed) reports on an I-69 project from SH 99 to Spur 10, scheduled to begin in about four months. It will extend I-69 from "north of Spur 529" to Spur 10 (Hartledge Road) (http://goo.gl/maps/3lSTt) and upgrade the section from SH 99 to "north of Spur 529"
TxDOT proposes to improve an approximately 10.5-mile-long, four-lane section of US 59 from County Road (CR) 227 (Tom Taylor Road) to Spur 10 (Patton Road/State Highway (SH) 36 Bypass). The entire facility would be upgraded to interstate highway standards, and an additional main lane would be added in each direction. The facility would have 12-foot wide main lanes and frontage lanes, with 12-foot wide shoulders on the main lanes and 6-foot wide inside and 6- to 10-foot wide outside shoulders on the frontage lanes. Crossover intersections would be eliminated at Darst Road, Grunwald Road and Daily Road. Existing two-way frontage roads would be converted to one-way operation, and frontage roads would be extended where access is permitted. Grade separations within the project limits have already been constructed at Farm-to-Market (FM) 2919/Lum Road, FM 360, Isleib Road, and Spur 10. The proposed project would provide a continuous roadway between intersections, transitioning back to a four-lane facility at the east side of the San Bernard River Bridge.
This article (behind paywall) (http://www.etypeservices.com/SWF/LocalUser/Fortbend1//Magazine43785/Full/index.aspx?id=43785#/1/zoomed) reports on an I-69 project from SH 99 to Spur 10, scheduled to begin in about four months. It will extend I-69 from "north of Spur 529" to Spur 10 (Hartledge Road) (http://goo.gl/maps/3lSTt) and upgrade the section from SH 99 to "north of Spur 529"
TxDOT has issued a Notice of Public Hearing (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-notice.pdf) for a 10.5 mile US 59 to I-69 upgrade from Spur 10 to CR 227:QuoteTxDOT proposes to improve an approximately 10.5-mile-long, four-lane section of US 59 from County Road (CR) 227 (Tom Taylor Road) to Spur 10 (Patton Road/State Highway (SH) 36 Bypass). The entire facility would be upgraded to interstate highway standards, and an additional main lane would be added in each direction. The facility would have 12-foot wide main lanes and frontage lanes, with 12-foot wide shoulders on the main lanes and 6-foot wide inside and 6- to 10-foot wide outside shoulders on the frontage lanes. Crossover intersections would be eliminated at Darst Road, Grunwald Road and Daily Road. Existing two-way frontage roads would be converted to one-way operation, and frontage roads would be extended where access is permitted. Grade separations within the project limits have already been constructed at Farm-to-Market (FM) 2919/Lum Road, FM 360, Isleib Road, and Spur 10. The proposed project would provide a continuous roadway between intersections, transitioning back to a four-lane facility at the east side of the San Bernard River Bridge.
Here is a snip of the Project Location Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-project.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/sOxU5LO.png)
this Victoria Advocate editorial (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2013/oct/22/vp_oilbust_editorial_102313_223042/)QuoteAs previous reports have shown, Victoria has a need for more high-paying, skilled labor jobs. The city is focusing on bringing in more companies, and some future developments will help in our hometown's efforts. The proposal for I-69, which would run down U.S. Highway 59, around Loop 463 and then follow U.S. Highway 77, would attract even more companies because of the proximity to the interstate.
Wouldn't that put the split at the current south end of US 59 Biz? It does make more sense to have the split at the south end of US 77 Biz and eschew Loop 463 altogether, as http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/i69%20Progress%20Report%205.14.13.pdf shows. Maybe the entire loop is known locally as Loop 463?
I suppose they could route I-69C/W/mainline around the north/west side of Victoria and I-69E around the south/east side, although the US 77/Loop 463 combo is rather seriously substandard by Interstate rules, seeming to conform with TxDOT's "urban expressway" standard (also used on much of Loop 20 in Laredo) with not much of a median and some at-grade crossings rather than the "urban freeway" standard. The south/east US 59 roadway (except the 77 concurrency) OTOH seems up to TxDOT rural freeway standards.
I recently received an email clarification from TxDOT:QuoteThis is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system ....
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77
Upon completion of this project, scheduled for 2018, the Zac Lentz Parkway (US 77/Loop 463) will be a continuous four-lane divided freeway between FM 236 west of Victoria to just north of US 59 Business (Houston Highway) on the city’s east side.
TxDOT is proposing adding additional lanes to US 77 between US 87 and FM 1685. The proposed project includes:
Constructing another bridge over the Guadalupe River
Constructing six additional bridges over low-lying flood-prone areas
Adding inside shoulders to existing lanes
Widening outside shoulders on existing lanes
The new bridges and road in between the bridges includes two 12-foot lanes, four-foot inside shoulders and 10-foot outside shoulders. The proposed project will enhance safety and improve mobility by reducing bottlenecks and congestion caused from the road narrowing to two lanes.[/b]
The environmental review, consultation and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated Dec. 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT.
This article (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2014/jun/12/interestate_frontage_mc_061314_241872/?business) reports that TxDOT will not allow two-way frontage roads as a temporary solution for the local businesses:QuoteTexas Department of Transportation put the brakes on a proposed change to the future Interstate 69 corridor in Victoria.
Area business owners were rooting for TxDOT to change the flow of traffic on frontage roads, which are currently under construction, to two-way. Without two-way traffic or an overpass, customers could end up traveling an almost eight-mile loop to access some businesses along U.S. Highway 59.
However, TxDOT officials point to the state roadway design manual: any frontage road constructed as part of the state highway system will be designed and constructed for one-way traffic ....
Based on that Goog map, Grzz, I'd upgrade the entire loop containing US 77/Loop 463/US 59 to full Interstate freeway standards, make the northern portion of the loop (77 north/463) I-69W, and the US 59 bypass portion I-69E.
I can already see one issue right off the bat, though: the connection on the west side between US 59 and US 77 is a folded diamond interchange due to the paralleling UP railroad line next to US 59. You would need a directional interchange if you plan on converting 59 west of there to I-standards, or even a new alignment. That would also go if you wanted to shift I-69W south along current US 59 down to where 59 and 77 meet in order to make that the separation point for I-69/I-69W/I-69E (NE2's and apparently TXDOT's desired solution). And, what would you then designate the northern portion (77 North bypass/463)...I-x69??
Proposition 1 is estimated to add $1.7 billion to the state highway fund in 2015, a portion of which would be spent in the Crossroads.
Members of Victoria Metropolitan Planning Organization are already building a priority list in hopes that voters pass the issue.
Business owners along the future Interstate 69 corridor said they should be at the top for an overpass, but several projects brought up by fatal accidents and safety concerns could trump them.
Victoria City Councilman Tom Halepaska, who is also the chairman of the Metropolitan Planning Organization's policy advisory committee, said the organization has tried to work with those business owners to come up with a solution to access their businesses.
"The chances of them getting that overpass soon are not good, but they're not terrible either," Halepaska said. "If they're determined enough, they can make it happen. My opinion is I don't think so. But never underestimate someone who is really committed."
Along with the Hanselman Road overpass, transportation planners are also considering a dozen other projects, including three brought on by fatal wrecks: an overpass at U.S. Highway 87 and Farm-to-Market Road 477, an overpass at state Highway 185 and Farm-to-Market Road 1432, and a four-lane divided highway at U.S. 77 and the Guadalupe River bridges ....
A year into construction, the one-way frontage road project, which brings U.S. Highway 59 up to interstate standards, is more than halfway complete.
"The bad thing is while we keep waiting, the road moves ever closer to being completed," Kyrish said. "The sooner the road is completed, the sooner we have to deal with the realities of lost revenue."
Initially, the project included an overpass, but when funding came in short, the overpass was nixed.
The 3.4-mile construction project is estimated to cost $15.75 million, funded as part of the $2.9 billion in Proposition 14 bonds issued in 2008 ....
TxDOT will probably lose interest once I-69C connects to I-37, there's a continuous I-69/I-69E, and the Laredo-to-Corpus corridor is upgraded as I-6 or whatever. At most I'd hope for a decent Beeville bypass on "I-69W."
This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%206.26.14Laredo.html) .... discusses the long-range plan for upgrading former Loop 20/US 59/Future I-69W:QuoteThe TxDOT Laredo District has developed a plan for upgrading Loop 20/US 59 to interstate standard from I-35 to the connection with the rural section of US 59. Phase 1 will included completion of the interchange at I-35 and development of expressway main lanes east to International Blvd., a section which includes the recently completed overpass bridges at McPherson Road. Phase 2 will include main lanes and interchanges at Shiloh Road, Del Mar Blvd, University Blvd., Jacaman Blvd. and Airport Drive. None of these projects are currently funded.
City Councilmembers vote to move forward with several projects that aim to alleviate traffic times for Laredoans.
TxDot will begin construction of the Loop 20 / Clark overpass starting this August. The project will take 30 months to complete.
Also, Loop 20 flyovers at Highway I-35 and the overpass at International Blvd. have been funded.
This means you will be able to go from World Trade Bridge to Shiloh without stopping, and vice-versa.
in the combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf) .... (page 46/165 of pdf; page 40 of document):QuoteUS 59/SH 44 Relief Route at Freer — An interchange with US 59 and SH 44 and a relief route for Freer was recommended by the committee members to be incorporated into future planning. The members noted that limited right-of way along existing US 59 through Freer required consideration of a relief route around the community.
If I-69W were to go through Freer along the US 59 alignment, there'd basically be little of Freer left.
The logical alignment is to run south of Freer, which would leave plenty of room for a Y for US 59/I-69W north to George West and SH 44/I-x69 east to Corpus.
Usually people are opposed to having Interstates run through their town. I would think the residents of such a small town like Freer would oppose it, but apparently the city council loves the idea.Most of the business, such as they are, are along US 59, so running I-69W along there would make sense... if they weren't all going to be plowed under by building I-69W.
Probably at University or 0.1 mi north where I-69E actually begins. Otherwise 6th Street couldn't be exit 1C.
2015-02-24T15:51:05 NE2 (talk | contribs | block) . . (15,440 bytes) (-201) . . (no source for it beginning at the Rio Grande)
Funny how that works, innit?Quote2015-02-24T15:51:05 NE2 (talk | contribs | block) . . (15,440 bytes) (-201) . . (no source for it beginning at the Rio Grande)
TxDOT has issued a Notice of Public Hearing (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-notice.pdf) for a 10.5 mile US 59 to I-69 upgrade from Spur 10 to CR 227 ....
Here is a snip of the Project Location Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-project.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/sOxU5LO.png)
The Houston-Galveston Area Council is making stops in various communities to share information on road projects that will begin this year as a result of the adoption of Proposition 1 in November.
Officials with the H-GAC hosted an open house at the Rosenberg Civic Center recently to share information on three key mobility projects that will impact portions of Fort Bend County.
Those projects include a two-mile stretch of U.S. 90A between the Grand Parkway and Texas 6; a four-mile segment of FM 2234 between FM 521 and the Fort Bend Parkway, and Interstate 69 between Spur 10 and Darst Road.
Alan Clark, H-GAC director of transportation and planning, said many of the projects have been on the regional transportation wish list for many years, and many of them were also a long way from being considered ....
The Interstate 69 project is among those considered high-impact, and comes with an estimated price tag of $93 million.
According to the project details, the plans call for widening I-69 from four to six lanes between Spur 10 and Darst Road as well as adding auxiliary lanes and two-lane frontage roads along that same 7.5-mile segment.
The improvements would upgrade I-69 to full interstate standards, and improve safety and mobility, Clark said.
"This was in our regional plan for 2035, so we are speeding this up 20 years," Clark said ....
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an updated I-69 System Funding Program as of September 1, 2014 map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.TxDOT%20Funding%20Program%20Map.%20Nov2014.pdf)The above-linked September 1, 2014 map shows a great deal of ongoing work on SL 20/Future I-69W in Laredo
The Draft Victoria 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (http://www.victoriatx.org/home/showdocument?id=5686) .... No US 59/ Future I-69W projects are included in the Victoria MPO's 2040 plan.
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_62f4b928-92f3-11e4-967c-cff11f6ba46b.html) reports that SH 550's direct connection with I-69E should be completed in January, 2015; after that, work will begin on a new section to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0261865,-97.5160353,3735m/data=!3m1!1e3), the completion of which will be necessary for an I-169 designation
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_62f4b928-92f3-11e4-967c-cff11f6ba46b.html) reports that SH 550's direct connection with I-69E should be completed in January, 2015; after that, work will begin on a new section to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0261865,-97.5160353,3735m/data=!3m1!1e3), the completion of which will be necessary for an I-169 designation
This TV video (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=1173019#.VPhZh3zF-So) has footage of the finishing touches on construction for SH 550's direct connection to I-69E, reports that weather issues have slowed down the construction, and also reports that late March is the latest estimated completion date for the I-69E direct connection.
Consistent with the anticipated I-169 designation for SH 550 (as well as its designation as I-69 SIU 32), the Alliance for I-69 Texas has included SH 550 as part of the I-69 System in its September 1, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program Map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.TxDOT%20Funding%20Program%20Map.%20Nov2014.pdf) (SH 550 had not been included in the March 27, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf)):
So, with a possible I-169 designation, does that mean we can still keep up the hope that one day I-2 can extend to South Padre Island
The second access will consist of three major components; the mainland roadway, the Laguna Madre crossing bridge, and the island roadway. The route under consideration includes a four-lane road crossing across Laguna Madre with about 8 miles of tolled lanes. The total length of the second access will be about 17.6 miles. At the moment, the final environmental clearance is estimated to be approved by Fall of 2015 by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Upon approval of the environmental clearance, construction can be expected to commence in 2017 or 2018..
You're thinking too small. South Padre-Merida-Cancun-Sandino-Havana-Key West-Miami.
How is the wording strange? It runs from the north leg of I-610 to the west leg of I-610.
TxDOT has issued a Notice of Public Hearing (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-notice.pdf) for a 10.5 mile US 59 to I-69 upgrade from Spur 10 to CR 227 ....
Here is a snip of the Project Location Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-project.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/sOxU5LO.png)
Remarkably, this article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/fortbend/news/article/Three-Fort-Bend-roads-could-receive-state-6099176.php) reports that the Spur 10 to Darst Road section of this project could begin (I assume this means actual construction) this year:QuoteThe Houston-Galveston Area Council is making stops in various communities to share information on road projects that will begin this year as a result of the adoption of Proposition 1 in November.
Officials with the H-GAC hosted an open house at the Rosenberg Civic Center recently to share information on three key mobility projects that will impact portions of Fort Bend County.
Those projects include a two-mile stretch of U.S. 90A between the Grand Parkway and Texas 6; a four-mile segment of FM 2234 between FM 521 and the Fort Bend Parkway, and Interstate 69 between Spur 10 and Darst Road.
Alan Clark, H-GAC director of transportation and planning, said many of the projects have been on the regional transportation wish list for many years, and many of them were also a long way from being considered ....
The Interstate 69 project is among those considered high-impact, and comes with an estimated price tag of $93 million.
According to the project details, the plans call for widening I-69 from four to six lanes between Spur 10 and Darst Road as well as adding auxiliary lanes and two-lane frontage roads along that same 7.5-mile segment.
The improvements would upgrade I-69 to full interstate standards, and improve safety and mobility, Clark said.
"This was in our regional plan for 2035, so we are speeding this up 20 years," Clark said ....
Amazing what a little bit of Prop 1 money can do.
Officials with the Texas Department of Transportation hosted a public hearing at Beasley Elementary School to discuss the planned expansion of a 10-mile stretch between County Road 227 in Wharton County and Spur 10 in Fort Bend County.
Nearly 100 residents filled seats inside the school gym on March 5, hoping to learn what effect the project could have on their community.
"The project will upgrade the current facility to freeway standards," said Patrick Gant, TxDOT project manager for the I-69 project.
The plan, which will begin later this year, calls for upgrading the roadway to interstate standards by adding an additional main lane in both directions widening the main lanes to 12 feet and adding 12-foot shoulders; crossover intersections at Darst Road, Grunwald Road and Daily Road will be eliminated, and the existing two-way feeder lanes would be converted to one-way feeder lanes.
Other proposed improvements include adding a 14-foot curbed lane at FM 2919 and FM 360 to provide a safer crossing area for bicyclists and pedestrians.
The project will require at least 2.69 acres of additional right-of-way, with no displacement of any business or resident.
"Once completed I-69 will include six main lanes - three lanes in each direction, a grassy median and concrete barriers," Gant said.
The total cost of the construction is projected at $146 million, and is expected to be completed by the fall of 2018.
From the 3-26-15 agenda:
Harris County - Designate a segment of the state highway system as I-69, concurrent with US 59 from the existing I-69 termini at I-610 North and I-610 West in the city of Houston (MO) (Presentation)
This minute order designates a segment of the state highway system as I-69, concurrent with US 59 from the existing I-69 termini at I-610 North and I-610 West in the city of Houston, a distance of approximately 11.9 miles. This action will complete the designation of I-69 in Houston and points north to the Montgomery/Liberty county line and south to Rosenberg for a continuous 75 miles. The Houston-Galveston Area Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.
The wording is a little strange, and I hope the minute order wording is better, but the intention is clear.
Do we have an idea of what SIUs are actually under construction or scheduled in Texas?
I-69 should finally be designated in the inner loop Thursday, 3/26
http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2015/03/i-69-coming-through-houston-though-few-likely-to-notice/ (http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2015/03/i-69-coming-through-houston-though-few-likely-to-notice/)
I am a little confused by the process that has been used to get I-69 signed through Texas. I thought interstate signage was to be approved by AASHTO and FHWA before it can be signed? It seems like the TTC can vote to sign it, and then the signs appear, without any federal input.
This minute order designates a segment of the state highway system as I-69, concurrent with US 59 from the existing I-69 termini at I-610 North and I-610 West in the city of Houston, a distance of approximately 11.9 miles. This action will complete the designation of I-69 in Houston and points north to the Montgomery/Liberty county line and south to Rosenberg for a continuous 75 miles. The Houston-Galveston Area Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have approved the designation of this segment.
I am a little confused by the process that has been used to get I-69 signed through Texas. I thought interstate signage was to be approved by AASHTO and FHWA before it can be signed? It seems like the TTC can vote to sign it, and then the signs appear, without any federal input.AASHTO and FHWA both approved this last year, I believe. The article in my post from yesterday mentions this.
Does anyone know whether they are planning to keep at-grade intersections for ranch access on I-69E in rural south Texas, as was done on I-10 in west Texas? I could not find any earlier discussion on this, so I apologize if I missed it.
Does anyone know whether they are planning to keep at-grade intersections for ranch access on I-69E in rural south Texas, as was done on I-10 in west Texas? I could not find any earlier discussion on this, so I apologize if I missed it.I believe the plan is to build very short stretches of frontage road to serve those ranch driveways.
An interesting element of the schematic plans included in the EA is the way ranch access is to be accomplished in the 42-mile passage through Kenedy County where there are no public roads crossing US 77. This highway passes through sections of the King Ranch, the Kenedy Ranch and the Armstrong Ranch, all of which span the highway and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad. Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction. Below is a simplified drawing of a ranch gate access point. This arrangement will avoid the need to build long stretches of dual frontage roads that have little transportation value.
It still seems like a waste of money, considering that at-grade intersections have been previously allowed in situations like this.
I understand having the exit there, but why the short length of 2-lane sandwiched in between the 1-lane sections?
Maybe the 2 lane section is in case there is more than one at grade turn/entrance. Through traffic could stay left and turning traffic would slow down in the right lane.
Regarding at grade turns on I-10 in West Texas, where are any of those? There's a lot of frontage road running on one or both sides of I-10 for stretches where entrances are needed into ranches and/or oil & gas drilling property.
One Interstate highway at grade turn (a driveway actually) I pass from time to time: a residence right off I-44 in Oklahoma just before the Red River bridge. That has been there well before the highway was designated as an Interstate.
The direct access to the freeway is on I-40, not I-10, e.g. http://goo.gl/maps/cOMM6.It's on both: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=31.189364,-105.419719&spn=0.013088,0.024784&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=31.189167,-105.418911&panoid=3XtT9AaAERLm4E4E4iKr6g&cbp=12,292.44,,0,5.61
There are also some direct connection driveways on I-40 in North Carolina through the Pigeon River Gorge. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.697237,-83.045247,3a,75y,4.03h,79.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scfOcWmkFu3uMmi8ANspkqA!2e0The Texas ones are unique in that traffic is allowed to cross the median. Otherwise it's just a RIRO like on I-80 at the Delaware Water Gap.
The roads mostly serve forest roads and such.
From the 3-26-15 agenda:
Harris County - Designate a segment of the state highway system as I-69, concurrent with US 59 from the existing I-69 termini at I-610 North and I-610 West in the city of Houston
I-69 should finally be designated in the inner loop Thursday, 3/26
http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2015/03/i-69-coming-through-houston-though-few-likely-to-notice/ (http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2015/03/i-69-coming-through-houston-though-few-likely-to-notice/)
the approved Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0326/5.pdf)
For those interested in Houston’s newest interstate, despite its existence having practically no effect on travel times, here’s some more info on the recent dedication of U.S. 59 inside Loop 610 as Interstate 69.
First, none of the U.S. 59 signs are going away. I-69 are being added, gradually, over the next couple months, said Karen Othon, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Transportation in Houston. Crews are making the signs, and will put them where the current U.S. 59 signs are now.
Othon said the segment officials recently designated is more complicated than others in the area because there are so many signs and references to the highway. Officials estimate the new signs along the 11-mile segment will cost about $100,000.
Larger signs, such as the overhead directional signs common above downtown lanes, won’t be replaced, Othon said. In most cases, an I-69 emblem will just be added.
Q: Now that there is a roughly 75 mile stretch of I-69 in the greater Houston area, does TxDOT have firm plans to install I-69 mileage markers and I-69 exit numbers on that stretch in the near future?
A: The “zero” point for I-69 originating out of Victoria has not been established yet and probably will not be until US 59 has been brought up to interstate standards from the US 77/US 59 interchange in Victoria to Fort Bend County line. There may be alignment variations that would change the mileage. Therefore, the plans are to hold off until that section is designated.
Also, since I have a theory that I-2 will ultimately be routed along the Cuatro Vientos Road section of Loop 20 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg2046211#msg2046211), and ultimately have its "zero" point at the I-69W interchange instead of the I-35/ US 83 intersection, I find TxDOT's decision regarding the I-69 mileage markers to be somewhat ironic.
Leads to another question - is it specifically prohibited in TX to have exit numbering on US or state highways? Seems odd that they're missing on 288, for example.There are some on US 59, US 82, Loop 375, and several other routes. (Some older ones on US 75 too.)
Leads to another question - is it specifically prohibited in TX to have exit numbering on US or state highways? Seems odd that they're missing on 288, for example.There are some on US 59, US 82, Loop 375, and several other routes. (Some older ones on US 75 too.)
Leads to another question - is it specifically prohibited in TX to have exit numbering on US or state highways? Seems odd that they're missing on 288, for example.There are some on US 59, US 82, Loop 375, and several other routes. (Some older ones on US 75 too.)
It looks like TxDOT has corrected the map ... :
(http://i.imgur.com/gdc3HBL.jpg)
There is not an I-69W shield in Laredo, though.
Let the madness begin!It looks like TxDOT has corrected the map ... :
(http://i.imgur.com/gdc3HBL.jpg)
There is not an I-69W shield in Laredo, though.
Laredo now has an I-69W shield on the updated Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/25BB5lb.png)
All three suffixes are now on the map.
Will the three suffixed routes meet at a single point?
Looks like 69E might be the first to branch off, and I'm curious if that will be the terminus of mainline 69?
This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.26.14Laredo69W.html) reports that, in addition to the large ceremonial I-69W sign, signage is currently being installed along the newly designated I-69W section, I-35, and other roadways:Not addressed by the Alliance article (maybe it doesn't care about lowly sub-Interstate routes), but anything on US 59 signs going up on the new I-69W segment and the northeastern part of Loop 20, and the bypassed part of US 59 being re-signed as Business US 59?
Laredo now has an I-69W shield on the updated Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/25BB5lb.png)
Maybe the 2 lane section is in case there is more than one at grade turn/entrance. Through traffic could stay left and turning traffic would slow down in the right lane.
Regarding at grade turns on I-10 in West Texas, where are any of those? There's a lot of frontage road running on one or both sides of I-10 for stretches where entrances are needed into ranches and/or oil & gas drilling property.
One Interstate highway at grade turn (a driveway actually) I pass from time to time: a residence right off I-44 in Oklahoma just before the Red River bridge. That has been there well before the highway was designated as an Interstate.
since it looks like 69W will hit the north side of Laredo I'm guessing there will also have to be 69W-SDon't push your luck!
Would anyone hazard a guess on when Interstates 69C and 69W will connect with the rest of Texas's Interstate system?
TxDOT completed its US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) in October (it should be posted on the TxDOT website in the relatively near future). Basically, the goal is to complete I-69C from Edinburg to Alice by 2037, in part to allow for immediate I-69C signage for completed segments (pp. 11-12/15 of pdf; pp. 8-9 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/td5K8Pf.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/0Bv58vb.jpg)
The Alice connection to the TX 44 corridor from the south appears to be the top priority; it will be interesting to see how soon a Planning and Feasibility study will be conducted for TX 44 ....
TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/us281-us59-district.pdf).
Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release (http://farentholdforms.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398450) that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this yearIf anyone cares to follow the progress of the bill, it is also known as H.R.301 – 114th Congress (2015-2016) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/301/text).
4. Upgrade a portion of SH 44 to Interstate standards in Nueces and Jim Wells Counties. This approximately $600 million project would upgrade a 29-mile portion of SH 44 to Interstate design standards from US 281 to US 77/I-69E, including lane widths and limited access. These improvements will enhance regional connectivity, relieve congestion, improve regional goods movement and improve safety.
That said, I-69C is connected to I-2, which is connected to I-69E, which in turn is expected to have a completed connection with I-37 well before July 1, 2037. This scenario seems more likely to be completed before the "I-69C creeping northward" scenario.
this link to an Alliance for I-69 Texas discussion of the frontage roads (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html):QuoteAn interesting element of the schematic plans included in the EA is the way ranch access is to be accomplished in the 42-mile passage through Kenedy County where there are no public roads crossing US 77. This highway passes through sections of the King Ranch, the Kenedy Ranch and the Armstrong Ranch, all of which span the highway and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad. Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction.
Aren't most/all of the I-69E projects to have it connect to I-37 on the docket already? A lot of that mileage is the King Ranch in Kenedy county. I'd probably expect that to be done by 2020, anyway.
8. Upgrade a portion of US 77 in Willacy, Kennedy [sic], Nueces and Kleberg Counties to Interstate standards. This approximately $600 million project would upgrade a 92-mile portion of SH [sic] 77 from I-69 north of Raymondville to I-69 in Robstown to Interstate design standards including lane widths and limited access. These improvements will enhance regional connectivity, relieve congestion, improve regional goods movement and improve safety.
TxDOT also has a US 77 Upgrade (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/) page with pdfs of the Draft Environmental Assessment.
I find it fascinating how they use off ramps to handle the many ranch "gate crossings" along the route, as well as the strategic cattle crossings they would have. In Louisiana, they probably would have used frontage roads with intermediate interchanges and grade-seperated "crossunders" for that purpose.the frontage road design is something they use in west Texas a lot. what about the crossunders - do they have those out there? I've never noticed.
also, in west Texas, they have the occasional at-grade crossing!
they could pull an I-10 in west Texas and keep the at-grades. Why were those allowed to be grandfathered there but not here?
More than 20 representatives of Texas communities and two members of the Texas Transportation Commission are on Capitol Hill this week urging federal officials to continue and accelerate the ongoing development of Interstate 69.
The Texas delegation is leading a larger group of representatives from states on the I-69 national route including Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana and Michigan ....
Participants provided a state-by-state progress update to the I-69 Congressional Caucus which includes Members of Congress from all of the eight states along the I-69 corridor. During their visit the delegation is also meeting with individual members of Congress and with U.S. Department of Transportation officials ....
The I-69 delegation presented a set of priorities they would like to be considered in a new highway bill. These include protecting gains made in the last bill — called MAP-21 — such as environmental streamlining provisions and increased flexibility for states in how they allocate funding.
They are also seeking expansion of innovative financing options that are now part of the law. Priorities for Texas include providing greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area and the designation of State Highway 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi as a future I-69 system connector.
They are also seeking expansion of innovative financing options that are now part of the law. Priorities for Texas include providing greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area and the designation of State Highway 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi as a future I-69 system connector.
Jeff R shared this article with me this morning touting the possibility of an branch of I-69 serving Corpus Christi.
I-69 supporters urge passage of federal highway bill (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--supporters-urge-passage-of-federal-highway-bill/article_7ae8c02f-fe9c-5bd5-9fbb-1f7bf321994d.html)QuoteThey are also seeking expansion of innovative financing options that are now part of the law. Priorities for Texas include providing greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area and the designation of State Highway 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi as a future I-69 system connector.
Jeff R shared this article with me this morning touting the possibility of an branch of I-69 serving Corpus Christi.The SH 44 addition to the I-69 system is to provide a more direct connection between Laredo and Corpus, which would be bypassed originally by I-69W.
I-69 supporters urge passage of federal highway bill (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--supporters-urge-passage-of-federal-highway-bill/article_7ae8c02f-fe9c-5bd5-9fbb-1f7bf321994d.html)
Do we have an idea of what SIUs are actually under construction or scheduled in Texas?
I'd like to update the Wikipedia article on I-69, which says there's only 2 SIUs under construction nationally now.
This map summarizing the status of Texas I-69 projects (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.TxDOT%20Funding%20Program%20Map.%20Nov2014.pdf) is current as of September 1, 2014.
This post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2059301#msg2059301) provides a link to a press release from Congressman Blake Farenthold regarding how Corpus Christi, its port, and airport would benefit from passage of his bill designating SH 44 as Future I-69, a link to the text of the bill, and a link to an April, 2015 report touting the importance of upgrading SH 44 to an interstate between I-69C and I-69E.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has updated its Resource Center page (http://i69texasalliance.com/resource.html) to include links to an I-69 System Funding Program as of April 1, 2015 map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/3.I-69%20Texas%20Funding%20Map%20with%20Table%204.1.15.pdf)
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.htmlthe SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:QuoteThe third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year, according to David Garcia, deputy county administrator and assistant coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority.
Well, well, well...another I-x69 coming soon; I'll bet no one is surprised by that.http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.htmlthe SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:QuoteThe third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year, according to David Garcia, deputy county administrator and assistant coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority.
This TV video (http://www.foxrio2.com/upcoming-projects-from-ccrma/) provides a SH 550 update from a Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority spokesperson, who states that the third phase, weather permitting, should be completed in two weeks. She also refers to SH 550 as "the future I-169".
Since I-169 will not be co-designated with a U.S. highway, I'm wondering whether TxDOT will even submit an application to AASHTO for approval of the designation. I assume that they would only need FHWA approval for the numerical designation. Something to look for in the next round of AASHTO designations ........
Shouldn't it be I-169E?
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_62f4b928-92f3-11e4-967c-cff11f6ba46b.html) reports that SH 550's direct connection with I-69E should be completed in January, 2015; after that, work will begin on a new section to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0261865,-97.5160353,3735m/data=!3m1!1e3), the completion of which will be necessary for an I-169 designation:Quote“The next step after that is to work with TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) to design the portion that connects 550 with I-69 East to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road,” Sepulveda said. “That will be designated as Interstate-169. It’ll be about three miles long.”
In all, two more segments of the project have to be finished before the 550 connector can be designated as interstate along its entire length, he said. That construction will start the first quarter of this month.
I don't know why I-169 couldn't have been an extension of I-2
I-2 is supposed to be an "I-69 connector" so why can't it include another freeway that's part of the I-69 system?
That really isn't a good argument. I-2 is supposed to be an "I-69 connector" so why can't it include another freeway that's part of the I-69 system? If it must be a 3DI, it should have been I-169E because it has nothing to do with the rest of the spurs.
So? It's a stupid pattern. I-635 should be renumbered or extended to I-35W, because it suggests that it connects with both branches.
Why is it a stupid pattern?Or just make each reassurance shield be overhead signs with all text :-D
Good luck fitting 4 digits in an Interstate shield, by the way. 169E might barely fit, but 635E wouldn't. H201 does it but only by horizontally stretching the sign and using Series B. Poor aesthetics of distorted graphics aside, it's much easier to read the wider fonts.
AASHTO has approved the I-169 designation:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne,%20WY%20Report/SM%202015%20USRN%20SCOH%20REPORT.pdf
(http://i.imgur.com/aXqPOFt.png)
I guess TxDOT wants to install shields on the first 1.5 miles as soon as possible.
To encourage people to try out the newly opened S.H. 550 “direct connector” between I-69E and S.H. 48, the county is waiving tolls until July 4.
The new road opened for traffic on June 4, later than originally planned due to construction delays caused mostly by rain ....
The 550 connector makes it possible to travel the approximately seven miles from I-69E to the port without any stops.
Two segments remain to be completed before the connector is interstate-quality along the entire stretch ...
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?
Sorry I do not get the chance to read everything, but I just wondered if anyone heard anything that is not published. Road departments can do strange things as we all know.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?
Pretty sure we already talked about this a few pages ago. The answer for now is: 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.
Does anyone know when we might see exit numbers on the completed sections of the 4 Interstate 69's?Maybe when TXDOT has a better understanding of which ROW is going to be used. With all the bypasses that need to happen, there can currently be a rough estimate of the mileage I-69 will have in Texas, but that's about it.
this Feb. 16, 2015 TV video (http://www.kgns.tv/home/headlines/Councilmembers-attempt-to-move-forward-with-Loop-20-Clark-overpass-292083231.html) reports on the Loop 20 Clark Boulevard overpass project; although the Clark Boulevard overpass is not part of the I-69W section of Loop 20 (I guess it could one day be part of an I-x69 or an I-x02) ...
A groundbreaking for the $34 million overpass at Loop 20 and Clark Boulevard was held Monday morning ....
Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin III, who attended the event, said, “TxDOT is committed to community by improving mobility across the state, and South Texas is no different.”
The new overpass project is a product of 80 percent federal and 20 percent state dollars totaling $34 million. The projects consists of construction of an overpass interchange at Spur 400 to separate Loop 20 traffic from the Spur 400 intersection traffic.
Project completion is estimated for early spring 2018 ....
Two other Loop 20 enhancement projects to be constructed in conjunction with the Spur 400 overpass project; those being the widening of the Loop 20 bridge over the Kansas City Southern railroad tracks with estimated construction costs of $9.1 million, and the adding of frontage roads over the KCS bridge and the adjoining overpass project at an estimated cost of $15.4 million.
A total estimated investment is approximately $57 million in TxDOT-spearheaded projects, all to keep Laredo moving.
Work is set to begin soon on the I-69 corridor, which will connect Laredo to the valley as well as other parts of the nation.
We spoke with Jeff Austin the third with the Texas Transportation Commission, who explains why this is important for commerce.
"Part of our commercial priorities is to help let Interstate 69 and all spurs become part of a national freight corridor. This also connects not just the inland ports, and crossings from Laredo, but out to sea ports. You have Brownsville, Corpus, Freeport, all into Houston and close to the Beaumont, Port Arthur area. So this is an important commerce corridor", said Austin.
Ultimately the I-69 corridor will be able to take people from Laredo all the way up to Michigan.
In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.I-69WS
:rofl:In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.I-69WS
Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release (http://farentholdforms.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398450) that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this yearIf anyone cares to follow the progress of the bill, it is also known as H.R.301 – 114th Congress (2015-2016) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/301/text).
I skimmed the text of the [Drive Act] bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1647/text)(bottom quote from I-69 in MS (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4783.msg2075627#msg2075627) thread)
SEC. 11204. High priority corridors on the National Highway System.
Section 1105 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2031) is amended–
(1) in subsection (c) (105 Stat. 2032; 112 Stat. 190; 119 Stat. 1213)– ....
(B) in paragraph (18)(D)–
(i) in clause (ii), by striking “and” at the end;
(ii) in clause (iii), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and” ; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
“(iv) include Texas State Highway 44 from United States Route 59 at Freer, Texas, to Texas State Highway 358.”
:rofl:In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.I-69WS
Cheap compared to Texas' roadway projects. Texas is rich.:rofl:In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.I-69WS
In regard to the I-69W part of Loop 20, this June 15, 2015 Environmental Status of the US 59/ Loop 20/ I-69W Project overview (http://www.cityoflaredo.com/planning/MPO/files/Presentations/EnvStatus_Lp20_I69_WCCL_RMA.pdf) indicates that the next Loop 20/ I-69W project scheduled to be let will be in December, 2015 for the mainlanes overpass at International Blvd. (p. 2/9 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/mEQ9Vhi.png)
at the "southern" end of I-69W, the Draft 2015-40 Laredo MTP (http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/city-planning/departments/mpo/files/mtp/2015-40MTPDraft.pdf) schedules an additional $392 million for the conversion of Loop 20 to I-69W by 2020 (page 295/360 of pdf; p. 12-15 of document)
Webb County Judge Tano Tijerina ....
the county is rethinking the golf course.
Within the next four years, TxDot will stepping in to take land, to expand loop 20.
"And so that's going to take about 30 acres away from the golf course", said Tijerina.
That's why they're looking into future plans. Maybe a nine-hole "executive course" and driving range.
The first step is the restaurant.
I never realized this, but I-369 is going to intersect with I-20.And beyond to I-30 (which it already intersects) and I-49.
Because of this, the interstate should have an even number instead of the odd 3 to start it off with as it is not just a spur that connects with nothing.Nope. You give the I-376 example below, but here's some more: IL I-155, IL I-355, MI I-196, NY I-390 (post hoc), MA-CT I-395, CA I-505.
Its not even one to connect to one other interstate either, but to two interstates.Three other 2-dis (four in total) and possibly some 3dis.
wastes a perfectly good one digit number further south along the Rio Grande.It's not a waste if there's not demand for use elsewhere!
So in essence why should this be any different?Indeed. I guess I-369 could be I-47, but I-69 is a national corridor, and Texarkana is trying to be 'crossroads of America', which it wouldn't be able to push for if it had an intrastate as its third interstate, rather than a spur of a trans-national route.
I-49 is indirect via TX 151.No, the plans abandon current I-369 and have I-369 end on I-49 north of Texarkana, via a western loop.
A lot of new strip malls and sprawl will have to go as when I was there in 2012, there was no ROW north of the I-369 and I-30 interchange.I-49 is indirect via TX 151.No, the plans abandon current I-369 and have I-369 end on I-49 north of Texarkana, via a western loop.
an Alliance for I-69 Texas discussion of the frontage roads (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html):QuoteBrief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction.
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a July 29 TxDOT Interstate Corridor Planning - Prioritization of Corridor Studies presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0729/2b.pdf) ... (p.5/13 of pdf) .... The anticipated congestion, combined with possible rebuilding of much of the system that is reaching the end of its expected service life (p. 8/13 of pdf), suggests that Texas will have to spend a lot of money over the next 25 years.(bottom quote from Texas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10567.msg2082666#msg2082666) thread)
(as well as the associated overpasses)?Left exit. Left entrance. Michigan Lefts on a grand (Interstate) scale. BOOM. Done.
an Alliance for I-69 Texas discussion of the frontage roads (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html):QuoteBrief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction.The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a July 29 TxDOT Interstate Corridor Planning - Prioritization of Corridor Studies presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0729/2b.pdf) ... (p.5/13 of pdf) .... The anticipated congestion, combined with possible rebuilding of much of the system that is reaching the end of its expected service life (p. 8/13 of pdf), suggests that Texas will have to spend a lot of money over the next 25 years.(bottom quote from Texas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10567.msg2082666#msg2082666) thread)
I recently asked a question in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15847.msg2083138#msg2083138) about how great of an expected increase in traffic flow would warrant improving the west Texas at-grade intersections when TxDOT begins rebuilding some of those sections of the interstates that are approaching the end of their respective expected life spans. Similarly, TxDOT has to consider the expected increased traffic flows through the section of US 77/ Future I-69E containing the at-grade intersections in Kenedy County. The below snips appears to show that I-69E in Kenedy County is expected to have an increase to regular constrained flow by 2040 from the 2013 periodic constrained flow experienced by US 77 (an I-69E shield blocks the view in part of Kenedy County):
(http://i.imgur.com/cCRTgeU.jpg)2013:(http://i.imgur.com/CwY5llF.jpg)2040:(http://i.imgur.com/MBa0wX2.jpg)
Assuming the expectation is for regular constrained flow by 2040, would TxDOT find it absolutely necessary (or FHWA mandate that it is absolutely necessary) to build the short frontage roads at the at-grade intersections (as well as the associated overpasses)?
Here's a map of Laredo's pie-in-the-sky thinking (http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/Maps/GIS_MAPS/maps/Thoroughfare.pdf), for what it's worth. If this plan was adopted, I-69W could follow the proposed expressway east and either keep going east until it intersects with US 59, or dog-leg along the outer loop a few miles.(above quote from US 59B and I-69W in Laredo (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15527.msg2064060#msg2064060) thread)
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 ...
The final Laredo 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (http://www.cityoflaredo.com/planning/mpo/files/mtp/2015-2040/MTP_2015-2040.pdf) has been posted
In this January 23, 2015 press release (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-center/local-news/lufkin/004-2015.html), TxDOT announces that it is moving forward with Phase 2 of the US 59/ Loop 224S interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nacogdoches,+TX/@31.5753402,-94.6720876,3541m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8637895fa4158787:0x88db1616dcfba3ee) (Phase 1 began on January 5, 2015)
Since Phase I is under construction, this meeting will focus on Phase II improvements which include:
Constructing new US 59 northbound and southbound main lanes that would directly connect to State Loop 224 just south of SH 7
Constructing overpasses at Spradley Street, existing US 59 and Old Lufkin Road
Constructing frontage roads for State Loop 224 between SH 7 and BU 59
Anyone think we'll see a completed Interstate 69 between Brownsville/Pharr/Laredo, Texas and Port Huron, Michigan by, say, 2050?If Arkansas and Tennessee get to work on it then maybe.
Anyone think we'll see a completed Interstate 69 between Brownsville/Pharr/Laredo, Texas and Port Huron, Michigan by, say, 2050?Indiana is almost done with their section (fully completed sometime in 2016), although I-69's Ohio River bridge is seeking for contractors (my prediction is planned completion by 2017 or 2018).
Kentucky, I'm unsure about.
Tennessee, I-269 has a planned completion date of 2017, and plus, I-69 already has 21 miles done. So, I'm thinking sometime around 2017 or 2018.
Mississippi's portion is far from completion, but it mostly overlaps routes - US 61 has to be upgraded to be a part of I-69 between Southaven and Rosedale. I-69 finds US 278, overlaps it, and uses the Dean Bridge into Arkansas. The Dean Bridge and US 61 have to be upgraded so maybe 2018 or 2019.
Arkansas is broke and is mostly focusing on I-49, so sometime around 2023 or 2024. Arkansas' portion of I-69 consists of 185 miles, and the Monticello Bypass is the only part of I-69 under construction, hence why the date.
Louisiana's portion means breaking away from US 79 and US 84 northeast of Carthage, heading towards Shreveport. However, I-69 dodges Sherveport and goes around it to the east. As of 2006 (news article dated February 2006 is the source - forgot the name), Louisiana is planning to build it, but is focusing more on I-49. So, 2022 or 2023.
AFAIK, TXDOT says 285 miles out of 650 miles of I-69 are done. With the construction around Houston and Laredo, I-69 could be done sometime around 2016 or 2017.
Hello there guys this is just an update on how I69 is nicely coming together in the lower Rio Grande Valley
It seems that the only thing missing on I-69C and I-2 are exit numbering. Mile markers are up, roadside shields are up, and the BGS are up all through I-69E as well.
BGS near I-2/I69-C interchange
(http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/erik_ram2005/84a9defb-bb36-4935-b73a-0ac6ddf05f28_zpsy3ivknig.jpg)
Hello there guys this is just an update on how I69 is nicely coming together in the lower Rio Grande Valley
It seems that the only thing missing on I-69C and I-2 are exit numbering. Mile markers are up, roadside shields are up, and the BGS are up all through I-69E as well.
BGS near I-2/I-69C interchange
(http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/erik_ram2005/84a9defb-bb36-4935-b73a-0ac6ddf05f28_zpsy3ivknig.jpg)
I've never seen a BGS cantilevered like that. Can't see why they chose to do it w/o a 3rd post.
I think I see a spot on the ground about where a third post would go. Either way, I've never seen TxDOT deliberately have signs put up where there aren't adequate numbers of posts, nor adequate spacing of those posts, for each sign.
Don't forget Houston. I-69 will turn it from a cow town into an oil town.(above quote from Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg163916#msg163916) thread)
The 11.9 mile section of US 59 inside of Loop 610 in Houston has been added to the Interstate Highway System as Interstate 69. All of the route through Harris County is now part of I-69 and a continuous section of 75 miles of I-69 is now in place through Montgomery County, Harris County and extending to a point at the south edge of Rosenberg in Fort bend County. The Texas Transportation Commission voted March 26 to complete the designation process for the section through central Houston.
Source:
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/)
This Thursday, August 20th, will be the sign unveiling for Interstate 69 inside the 610s.(above quote from Houston Interstate 69 signing ceremony (inside the I-610s) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16258.msg2087355#msg2087355) thread)
A segment of US 59 in the Houston area was officially designated a part of the I-69 system during a sign unveiling held today. The move brings the entire corridor inside the Houston area under the interstate designation ....
“A total of 63 miles of US 59 in the greater Houston area is now Interstate 69 and today we are marking the milestone of approximately 12 more miles inside Loop 610 being added to the system,” said Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin. “We thank our transportation partners, including the Alliance for I-69 Texas, for their efforts to get us to this point.” ....
The Texas portion of I-69 represents nearly half of the overall length of the national Interstate as it extends from northeast and east Texas through Houston to the Texas-Mexico border. The inclusion of the I-69 segment inside IH 610 brings the total of I-69 system miles in Texas to nearly 200.
An August 23 Houston Chronicle editorial (http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-How-might-I-69-coexist-with-the-Grand-3811256.php) advocates that the Grand Parkway should be finished in a manner that meshes well with the purposes of I-69:QuoteTo quote an aphorism, measure twice, cut once. And by cut, we mean construct a massive highway along the outer edges of greater Houston.
As U.S. 59 becomes part of Interstate 69 .... a grass-roots committee appointed by the Texas Transportation Commission has mentioned a bypass on the city's east side.
This bypass would divert I-69 traffic away from Houston's city center while also improving necessary transportation access to our booming port areas.
But it seems like we've already got something along those lines underway with the Grand Parkway. While there's still a lot of construction remaining on the planned 180-mile third loop around Houston, some parkway segments have been completed, including one in Baytown.
Because plans are not yet set in pavement, we still have some flexibility to construct the Grand Parkway in a manner that can best serve some of the needs of I-69, particularly the influx of long-haul trucking and port commerce that is a near-inevitable part of Houston's future.
And even if we cannot build the parkway as close to the ports as would be optimal, additional investment in service roads could help this third loop both bypass and provide port access.
This article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/Growth-presents-transportation-challenges-for-the-5439353.php) reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port: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) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route... 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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)QuoteHarris County Judge Ed Emmett addressed the importance of Interstate 69.
"It's pretty much agreed now that we need to have a bypass around the Houston area," he said. "It needs to go south and east instead of west, so it can support the port."
This August 19 article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/spring/news/article/Grand-Parkway-segments-on-track-for-fall-6452917.php) includes photographs of the I-45/ Grand Parkway interchange construction and reports that Segments F1, F2, and G should be open to traffic in the fourth quarter of 2015, possibly as soon as October:(bottom quote from Houston: Builder selected for Grand Parkway F-G (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7768.msg2088218#msg2088218) thread)Quote... the three segments are on track to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2015 ....
The Grand Parkway was a significant driver in luring Exxon Mobil to relocate their headquarters from Fairfax, Va., and move 20,000 employees and their families to a new headquarters off Interstate 45 and the Grand Parkway.
The new headquarters opened in March ....
(bottom quote from Houston: Builder selected for Grand Parkway F-G (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7768.msg2088218#msg2088218) thread)
Although Judge Emmett stated that the I-x69 bypass needs to go south and east instead of west, the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway should be open to traffic by the end of this year. I wonder if ExxonMobil, having recently moved its corporate headquarters and associated 20,000 employees to the Houston metro, has "suggested" to TxDOT and political leaders that it might be nice to have red-white-and-blue I-x69 shields on the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway. Doing so would involve minimal cost and would still allow the same I-x69 designation on the south and east I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway to serve the ports if and when it is completed (as well as allow an I-x69 spur designation for the route from the Grand Parkway to Cleveland suggested by the above map).
Does anyone know whether they are planning to keep at-grade intersections for ranch access on I-69E in rural south Texas, as was done on I-10 in west Texas? I could not find any earlier discussion on this, so I apologize if I missed it.
It may not be too late for them to keep the at-grades in Kenedy County. This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--supporters-urge-passage-of-federal-highway-bill/article_7ae8c02f-fe9c-5bd5-9fbb-1f7bf321994d.html) reports on a recent trip to Washington by Texas representatives urging federal officials to continue and accelerate the ongoing development of Interstate 69. Included in their wish list is "greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area":QuotePriorities for Texas include providing greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area and the designation of State Highway 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi as a future I-69 system connector.
Congressman Blake Farenthold, a member of the U.S. House Transportation Committee ....
pointed to three measures related to I-69 that he and others have been working to see are addressed at the federal level. These include adding State Highway 44 west of Corpus Christi to the I-69 corridor, dealing with access to I-69 from seldom used ranch gates in South Texas and dealing with maintaining certain existing weight limits.
(above quote from I-49 in Arkansas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2088385#msg2088385) thread)Hopefully our congress and house members will pass a long term federal highway bill this fall or it will be a slow go on I 49 for both states.:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Remember: the opposite of PROgress is CONgress.
Congressman Farenthold provided an update on the pending federal transportation authorization bill and funding for the Highway Trust Fund. He noted that members of the House Transportation Committee are generally in agreement on what should be in the bill but that the problem is finding the $120 to $180 billion needed to pay for the shortfall in the amount generated from motor fuels taxes. He expects a couple of more short term extensions of highway funding before a proposed six-year bill is passed.
He noted that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has said the Congress will find the funding for highways as part of a major tax reform effort. "That means it is going to be a longer wait than a lot of us want," said Farenthold who represents a district stretching from Corpus Christi to Bay City and west to Bastrop.
Anything goes...but I could see an I-869 there!
(bottom quote from Houston: Builder selected for Grand Parkway F-G (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7768.msg2088218#msg2088218) thread)
Although Judge Emmett stated that the I-x69 bypass needs to go south and east instead of west, the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway should be open to traffic by the end of this year. I wonder if ExxonMobil, having recently moved its corporate headquarters and associated 20,000 employees to the Houston metro, has "suggested" to TxDOT and political leaders that it might be nice to have red-white-and-blue I-x69 shields on the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway. Doing so would involve minimal cost and would still allow the same I-x69 designation on the south and east I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway to serve the ports if and when it is completed (as well as allow an I-x69 spur designation for the route from the Grand Parkway to Cleveland suggested by the above map).
Hmmmmm....an I-469/TX 99 concurrence?? With TX99 moved to the feeders and I-469 as the mainline?
If that could happen, could you also make the Sam Houston Tollway I-445/BW8?
TxDOT will hold a Sept. 3 Open House about plans for Phase II (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/090315.html) in the Nacogdoches area
Nacogdoches residents and businesses gathered at the County Expo Center to catch up with big changes going on in their community. The US 59/State Loop 224 South Interchange, part of the Interstate 69 project is well underway ....
"We are wanting to bring to the public the changes that we have made since the original schematic that we had approved since 2011," said Jennifer Adams, the I-69 Project Manager ....
Once Phase I is complete, the US 59 and Loop 224 intersection will have sidewalks, raised medians, and a widened roadway. ....
Phase II of the project, which would involve construction of new US 59 lanes, overpasses at Spradley Street, and frontage roads on State Loop 224, would ease the bumper to bumper according to TxDOT.
"Phase II, which is what we are actually here to talk about, will be the direct connector. That should alleviate some of the congestion at business 59," Adams said.
Phase two has not yet been funded, but it is still in the works ....
"We are working on getting the reevaluation approved and the new updates to the schematic approved," Adams said.
Until then, completion of phase one is approaching.
The Phase I section of the "Future I-69" Project should be done by Spring 2017.
TxDOT has shared this video looking like the bypass for Nacogdoches. This is only a segment of that route but its from the south side of the city. Looking at it you might ask the question. "Why did TXDOT bring it to the right and then back to the left?" Well the map can answer the question. If they did go to the right then they would hit some more homes. People would be forced out of there house. To the Right, according to the video and comparing it to the map, the road would hit a home selling business then the swing back to the left would hit some hotels.
Also, can anyone confirm signage for:
I-69C extension to FM490?
I-69E (Robstown) extension to FM892?
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update5.31.12.html) ....
Local politicos are also pushing for engineering and right-of-way funding for the Driscoll and Riviera relief routes:QuoteThe environmental assessment for the overall US 77 Upgrade calls for new relief routes at Driscoll and Riviera. The Driscoll route would connect on the north with the $35 million project planned to go to bid in 2013 and on the south with the 10-mile design-build project.
Cameron County Commissioner David Garza urged the transportation commissioners to allocate an additional $15 million for engineering and right of way for the two relief routes in order to get them ready for future construction. He pledged that Cameron County and the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority will assist TxDOT with planning and design necessary to move these two projects forward.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an update on current I-69E projects (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.10.14.nueces.html) .... The update also includes a discussion about the future Driscoll relief route project that will be the last upgrade between I-37 and south of Kingsville:QuoteDRISCOLL RELIEF ROUTE - A relief route around the town of Driscoll will be built in the future. It will close a gap in highway upgrades of about six miles and will create a connected freeway from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi south through Kingsville. The relief route will run through open farm fields and cross Petronila Creek on the east side of Driscoll.
December will mark four years since the first I-69 signs went up on U.S. 77.
That was on a 6.2-mile stretch of the highway between the I-37 terminus at Corpus Christi and State Highway 44 at Robstown.
It was an initial step toward the larger goal of converting U.S. 77 to interstate all the way from Brownsville to I-37. The journey isn’t over by a long shot, and no one is sure how long it will take, though officials insist that the $600 million to $800 million project is moving forward ....
The segments of U.S. 77 that still aren’t interstate grade are at Driscoll in Nueces County and Riviera in Kleberg County, where low speed limits and traffic lights are an issue. The conversion project includes bypasses at both communities that will allow motorists – eventually – to whiz by at interstate speed.
The project itself is at a crawl, though it is moving. Right-of-way acquisition for the Driscoll bypass is scheduled to begin in December, though it’s unknown when right-of-way acquisition for the Riviera bypass will get under way, according to Cameron County Precinct 3 Commissioner David Garza.
“They’re getting ready to start that process,” he said. “(Cameron County) is trying to help coordinate that effort to move it forward.”
Garza, a member of the Alliance for I-69 Texas, said he and Cameron County Judge Pete Sepulveda Jr. would head to Kleberg County soon to discuss the Riviera bypass with officials there. The good news is that the interstate conversion project has received environmental clearance all the way from northern Willacy County to Corpus Christi, he said.
I reckon Texas will complete its segments of Interstate 69 before most of the other states 69 will run through will have their segments completed.As it should be. Large portions in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are useless.
I think it's safe to say that the Evansville-Indianapolis portion (including the Ohio River bridges) will also be completed before the other states do theirs.I reckon Texas will complete its segments of Interstate 69 before most of the other states 69 will run through will have their segments completed.As it should be. Large portions in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are useless.
Well, Arkansas has a small portion done, the Monticello Bypass, but it's 2 lanes.I reckon Texas will complete its segments of Interstate 69 before most of the other states 69 will run through will have their segments completed.As it should be. Large portions in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are useless.
I wonder how much traffic will actually use the Evansville to Indianapolis leg of I-69. It's a really crooked path.It's the shortest route and the route with the highest average quality: all Evansville - Indy traffic would use it, before we look at places like Bloomington that are in between.
It's the shortest route and the route with the highest average quality: all Evansville - Indy traffic would use it, before we look at places like Bloomington that are in between.
Well, Arkansas has a small portion done, the Monticello Bypass, but it's 2 lanes.Is this open to traffic now? If so, what's its designation?
Nope, still under construction. No designation yet.Well, Arkansas has a small portion done, the Monticello Bypass, but it's 2 lanes.Is this open to traffic now? If so, what's its designation?
Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release (http://farentholdforms.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398450) that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this yearIf anyone cares to follow the progress of the bill, it is also known as H.R.301 – 114th Congress (2015-2016) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/301/text).
AASHTO has approved the I-169 designation:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne,%20WY%20Report/SM%202015%20USRN%20SCOH%20REPORT.pdf
FHWA also approved the I-169 designation on May 14 (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne%2c%20WY%20Report/FHWA%20to%20AASHTO%20Interstate%20Numbering%20May%2014%202015.pdf) ....
It looks like we might have a Texas Transportation Commission formality later this month.
... an update from the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority for fiscal year 2015, presented at a Sept. 10 meeting of Cameron County Commissioners Court by CCRMA Chief Financial Officer Adrian Rincones.
The project furthest along and in fact nearly complete is S.H. 550, a tollway that eventually will connect the port and S.H. 48 with I-69E via interstate-grade roadway. The first phase was finished in 2011. The “direct connector,” the segment connecting S.H. 550 with I-69E, opened in June.
Two gaps in S.H. 550 have yet to be completed. Work on the smallest, between Old Alice Road and Paredes Line Road, is scheduled to begin in April or May, Rincones said. No date has been set for starting work on the larger gap, between Paredes Line Road and Dr. Hugh Emerson Road, he said.
“One of the things that was slowing that project down was, we wanted to make sure 550 meets interstate standards as well, because in the future it will probably turn into interstate,” Rincones said. “We had to do some redesign on those gaps and that’s what’s been slowing us down.”
He said the gap closest to I-69E was prioritized because that stretch of S.H. 550 serves RanchoVerdeElementary School, the U.S. Border Patrol Station in Brownsville and the Southmost Regional Water Authority.
This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.26.14Laredo69W.html) reports that, in addition to the large ceremonial I-69W sign, signage is currently being installed along the newly designated I-69W section, I-35, and other roadways:QuoteThe newly designated interstate section begins near the busy World Trade Bridge on the west side of Laredo and extends east to an interchange with Interstate 35. New Interstate 69W signs are going up on this section and on I-35 and other roadways approaching 69W.
Laredo now has an I-69W shield on the updated Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf):In addition to an I-69W shield, the Texas Official Travel Map has both a US 59 shield on Loop 20 and a BR US 59 shield along the former US 59. Do we have any confirmed sightings in the field for I-69W shields (and concurrent US 59 shields) and/or US 59 shields on the Future I-69W part of Loop 20 and/or US 59 Biz shields (assemblies?) along the former US 59?
(http://i.imgur.com/25BB5lb.png)
This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.26.14Laredo69W.html):QuoteThe newly designated interstate section begins near the busy World Trade Bridge on the west side of Laredo and extends east to an interchange with Interstate 35. New Interstate 69W signs are going up on this section and on I-35 and other roadways approaching 69W.
While recently checking to see if Google Street View has been updated in the Laredo area (Dec. 2012 is the current imagery and Google Earth has December 2012 aerial imagery) in order to locate I-69W signage, I noticed that Google Maps has removed the I-69W shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.491307,-99.505005,11z) from its map:
(http://i.imgur.com/fKrYUqW.jpg)
Any confirmed sightings of I-69W signage in the area will be greatly appreciated.as would a confirmation of the new US 59 mainline @ business route.
Those exit numbers seem low considering the distances from Interstate 69's terminuses in Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville.That's due to the split routes. The split routes were created so that TXDOT and FHWA could agree on a border crossing for I-69. When US 59 south of Houston is interstate standard, one of those three split routes will be I-69, and the others are either eliminated or demoted to US Route or State Highway.
What the fuck?Those exit numbers seem low considering the distances from Interstate 69's terminuses in Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville.That's due to the split routes. The split routes were created so that TXDOT and FHWA could agree on a border crossing for I-69. When US 59 south of Houston is interstate standard, one of those three split routes will be I-69, and the others are either eliminated or demoted to US Route or State Highway.
Those exit numbers seem low considering the distances from Interstate 69's terminuses in Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville.That's due to the split routes. The split routes were created so that TXDOT and FHWA could agree on a border crossing for I-69. When US 59 south of Houston is interstate standard, one of those three split routes will be I-69, and the others are either eliminated or demoted to US Route or State Highway.
This article says construction will start later this year and the plan is to complete it by 2018 (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/fortbend/news/article/TxDOT-proposes-I-69-widening-south-of-Rosenberg-6139421.php)TxDOT has issued a Notice of Public Hearing (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-notice.pdf) for a 10.5 mile US 59 to I-69 upgrade from Spur 10 to CR 227 ....this article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/fortbend/news/article/Three-Fort-Bend-roads-could-receive-state-6099176.php) reports that the Spur 10 to Darst Road section of this project could begin (I assume this means actual construction) this year
Here is a snip of the Project Location Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-project.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/sOxU5LO.png)
Today I was driving on the Southwest Freeway, and noticed that they had mile markers up. These are the real deal, as well - not reference mile numbers.
The West Loop will be Exit 123 or so, and the Beltway Exit 117.
Those exit numbers seem low considering the distances from Interstate 69's terminuses in Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville.That's due to the split routes. The split routes were created so that TXDOT and FHWA could agree on a border crossing for I-69. When US 59 south of Houston is interstate standard, one of those three split routes will be I-69, and the others are either eliminated or demoted to US Route or State Highway.
Those exit numbers seem low considering the distances from Interstate 69's terminuses in Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville.That's due to the split routes. The split routes were created so that TXDOT and FHWA could agree on a border crossing for I-69. When US 59 south of Houston is interstate standard, one of those three split routes will be I-69, and the others are either eliminated or demoted to US Route or State Highway.
Plus, what do you do with TX 22 between Fleer and Robstown if that's upgraded as part of the I-69 system?
Those exit numbers seem low considering the distances from Interstate 69's terminuses in Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville.
That's due to the split routes. The split routes were created so that TXDOT and FHWA could agree on a border crossing for I-69. When US 59 south of Houston is interstate standard, one of those three split routes will be I-69, and the others are either eliminated or demoted to US Route or State Highway.
Ummm....no. The Milepost Zero for I-69 will be the US 59/US 77 split near Victoria. The "branches" of I-69 will remain, but have their own milestones for mileage; probably the western/southern termini for each branch.
Though personally, I still think I-69 should run all the way to Laredo via US 59 (I-69W); I-69E should be an I-37 extension, and I-69C should remain US 281. Plus, what do you do with TX 22 between Fleer and Robstown if that's upgraded as part of the I-69 system?
Though personally, I still think I-69 should run all the way to Laredo via US 59 (I-69W); I-69E should be an I-37 extension, and I-69C should remain US 281. Plus, what do you do with TX 44 between Fleer and Robstown if that's upgraded as part of the I-69 system?
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area ... will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC)This May 1 article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/east_montgomery/news/txdot-considering-improvements-between-fostoria-rd-and-sh-bypass/article_4a1a77d6-b284-11e2-a4b7-0019bb2963f4.html) reports that an Open House will be held on May 14 to provide details about the project, which is planned to extend from Fostoria Road in Montgomery County, Texas, to the State Highway 105 South Cleveland Bypass (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fostoria+Road,+Cleveland,+TX&hl=en&ll=30.292275,-95.120316&spn=0.073963,0.153637&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=4.61356,9.832764&oq=fostoria+road&t=h&hnear=N+Fostoria+Rd,+Cleveland,+Texas+77328&z=13):QuoteThe Texas Department of Transportation — Beaumont District (TxDOT) will conduct a public meeting on Tuesday, May 14, 2013, to discuss proposed roadway improvements along 4.281 miles of the existing alignment of US 59 extending from Fostoria Road in Montgomery County, Texas, to State Highway 105 South Cleveland Bypass in Liberty County, Texas .... This section of US 59 is proposed as a portion of I-69. Preliminary study indicates that additional right-of-way would be needed. The proposed US 59 as I-69 would be converted from a four-lane divided highway to a six-lane divided, access controlled freeway, with one-way frontage roads.
TxDOT is soliciting professional services for the PS&E (plan, specifications and estimates) for I-69 for a 4-mile section south of Cleveland (which is about 40 miles north of Houston). This is a non-freeway gap between the end of the freeway at Fostoria road and the Cleveland bypass. Plans show six main lanes and a new southbound frontage road. It looks like most of the existing northbound lanes become the northbound frontage road.
Listing (see August 11 item) http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts.html (http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts.html)
Links to schematics http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts/0000000953.html (http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts/0000000953.html)
When TxDOT initiates work on the PS&E, it usually means that construction is anticipated in the near term, i.e. within a few years.
.... The proposed US 59 as I-69 would be converted from a four-lane divided highway to a six-lane divided, access-controlled freeway, with one-way frontage roads.
Additional changes to the project since the last open house meeting conducted on May 13, 2013 include the following:
-Modify US 59 main lanes curve at State Loop 573
-Revise the intersection at US 59 and State Loop 573; the northbound frontage road will follow the US 59 main lanes, instead of the northbound frontage road becoming State Loop 573
-Reverse the entrance and exit ramps between SH 105 and State Loop 573
-Add a right-turn lane to the southbound frontage road at the SH 105 connector
This September 12 article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/business/article_641674ee-6139-11e5-882e-67455972f271.html) indicates that, although FHWA has approved the I-169 numerical designation , TxDOT is still seeking approval from FHWA regarding SH 550/ Future I-169 meeting interstate-grade constructions standards for its two remaining sections ....
Maybe TxDOT is waiting for FHWA to approve the entirety of SH 550 as interstate-grade before it asks for an I-169 designation from the Texas Transportation Commission.
The approximately 1 1/2-mile stretch of State Highway 550 between Interstate 69E and Old Alice Road has been officially renamed I-169 by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which now considers the segment part of the federal interstate system.
U.S. Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville, and Cameron County Judge Peter Sepulveda Jr. announced the DOT’s decision on Nov. 5. Leading from I-69E to S.H. 48 and the Port of Brownsville, S.H. 550 is CameronCounty’s first toll road.
Sepulveda said the toll way belongs to a high-priority corridor designated years ago by DOT as future interstate, though interstate signs can only go up on segments that meet interstate standards.
Two portions have to be completed before all 10 miles of S.H. 550 can become I-169, Sepulveda said. Those two projects likely will go out to bid in the first quarter of 2016, he said.
“Hopefully in the next two years or so, once we complete those two gaps, the entire route can be signed as 1-169,” Sepulveda said.
This November 9 article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_0ab3e9c6-8764-11e5-a7ad-db7982b16274.html) reports that "the U.S. Department of Transportation" now considers SH 550/ I-169 from I-69E to Old Alice Road as "part of the federal interstate system", that the remaining two sections should be let in the first quarter of 2016, and that the entire 10-mile stretch of SH 550 should be signed as I-169 in approximately two years ....
I still have not seen Texas Transportation Commission approval of the I-169 designation. Maybe at their December 17 meeting ......
Highway Designation
Cameron County - Designate a segment of the state highway system as I-169, concurrent with State Highway 550 from existing I-69E to Old Alice Road in the city of Brownsville
(MO) (Presentation)
This minute order designates a segment of the state highway system as I-169, concurrent with SH 550 from existing I-69E to Old Alice Road in the city of Brownsville, a distance of approximately 1.5 miles. The Brownsville Metropolitan Planning Organization, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.
In May, TxDOT will hold public meetings about their plans to upgrade US 59 to I-69 in El Campo and Wharton County (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=El+Campo,+TX&hl=en&ll=29.196527,-96.269073&spn=0.974624,1.234589&sll=29.351357,-96.134491&sspn=0.24329,0.308647&oq=el+campo,+TX&t=h&hnear=El+Campo,+Wharton+County,+Texas&z=10).
El Campo (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/el-campo-050614.html):QuoteTxDOT is proposing adding frontage roads along US 59 through El Campo. The proposed project would construct frontage roads and convert the existing US 59 lanes into a controlled access road that meets interstate standards.
The Texas Transportation Commission approved over $26 million in construction contracts for the Yoakum district during its November meeting.
The bulk of those funds will go to the construction of frontage roads along U.S. 59 in El Campo in Wharton County. The frontage roads are upgrades for the Interstate 69 project. This funding covers frontage roads from Business 59 south of El Campo to State Highway 71.
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a December 17, 2015 I-69 Texas System Update presentation:
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/1217/4b-presentation.pdf
.... it will take a long time, maybe until the 2040s, to see all of I-69 completed.
An implementation strategy for continuing the development of Interstate 69 is in place and is being refined by the 10 TxDOT District offices responsible for various segments of the I-69 Texas System ....
I-69 in Texas is being developed as a series of dozens of incremental projects that will eventually be tied together in a seamless system. The implementation strategy includes a comprehensive database that will maintain and manage pertinent information and data for each I-69 project that is identified and is being tracked. An accompanying GIS dataset is being used to graphically display projects and their TxDOT programming status ....
The current estimate for completing the 1,088 miles in the I-69 Texas System is $14.4 billion needed over the next two decades ....
Transportation Commissioner Jeff Moseley said that while the cost of more than $14 billion is a large number the return on that investment is also obviously very large. He noted that the I-69 corridor serves a $1.6 trillion gross state product.
It connects to 14 international border crossings and a robust Mexican economy that economists project will be larger than Germany's within 30 years. He also pointed in increased freight traffic that is coming with the expansion of the Panama Canal. I-69 connects to the eight Texas deep-draft seaports that will be handling new tonnage.
"So this is very clearly a dramatic corridor," Moseley said, explaining that improvements will help address highway congestion. "It is a people moving conveyance and it also has wonderful Homeland Security and hurricane evacuation applications."
Documents now up http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx(quote from AASHTO Numbering Committee Spring '14 Meeting (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12521.msg302814#msg302814) thread)
Approved if not otherwise stated, details via the document ....
TX I-69C extension (Edinburg) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69E extension (Robstown) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
The Federal Highway Administration has given final approval to adding 6.1 more miles to the Interstate 69 System in South Texas.
This includes a 4.5 mile extension of Interstate 69 Central (I-69C) north to a point just past the Edinburg Airport in Hidalgo County and a 1.6 miles extension of Interstate 69 East (I-69E) on the south side of Robstown in Nueces County. Construction on each of the sections was completed in recent months.
The Texas Transportation Commission's December 17 Agenda indicates that the concurrent I-169 designation for the 1.5 mile section of SH 550 from I-69E to Old Alice Road should be approved on December 17 (p. 2/12 of pdf):
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/1217/agenda.pdf
The Texas Transportation Commission has completed the process of designating 1.5 miles of State Highway 550 in Brownsville as Interstate 169 -- the latest addition to the I-69 Texas System ....
The first 1.5 miles of SH 550 east of I-69E have been added to the national Interstate Highway System. The remaining 8.5 miles includes two sections which must be constructed to interstate highway standards before the entire roadway can be designated as Interstate 169 ....
I-169/SH 550 is a limited access toll facility. It provides an easier, faster and safer route to points such as Port Isabel and South Padre Island and is helping alleviate traffic congestion in other areas of Cameron County.
Is it just me or should I-169 in Brownsville be renamed I-2?It's just you.
Is it just me or should I-169 in Brownsville be renamed I-2?It's just you.
TxDOT must be assuming that the proposed legislation will be enacted because an August, 2015 TxDOT I-69 System Planning and Environmental Progress map (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/Environmental_and_other_Studies_Aug%202015.pdf) includes a study about the SH 44 route through Robstown:Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release (http://farentholdforms.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398450) that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this yearIf anyone cares to follow the progress of the bill, it is also known as H.R.301 – 114th Congress (2015-2016) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/301/text).
(http://i.imgur.com/C1HkHcO.jpg)
http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fastact_xml.(above quote from Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of December 2015 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16970.msg2110067#msg2110067) thread)
Section 1416 amends the ever-changing High Priority Corridor List as follows ...:
Corridor 18 (Interstate 69) is amended to include Texas State Highway 44 from United States Route 59 at Freer, Texas, to Texas State Highway 358.
State Highway 44 from Corpus Christi to Freer in South Texas is now part of the Congressionally Designated I-69 High Priority Corridor.
This future 73 miles of interstate will connect the freeway system in Corpus Christi with I-69 East at Robstown, future I-69 Central at Alice and future I-69 West at Freer. It will ultimately provide an interstate connection between the busy international port at Laredo and the deepwater port at Corpus Christi which linking all three legs of the I-69 Texas System in South Texas ....
The designation applies to the section of State Highway 44 between US 59 in Freer and the SH 358 Freeway in Corpus Christi. Approximately 5.8 miles of SH 44 in the vicinity of Corpus Christi International Airport is already at interstate highway standard.
West of I-69E in Robstown, SH 44 is a four-lane divided highway through Alice and on to the city of San Diego. The 23 miles from San Diego to Freer is a two-lane section passing through sparsely populated ranch land. Upgrades recommended by local community stakeholders include relief routes around Alice, San Diego and Freer plus a new highway link at Robstown. A routing study for the SH 44 relief route at Robstown was initiated by TxDOT in 2015.
http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fastact_xml.(above quote from Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of December 2015 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16970.msg2110067#msg2110067) thread)
Section 1410 talks about weight limit exceptions for portions of future I-69 in Texas ...:Quote(n) OPERATION OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN HIGHWAYS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.–If any segment in the State of Texas of United States Route 59, United States Route 77, United States Route 281, United States Route 84, Texas State Highway 44, or another roadway is designated as Interstate Route 69, a vehicle that could operate legally on that segment before the date of the designation may continue to operate on that segment, without regard to any requirement under this section ....
The federal highway bill, officially known as the FAST Act, also includes a provision dealing with trucks operating on I-69 in Texas. It was sponsored by Farenthold and co-sponsored by East Texas Congressman Brian Babin and Houston Congressman Gene Green. It provides that vehicles that can legally operated on one of the I-69 designated existing highways today will be authorized to operate on that segment after it is officially designated as Interstate 69 in the future.
I-369 is a reasonable choice.
I-369 is a reasonable choice.
Already taken, up in Texarkana.
How about calling 369 Interstate 6 or 4I-369 is a reasonable choice.
Already taken, up in Texarkana.
Then there's only one solution that makes any sense, given the I-69E/C/W crap... Multiplex I-369 down I-69, along I-69W at the first split, and along I-69C at the second split. This proceeds to TX 44. TX 44 east of I-69C is I-369E and vice versa.
How about calling 369 Interstate 6 or 4I-369 is a reasonable choice.
Already taken, up in Texarkana.
Then there's only one solution that makes any sense, given the I-69E/C/W crap... Multiplex I-369 down I-69, along I-69W at the first split, and along I-69C at the second split. This proceeds to TX 44. TX 44 east of I-69C is I-369E and vice versa.
How about calling 369 Interstate 6 or 4I-369 is a reasonable choice.
Already taken, up in Texarkana.
Then there's only one solution that makes any sense, given the I-69E/C/W crap... Multiplex I-369 down I-69, along I-69W at the first split, and along I-69C at the second split. This proceeds to TX 44. TX 44 east of I-69C is I-369E and vice versa.
In a more perfect world, it should be I-6. I'd definitely rather see that than I-1269SE or whatever
Obviously it would only start at Freer and I-69W.
QuoteIn a more perfect world, it should be I-6. I'd definitely rather see that than I-1269SE or whatever
There's no chance at all of any 3di route along the I-69 corridor carrying a suffix letter, such as "I-269E" or some nonsense like that.
Who wants Interstate 6 on SH 44
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/americanroads/images/a/af/Interstate_6_.png/revision/latest?cb=20120121182314)
There's no chance at all of any 3di route along the I-69 corridor carrying a suffix letter, such as "I-269E" or some nonsense like that.
Absent upgrades on the Mexican side to MEX 57, there's really no good reason to extend the SH 44 freeway corridor west to Eagle Pass. (Heck, there's not even demand enough at present for a paved road on the US side between Laredo and Eagle Pass.)
Personally I'd extend the hypothetical I-6 designation west to Laredo; it could multiplex with I-69W on the US 59 corridor and then split off on a more direct line to meet I-35 north of the US 83/I-35 split and utilize an upgraded Toll SH 255 to the Colombia bridge.
Obviously it could never go west to Eagle Pass? That's just as likely to happen as your extension to Port Lavaca or Freeport.
MX-101 in that area is not really a high traffic corridor, at least not as heavy as MX-40 going to Monterrey. The Eastern coastal area of Mexico is not heavily populated. A lot of traffic bound for other cities in Mexico tends to funnel through Monterrey. My guess is the Eastern coast of Mexico is more flood prone and hurricane prone.
I-69E would at least funnel traffic to/from the MX-101 corridor toward cities like Tampico. But I-69C, I-69W and I-35 all seem to send/receive traffic to/from Monterrey via MX-85 and MX-40. Both of those routes are built up with more limited access and 4-lane function.
Bear in mind that a lot of the demand for freight from the lower valley to the rest of the U.S. is locally-generated due to the maquiladora (manufacturing/assembly) operations in Reynosa-Matamoros, which are much bigger than up in Nuevo Laredo.
NL is more of a transshipment point for stuff from the rest of Mexico or further afield (legal and otherwise) because the infrastructure on both sides is better. There is some freight via MX-40 but a lot of it is destined for the maquiladoras themselves. And from much of eastern Mexico like Veracruz it's probably cheaper to ship to the U.S. via the Gulf than over land anyway (again, partially due to infrastructure).
All that said the need for direct freeway connections at the border is relatively low, mostly because (particularly northbound) the border crossing process is much more of a timesuck than sitting at a few traffic signals after you've crossed, particularly if you're hauling a trailer that has to be transferred from a Mexican cab to a U.S. one or vice versa. That's a major reason why Toll 255 was/is such a failure, even though the Colombia crossing is one of the faster ones.
Taking FM 1472 is a good free option
Purpose: TxDOT is offering the opportunity to request a public hearing covering the social, economic and environmental effects of the proposed project on a section of US 59 (formerly known as Loop 20 and Bob Bullock Loop) in northern Laredo, Webb County. This section of US 59 is also part of the western leg of the Future I-69 system (I-69W) in south Texas ....
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).
The proposed mainlanes would include:
* Three 12-foot travel lanes in each direction
* Center concrete traffic barrier
* Inside and outside shoulders
* Appropriately placed on-off ramps
The mainlanes would be constructed between the existing loop frontage roads within the existing, approximately 300-ft. wide right-of-way.
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.
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 ...The final Laredo 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (http://www.cityoflaredo.com/planning/mpo/files/mtp/2015-2040/MTP_2015-2040.pdf) has been postedI recently looked at the 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan on the outside chance that it would include a tangent routing from Loop 20 to US 59. I could not find evidence of one. However, a map of their "illustrative projects" (unfunded wish list) does show the Outer Loop and an Outer Loop "spur" from the northeastern corner of Loop 20 to the Outer Loop. Elsewhere in the document, the Outer Loop is described as a four-lane arterial and the "spur" is described as a two-lane road. Here is a snip of the "illustrative projects" map (p. 321/368 of pdf; p. 12-39 of document)
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-center/statewide-news/03-2016.html (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-center/statewide-news/03-2016.html)(above quote from TxDOT announces $1.3 billion congestion relief program (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17348.msg2122963#msg2122963) thread)
Full project list
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/media-center/statewide/docs/congestionprojects.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/media-center/statewide/docs/congestionprojects.pdf) ....
Houston US 59 (IH 69) / IH 610 interchange rebuild: This project was planned for multiple phases, and now the entire project will be built in one phase. This is also an urgently needed improvement. http://txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/59-610.html (http://txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/59-610.html)
An August 23 Houston Chronicle editorial (http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-How-might-I-69-coexist-with-the-Grand-3811256.php) advocates that the Grand Parkway should be finished in a manner that meshes well with the purposes of I-69:As regards relief options in Houston ... I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf)the Segment Two Committee ...incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)Quote... This bypass would divert I-69 traffic away from Houston's city center while also improving necessary transportation access to our booming port areas.
But it seems like we've already got something along those lines underway with the Grand Parkway. While there's still a lot of construction remaining on the planned 180-mile third loop around Houston, some parkway segments have been completed, including one in Baytown.
Because plans are not yet set in pavement, we still have some flexibility to construct the Grand Parkway in a manner that can best serve some of the needs of I-69, particularly the influx of long-haul trucking and port commerce that is a near-inevitable part of Houston's future ...
This article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/Growth-presents-transportation-challenges-for-the-5439353.php) reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port:QuoteHarris County Judge Ed Emmett addressed the importance of Interstate 69.
"It's pretty much agreed now that we need to have a bypass around the Houston area," he said. "It needs to go south and east instead of west, so it can support the port."
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett delivered his ninth State of the County address on Tuesday at NRG Center and spoke about the county’s accomplishments and challenges.
Emmett stressed that an important factor in that future will be improving transportation.
He advocated using more the railroad system – to move both people and freight – to alleviate Houston’s congested freeways.
As he addressed the city’s heavy traffic, Emmett singled out an option he thinks is essential.
“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.
This article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/Growth-presents-transportation-challenges-for-the-5439353.php) reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port:
The article does not indicate whether Judge Emmett considers the southern and eastern sections of the Grand Parkway as "the I-69 bypass".
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.
Can we stop talking about the Grand Parkway, and move discussion of it onto its own thread. As far as I know, none of Interstate 69 in Texas will actually utilize the Grand Parkway.
As regards relief options in Houston ... I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf)the Segment Two Committee ...incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
Hmmmmm....an I-469/TX 99 concurrence?? With TX99 moved to the feeders and I-469 as the mainline?
... if he was really for an X69 route of for it, March 31st will have a complete section from I-69 to I-69 on the north and west sides.
US 59 Relief Options in Houston — In the first few months of meeting, the committee discussed highways they recommend serving as I-69, highways to be part of the I-69 program and important connections to the I-69 system. In developing recommendations for the Houston area, committee members from that area met to discuss their recommended highway to serve as I-69 and also discussed the importance of providing connectivity to the Port of Houston and other ports along the Texas gulf coast. This discussion concluded with the committee recommending that US 59 through Houston serve as I-69 and that relief options within and around the Houston area be studied and considered to provide convenient, vital access to the sea ports along the coast along with additional options for through-travelers to bypass Houston, instead of having to use US 59 or other routes to travel through Houston. Such a study should include financial and technical participation from TxDOT.
If accessing the Baytown ports were that important, then using existing I-610 to TX 225 (the Pasadena Freeway) would suffice.
The Texas Transportation Commission's December 17 Agenda indicates that the concurrent I-169 designation for the 1.5 mile section of SH 550 from I-69E to Old Alice Road should be approved on December 17 (p. 2/12 of pdf):This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update12.17.15%20i169.html) reports that the Texas Transportation Commission did indeed approve the above I-169 designation ....
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/1217/agenda.pdf
Here is a snip of a map accompanying the article:
(http://i.imgur.com/ROIaM1S.jpg)
State and local officials gathered under an overpass Tuesday for the unveiling of the first I-169 sign marking the new designation of a portion of the S.H. 550 toll road.
The U.S. Department of Transportation late last year gave the I-169 designation to a roughly 1 1/2-mile stretch of S.H. 550 between I-69E and Old Alice Road, making it part of the federal interstate highway system.
Running 10 miles from I-69E to S.H. 48 and the Port of Brownsville, S.H. 550 is the Rio Grande Valley’s first toll road. Two short segments of the toll way still have to be brought up to interstate standards before the entire length can be designated “I-169.”
Among those in attendance at Tuesday’s brief, informal ceremony near the S.H. 550 frontage road and Baker Lane intersection were Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Tryon D. Lewis, Texas Secretary of State Carlos H. Cascos, state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. and state Rep. Eddie Lucio III.
Hmmmmm ..... a neutered shield. Is this the beginning of a new trend in Texas?
Hmmmmm ..... a neutered shield. Is this the beginning of a new trend in Texas?
I think the non-standard font size is a tip-off that this is just a fake shield, thrown together for the ceremony. I hope that when real route markers go up, they'll look more normal, and might be non-neutered.
Not that I have a problem with neutered shields, at least in this location. If you haven't figured out by that point you're in Texas, you probably shouldn't be behind the wheel.
The oversize numerals in that neutered 3-digit shield look terrible. "69" already has a rough enough time fitting in a neutered 2 digit shield. It probably wouldn't be so bad if the numerals were spaced a little better.
I'm definitely far more in favor of leaving state names in Interstate shields. The numerals may be smaller, but they fit in those curvy Interstate shields a whole lot better.
The oversize numerals in that neutered 3-digit shield look terrible. "69" already has a rough enough time fitting in a neutered 2 digit shield. It probably wouldn't be so bad if the numerals were spaced a little better.
I'm definitely far more in favor of leaving state names in Interstate shields. The numerals may be smaller, but they fit in those curvy Interstate shields a whole lotThe oversize numerals in that neutered 3-digit shield look terrible. "69" already has a rough enough time fitting in a neutered 2 digit shield. It probably wouldn't be so bad if the numerals were spaced a little better.
I'm definitely far more in favor of leaving state names in Interstate shields. The numerals may be smaller, but they fit in those curvy Interstate shields a whole lot better.
On a related note, a lot of US-59 through Houston, though approved to be signed as I-69, has yet be to be signed as such, at least as of last month when I traveled through that area. I did notice that TxDOT did install mileposts on the Southwest Freeway from I-610 to at least Sugar Land.
Does seem a bit odd that the additional-naming process went through rather quickly and yet there isn't the relatively-same pace in getting signs made and put up.
QuoteAny confirmed sightings of I-69W signage in the area will be greatly appreciated.as would a confirmation of the new US 59 mainline @ business route.
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 (https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/):
(http://i.imgur.com/pcrx6VF.png)
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 (https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/):
(http://i.imgur.com/pcrx6VF.png)
Is that a real photo? Looks like a bad Photoshop job.
A proposed Minute Order on the July 31, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0731/agenda.pdf) indicates that the TTC will designate Loop 20 to be concurrent with US 59/ Future I-69W so that local businesses will not have to change their addresses (page 7/14 of pdf; page 7 of document)QuoteWebb County - Designate State Loop 20 (SL 20) on the state highway system concurrent with US 59 from the entrance to the World Trade Bridge to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in the city of Laredo (MO)
Minute Order 113852 redesignated a portion of SL 20 as US 59 from the entrance of the World Trade Bridge to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in Laredo, which began the process of designating applicable portions of US 59 as part of the I-69 system. However, the minute order did not reference maintaining the LP 20 signage so that addresses would not need to be changed. This minute order corrects that oversight and designates a portion of SL 20 on the state highway system, concurrent with US 59.
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.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 (https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/):Is that a real photo? Looks like a bad Photoshop job.
(http://i.imgur.com/pcrx6VF.png)
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.
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
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?
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.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.23.13%20Laredo.html) also has an article about the project:
(http://i.imgur.com/O5yPtQR.jpg)
This December 2012 Google StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6039589,-99.4950381,3a,75y,5.26h,90.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUm791g04OL1oZ_8SFZSgqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) indicates that the I-69W and US 59 shields covered a Loop 20 shield accompanied by "WEST" as the direction: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.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 (https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/):Is that a real photo? Looks like a bad Photoshop job.
(http://i.imgur.com/pcrx6VF.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/WkpDshF.png)
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg2143571#msg2143571) thread)
If you ask me, US 59 should end at Loop 20, or still extend along its former route into Laredo.
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?
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 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.
How long does an interstate have to be to not be considered a "stub"?
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27How 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.
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 (https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/):This December 2012 Google StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6039589,-99.4950381,3a,75y,5.26h,90.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUm791g04OL1oZ_8SFZSgqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) indicates that the I-69W and US 59 shields covered a Loop 20 shield accompanied by "WEST" as the direction:
(http://i.imgur.com/pcrx6VF.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/WkpDshF.png)
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 article (http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2016/02/03/136538/judge-emmett-focuses-his-state-of-the-county-address-on-transportation-and-the-astrodome/) 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:QuoteHarris 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 (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.
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.”
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?
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.
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!
I-14 is planned to extend to near the Georgia/South Carolina border.
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) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief routeMy 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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
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:
(http://i.imgur.com/3aTjY.jpg)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):QuoteRegional 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 ...
TxDOT has posted a Notice Affording an Opportunity for a Public Hearing — US 59 Loop (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/laredo/022416.html) in the Laredo area:QuoteDescription: 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.
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 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/implementation-strategy-report.pdf) that provides the current status of each I-69 project in Texas.
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.
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.
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.
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.phpQuoteA 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?Uh...because it's not a ferry?
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?
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.phpQuoteA 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?
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
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).
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
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.
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.
The I-69 Driven By Texans website has added a San Jacinto County (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59-san-jacinto.htm) page. An Open House (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/092716.html) will be held on Sept. 27
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.
TxDOT has published a four-page October 2016 U.S. 59 Loop Upgrade newsletter (http://www.laredompo.org/files/Announcements/US59LoopUpgrade.pdf) which contains a Notice of a December 1 Public Meeting.
Which stretch of the lettered Interstate 69 do any of you think will be completed first? 69E, 69C, or 69W?
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.
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.
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.
There are over 1.3 million people living in "Rio Grande Valley" area of far South Texas.
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.
It sounds like Interstate 69E will be completed, whether or not it needs to be an interstate. 69E probably should have been mainline 69.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
The I-69 Driven By Texans website (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us77-kingsville-driscoll.htm) 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 2016The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an update on current I-69E projects (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.10.14.nueces.html), which includes the following map illustrating the projects:
(http://i.imgur.com/HFDDhsJ.png)
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.
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) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief routeTxDOT has posted a 73 page March 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy Report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/implementation-strategy-report.pdf) 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).
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!
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.
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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
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 ...
In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently.Now it's more "zoom past" than "pounce upon". US 281 through Falfurrias is now a freeway, and it wouldn't surprise me if it soon becomes another I-69C segment.
I lucked into the opening when I was in south Texas in early March. The new freeway was open in one direction when I drove it, with the other direction scheduled to open the next day.
Driving north on Interstate 69 out of the Rio Grande Valley a sign reads Falfurrias 20, a tree line begins on the median of the highway and a mile up the highway there is a Border Patrol checkpoint.
Ten thousand vehicles pass the Falfurrias checkpoint everyday making it the busiest in the United States in the amount of seizures and apprehensions. With some luck there is a chance to pass smoothly and not be delayed.
Beginning in the summer of 2018 the United States Border Patrol hopes to change any inconvenience for motorists when they open a new state-of-the-art, 20,000 square-foot checkpoint ....
The cost of the new checkpoint will be in the $30 million range and will feature a 8,600 square-foot main building, 4,000 square-foot storage building and a 2,000 square-foot dog kennel.
From the ingress to the egress of the checkpoint everything will be vastly improved which will include new lanes for traffic. Four lanes will be used for commercial traffic and Four lanes will be used for non-commercial traffic.
There will be a substantial increase in non-intrusive technology, x-ray technology and radiation technology.
"Instead of handheld equipment we're looking at drive-through portals that will come through the checkpoint," Slowinski said.
Deputy Chief Patrol Agent for the RGV Sector Raul Ortiz said there should be no delays in traffic due to the construction of the new checkpoint. The RGV Sector will keep the staffing model as is and since the new facility is being built just north of the existing checkpoint it will be business as usual at the current checkpoint.
In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently.Now it's more "zoom past" than "pounce upon". US 281 through Falfurrias is now a freeway, and it wouldn't surprise me if it soon becomes another I-69C segment.
I lucked into the opening when I was in south Texas in early March. The new freeway was open in one direction when I drove it, with the other direction scheduled to open the next day.
This article (http://www.yourvalleyvoice.com/news/20170111/groundbreaking-held-for-new-falfurrias-checkpoint) reports that ground has been broken for a new Border Patrol checkpoint in Falfurrias:QuoteDriving north on Interstate 69 out of the Rio Grande Valley a sign reads Falfurrias 20, a tree line begins on the median of the highway and a mile up the highway there is a Border Patrol checkpoint.
Ten thousand vehicles pass the Falfurrias checkpoint everyday making it the busiest in the United States in the amount of seizures and apprehensions. With some luck there is a chance to pass smoothly and not be delayed.
Beginning in the summer of 2018 the United States Border Patrol hopes to change any inconvenience for motorists when they open a new state-of-the-art, 20,000 square-foot checkpoint ....
The cost of the new checkpoint will be in the $30 million range and will feature a 8,600 square-foot main building, 4,000 square-foot storage building and a 2,000 square-foot dog kennel.
From the ingress to the egress of the checkpoint everything will be vastly improved which will include new lanes for traffic. Four lanes will be used for commercial traffic and Four lanes will be used for non-commercial traffic.
There will be a substantial increase in non-intrusive technology, x-ray technology and radiation technology.
"Instead of handheld equipment we're looking at drive-through portals that will come through the checkpoint," Slowinski said.
Deputy Chief Patrol Agent for the RGV Sector Raul Ortiz said there should be no delays in traffic due to the construction of the new checkpoint. The RGV Sector will keep the staffing model as is and since the new facility is being built just north of the existing checkpoint it will be business as usual at the current checkpoint.
The I-69 Driven By Texans website (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us77-kingsville-driscoll.htm) 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 2016The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an update on current I-69E projects (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.10.14.nueces.html), which includes the following map illustrating the projects:
(http://i.imgur.com/HFDDhsJ.png)
This Dec. 1 TV video (http://www.kiiitv.com/traffic/highway-77-construction-to-be-completed-in-january/361210039) reports that the eight-mile stretch of I-69E around Bishop should open in January:QuoteTraveling 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.
Where: Wharton Civic Center
1924 N Fulton St.
Wharton, TX 77488 (Map)
When: Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017
5:30 p.m.- 6:30 p.m. Open House
6:30 p.m. Hearing
Purpose: TxDOT is proposing to upgrade US 59 to Interstate Highway Standards from FM 2919 to FM 710 in Wharton County, Texas.
Description: The proposed project would include:
A four-lane divided roadway (two 12-foot lanes in each direction) with 4-foot inside shoulders and 12-foot outside shoulders divided by a depressed grass median that varies from 34 to 62 feet in width
Continuous frontage roads (two12-foot lanes in each direction) with 10-foot outside shoulders and 4-foot inside shoulders
Total length of the proposed construction area is 39.5 miles in length.
TxDOT will hold a Open House on February 9 (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/020917.html) regarding upgrading US 59 to I-69 in Wharton County:QuoteWhere: Wharton Civic Center
1924 N Fulton St.
Wharton, TX 77488 (Map)
When: Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017
5:30 p.m.- 6:30 p.m. Open House
6:30 p.m. Hearing
Purpose: TxDOT is proposing to upgrade US 59 to Interstate Highway Standards from FM 2919 to FM 710 in Wharton County, Texas.
Description: The proposed project would include:
A four-lane divided roadway (two 12-foot lanes in each direction) with 4-foot inside shoulders and 12-foot outside shoulders divided by a depressed grass median that varies from 34 to 62 feet in width
Continuous frontage roads (two12-foot lanes in each direction) with 10-foot outside shoulders and 4-foot inside shoulders
Total length of the proposed construction area is 39.5 miles in length.
The Draft Environmental Assessment (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/ykm/materials/us-59-wharton-county/020917-draft-environmental-assessment.pdf) contains a map of the project area (p. 57/161 of pdf), as well as many detailed segment maps:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_18_01_17_8_45_39.jpeg)
TxDOT must be assuming that the proposed legislation will be enacted because an August, 2015 TxDOT I-69 System Planning and Environmental Progress map (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/Environmental_and_other_Studies_Aug%202015.pdf) includes a study about the SH 44 route through Robstown:
(http://i.imgur.com/C1HkHcO.jpg)
In December 2015, a congressional law was passed that identified SH 44, from US 59 in Freer to SH 358 in Corpus Christi, to become part of the I-69 system as sections are upgraded to meet interstate standards. In response, TxDOT is undertaking a SH 44 Robstown Route Study to identify needs and route options for upgrading SH 44 to meet interstate standards in the Robstown area between Farm to Market Road (FM) 1694 and County Road (CR) 81 ....
TxDOT has already been developing projects east of Robstown to upgrade SH 44. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and identify the potential best route options for extending an upgraded SH 44 that meets interstate standards farther west in the Robstown area between FM 1694 and CR 81. Once identified, the route options to be advanced for further detailed design and environmental study would be made available for additional public review and input. It is important to note that there is no current funding to complete the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of this project.
(http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/kdhnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/e/ef/eef97ca0-e43c-11e6-8b38-c33b194c4557/588ab8338b78a.image.png?resize=760%2C498)
Why is there a I-369 designation into Texarkana? I thought that was the I-69 route?
TxDOT will hold a February 9 Open House (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/020917.html) about the route through Robstown, including the interchange with I-69E:
The "mainline" exit numbers, though, for Texas' I-35 split, follow the E branch (Minnesota's, too)...information only.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.)
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an update on current I-69E projects (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.10.14.nueces.html)Neverrmind, on the original link it says the following...
"DRISCOLL RELIEF ROUTE - A relief route around the town of Driscoll will be built in the future. It will close a gap in highway upgrades of about six miles and will create a connected freeway from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi south through Kingsville. The relief route will run through open farm fields and cross Petronila Creek on the east side of Driscoll."
The state has earmarked nearly $104 million to a U.S. Highway 77 relief route around the town of Driscoll roughly between County Road 28 on the north and County Road 16 to the south. The bulk of the money — $79.5 million — will be for construction. The balance will pay for things like purchasing land for the route and for engineering services.
"The U.S. 77 relief route at the city of Driscoll will complete the last section of the I-69 corridor between Corpus Christi and Kingsville,” said Chris Caron, TxDOT’s district engineer in Corpus Christi. “Removing high-speed traffic from a low-speed urban setting enhances mobility and safety.”
There are two parts to the work planned for U.S. 77. TxDOT also plans a $37 million project to build new lanes and overpasses on the highway south of Driscoll to Farm to Market 3354.
The state will begin accepting bids for the U.S. 77 improvements in the summer of 2018.
To the north, the state plans to spend nearly $46 million to widen a 2.5-mile stretch of Interstate 37 from the overpass at Red Bird Lane to where the freeway crosses the Nueces River. The transportation department describes the section of I-37 as a “metro corridor” that needs congestion relief.
The state already owns the land needed for the widening project, so all but about $5 million of the project’s cost will go toward construction. The bid process is expected to begin in summer 2020.
"The I-37 project involves construction of a new bridge over the Nueces River, which will improve hurricane evacuation for the Coastal Bend and the Rio Grande Valley,” Canon said. “Also, since interstate traffic traveling on I-69 and I-37 share this stretch of roadway, the increased capacity resulting from this project is important to the interstate commerce of Texas and the nation."
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an update on current I-69E projects (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.10.14.nueces.html)Neverrmind, on the original link it says the following...
"DRISCOLL RELIEF ROUTE - A relief route around the town of Driscoll will be built in the future. It will close a gap in highway upgrades of about six miles and will create a connected freeway from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi south through Kingsville. The relief route will run through open farm fields and cross Petronila Creek on the east side of Driscoll."
This article (http://www.caller.com/story/news/local/texas/state-bureau/2017/03/29/txdot-approves-163-million-nueces-county-projects/99795920/) reports that the Driscoll relief route will be let in summer of 2018, completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Kingsville:QuoteThe state has earmarked nearly $104 million to a U.S. Highway 77 relief route around the town of Driscoll roughly between County Road 28 on the north and County Road 16 to the south. The bulk of the money — $79.5 million — will be for construction. The balance will pay for things like purchasing land for the route and for engineering services.
"The U.S. 77 relief route at the city of Driscoll will complete the last section of the I-69 corridor between Corpus Christi and Kingsville,” said Chris Caron, TxDOT’s district engineer in Corpus Christi. “Removing high-speed traffic from a low-speed urban setting enhances mobility and safety.”
There are two parts to the work planned for U.S. 77. TxDOT also plans a $37 million project to build new lanes and overpasses on the highway south of Driscoll to Farm to Market 3354.
The state will begin accepting bids for the U.S. 77 improvements in the summer of 2018.
There are also plans to improve I-37/69E:QuoteTo the north, the state plans to spend nearly $46 million to widen a 2.5-mile stretch of Interstate 37 from the overpass at Red Bird Lane to where the freeway crosses the Nueces River. The transportation department describes the section of I-37 as a “metro corridor” that needs congestion relief.
The state already owns the land needed for the widening project, so all but about $5 million of the project’s cost will go toward construction. The bid process is expected to begin in summer 2020.
"The I-37 project involves construction of a new bridge over the Nueces River, which will improve hurricane evacuation for the Coastal Bend and the Rio Grande Valley,” Canon said. “Also, since interstate traffic traveling on I-69 and I-37 share this stretch of roadway, the increased capacity resulting from this project is important to the interstate commerce of Texas and the nation."
TxDOT completed its US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) in October (it should be posted on the TxDOT website in the relatively near future). Basically, the goal is to complete I-69C from Edinburg to Alice by 2037, in part to allow for immediate I-69C signage for completed segments (pp. 11-12/15 of pdf; pp. 8-9 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/td5K8Pf.jpg)
The Alice connection to the TX 44 corridor from the south appears to be the top priority .... TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/us281-us59-district.pdf).
The news on I-69E probably couldn't be all that great if they're throwing out year 2037 time tables on completing the I-69C leg of this project.
I remember the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) once referred to himself during a re-election campaign as "Ol' Kennedy".
With that in mind, have we heard anything recently about the process of getting I-69E ready in "Ol' Kenedy (County)", the longest bloc of the highway in one county between Corpus Christi and Brownsville?
They've started numbering exits in the Houston District. I've noticed newly numbered exits on I-69/US 59 southbound near downtown Houston but I'm not sure if other sections have numbered exits yet. The exit to I-45 is 129B, Tuam/McGowen is 129A, and the exit to 288 is 128B.
TxDOT has issued a FONSI for the US 59 upgrade in western Wharton County, an approximately 12 mile segment from the Jackson County line to El Campo.
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/062617.html
This is an outrage. According to the schematic, this work will displace no fewer than two barbecue restaurants!
This is an outrage. According to the schematic, this work will displace no fewer than two barbecue restaurants!
The horror....... :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:
Purpose: TxDOT is the lead agency proposing to add frontage roads to United States (US) 59 from Farm to Market (FM) 1686 to State Loop (LP) 463 east of the City of Victoria, Victoria County, Texas. This notice advises the public that draft environmental documents are available for public review and that TxDOT is affording an opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed project.
Description: The project proposes to construct southbound and northbound one-way frontage roads along US 59 consisting of two 12-foot travel lanes with 10-foot outside shoulders and 4-foot inside shoulders.
The proposed frontage roads would be separated from the main lanes by a grass median. The proposed project would also construct an overpass approximately midway through the project limits as well as construct additional entrance and exit ramps. The purpose of the proposed project is to upgrade this section of US 59 to meet interstate standards.
Still more slow, incremental progress. TxDOT has issued a Notice Affording Opportunity for Public Hearing (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/070317.html) for a segment of US 59/Future I-69 in Victoria:QuotePurpose: TxDOT is the lead agency proposing to add frontage roads to United States (US) 59 from Farm to Market (FM) 1686 to State Loop (LP) 463 east of the City of Victoria, Victoria County, Texas. This notice advises the public that draft environmental documents are available for public review and that TxDOT is affording an opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed project.
Description: The project proposes to construct southbound and northbound one-way frontage roads along US 59 consisting of two 12-foot travel lanes with 10-foot outside shoulders and 4-foot inside shoulders.
The proposed frontage roads would be separated from the main lanes by a grass median. The proposed project would also construct an overpass approximately midway through the project limits as well as construct additional entrance and exit ramps. The purpose of the proposed project is to upgrade this section of US 59 to meet interstate standards.
Has any agency or entity (TxDOT, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, etc.) put forth plans for the exact alignment of I-69 around Victoria: will it remain on the 59 bypass around the south side of town and use the 59/77 interchange (suitably upgraded, of course) as the "splitting" point into 69E/69W? -- or would it somehow utilize the 463/77 northern loop, splitting 69 at the present 59/463 junction? Intuitively, I'd guess the former -- although considering the time it took all parties involved to decide to run I-69 directly through Houston rather than bypass it on TX 99, it would be difficult to count out such alternatives being at least considered.
On a related note, a lot of US-59 through Houston, though approved to be signed as I-69, has yet be to be signed as such, at least as of last month when I traveled through that area. I did notice that TxDOT did install mileposts on the Southwest Freeway from I-610 to at least Sugar Land.
Was this bridge in Jefferson, TX ever going to be on the future I-369 route? It just got hit by containers off a derailed train:
http://www.ksla.com/story/35834420/hwy-59-shut-down-in-jefferson-tx-after-2-trains-collide
(http://ksla.images.worldnow.com/images/14327139_G.jpg)
If it was, it probably won't be now.
Wow, both rail lines are curving as they cross one another at the bridge.
Wow, both rail lines are curving as they cross one another at the bridge.
I'd be curious as to the weather & visibility conditions at the time of the collision; if signal visibility was questionable, then that crossing, configured as it is, was and is essentially an accident that was waiting to happen. I've driven through this neck of the woods many times (tons of relatives within 50 miles of this place), and I've seen visibility limited to a half-block or less during downpours -- and my stopping distance, at its worst, is a microscopic percentage of that of a loaded container train!
Wow, both rail lines are curving as they cross one another at the bridge.
I'd be curious as to the weather & visibility conditions at the time of the collision; if signal visibility was questionable, then that crossing, configured as it is, was and is essentially an accident that was waiting to happen. I've driven through this neck of the woods many times (tons of relatives within 50 miles of this place), and I've seen visibility limited to a half-block or less during downpours -- and my stopping distance, at its worst, is a microscopic percentage of that of a loaded container train!
The weather was sunny & hot. The problem was that the cars that hit the UP stack train were runaways. (according to scuttlebutt I am hearing).
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area ... will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC)TxDOT will hold an Open House for this project (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/beaumont/111915.html) on November 19:Quote.... The proposed US 59 as I-69 would be converted from a four-lane divided highway to a six-lane divided, access-controlled freeway, with one-way frontage roads.
Additional changes to the project since the last open house meeting conducted on May 13, 2013 include the following:
-Modify US 59 main lanes curve at State Loop 573
-Revise the intersection at US 59 and State Loop 573; the northbound frontage road will follow the US 59 main lanes, instead of the northbound frontage road becoming State Loop 573
-Reverse the entrance and exit ramps between SH 105 and State Loop 573
-Add a right-turn lane to the southbound frontage road at the SH 105 connector
Purpose: TxDOT is proposing roadway improvements along approximately 4.7 miles of the existing alignment of US 59 extending from Fostoria Road near the Montgomery/Liberty County line to State Loop 573 in Liberty County, Texas ....
Description: The proposed project would include:
* Expanding the existing 4-lane divided highway to a 6-lane divided freeway with continuous 2-lane frontage roads in each direction
* Replacing or adding bridges at Pin Oak Road, the East Fork of the San Jacinto River, and at the connector to Loop 105
* Installing sidewalks on the outside of the proposed southbound frontage road
* Constructing 8-foot wide shared use lanes for bicycles on the northbound and southbound frontage lanes
* Improving drainage
The I-69 Texas Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69_in_Texas) is now showing exit numbers for most of I-69 (not the suffixed sections). Has anyone on this board been able to ground-truth this?
Is there any other active construction or any construction scheduled to start in the next year on the I-69 route in Texas?
There is also a $18 million project to add main lanes to 3.6 miles of SH 44 near Corpus, but this section of SH 44 is not on the IH 69 system (it is east of IH 69E)
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2018/nueces.htm#010201088 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2018/nueces.htm#010201088)
IIRC, TX 44 east to TX 358 and TX 358 north to I-37 were part of the Freer-Corpus addition authorized last year, which makes sense, as the main purpose of the TX 44 sub-corridor was to enhance the P.O.E. Laredo connection with the Port of Corpus Christi. AFAIK, no designation for this segment has been discussed or proposed to date.
Quote from: sparkerIIRC, TX 44 east to TX 358 and TX 358 north to I-37 were part of the Freer-Corpus addition authorized last year, which makes sense, as the main purpose of the TX 44 sub-corridor was to enhance the P.O.E. Laredo connection with the Port of Corpus Christi. AFAIK, no designation for this segment has been discussed or proposed to date.
I've seen some past suggestions of calling the Laredo to Corpus Christi corridor I-6 if it's fully developed into an Interstate class road. But with I-69W taking up the Freer to Laredo segment (around 50 miles), that would reduce a fictional I-6 (Freer to Corpus) down to less than 80 miles. The end result may just end up being a I-x69 designation if it becomes an Interstate.
I'm sorry if I sound dumb, but when I-69 is completed, in Texas, and overall, how long will it be?
That would make it the sixth longest north-south interstate, and 14th longest overall.I'm sorry if I sound dumb, but when I-69 is completed, in Texas, and overall, how long will it be?
800 miles or so for I-69 proper, well over 1000 if you Include I-69E, 69C, 69W, and 369.
75 miles of I-69 is signed from Cleveland, south through Houston to Rosenberg.
That would make it the sixth longest north-south interstate, and 14th longest overall.I'm sorry if I sound dumb, but when I-69 is completed, in Texas, and overall, how long will it be?
800 miles or so for I-69 proper, well over 1000 if you Include I-69E, 69C, 69W, and 369.
75 miles of I-69 is signed from Cleveland, south through Houston to Rosenberg.
I-69C (George West to Pharr) - 150 miles approx.Regardless, it would still be the longest interstate highway that has a number not divisible by 5.
I-69W (Victoria to Laredo) - 190 miles approx.
I-69E (Victoria to Brownsville) - 220 miles approx.
I-69 (Victoria to Logansport/LA Border) - 330 miles approx.
I-369 (Tenaha to I-30 near Texarkana) - 120 miles approx.
All of that is over 1000 miles of highway just within Texas. Add a few more miles for I-169 near Brownsville.
I-69C (George West to Pharr) - 150 miles approx.
I-69W (Victoria to Laredo) - 190 miles approx.
I-69E (Victoria to Brownsville) - 220 miles approx.
I-69 (Victoria to Logansport/LA Border) - 330 miles approx.
I-369 (Tenaha to I-30 near Texarkana) - 120 miles approx.
All of that is over 1000 miles of highway just within Texas. Add a few more miles for I-169 near Brownsville.
Judge Emmett spoke at the December 2 luncheon of the Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%2012.16.16%20Emmett%20remarks.html) and he provided an outline of the "I-69 Bypass";QuoteEmmett .... 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):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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
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 ...
TxDOT has published a four-page October 2016 U.S. 59 Loop Upgrade newsletter (http://www.laredompo.org/files/Announcements/US59LoopUpgrade.pdf) which contains a Notice of a December 1 Public Meeting. Here is a snip from a map in the newsletter:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_28_10_16_1_24_13.png)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_28_10_16_4_56_59.jpeg)
Laredoans will see less traffic congestion on the north side of town all thanks to the new overpass on International.
TxDOT has announced that the newly constructed overpass on International Boulevard and Loop 20 is now open.
After a year and a half of construction, the 22 million dollar project will now enhance the mobility for motorists who use Loop 20 as part of their daily commute.
An official inaugural event celebrating the opening of the overpass will be set in the near future.
When the Loop 20 project is completed (current estimate about eight years (p. 6/18 of pdf) (http://www.laredompo.org/files/presentations/Loop20I69fundingplan.pdf)), there may be some rumblings to make Loop 20 from Saunders Street to SH 359 an I-x69. The rumblings will be even louder if construction is started on the fifth international bridge, which Laredo officials showcased the site (http://www.lmtonline.com/local/politics/article/Laredo-Nuevo-Laredo-in-the-running-to-becoming-12052571.php) as recently as August(above quote from Interstate 169 (Texas) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21707.msg2282503#msg2282503) thread)
The vision for an outer loop that runs through Webb County, concentric to Loop 20, was first discussed in the 1990s, before the current loop was even constructed.
Two studies have been conducted for the road since, most recently in 2005, but the outer loop project has remained sidelined while the Texas Department of Transportation, the city and the county spend resources upgrading Loop 20.
On Monday, however, TxDOT reinvigorated the project in its presentation to the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and suggested continuing its study of the proposed road path and developing a schematic. The MPO asked to have this topic on the agenda for all future monthly meetings ....
Back in the day, Montemayor said, Kansas City Southern Railway was also looking at an outer loop alignment for similar purposes, unbeknownst to TxDOT. When they found out, the two groups got together and discovered that their proposed paths were very similar.
They had conversations that this road could be a utilities corridor, Montemayor said. And today TxDOT thinks the outer loop could be designed as a future interstate to be proactive about future growth, she said ....
TxDOT engineer Roberto Rodriguez, who led the presentation on Monday, said the road would connect to Highway 255 in the north, and loop to a possible fifth bridge site south of Laredo. In 2006, the construction estimate for the outer loop was $441 million.
When the Loop 20 project is completed (current estimate about eight years (p. 6/18 of pdf) (http://www.laredompo.org/files/presentations/Loop20I69fundingplan.pdf)), there may be some rumblings to make Loop 20 from Saunders Street to SH 359 an I-x69. The rumblings will be even louder if construction is started on the fifth international bridge, which Laredo officials showcased the site (http://www.lmtonline.com/local/politics/article/Laredo-Nuevo-Laredo-in-the-running-to-becoming-12052571.php) as recently as August(above quote from Interstate 169 (Texas) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21707.msg2282503#msg2282503) thread)
This Dec. 19 article (https://www.lmtonline.com/local/article/Talk-of-Webb-County-outer-loop-project-renewed-by-12441397.php) reports on rumblings at TxDOT to reenergize an interstate-grade Laredo Outer Loop:QuoteThe vision for an outer loop that runs through Webb County, concentric to Loop 20, was first discussed in the 1990s, before the current loop was even constructed.
Two studies have been conducted for the road since, most recently in 2005, but the outer loop project has remained sidelined while the Texas Department of Transportation, the city and the county spend resources upgrading Loop 20.
On Monday, however, TxDOT reinvigorated the project in its presentation to the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and suggested continuing its study of the proposed road path and developing a schematic. The MPO asked to have this topic on the agenda for all future monthly meetings ....
Back in the day, Montemayor said, Kansas City Southern Railway was also looking at an outer loop alignment for similar purposes, unbeknownst to TxDOT. When they found out, the two groups got together and discovered that their proposed paths were very similar.
They had conversations that this road could be a utilities corridor, Montemayor said. And today TxDOT thinks the outer loop could be designed as a future interstate to be proactive about future growth, she said ....
TxDOT engineer Roberto Rodriguez, who led the presentation on Monday, said the road would connect to Highway 255 in the north, and loop to a possible fifth bridge site south of Laredo. In 2006, the construction estimate for the outer loop was $441 million.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_25_12_17_8_47_38.png)
Theoretically, part of I-69W may be incorporated into this route. It will be interesting to watch plans develop.
I suppose it would likely be an I-x35 (and I-2 long-term).
And IIRC, it would take that title away from I-94?I-69C (George West to Pharr) - 150 miles approx.Regardless, it would still be the longest interstate highway that has a number not divisible by 5.
I-69W (Victoria to Laredo) - 190 miles approx.
I-69E (Victoria to Brownsville) - 220 miles approx.
I-69 (Victoria to Logansport/LA Border) - 330 miles approx.
I-369 (Tenaha to I-30 near Texarkana) - 120 miles approx.
All of that is over 1000 miles of highway just within Texas. Add a few more miles for I-169 near Brownsville.
And IIRC, it would take that title away from I-94?I-69C (George West to Pharr) - 150 miles approx.Regardless, it would still be the longest interstate highway that has a number not divisible by 5.
I-69W (Victoria to Laredo) - 190 miles approx.
I-69E (Victoria to Brownsville) - 220 miles approx.
I-69 (Victoria to Logansport/LA Border) - 330 miles approx.
I-369 (Tenaha to I-30 near Texarkana) - 120 miles approx.
All of that is over 1000 miles of highway just within Texas. Add a few more miles for I-169 near Brownsville.
And IIRC, it would take that title away from I-94?I-69C (George West to Pharr) - 150 miles approx.Regardless, it would still be the longest interstate highway that has a number not divisible by 5.
I-69W (Victoria to Laredo) - 190 miles approx.
I-69E (Victoria to Brownsville) - 220 miles approx.
I-69 (Victoria to Logansport/LA Border) - 330 miles approx.
I-369 (Tenaha to I-30 near Texarkana) - 120 miles approx.
All of that is over 1000 miles of highway just within Texas. Add a few more miles for I-169 near Brownsville.
Only the longest branch counts. To determine the total length of I-35, we don't count both I-35W and I-35E for the total, so we shouldn't be counting each branch of I-69 separately.
TxDOT will hold a February 9 Open House (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/020917.html) about the route through Robstown, including the interchange with I-69E:TxDOT has posted the materials from the Open House. Here is a snip of a map of the alternatives from the Fact Sheet (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/sh-44/020917-factsheet.pdf).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_25_02_17_4_01_47.jpeg)
Purpose:
The purpose of the open house is to discuss the proposed upgrades to SH 44 from west of FM 3386 to east of FM 1694 in Nueces County. The purpose of the open house is to give the public the opportunity to review available project information and exhibits, discuss the project with project staff, and ask questions. The meeting will be held in a come-and-go format, so the public may attend at their convenience. Staff will be available to answer questions.
Description:
The proposed improvements include:
Upgrading the existing four-lane divided highway to a four-lane divided freeway with frontage roads
Constructing on and off ramps
Constructing overpasses at FM 24 (Violet Road) and CR 61
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69? What are they going to do about the number duplicity?
↑ probably make another I-69
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69? What are they going to do about the number duplicity?
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69? What are they going to do about the number duplicity?
All I-69 and US 69 do is intersect. In NC, we have I-74 and US 74 actually running concurrent, thanks to a Congressional fiat. It drives some of us Forum folks crazy, but nobody in southern NC seems at all concerned about it.
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69? What are they going to do about the number duplicity?
All I-69 and US 69 do is intersect. In NC, we have I-74 and US 74 actually running concurrent, thanks to a Congressional fiat. It drives some of us Forum folks crazy, but nobody in southern NC seems at all concerned about it.
Any state that contains I-20, a SH 20 (El Paso area) and Loop 20 (Laredo) is clearly indicating that they aren't at all concerned with numerical duplication.
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69? What are they going to do about the number duplicity?
All I-69 and US 69 do is intersect. In NC, we have I-74 and US 74 actually running concurrent, thanks to a Congressional fiat. It drives some of us Forum folks crazy, but nobody in southern NC seems at all concerned about it.
Any state that contains I-20, a SH 20 (El Paso area) and Loop 20 (Laredo) is clearly indicating that they aren't at all concerned with numerical duplication.
Not to mention Farm to Market Road 20 and Park Road 20.
As an interesting, or uninteresting, side note there are 20 highway designations numbered 20 in Texas, counting all of the Interstate business routes.
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69? What are they going to do about the number duplicity?
All I-69 and US 69 do is intersect. In NC, we have I-74 and US 74 actually running concurrent, thanks to a Congressional fiat. It drives some of us Forum folks crazy, but nobody in southern NC seems at all concerned about it.
Don't forget about I-41/US 41 in WI; while we can analyze that to death like we do I-69/US 69 and I-74/US 74, no one up there cares about it, because it'll always be Highway 41 to them, no matter what the shield is.I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69? What are they going to do about the number duplicity?
All I-69 and US 69 do is intersect. In NC, we have I-74 and US 74 actually running concurrent, thanks to a Congressional fiat. It drives some of us Forum folks crazy, but nobody in southern NC seems at all concerned about it.
It'll be a local level which-one-are-you-talking-about for probably quite some time, but no one outside east TX seems concerned.
Matador, TX has the same issue (US 70 crossing TX 70 there) but there are no big calls for the state to re-label TX 70 to something else.
In this case, since I-69C is the "center", shouldn't it count as the "mainline". And 69W before 69C branches off?And IIRC, it would take that title away from I-94?I-69C (George West to Pharr) - 150 miles approx.Regardless, it would still be the longest interstate highway that has a number not divisible by 5.
I-69W (Victoria to Laredo) - 190 miles approx.
I-69E (Victoria to Brownsville) - 220 miles approx.
I-69 (Victoria to Logansport/LA Border) - 330 miles approx.
I-369 (Tenaha to I-30 near Texarkana) - 120 miles approx.
All of that is over 1000 miles of highway just within Texas. Add a few more miles for I-169 near Brownsville.
Only the longest branch counts. To determine the total length of I-35, we don't count both I-35W and I-35E for the total, so we shouldn't be counting each branch of I-69 separately.
“This is a project being undertaken jointly by Cameron County RMA, Hidalgo County RMA, and the Texas Department of Transportation to create a connection between Interstate 69-East and Interstate 69-Central. It will also connect to a future section of the loop, State Highway 68.”
The first part of the Loop to get built will be a section near to the Texas-Mexico Border. It is officially called the 365 Tollway. Rodriguez told MEDC that the 365 Tollway will be a 12.2-mile four-way lane from the Pharr International Bridge westward to the Anzalduas International Bridge. He said it will likely take 42 months to complete.
Phase Two of the 365 Tollway, Rodriguez said, will go from Military Highway at San Juan Road, north to the south levee at Cage Boulevard in Pharr, across to 23rd Street where it will cross over floodway at Ware Road and then parallels the north floodway levee until it gets to Anzalduas.
Phase 3, Rodriguez said, will see the 365 Tollway extended from FM 396/Anzalduas Highway to FM 1016/Conway Avenue in Mission, a 12.2 mile segment. He said Phase 3 has been cleared environmentally but no right of way has been purchased.
Potential I-69 branch routes in the Rio Grande Valley?
Rodriguez: 102-mile Hidalgo County Loop will be a toll road (http://riograndeguardian.com/rodriguez-102-mile-hidalgo-county-loop-will-be-a-toll-road/)Quote“This is a project being undertaken jointly by Cameron County RMA, Hidalgo County RMA, and the Texas Department of Transportation to create a connection between Interstate 69-East and Interstate 69-Central. It will also connect to a future section of the loop, State Highway 68.”QuoteThe first part of the Loop to get built will be a section near to the Texas-Mexico Border. It is officially called the 365 Tollway. Rodriguez told MEDC that the 365 Tollway will be a 12.2-mile four-way lane from the Pharr International Bridge westward to the Anzalduas International Bridge. He said it will likely take 42 months to complete.QuotePhase Two of the 365 Tollway, Rodriguez said, will go from Military Highway at San Juan Road, north to the south levee at Cage Boulevard in Pharr, across to 23rd Street where it will cross over floodway at Ware Road and then parallels the north floodway levee until it gets to Anzalduas.QuotePhase 3, Rodriguez said, will see the 365 Tollway extended from FM 396/Anzalduas Highway to FM 1016/Conway Avenue in Mission, a 12.2 mile segment. He said Phase 3 has been cleared environmentally but no right of way has been purchased.
Potential I-69 branch routes in the Rio Grande Valley?
Rodriguez: 102-mile Hidalgo County Loop will be a toll road (http://riograndeguardian.com/rodriguez-102-mile-hidalgo-county-loop-will-be-a-toll-road/)Quote“This is a project being undertaken jointly by Cameron County RMA, Hidalgo County RMA, and the Texas Department of Transportation to create a connection between Interstate 69-East and Interstate 69-Central. It will also connect to a future section of the loop, State Highway 68.”QuoteThe first part of the Loop to get built will be a section near to the Texas-Mexico Border. It is officially called the 365 Tollway. Rodriguez told MEDC that the 365 Tollway will be a 12.2-mile four-way lane from the Pharr International Bridge westward to the Anzalduas International Bridge. He said it will likely take 42 months to complete.QuotePhase Two of the 365 Tollway, Rodriguez said, will go from Military Highway at San Juan Road, north to the south levee at Cage Boulevard in Pharr, across to 23rd Street where it will cross over floodway at Ware Road and then parallels the north floodway levee until it gets to Anzalduas.QuotePhase 3, Rodriguez said, will see the 365 Tollway extended from FM 396/Anzalduas Highway to FM 1016/Conway Avenue in Mission, a 12.2 mile segment. He said Phase 3 has been cleared environmentally but no right of way has been purchased.
Future I-202?
What kind of solutions do you think are feasible for the Southwest Freeway?
What construction is being done at Rosenburg starting at hwy 10? The I-69 detour through the construction area is white knuckle type of driving.The construction is the widening project. The existing freeway goes under FM 762 and the adjacent railroad, but in the new design the main lanes and frontage roads go over the highway and railroad. The bridge structures are long and wide.
What construction is being done at Rosenburg starting at hwy 10? The I-69 detour through the construction area is white knuckle type of driving.The construction is the widening project. The existing freeway goes under FM 762 and the adjacent railroad, but in the new design the main lanes and frontage roads go over the highway and railroad. The bridge structures are long and wide.
I don't know the reason for going over instead of under. The only possible reason I can think of is to eliminate flooding risk, since the current underpass is excavated below ground level. The bridges surely added a lot to the project cost.
So -- there's a local TV station that thinks I-69 is going to Missouri? I suppose if you lay a ruler down along that portion of US 59 on a map, it'll eventually extend to MO. Nevertheless, while it's likely such mistakes are relatively common, a little basic research and a couple of phone calls could have corrected the conception. But perhaps the consideration here -- possibly promoted by TX I-69 backers, is that, at least within the state, the primary goal is to get an Interstate-grade facility built to the Texarkana area -- despite the primary I-69 planned trunk leaving the state near US 84. The I-369 extension north to Texarkana and, beyond that, a connection to the future I-49, is probably considered within state circles to be more vital than any part of the I-69 corridor through Shreveport and on to Memphis; that might be reflected in information supplied to the press.
The reason the overall national I-69 project is broken up into discrete SIU's becomes apparent when things like this occur; besides being the more realistic way to "eat the elephant", so to speak, it enables sizeable chunks of the corridor to be marketed (for that's essentially what securing funds entails these days) as providing local or more constrained regional benefit. Seeing as how TX, along with IN, was the area featuring many of the more vehement backers of the full corridor concept (and the site of the largest amount of mileage), it's not surprising that the PR surrounding the corridor emphasizes the TX benefits of the route portions within the state, including the I-369 branch -- while downplaying -- or not mentioning -- the out-of-state portions of the I-69 corridor with less perceived value to TX interests. It's all understandable, seeing as how a corridor reaching Texarkana will also access I-30, taking advantage of its longstanding role as the major Interstate corridor heading NE from the state. So once the I-69/369 continuum from Houston to Texarkana is completed, the in-state "Job #1" is fulfilled.
So -- there's a local TV station that thinks I-69 is going to Missouri?
I wouldn't be surprised if Texas chose to build I-369 up to Texarkana before completing I-69 to the Louisiana state line.
All interstates connect to Seattle, San Diego, Houlton, and Miami.
...And American Falls. ;)
You mean I-86ESSESSSSESSESSW!All interstates connect to Seattle, San Diego, Houlton, and Miami.
...And American Falls. ;)
Not I-2...
I wouldn't be surprised if Texas chose to build I-369 up to Texarkana before completing I-69 to the Louisiana state line.
Shreveport-Bossier would raise holy hell if I-69 SIU's #14 & #15 were eliminated, because that's what they are using to both access the Port of Greater Shreveport-Bossier and to complete the Inner Loop freeway (LA 3132).
Better to just keep it on the back burner until I-49 South and the I-49 downtown ICC are completed.
isn't there some controversy over upgrading US 77 in Refugio, where some folk have expressed opposition to a freeway upgrade there??This June 26 article (http://www.mysoutex.com/view/full_story_landing/25352277/article-Refugio-urged-to-plan-for-I-69) reports on a June 23 meeting during which I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and TxDOT officials encouraged Refugio officials to become involved in planning for I-69E:
The purpose of the open house is to discuss preliminary and conceptual improvements to US 77 (from south of the city of Woodsboro to north of the city of Refugio) to upgrade to a controlled access highway that meets interstate standards. The study is the initial stage of project development and public involvement will remain a vital element and will be continuous throughout all stages. The meeting will be held in a come-and-go format, so the public may attend at their convenience. Staff will be available to answer questions.
isn't there some controversy over upgrading US 77 in Refugio, where some folk have expressed opposition to a freeway upgrade there??This June 26 article (http://www.mysoutex.com/view/full_story_landing/25352277/article-Refugio-urged-to-plan-for-I-69) reports on a June 23 meeting during which I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and TxDOT officials encouraged Refugio officials to become involved in planning for I-69E:
The route study is progressing slowly. There will be an Open House (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/062118.html) on June 21 so that the public can view the three basic route options (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us77-woodsboro-refugio/050318-potential-routes.pdf):QuoteThe purpose of the open house is to discuss preliminary and conceptual improvements to US 77 (from south of the city of Woodsboro to north of the city of Refugio) to upgrade to a controlled access highway that meets interstate standards. The study is the initial stage of project development and public involvement will remain a vital element and will be continuous throughout all stages. The meeting will be held in a come-and-go format, so the public may attend at their convenience. Staff will be available to answer questions.
From the route study page (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/corpus-christi/us77-woodsboro-refugio-route-study.html):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_02_06_18_10_07_01.jpeg)
I drove from Houston to Nacogdoches last week and I realized just how much work needs to be done on this segment to get it to interstate standards. Unless there is a big infusion of money, this is going to take a long, long time and I may not see it done in my lifetime (I'm 51).
This is off topic kind of but to your point about how much money they’re spending for engineering and design, LA is spending 45 million dollars on design and engineering work for a bike path project. If that isn’t a typo and I’m afraid it’s not, that is insane. I just can’t believe how much money these projects are today. The number keeps getting bigger and bigger. 30 billion for a new Bay Bridge... 55 billion for a new NYC Long Island bridge...Quote from: MaxConcreteI drove from Houston to Nacogdoches last week and I realized just how much work needs to be done on this segment to get it to interstate standards. Unless there is a big infusion of money, this is going to take a long, long time and I may not see it done in my lifetime (I'm 51).
That's kind of the story for all Interstate level projects. It's a problem compounded by numerous factors. One factor is how policy makers at the top (federal) levels have lost all sight of America's past tradition of building big things on a big, national scale. We don't do that anymore. Today the only focus for policy makers is taking care of their own friends and cutting funding out of projects championed by their enemies. That's where we are now and this nation is doomed to decline and irrelevance as long as we want to stick to that. Another factor is the out of control cost inflation of road building and maintenance. Nothing is being done to mitigate that. Then there's the legal gravy train present. Any and all road projects are subject to being dragged through the courts and providing a fantastic revenue stream for any law firms suing to block such projects. Engineering firms are going to get paid for all time spent drafting and revising plans for these projects. So it doesn't give them any heartburn if they're continually revising the plans for the same damned road project for over 20 freaking years before any actual construction starts -if any construction starts ever.
Meanwhile all these "connected types" seems utterly oblivious to how other nations (such as China for instance) are building thousands of miles worth of new superhighways every year -not to mention things we can't seem to build in the US, such as high speed rail lines. Or maybe they know but don't care and are only playing their games to get paid. They'll talk a big game waving the American flag for the public but they're not offering much of a clear future.
It’s very sad to see this and I can only hope something is done about it soon. But judging by the way the U.S. seems to do anything anymore and the lack of willpower to do anything bold and ambitious, I am bit on the pessimistic side.
We should do things because they’re hard, not easy. I’m sure everyone knows where that came from.
It’s very sad to see this and I can only hope something is done about it soon. But judging by the way the U.S. seems to do anything anymore and the lack of willpower to do anything bold and ambitious, I am bit on the pessimistic side.
We should do things because they’re hard, not easy. I’m sure everyone knows where that came from.
Yep, and meanwhile in China they can build a new, state-of-the-art suspension bridge (with Western engineering and quality materials) with the road deck at a new, world's highest height (1854 feet above a river) all for the equivalent of $144 million. That's less than 10% of the bare minimum of what the same bridge would cost to build in the United States.
Yep, and meanwhile in China they can build a new, state-of-the-art suspension bridge (with Western engineering and quality materials) with the road deck at a new, world's highest height (1854 feet above a river) all for the equivalent of $144 million. That's less than 10% of the bare minimum of what the same bridge would cost to build in the United States.
Principal differences: (a) labor cost (b) manufactured in parts and assembled on site (c) straight-up state-initiated-financed project with no one (at least on the surface) taking a piece of the action as profit. A highly vertical structure such as the Chinese public works apparatus is normally capable of producing results at an ostensibly lower cost (but given the byzantine nature of China's bureaucracy, who knows what the actual cost structure of any give project entails). Take any dollar figure attached to such a state project with a shaker-full rather than a grain of salt!
Principal differences: (a) labor cost (b) manufactured in parts and assembled on site (c) straight-up state-initiated-financed project with no one (at least on the surface) taking a piece of the action as profit. A highly vertical structure such as the Chinese public works apparatus is normally capable of producing results at an ostensibly lower cost (but given the byzantine nature of China's bureaucracy, who knows what the actual cost structure of any give project entails). Take any dollar figure attached to such a state project with a shaker-full rather than a grain of salt!
I suspect this will be another problem that AI/automation will eventually resolve in the next 30-50 years, at the cost of a lot of human jobs.
Principal differences: (a) labor cost (b) manufactured in parts and assembled on site (c) straight-up state-initiated-financed project with no one (at least on the surface) taking a piece of the action as profit. A highly vertical structure such as the Chinese public works apparatus is normally capable of producing results at an ostensibly lower cost (but given the byzantine nature of China's bureaucracy, who knows what the actual cost structure of any give project entails). Take any dollar figure attached to such a state project with a shaker-full rather than a grain of salt!
Bids were opened last week for the Driscoll Relief Route (bypass), which is just south of Corpus Christi. The winning bid is $118.3 million
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07113202.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07113202.htm)
I drove through the area on Wednesday. US 77 in Driscoll is currently in an urban-style configuration with a center turn lane, and there is a traffic signal in the center of the city....
Bids were opened last week for the Driscoll Relief Route (bypass), which is just south of Corpus Christi. The winning bid is $118.3 million
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07113202.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07113202.htm) ... US 77 in Driscoll is currently in an urban-style configuration with a center turn lane, and there is a traffic signal in the center of the city.
However there is another traffic signal a few miles south of Kingsville in Riviera, so after the bypass is complete there will still not be an uninterrupted route to the Rio Grande Valley. While most of the route between Riviera and Raymondville does not meet interstate standards, it is an uninhabited area with no traffic signals.
When the latest project is completed in about three years it will eliminate the traffic light at FM 665 in Driscoll, one of the two last stoplights on the 151-mile I-69E route between Corpus Christi and Brownsville.
The other traffic light is at the key trucking intersection of US 77 and SH 285 in Riviera in southern Kleberg County, an intersection that is complicated by the railroad line adjacent to the existing highway lanes. A 4-mile relief route is required at Riviera and right-of-way acquisition for that project has been underway for more than a year. The project is considered under development but no schedule has yet been set for funding construction.
The Texas Transportation Commission has awarded a $118 million construction contract that will close a 9.5-mile gap in on the Interstate 69E route in Nueces County west of Corpus Christi.
The project will include the 4-mile US 77 relief route on the east side of Driscoll, a crossroads town between Corpus Christi and Kingsville. It will create a continuous 31-mile interstate standard highway from Interstate 37 through Robstown, Driscoll, Bishop and Kingsville.
The Corpus Christi to Kingsville section includes a 7-mile segment from Bishop to Kingsville completed in 2017 under a $79 million contract and a 3.2-mile segment south of Robstown that will be completed in the coming months under a $43 million contract.
I'll be surprised if the I-69 segment through Louisiana ever is built. It's simply not a priority for Louisiana.
Texas has no incentive to make it a priority. They can just route the thing to Texarkana via the I-369 route.
I am skeptical of the rest of the route between Shreveport and Memphis getting built unless there's a big pot of federal money.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for I-14 to get built.
I do think the segment going from TX I-69 to Shreveport gets built.
I-40 in Arkansas would likely need to be six-laned to handle the traffic I understand.
With that being said, I-69 in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi is much harder to justify when I-69/I-369 and I-30 serves the same purpose in an arguably straighter route. The I-49 and I-57 corridors will make I-369 more attractive to traffic coming from Houston.
I-14 doesn't offer the same "big picture" compliments to the larger Interstate highway system. That's probably why this is being pitched by politicians with the angle of linking military posts/bases. Most heavy military equipment gets moved by rail or by air. Not so much gets moved on the highways. And if Fort Hood really needed an Interstate link to another important Army post they would do better by upgrading US-281 to Interstate standards between Lampasas and Wichita Falls -that would provide a high speed road link between Fort Hood and Fort Sill here in Lawton. There's a lot more close activity going on between those two posts than with Fort Polk.
With that being said, I-69 in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi is much harder to justify when I-69/I-369 and I-30 serves the same purpose in an arguably straighter route. The I-49 and I-57 corridors will make I-369 more attractive to traffic coming from Houston.
I-14 doesn't offer the same "big picture" compliments to the larger Interstate highway system. That's probably why this is being pitched by politicians with the angle of linking military posts/bases. Most heavy military equipment gets moved by rail or by air. Not so much gets moved on the highways. And if Fort Hood really needed an Interstate link to another important Army post they would do better by upgrading US-281 to Interstate standards between Lampasas and Wichita Falls -that would provide a high speed road link between Fort Hood and Fort Sill here in Lawton. There's a lot more close activity going on between those two posts than with Fort Polk.
I truncated your post to stay on task, which is comparing the I-69 connector in Louisiana to I-14. I agree completely that it makes more sense to take I-69 through the I-369/I-30/I-40 route than through the new territory. The Louisiana-Arkansas routing is mostly wishful thinking and ego stroking for southern Arkansas.
As for I-14, the key question is this: Why is a link to Fort Polk and central Louisiana important to Fort Hood in particular and Texas in general? Ford Polk is a lot closer to the Gulf of Mexico than either Fort Hood or Fort Sill. We're more likely to be attacked by an enemy from without than from within. So it makes sense to have easy access to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.
The current best route from Fort Hood to the Gulf passes through several small towns and directly through Houston, Beaumont and Lake Charles. I-14 would bypass all of that. I-14 can go all the way to the Atlantic Ocean without passing through any major cities at all (except maybe Alexandria). It's far enough inland that it would be less threatened by an external invader. That sounds strategic to me. However, I have no experience with the military. Feel free to correct me if it's irrelevant.
I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.
I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.
I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock and I-40 from NLR to Memphis already carry a huge load, even with widening to 3x3 ongoing and the AR 440 bypass around Little Rock. I don't think that you'd want to add an additional load to that with I-69 interregional traffic just to save $$$$.
Shreveport has plenty of skin in this game to lose if they lose I-69; they lose the only Interstate access to their main port, and they lose an opportunity to complete their Inner Loop. Also, South AR would probably want the growth that the originally approved path for I-69 would bring to their region.
I-14...I'm a "meh" on that. I still don't see the need for an expensive Interstate corridor bisecting the north, and there's still the issue of how you get that sucka through Alexandria/Pineville and Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez. I still say that a Lake Charles-Alexandria-Monroe-Bastrop-Monticello (Super I-69 Extender) freeway would have more bang for the bucks...but, that's only me.
I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock and I-40 from NLR to Memphis already carry a huge load, even with widening to 3x3 ongoing and the AR 440 bypass around Little Rock. I don't think that you'd want to add an additional load to that with I-69 interregional traffic just to save $$$$.
How much additional traffic is I-69 going to create? The traffic will be there (or not be there) whether or not I-69 routes through Little Rock or through nowhere.
Shreveport has plenty of skin in this game to lose if they lose I-69; they lose the only Interstate access to their main port, and they lose an opportunity to complete their Inner Loop. Also, South AR would probably want the growth that the originally approved path for I-69 would bring to their region.
But does Shreveport have the clout to win it in Baton Rouge? I've never lived in north Louisiana (aside from 2 school years at LSMSA) so I have no idea what the economy is like up there. A quick search suggests it's not exactly booming: industry is gone and the main draw are casinos. They need a better argument for I-69 than "I-69 is going to bring more cross-country traffic through here." I asked this question earlier: What benefit does the Louisiana-Arkansas route bring to Texas that the Little Rock route does not? If they can't argue that it brings long-term benefit beyond being a pass-through, they have little chance of winning against projects from the south at the Capitol.
I-14...I'm a "meh" on that. I still don't see the need for an expensive Interstate corridor bisecting the north, and there's still the issue of how you get that sucka through Alexandria/Pineville and Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez. I still say that a Lake Charles-Alexandria-Monroe-Bastrop-Monticello (Super I-69 Extender) freeway would have more bang for the bucks...but, that's only me.
Funny that you should bring up that corridor. Because if I were a south Louisiana legislator, and I wanted to make friends in central and north Louisiana, I'd pitch them the US 165 corridor, not I-69. An interstate along that route (presumably an extension of I-57) would strengthen the bond between Lake Charles and Monroe, link provide an alternate route for northbound traffic from Texas, link that area to St. Louis and Chicago (I-57), and improve hurricane evacuation. I-69 provides little or none of those benefits.
The advantage of I-14 over I-69 and the US 165 corridor is that it gives Texas a reason to invest in Louisiana. Texas does not need I-69 to go through Louisiana.
As expected, the Alliance for I-69/Texas' system map shows I-369 as the continuation of the principal corridor north of Houston; the I-69 trunk into LA is shown as an ancillary segment. This map makes their priorities crystal clear: an Interstate corridor designed to convey south Texas traffic to either I-30 or, eventually, I-49 in Texarkana. The segment extending into LA will likely not even be the subject of preliminary design & engineering until I-369 is either completed or fully let.
As expected, the Alliance for I-69/Texas' system map shows I-369 as the continuation of the principal corridor north of Houston; the I-69 trunk into LA is shown as an ancillary segment. This map makes their priorities crystal clear: an Interstate corridor designed to convey south Texas traffic to either I-30 or, eventually, I-49 in Texarkana. The segment extending into LA will likely not even be the subject of preliminary design & engineering until I-369 is either completed or fully let.
It should be noted though:
The map is dated 2015, so I'm sure updates are in order.
That map also shows the I-69 segment into LA as an upgrade of US 84; I'm more than sure that a new terrain route will be used for this route and the connection between I-69 and I-369 near Tenaha.
LADOTD and the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG, the MPO for Shreveport/Bossier) has been trying for years to get Texas to cofund an EIS/preliminary engineering for the Tenaha-Logansport-Stonewall segment of I-69 (SIU #13??), but has gotten stonewalled (pun not intended) by TXDOT. It's obvious that they also fear that if Texas is emphasizing I-369, Shreveport would get bypassed out of the benefits of that highway....and they are not too happy about that. Even with the main priority of the I-49 ICC.
The key element here is patience, and the willingness to allow the process to develop on its own. Rushing to pull I-69 onto I-30/I-40 (and I-55/I-155) and to build I-14 just to save money and spite LA and AR seems to me counterproductive to that consensus.
As for I-14, the key question is this: Why is a link to Fort Polk and central Louisiana important to Fort Hood in particular and Texas in general? Ford Polk is a lot closer to the Gulf of Mexico than either Fort Hood or Fort Sill. We're more likely to be attacked by an enemy from without than from within. So it makes sense to have easy access to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.
This is a years overdue upgrade. Especially with Cleveland being a control city on many of the I-69 signs in the Houston area. At the very least I-69 should be full Interstate quality through Cleveland, TX.
Proposed improvements include to construct, in the interim, 4 lanes divided (2 main lanes each direction) and 2-lane frontage roads. The ultimate section would add an additional 2 main lanes (1 lane each direction) to be constructed as traffic warrants in the future. The purpose of the proposed project is to enhance mobility, safety, and improve traffic operations along US 281. The goal is to construct the project within the existing right-of-way (ROW) however; additional ROW may be required to upgrade the facility based on a chosen feasible alternative alignment.
Public meetings are schedulded for the US 281 upgrades in Hidalgo and Brooks counties, from SH 186 at Linn to FM 3066 south of Falfurrias.Bumping the thread here. I must say, I don't know where this project has gone since October, but this is being phased the wrong way. All of the four-lane I-69 sections currently have a median of about 47 feet, grassy. Future expansion can happen in the middle to create 6 lanes with barrier when needed, but that's not for a while.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/102318.htmlQuoteProposed improvements include to construct, in the interim, 4 lanes divided (2 main lanes each direction) and 2-lane frontage roads. The ultimate section would add an additional 2 main lanes (1 lane each direction) to be constructed as traffic warrants in the future. The purpose of the proposed project is to enhance mobility, safety, and improve traffic operations along US 281. The goal is to construct the project within the existing right-of-way (ROW) however; additional ROW may be required to upgrade the facility based on a chosen feasible alternative alignment.
This section is a good 40 miles long. US 281 is already a four lane divided highway which runs pretty much through the middle of nowhere. Most intersections are with unpaved roads to remote farms. The only remaining major intersection with FM 755 has already been grade-separated in 2014.
Are they going to upgrade this stretch to freeway standards in the interim phase? They don't mention any further grade-separation.
A future upgrade to six main lanes seems very far away. There is nothing out there and traffic volumes are only some 15,000 vehicles per day according to the TxDOT planning map.
^^^^^^^^I understand that eventually the freeway will have six lanes, with a barrier, but when constructing the initial four lanes, the "room" for future expansion should be on the inside, not the outside. Construct the initial four lanes now with a 47 foot grassy median + the two frontage roads, then fill in the grassy median with an additional lane + shoulder in each direction on the mainline when warranted. Building now to the inside, then constructing on the outside later on presents issues in the future. One of those, each outside ramp will have to be reconfigured when 6-laned to accommodate that new lane. That would present traffic issues and confusing maneuvering during a widening project. If it was built initially to the outside, additional lane widening wouldn't affect any movements off the freeway, and any ramps.
This sort of plan is likely a response to the high volumes of truck traffic heading to & from the Hidalgo POE that are using US 281 to get to both US 59 and I-37. The upgrade to I-69C has been a relatively slow slog compared to other portions of the corridor complex, and locals who have to get in & out of the original "frontage road" lanes preliminarily constructed per usual TXDOT practice are likely finding that truck volume problematic regarding safety and in all probability are lodging complaints regarding such. Thus, the schedule to construct those 44 miles of freeway with a barrier appropriate for such commercial traffic volumes has been thus advanced.
Clearly the initial expansion of US 281 to 2+2 attracted truck traffic away from parallel US 77 (I-69E); while both routes feature the long open sections favored by commercial drivers (and their dispatchers), 281 does provide a shorter and more direct route to San Antonio distribution facilities as well as points along I-35 north of there. That feature was in all likelihood near the top of the list of reasons why both US 77 and US 281 were included in the I-69 "family".The I-69 family is confusing IMHO. It's all normal heading south until Victoria. I-69C & I-69W will follow U.S. 59, which who knows how that'll work. I-69C finally splits off at George West then will resume its path down U.S. 281. Most traffic I imagine will get off I-69C at I-37 to head north.
How much do you all want to bet that Texas will complete its portion of Interstate 69 and its three spurs long before any groundbreaking begins in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi (excluding the existing spur south of Memphis?
How much do you all want to bet that Texas will complete its portion of Interstate 69 and its three spurs long before any groundbreaking begins in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi (excluding the existing spur south of Memphis?
This is a guarantee.
How much do you all want to bet that Texas will complete its portion of Interstate 69 and its three spurs long before any groundbreaking begins in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi (excluding the existing spur south of Memphis?
This is a guarantee.
^^^^ those states should get on the ball then with finding funding.
^^^^ those states should get on the ball then with finding funding.
Mississippi probably won't do anything until the Great River Bridge is funded by the Feds. That is a $1B project in and of itself.
As long as it reaches the gambling resorts in Tunica, they are happy. From Tunica south, there isn't a great deal of population or industry.
Texas is pushing it due to the large influx of trucks due to trade with Mexico. While I think everyone on these boards agree to its strategic significance, as long as Texas can use the I-30 gateway via Texarkana and I-369, there is no rush to take I-69 further east.
Where do those trucks currently go? Oh wait, the same route through Arkansas.
Also remember there's the I-57 extension to bypass Memphis.
^^^^ those states should get on the ball then with finding funding.
I'd rather see I-69 done than I-14 or even I-49 south of I-10. I'm still scratching my head on what the point of I-14 even is.
IMO, I don't think TN will do anything for a while once the section from I-155 to the KY state line since the two segments will be connected by I-155 and I-55 without having to go too far out of the way.
Tennessee can work out its segments of I-69 since it's North of I-40 and more related to the Indiana and Kentucky segments.
Inducing demand should never be the point of building a highway. Build it for traffic that currently exists and that is expected to exist whether or not the highway is built.Where do those trucks currently go? Oh wait, the same route through Arkansas.
Also remember there's the I-57 extension to bypass Memphis.
If the upgrade of US-59 to I-69 doesn't affect traffic counts any, then what's the point of spending money on it. Of course it will increase counts, especially freight traffic. AKA, trucks.
One thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.And many years ago, they said we'd be flying cars by 2020.
One thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.And many years ago, they said we'd be flying cars by 2020.
:-D :-DOne thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.And many years ago, they said we'd be flying cars by 2020.
<cue music> Meet George Jetson....
Inducing demand should never be the point of building a highway. Build it for traffic that currently exists and that is expected to exist whether or not the highway is built.Where do those trucks currently go? Oh wait, the same route through Arkansas.
Also remember there's the I-57 extension to bypass Memphis.
If the upgrade of US-59 to I-69 doesn't affect traffic counts any, then what's the point of spending money on it. Of course it will increase counts, especially freight traffic. AKA, trucks.
One could say that, but in reality a bypass or an entire freeway adds to the mobility of the entire corridor. No stop lights, 75 MPH constant speed, and a major trucking route. That’s what I-69 is and what US 281 already is. I will say though they need to focusing on completing all the bypasses on the US 77 corridor (Refurgio, Oden, Driscoll, Riviera) before upgrading the rural segments. Those are perfectly fine as is for now. Finish the bottlenecks first.Inducing demand should never be the point of building a highway. Build it for traffic that currently exists and that is expected to exist whether or not the highway is built.Where do those trucks currently go? Oh wait, the same route through Arkansas.
Also remember there's the I-57 extension to bypass Memphis.
If the upgrade of US-59 to I-69 doesn't affect traffic counts any, then what's the point of spending money on it. Of course it will increase counts, especially freight traffic. AKA, trucks.
How many major interstate proposals have you seen recently that weren't based on "economic development".
Then the road gets built and the "economic development" was the addition of a truck stop, a Hardee's and a KFC/Taco Bell?
For the small town the road bypassed and built an exit for, its a tax revenue bonus as now some 200 local people are employed. For the state, its a $150 million bill for getting the road through there.
Well, it's 2019 now, and a lot of people are asking where the flying cars went.:-D :-DOne thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.And many years ago, they said we'd be flying cars by 2020.
<cue music> Meet George Jetson....
On a different note, am I the only one who finds it weird the recent upgrade south of Robstown is signed solely as I-69 instead of I-69E? Is this an error, or could it possibly hint that will be the "main" I-69, while the others are "spurs"...?
Yeah, that's the same thing I saw. Must be an error.On a different note, am I the only one who finds it weird the recent upgrade south of Robstown is signed solely as I-69 instead of I-69E? Is this an error, or could it possibly hint that will be the "main" I-69, while the others are "spurs"...?
Just saw that on Google Maps (Slow day at work)...
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.742841,-97.6972497,3a,15y,74.5h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgUl0E0ivCKwCWXoWEjkotA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I'm pretty sure that the signs are in error and they will need to be replaced with I-69E signs. I think the I-69E is designated by Congress.
By and large, I've found this discussion of I-69 in Texas to be the most informed and useful of all sources I've uncovered on the internet. I'm wondering, however, if the current state of I-69 construction and planning in Texas could be presented more effectively in tabular/summary format. I've tried using the TXDOT Project Tracker, and while results are produced it's a laborious and confusing process.
Could one or more of you who follow the I-69 project in Texas closely put together a easy-to-understand construction/planning status summary, and then update it periodically. For instance, information could be separated into the following categories:
- Segments Completed and Signed I-69 (district, county, length, start date, completion/signed date)
- Under Construction (district, county, length, start date, projected completion date)
- Construction Scheduled – Near Future / 1-4 years (district, county, length, estimated start date, projected completion date)
- Construction Planned – Mid-range / 5-10 years (district, county, length, estimated start date, projected completion date)
- Construction Planned – Long Range / 7-12 Years (district, county, length, estimated start date, projected completion date)
- Segment/Route Approved – Not Yet Funded (district, county, length, estimated construction timeline)
- Corridor Study (district, county, length, status of study (Tier 1, Tier 2, etc.), estimated construction timeline)
If such a summary is put together, perhaps it could be placed as the first entry of the I-69 in TX discussion. Updates could then be announced periodically in the thread.
Is this something some of you might find useful? Comments? Feedback?
Well, it's 2019 now, and a lot of people are asking where the flying cars went.:-D :-DOne thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.And many years ago, they said we'd be flying cars by 2020.
<cue music> Meet George Jetson....
I loved that Jetsons reference, and since I-69 goes through Houston and the family dog was named after the city's baseball team, it fits the thread well.
Yeah, that's the same thing I saw. Must be an error.On a different note, am I the only one who finds it weird the recent upgrade south of Robstown is signed solely as I-69 instead of I-69E? Is this an error, or could it possibly hint that will be the "main" I-69, while the others are "spurs"...?
Just saw that on Google Maps (Slow day at work)...
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.742841,-97.6972497,3a,15y,74.5h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgUl0E0ivCKwCWXoWEjkotA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I'm pretty sure that the signs are in error and they will need to be replaced with I-69E signs. I think the I-69E is designated by Congress.
the "economic development" was the addition of a truck stop, a Hardee's and a KFC/Taco Bell ... now some 200 local people are employed.
the "economic development" was the addition of a truck stop, a Hardee's and a KFC/Taco Bell ... now some 200 local people are employed.
Holy cow, 200 people for three roadside businesses?
the "economic development" was the addition of a truck stop, a Hardee's and a KFC/Taco Bell ... now some 200 local people are employed.
Holy cow, 200 people for three roadside businesses?
Well, it's 2019 now, and a lot of people are asking where the flying cars went.:-D :-DOne thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.And many years ago, they said we'd be flying cars by 2020.
<cue music> Meet George Jetson....
I loved that Jetsons reference, and since I-69 goes through Houston and the family dog was named after the city's baseball team, it fits the thread well.
“The approximately six-mile roadway, designated as State Loop 390 (SL 390), would be designed to interstate standards and would eventually become part of the U.S. 59 Relief Route and the future Interstate Highway 369 (I-369), part of the I-69 system through Texas,” TxDOT said in a press release.
“The proposed roadway would connect to the existing SL 390 at U.S. 80 to the north and would terminate south of I-20, extending the partial loop around Marshall that currently exists.”
...
And, once completed, the I-369 Marshall relief route will improve mobility, freight movement efficiency and safety, officials said.
“The Marshall relief route will be the initial keystone block in the I-69 system in the northeast Texas segment stretching from Bowie County to Nacogdoches County,” officials said before. “Because it will link to I-20 in Harrison County, it will be eligible for addition to the Interstate Highway System as soon as it is completed.”
https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/txdot-plans-loop-extension-open-house-thursday-in-marshall/article_da6a6836-2363-11e9-85ee-17922ffdbe5f.html
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/marshallnewsmessenger.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/6/09/60948f26-25bd-11e9-b185-f373fa70475c/5c539b3318099.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C900)
“There are a lot of people here interested in that extension of the loop,” MEDCO Executive Director Donna Maisel said, observing the large crowd.
In fact, the interest was so high that attendees started showing up 30 minutes before the event was set to begin.
“It’s been real busy here from 4:30 on,” said Sandifer. “People were here early, and this was a solid line until about 5:30,” he said. “Hopefully, everybody’s got their questions answered about this project.”
From 4:30 to 7 p.m. Thursday, TxDOT personnel entertained residents’ questions, explained proposed maps and collected written comments about the proposed project.
Thursday evening’s Open House was just the beginning of the process, he said. Maisel said MEDCO was particularly interested because of the economic development Marshall has on the east side.
“Marshall Economic Development is excited because that’s the east side of town, and that’s where most of our industry and our industry growth are located,” said Maisel.
Also, “access back to the interstate is key importance to us, and how that access is going to happen in the future is something that we’re highly interested in,” she said.
Pct. 1 County Commissioner William Hatfield attended the event to be more educated on how the proposal will impact his constituents.
“I’m commissioner in Precinct 1 and that’s south Marshall, and some of this right here is going to go right through some of my constituents’ property,” said Hatfield. “I just want to be schooled up on it where I’ll be a little bit more versed up on what’s going on and do the best I can to be able to answer some questions.”
District 2 City Commissioner Gail Beil considered the open house a high priority because of her interest in “proper growth.” She said she’s looking at development on the east side of the loop because the land is getting more and more valuable.
“I also really want to see, on the west side, senior citizen development, everything from high dollar zero-lot line houses to a nursing home that we desperately need that serves everything for an assistant living community,” said Beil. “So those are my interests.”
As a member of the Harrison County Historical Commission, she’s also passionate about educating others on the importance of preserving archeological artifacts found during highway construction projects.
“I’ve talked to several people that are much aware of the artifacts around here. It does not delay the building of the roads if you find artifacts,” Beil noted. “If they are aware of them, they need to call anybody on the Harrison County Historical Commission and say we know this is here, because then it gets mapped and left alone.”
Dr. Jim Harris, a resident on U.S. 59, hopes the extension of the loop will help ease the congestion he meets on the highway trying to leave home.
“It takes me 30 seconds to get out of my driveway now, so I’ll be happy when they get the loop built,” said Harris. “It’ll (also) be good for downtown Marshall.”
Harris shared how impressed he was with TxDOT’s presentation of the project.
“This is very preliminary, but it’s very well done,” said Harris. “The maps are good. They’re obviously paying a lot of attention about what the citizens want and they’re trying to be accommodating.”
https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/harrison-county-gets-first-look-at-proposed-loop-extension/article_880b4294-25bc-11e9-b0e0-139f59ec873e.html
This was a highly-attended event in Marshall. Looks like construction for it is scheduled for 2024.Quote
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/marshallnewsmessenger.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/6/09/60948f26-25bd-11e9-b185-f373fa70475c/5c539b3318099.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C900)
“There are a lot of people here interested in that extension of the loop,” MEDCO Executive Director Donna Maisel said, observing the large crowd.
In fact, the interest was so high that attendees started showing up 30 minutes before the event was set to begin.
“It’s been real busy here from 4:30 on,” said Sandifer. “People were here early, and this was a solid line until about 5:30,” he said. “Hopefully, everybody’s got their questions answered about this project.”
From 4:30 to 7 p.m. Thursday, TxDOT personnel entertained residents’ questions, explained proposed maps and collected written comments about the proposed project.
Thursday evening’s Open House was just the beginning of the process, he said. Maisel said MEDCO was particularly interested because of the economic development Marshall has on the east side.
“Marshall Economic Development is excited because that’s the east side of town, and that’s where most of our industry and our industry growth are located,” said Maisel.
Also, “access back to the interstate is key importance to us, and how that access is going to happen in the future is something that we’re highly interested in,” she said.
Pct. 1 County Commissioner William Hatfield attended the event to be more educated on how the proposal will impact his constituents.
“I’m commissioner in Precinct 1 and that’s south Marshall, and some of this right here is going to go right through some of my constituents’ property,” said Hatfield. “I just want to be schooled up on it where I’ll be a little bit more versed up on what’s going on and do the best I can to be able to answer some questions.”
District 2 City Commissioner Gail Beil considered the open house a high priority because of her interest in “proper growth.” She said she’s looking at development on the east side of the loop because the land is getting more and more valuable.
“I also really want to see, on the west side, senior citizen development, everything from high dollar zero-lot line houses to a nursing home that we desperately need that serves everything for an assistant living community,” said Beil. “So those are my interests.”
As a member of the Harrison County Historical Commission, she’s also passionate about educating others on the importance of preserving archeological artifacts found during highway construction projects.
“I’ve talked to several people that are much aware of the artifacts around here. It does not delay the building of the roads if you find artifacts,” Beil noted. “If they are aware of them, they need to call anybody on the Harrison County Historical Commission and say we know this is here, because then it gets mapped and left alone.”
Dr. Jim Harris, a resident on U.S. 59, hopes the extension of the loop will help ease the congestion he meets on the highway trying to leave home.
“It takes me 30 seconds to get out of my driveway now, so I’ll be happy when they get the loop built,” said Harris. “It’ll (also) be good for downtown Marshall.”
Harris shared how impressed he was with TxDOT’s presentation of the project.
“This is very preliminary, but it’s very well done,” said Harris. “The maps are good. They’re obviously paying a lot of attention about what the citizens want and they’re trying to be accommodating.”
https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/harrison-county-gets-first-look-at-proposed-loop-extension/article_880b4294-25bc-11e9-b0e0-139f59ec873e.html
Here is a link to the off for the meeting with a map of the project.Here's what it will eventually look like when I-369 is fully completed.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/sl390/013119-notice.pdf
If I'm reading that map right, this will build the full I-369 I-20 interchange.
Here is a link to the off for the meeting with a map of the project.Here's what it will eventually look like when I-369 is fully completed.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/sl390/013119-notice.pdf
If I'm reading that map right, this will build the full I-369 I-20 interchange.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us59-harrison-county/harrison-map-best-options.pdf
The green routing.
Here is a link to the off for the meeting with a map of the project.Here's what it will eventually look like when I-369 is fully completed.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/sl390/013119-notice.pdf
If I'm reading that map right, this will build the full I-369 I-20 interchange.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us59-harrison-county/harrison-map-best-options.pdf
The green routing.
What is "Potential Toll 49" north of Marshall?
A 4-level stack? I don't believe I've ever seen one in an essentially rural setting. I can't believe the traffic counts on I20 warrant the extra cost.
Here is a link to the off for the meeting with a map of the project.Here's what it will eventually look like when I-369 is fully completed.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/sl390/013119-notice.pdf
If I'm reading that map right, this will build the full I-369 I-20 interchange.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us59-harrison-county/harrison-map-best-options.pdf
The green routing.
What is "Potential Toll 49" north of Marshall?
There's already a route numbered 49 about 20 miles north of Marshall (not to be confused with Tyler's beltway).
A 4-level stack? I don't believe I've ever seen one in an essentially rural setting. I can't believe the traffic counts on I20 warrant the extra cost.
TXDOT's probably expecting that interchange to handle much of the Houston-Shreveport movement if, as is likely, I-369 is completed well in advance of I-69 around Shreveport -- and they seem to (a) be getting away from cloverleafs for Interstate junctions and (b) haven't really adopted turbines or CA-style combination direct/loop configurations with the direct ramps reflecting actual or projected high volumes.
A 4-level stack? I don't believe I've ever seen one in an essentially rural setting. I can't believe the traffic counts on I20 warrant the extra cost.
TXDOT's probably expecting that interchange to handle much of the Houston-Shreveport movement if, as is likely, I-369 is completed well in advance of I-69 around Shreveport -- and they seem to (a) be getting away from cloverleafs for Interstate junctions and (b) haven't really adopted turbines or CA-style combination direct/loop configurations with the direct ramps reflecting actual or projected high volumes.
Some of the directions (East to North) would not have much if any long distance traffic as that would run up I30 to Texarkana. Same goes for North to West. Seems extravagant.
Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.
Besides, they can build 5-level stacks cheaper in Texas (Dallas High 5) than Arkansas can build 4 lanes bridges crossing rivers (Arkansas/I-49,Mississippi/I-69).
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.
Besides, they can build 5-level stacks cheaper in Texas (Dallas High 5) than Arkansas can build 4 lanes bridges crossing rivers (Arkansas/I-49,Mississippi/I-69).
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.
Besides, they can build 5-level stacks cheaper in Texas (Dallas High 5) than Arkansas can build 4 lanes bridges crossing rivers (Arkansas/I-49,Mississippi/I-69).
Yes, but somehow 4 lanes across the 2 big muddy creeks in Arkansas are double that price, each.
Apples and oranges. Crossing a navigable channel with a structure such as a cable-stay span, complete with approaches, will invariably cost considerably more than a bunch of short bridges with 16-foot clearances. Besides, TXDOT probably has several existing stack designs readily available to be adapted to the surroundings -- it's not like this is anything novel for them!
I think the Dallas High Five Interchange is a little more complex / expensive than your average 4-level stack. They used much longer spans than a typical 100 ft beam.
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.
Apples and oranges. Crossing a navigable channel with a structure such as a cable-stay span, complete with approaches, will invariably cost considerably more than a bunch of short bridges with 16-foot clearances. Besides, TXDOT probably has several existing stack designs readily available to be adapted to the surroundings -- it's not like this is anything novel for them!
OkDOT is calling the 235/44 interchange a 4 level which by definition I think they're right.Quote from: Plutonic PandaWasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.
Where is ODOT supposedly building a 4-level stack interchange? They've been dragging their feet for well over a decade now on the I-44/I-235 interchange in Oklahoma City; that one will have two fly-over bridges and two cloverleaf loops. The same kind of crap is planned for I-35/I-240 in Oklahoma City.
While that in itself will provoke a different set of plans, it does still require a certain elevation of the main span(s) to clear the towing vessels used for barge movement; that should require significantly more clearance than flyovers within an interchange.
While ODOT may be selling the I-44/I-235 interchange as "4-level" it is by no means a true stack interchange. For it to be a real stack interchange it can't have any stupid cloverleaf ramps. In this one the I-44 Westbound lanes are connected with 2 cloverleaf ramps. They say there are 7 phases to the project. They started working on this thing 10 years ago. In that span of time only 2 phases of the project have been complete. That's hardly impressive at all. At this rate it will probably take them until the year 2030 to get the whole project done. Maybe it will be around 2040 or 2050 before the modest I-35/I-240 interchange is finished.Quote from: sparkerWhile that in itself will provoke a different set of plans, it does still require a certain elevation of the main span(s) to clear the towing vessels used for barge movement; that should require significantly more clearance than flyovers within an interchange.
The highest fly-over bridges in a true directional stack interchange can reach over 100' in height, particularly if the directional interchange is a 5-level stack. I almost get dizzy just driving on the fly-over ramp from Kell Freeway to I-44 in Wichita Falls. That's just a T-interchange, but does have room to upgrade into a full stack if necessary. Barge pushers aren't nearly that high. On the Arkansas River they can't have any deeper than a 9' draft.
That's a lot of traffic that could pass through Louisiana but won't. A healthy and growing Texarkana means that Texas doesn't have to care at all what Louisiana does.
That's a lot of traffic that could pass through Louisiana but won't. A healthy and growing Texarkana means that Texas doesn't have to care at all what Louisiana does.
Which, of course, is the raison d'etre of the TXDOT/Alliance for I-69 prioritization of I-369 over the "mainline" I-69 into LA -- the state can thus make unilateral moves to expedite access NE from Houston, which was the prime concern of the folks who cobbled up HPC #20, the portion of the I-69 corridor following US 59 throughout TX. Getting traffic to I-30 was the goal; the interchange with I-20 at Marshall as discussed above will be, for the time being, sufficient to divert that traffic intended for Shreveport or elsewhere along I-20.
That's a lot of traffic that could pass through Louisiana but won't. A healthy and growing Texarkana means that Texas doesn't have to care at all what Louisiana does.
Which, of course, is the raison d'etre of the TXDOT/Alliance for I-69 prioritization of I-369 over the "mainline" I-69 into LA -- the state can thus make unilateral moves to expedite access NE from Houston, which was the prime concern of the folks who cobbled up HPC #20, the portion of the I-69 corridor following US 59 throughout TX. Getting traffic to I-30 was the goal; the interchange with I-20 at Marshall as discussed above will be, for the time being, sufficient to divert that traffic intended for Shreveport or elsewhere along I-20.
I think Texas wants I-69 to be rerouted to the I-30-I-40 corridor in Arkansas. I'm not sure what they'd do with the I-69 portion in Downtown Memphis as I-69 would go into Memphis with I-40. I do think this would be best for I-69 as The Shreveport-Memphis route wouldn't be used as much as the Texarkana-Memphis route through Little Rock.
I doubt Texas really cares where all that traffic goes after it leaves Texas. The point is that I'm pretty sure they'd rather it pass through their city of Texarkana, which will keep it in Texas the longest.This is precisely why national corridors should NOT be planned by states and rather the federal government!
That's a lot of traffic that could pass through Louisiana but won't. A healthy and growing Texarkana means that Texas doesn't have to care at all what Louisiana does.
Which, of course, is the raison d'etre of the TXDOT/Alliance for I-69 prioritization of I-369 over the "mainline" I-69 into LA -- the state can thus make unilateral moves to expedite access NE from Houston, which was the prime concern of the folks who cobbled up HPC #20, the portion of the I-69 corridor following US 59 throughout TX. Getting traffic to I-30 was the goal; the interchange with I-20 at Marshall as discussed above will be, for the time being, sufficient to divert that traffic intended for Shreveport or elsewhere along I-20.
I think Texas wants I-69 to be rerouted to the I-30-I-40 corridor in Arkansas. I'm not sure what they'd do with the I-69 portion in Downtown Memphis as I-69 would go into Memphis with I-40. I do think this would be best for I-69 as The Shreveport-Memphis route wouldn't be used as much as the Texarkana-Memphis route through Little Rock.
I doubt Texas really cares where all that traffic goes after it leaves Texas. The point is that I'm pretty sure they'd rather it pass through their city of Texarkana, which will keep it in Texas the longest.This is precisely why national corridors should NOT be planned by states and rather the federal government!
This is precisely why national corridors should NOT be planned by states and rather the federal government!
Quote from: Plutonic PandaThis is precisely why national corridors should NOT be planned by states and rather the federal government!When the federal government abdicates its role in planning, designing and funding national corridors, leaving most of that burden to the states then those individual states are going to build those corridors to fit their individual needs. Individual states will even tune those corridors to specific local needs rather than any big picture view, just like what we're seeing along parts of I-69. Other states will call the corridor an unfunded mandate and just not build much of it at all. ...This is what we get with the current model of federal oversight on super highways.
Then we have other laughable crap, like the giant L-shaped route I-69 takes through Kentucky. They routed I-69 on existing parkways rather than build anything new.
According to Google Maps Street View from May of 2018, the I-69 to I-69E signing project from the Callallen I-37 intersection south to Robstown isn't complete as of then:Don't know the current status, but I will say that the newly upgraded section south of Robstown that was completed back in 2018 only had standard I-69 shields when I drove up the highway last year. It also appears on Google Street View.
https://goo.gl/maps/AjTxdpoHeGHG3XELA
Can someone from the area verify that is has been remedied. For some reason, the last time I was there I thought I saw I-69E stand alones.
Bids were opened last week for a section of main lanes on the south side of Nacogodoches. Looking at Google aerial views, I don't know why this strange curving alignment was selected because a direct route is mostly vacant land. But selecting inefficient alignments seems to be TxDOT's standard operating procedure these days.That “vacant land” is a heavily developed area with hotels and gas stations. A good reason to avoid it. That certainly wouldn’t be cheap to buy out. That’s why it curves to the east then back to the west.
(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20190710-i69.jpg)
Google Street View from May 2019 still shows I-69 shields, not I-69E.According to Google Maps Street View from May of 2018, the I-69 to I-69E signing project from the Callallen I-37 intersection south to Robstown isn't complete as of then:Don't know the current status, but I will say that the newly upgraded section south of Robstown that was completed back in 2018 only had standard I-69 shields when I drove up the highway last year. It also appears on Google Street View.
https://goo.gl/maps/AjTxdpoHeGHG3XELA
Can someone from the area verify that is has been remedied. For some reason, the last time I was there I thought I saw I-69E stand alones.
Is Memphis really that important? Plus AR is not really that gung ho at the moment to built their part as I-49 is top on the list of getting done for freeways. Even IMO I-49 is more important as right now commerce could easily use I-30 and I-40, just build I-69 from San Jacinta County up to Texarkana and you have that issue solved.
New May 2019 Street View imagery along US-77 south of Driscoll shows construction ramping up on the I-69E Driscoll Bypass, along with clearing work north of Bishop.
The current project is 10.4 miles long and will upgrade US-77 to interstate standards between the north end of the Bishop Bypass and the southern end of the 2017 completed I-69E segment, and includes a 3 mile bypass around Driscoll. The project began construction in February 2019 and will be completed by April 2022 for a total cost of $118 million. Once completed, I-69E will stretch from I-37 to south of Kingsville, a distance of approximately 32 miles.
https://www.zachryconstructioncorp.com/Projects/Transportation/US-77-Driscoll-Bypass/
Quote from: roadman65Is Memphis really that important? Plus AR is not really that gung ho at the moment to built their part as I-49 is top on the list of getting done for freeways. Even IMO I-49 is more important as right now commerce could easily use I-30 and I-40, just build I-69 from San Jacinta County up to Texarkana and you have that issue solved.
Memphis is a major distribution hub. FedEx HQ is there. The metro could use another Interstate corridor. It's just too bad the route is getting built so damn crooked. It would pretty much take a god with divine powers to divert I-69 away from Memphis at this point. Too many things are set in stone.
Quote from: roadman65Is Memphis really that important? Plus AR is not really that gung ho at the moment to built their part as I-49 is top on the list of getting done for freeways. Even IMO I-49 is more important as right now commerce could easily use I-30 and I-40, just build I-69 from San Jacinta County up to Texarkana and you have that issue solved.
Memphis is a major distribution hub. FedEx HQ is there. The metro could use another Interstate corridor. It's just too bad the route is getting built so damn crooked. It would pretty much take a god with divine powers to divert I-69 away from Memphis at this point. Too many things are set in stone.
I-30/I-40 can't take more trucking without at least one more lane in each direction, so an alternative that both serves northern Louisiana and southern Arkansas as well as bypasses the choke-point of Little Rock is a worthy endeavor. I don't happen to like the routing in Arkansas, but if left to itself to fund the road as it can afford to, local needs will be served ahead of through traffic and we get the routing that we currently have. That being said, until engineering studies are completed and ROW is purchased and set aside, it's not set in stone if there winds up being a different focus at the federal level in the future.
I-30/I-40 can't take more trucking without at least one more lane in each direction, so an alternative that both serves northern Louisiana and southern Arkansas as well as bypasses the choke-point of Little Rock is a worthy endeavor.
The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.
Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.
The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.
The I-40 bridge is not a priority IMO. While it may be aging, it's still an adequate and structurally sound bridge. And it does meet interstate standards. It has three 12 ft lanes and 4 ft shoulders in each direction. Interstate standards specifies bridges over 200 feet in length may have a reduced shoulder width of 4 ft. It's not preferred by most DOTs, but it technically meets standards.QuoteThe Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.
Only 46 years old? That's not exactly young. Other bridges, interchanges, etc have been built and then replaced in that time frame. But age isn't the big problem. There are two others. The first is the bridge does not comply with Interstate standards. It may have 6 lanes, but there are no shoulders on it at all. The same goes for the I-55 Memphis Arkansas Bridge, a far more obsolete 4 lane bridge. The second problem with the Hernando de Soto Bridge is clearance. Normally the span is 108' above the river surface (which is a few feet shorter than the older I-55 bridge nearby). With all the increasingly frequent flooding the clearance is getting cut down to as little as 75', making it impossible for certain vessels to pass underneath it.
The bridge situation in Memphis makes the Great River Bridge crossing for I-69 farther South an even tougher sell, harder still if state DOTs are having to scrounge the money while the feds go AWOL.
A good case can be made for replacing both existing I-55 and I-40 Mississippi River crossings in Memphis. The I-55 bridge is an urgent case. Then there's the desire to build another connection farther North from I-269 in Millington across to Clarkedale and I-55. Finally there's the really obvious idea of a South crossing for the Tunica area. There's all the casino traffic and traffic moving between I-40 and I-22. That's four new bridges the Memphis area needs, all of which carry a staggering cost.
The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.
The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.
I-40 absolutely needs to be three lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. I-30 could use with it as well, but it's not quite as important.
The I-57 extension, if it's ever completed, will probably just take more traffic from I-55 than any other highway. I-40 is still going to be a massive corridor heading East into Tennessee and onwards, and I-30's traffic counts probably won't much.
Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.
I totally agree.
It's an interesting question. I'm sure a significant amount of long distance EB I-40 traffic does turn North at I-55 in West Memphis. Long distance motorists, regardless whether their vehicles are personal or commercial, are drawn to the Interstates due to the consistent higher speeds, no traffic lights, intersections, fewer speed traps, etc.
It's all but guaranteed that a completed I-57 between North Little Rock and Sikeston would pull a good amount of that long distance traffic away from Memphis, even if the mileage savings aren't all that great. Routing I-57 up to Poplar Bluff then across to Sikeston takes away some of the mileage savings. OTOH, vehicles heading for more Northerly destinations would be able to avoid the Memphis area and traffic associated with it. That might result in a good chunk of reduced drive time. And that benefit for using I-57 would relieve some of the traffic load on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.
It's an interesting question. I'm sure a significant amount of long distance EB I-40 traffic does turn North at I-55 in West Memphis. Long distance motorists, regardless whether their vehicles are personal or commercial, are drawn to the Interstates due to the consistent higher speeds, no traffic lights, intersections, fewer speed traps, etc.
It's all but guaranteed that a completed I-57 between North Little Rock and Sikeston would pull a good amount of that long distance traffic away from Memphis, even if the mileage savings aren't all that great. Routing I-57 up to Poplar Bluff then across to Sikeston takes away some of the mileage savings. OTOH, vehicles heading for more Northerly destinations would be able to avoid the Memphis area and traffic associated with it. That might result in a good chunk of reduced drive time. And that benefit for using I-57 would relieve some of the traffic load on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.
… ARDOT … expensive …
The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.
The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.
I-40 absolutely needs to be three lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. I-30 could use with it as well, but it's not quite as important.
The I-57 extension, if it's ever completed, will probably just take more traffic from I-55 than any other highway. I-40 is still going to be a massive corridor heading East into Tennessee and onwards, and I-30's traffic counts probably won't much.Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.
I totally agree.
Got a question -- has ADOT actually undertaken any sort of count to determine how much of the EB traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55 actually turns north at I-55 (ostensibly en route to Chicago and other Great Lakes destinations) rather than continuing east into Memphis? (and this question, of course, applies to the opposite directional movement as well). Presumably some sort of data in this vein, even of the rudimentary variety, was available prior to the push for the complete development of the I-57 corridor.
The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.
The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.
I-40 absolutely needs to be three lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. I-30 could use with it as well, but it's not quite as important.
The I-57 extension, if it's ever completed, will probably just take more traffic from I-55 than any other highway. I-40 is still going to be a massive corridor heading East into Tennessee and onwards, and I-30's traffic counts probably won't much.Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.
I totally agree.
Got a question -- has ADOT actually undertaken any sort of count to determine how much of the EB traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55 actually turns north at I-55 (ostensibly en route to Chicago and other Great Lakes destinations) rather than continuing east into Memphis? (and this question, of course, applies to the opposite directional movement as well). Presumably some sort of data in this vein, even of the rudimentary variety, was available prior to the push for the complete development of the I-57 corridor.
I just realized I quoted the wrong person with my earlier submission.
This is the latest traffic counts available for the I-40/I-55 junctions, but I confess I can't really make heads or tails of it.
https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf (https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf)
The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.
The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.
I-40 absolutely needs to be three lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. I-30 could use with it as well, but it's not quite as important.
The I-57 extension, if it's ever completed, will probably just take more traffic from I-55 than any other highway. I-40 is still going to be a massive corridor heading East into Tennessee and onwards, and I-30's traffic counts probably won't much.Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.
I totally agree.
Got a question -- has ADOT actually undertaken any sort of count to determine how much of the EB traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55 actually turns north at I-55 (ostensibly en route to Chicago and other Great Lakes destinations) rather than continuing east into Memphis? (and this question, of course, applies to the opposite directional movement as well). Presumably some sort of data in this vein, even of the rudimentary variety, was available prior to the push for the complete development of the I-57 corridor.
I just realized I quoted the wrong person with my earlier submission.
This is the latest traffic counts available for the I-40/I-55 junctions, but I confess I can't really make heads or tails of it.
https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf (https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf)
I like the spot where the count on I-55 is 50, and then right beside it is 42,000. I'm not sure that map has heads or tails to be made.
Actually, the interactive map was quite helpful when zoomed into the proper area. The theory that an I-57 would reduce the I-40E/I-55N traffic in Arkansas and Missouri by providing a shortcut doesn't look like it would go very far to me to reduce traffic on those segments. The I-40E -> I-55N ramp has a 2018 AADT count of 6600 and the southbound ramp from I-55 north of I-40 -> I-40 westbound has a 2018 AADT of 6800, which isn't a very large amount of traffic to reduce. Some probably small subset of those counts would be local traffic as well, so we're probably talking about at most 5000 vehicles a day both ways of through traffic that could be shunted over to a completed I-57. Alas, it doesn't look like its completion would affect timelines for I-40 expansion between LR and Mem significantly.
Actually, the interactive map was quite helpful when zoomed into the proper area. The theory that an I-57 would reduce the I-40E/I-55N traffic in Arkansas and Missouri by providing a shortcut doesn't look like it would go very far to me to reduce traffic on those segments. The I-40E -> I-55N ramp has a 2018 AADT count of 6600 and the southbound ramp from I-55 north of I-40 -> I-40 westbound has a 2018 AADT of 6800, which isn't a very large amount of traffic to reduce. Some probably small subset of those counts would be local traffic as well, so we're probably talking about at most 5000 vehicles a day both ways of through traffic that could be shunted over to a completed I-57. Alas, it doesn't look like its completion would affect timelines for I-40 expansion between LR and Mem significantly.
It would be useful if that 6.6K/6.8K count could be broken out into commercial vs. other traffic (or, even more telling, axle-weight loading figures!). Since overall volume is only part of the issue on I-40 LR>Memphis -- and high proportions of truck traffic within that aggregate figure provide much of the wear & tear on the facility, a significant diversion of that part via the nascent I-57 would likely be welcomed within ADOT -- OTOH, it may, as surmised earlier, result in a more "leisurely" approach to I-40 upgrades -- which might simply be an act of "kicking the can down the road" in the long run.
Actually, the interactive map was quite helpful when zoomed into the proper area. The theory that an I-57 would reduce the I-40E/I-55N traffic in Arkansas and Missouri by providing a shortcut doesn't look like it would go very far to me to reduce traffic on those segments. The I-40E -> I-55N ramp has a 2018 AADT count of 6600 and the southbound ramp from I-55 north of I-40 -> I-40 westbound has a 2018 AADT of 6800, which isn't a very large amount of traffic to reduce. Some probably small subset of those counts would be local traffic as well, so we're probably talking about at most 5000 vehicles a day both ways of through traffic that could be shunted over to a completed I-57. Alas, it doesn't look like its completion would affect timelines for I-40 expansion between LR and Mem significantly.
It would be useful if that 6.6K/6.8K count could be broken out into commercial vs. other traffic (or, even more telling, axle-weight loading figures!). Since overall volume is only part of the issue on I-40 LR>Memphis -- and high proportions of truck traffic within that aggregate figure provide much of the wear & tear on the facility, a significant diversion of that part via the nascent I-57 would likely be welcomed within ADOT -- OTOH, it may, as surmised earlier, result in a more "leisurely" approach to I-40 upgrades -- which might simply be an act of "kicking the can down the road" in the long run.
I can't find truck percentages on that ramp specifically, but I can tell you truck percentages on the mainline Interstates on all sides of that interchange (as of 2014), and the numbers are striking.
I-55 north of the interchange = 46% trucks
I-40 west of the interchange = 58% trucks
I-40 east of the interchange = 5% trucks
My question is -- was that 5% figure derived from I-40 east of the EB split with I-55?
^^^^^^^^^
There don't seem to be any reference points on I-40 between the I-55 split and the river, but some of the numbers farther SE on I-55 are considerably higher than the 5% shown immediately east of the western 40/55 interchange -- looks like the 5% is either a misprint, a misinterpretation of data -- or there's one big honking truck stop at or near that point, and trucks are getting off there and getting back on an exit down the line past the data collection point.
^^^^^^^^^
There don't seem to be any reference points on I-40 between the I-55 split and the river, but some of the numbers farther SE on I-55 are considerably higher than the 5% shown immediately east of the western 40/55 interchange -- looks like the 5% is either a misprint, a misinterpretation of data -- or there's one big honking truck stop at or near that point, and trucks are getting off there and getting back on an exit down the line past the data collection point.
There's a Loves, Flying J, Pilot, and a Petro Stop at the MLK exit:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1545671,-90.1355104,1828m/data=!3m1!1e3
The truck traffic there is unreal. I've learned to get gas at ANY other exit to avoid the snarls.
Also, this isn't directly related to this particular I-69 segment, but has TXDOT lost interest in grassy medians? Many of the new segments of I-69 proposed such as 40 miles of upgrades on US-59 between Rosenburg and Louise, 40 miles of upgrades along US-281 between Falfurrius and the existing I-69C near Edinburg, the recently completed upgrades around Bishop, the proposed Corrigan bypass, and others are being designed to have a 10-12 foot left paved shoulder and a barrier and a significant amount of grassy divider between the mainline and frontage roads, yet no grassy median. Even a 40-46 ft grassy median seen on other recent upgrades is far better than a barrier. I support upgrade to a freeway, but not the current designs being used.
In regards to the type of divider, the segments complete use a full jersey barrier wall, not a guard rail.Quote from: sprjus4Also, this isn't directly related to this particular I-69 segment, but has TXDOT lost interest in grassy medians? Many of the new segments of I-69 proposed such as 40 miles of upgrades on US-59 between Rosenburg and Louise, 40 miles of upgrades along US-281 between Falfurrius and the existing I-69C near Edinburg, the recently completed upgrades around Bishop, the proposed Corrigan bypass, and others are being designed to have a 10-12 foot left paved shoulder and a barrier and a significant amount of grassy divider between the mainline and frontage roads, yet no grassy median. Even a 40-46 ft grassy median seen on other recent upgrades is far better than a barrier. I support upgrade to a freeway, but not the current designs being used.
I'm not a fan of narrow Interstates either, but I think it makes sense why TX DOT is choosing such designs for I-69 system routes in South Texas.
Obviously that kind of design is cheaper to build. The same amount of concrete or asphalt is being laid down for the two carriageways joined together as they would if they were separated by a wide median. However, less work is required for engineering, grading, landscape work, drainage, etc due to the lack of a grassy median. Hopefully TX DOT goes with a substantial concrete Jersey barrier for separating the opposing roadways rather than a dinky cable barrier. I-44 South of Lawton, OK has a cable barrier on it rather than a Jersey barrier. The cable barrier approach looks cheap. Plus at night drivers get to see the full glare of oncoming headlights in the opposing lanes. Jersey barriers hide at least some headlight glare.
A narrow profile Interstate can be less disruptive to property owners along the existing highway. The ROW isn't nearly as wide. TX DOT still has to incorporate limited run frontage roads along US-77 (future I-69E), US-281 (future I-69C) and US-59 (future I-69W) for farm and ranch access. A narrow profile Interstate will make it easier and cheaper to add frontage roads and slip ramps without having to acquire too much in the way of land next to the highway corridor.
I like the completed, re-built portions of I-35 between Austin and Dallas. Even though the road is technically one big carriageway it doesn't seem narrow and cramped at all (unlike a lot of older turnpikes in places like Pennsylvania and here in Oklahoma). The re-built segments of I-35 are typically at least 3 lanes in each direction, plus ample left and right shoulders. It feels kind of like driving on a big city freeway, but out in the country.I don't mind median barrier as long as there's at least 3 lanes each way (which there is on I-35). As of my recent drive down I-35, it is at least 3-lanes each way between SH-130 and the I-35W / I-35E split, and a good majority has median barrier. I'm not a big fan of median barrier when only 2 lanes each way exist, though I will agree having a full 12 foot left shoulder is better than a narrow shoulder that is acceptable when a grassy median is present. At least TxDOT is doing that properly.
Part of the Turner Turnpike (I-44) between Oklahoma City and Tulsa was recently improved. Specifically the expansion starts at about mile marker 203 and goes to about mile marker 216. The road goes from two lanes in each direction to three. But the difference you see at MM 203 is pretty huge. It's feels like an entirely different highway. Just like those parts of I-35 in Texas, this portion of I-44 seems like driving on a much more modern big city freeway. I hope the OTA can upgrade all of the Turner Turnpike in this manner. The 3-3 arrangement ends at the split with the Creek Turnpike unfortunately. I-44 goes back to the old 2-2 configuration until the merge with OK-66 at the East end of the Turner Turnpike.
Modern (wider) left and right shoulders can also make a difference. About 6 miles of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike (I-44 again) just South of OKC had its road bed completely re-built. The beefed up shoulders seem to give the main lanes on the road a little more visual breathing room.
I like the completed, re-built portions of I-35 between Austin and Dallas. Even though the road is technically one big carriageway it doesn't seem narrow and cramped at all (unlike a lot of older turnpikes in places like Pennsylvania and here in Oklahoma). The re-built segments of I-35 are typically at least 3 lanes in each direction, plus ample left and right shoulders. It feels kind of like driving on a big city freeway, but out in the country.I don't mind median barrier as long as there's at least 3 lanes each way (which there is on I-35). As of my recent drive down I-35, it is at least 3-lanes each way between SH-130 and the I-35W / I-35E split, and a good majority has median barrier. I'm not a big fan of median barrier when only 2 lanes each way exist, though I will agree having a full 12 foot left shoulder is better than a narrow shoulder that is acceptable when a grassy median is present. At least TxDOT is doing that properly.
Part of the Turner Turnpike (I-44) between Oklahoma City and Tulsa was recently improved. Specifically the expansion starts at about mile marker 203 and goes to about mile marker 216. The road goes from two lanes in each direction to three. But the difference you see at MM 203 is pretty huge. It's feels like an entirely different highway. Just like those parts of I-35 in Texas, this portion of I-44 seems like driving on a much more modern big city freeway. I hope the OTA can upgrade all of the Turner Turnpike in this manner. The 3-3 arrangement ends at the split with the Creek Turnpike unfortunately. I-44 goes back to the old 2-2 configuration until the merge with OK-66 at the East end of the Turner Turnpike.
Modern (wider) left and right shoulders can also make a difference. About 6 miles of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike (I-44 again) just South of OKC had its road bed completely re-built. The beefed up shoulders seem to give the main lanes on the road a little more visual breathing room.
I had read somewhere the design with the narrow median on I-69 projects is being done to eventually accommodate outside widening to 3 lanes each way, an ultimate design similar to I-35's 6-lane sections. I like the concept, but IMO the highway should be built with 2 lanes each way and a 46 foot grassy median from the start, and then the future widening should occur in the median as opposed to the outside. Less impacts on the ramps too. In the end, both my proposed concept and TxDOT's currently in use concept result in the same ultimate typical section - 3 lanes each way with median barrier & full left / right shoulders.
(I-4 should replace I-69W, I-x04 should replace the SH-44 spur, and I-39 or something similar for I-69C), it doesn't make sense why "I-69E" signage is not being used assuming the current three I-69's plan is being implemented.
A common TxDOT theme is to build bridges over freeways that barely span the freeway, so adding one lane on the outside means building a new bridge at every intersection. Adding a lane in the median means you can keep the bridges and ramp length. It's not TxDOT's style to, ya know, plan for the future.TxDOT sure seems to plan for the future much better than OK does LOL
And Louisiana for that matter.A common TxDOT theme is to build bridges over freeways that barely span the freeway, so adding one lane on the outside means building a new bridge at every intersection. Adding a lane in the median means you can keep the bridges and ramp length. It's not TxDOT's style to, ya know, plan for the future.TxDOT sure seems to plan for the future much better than OK does LOL
One of the main salient points regarding adding lanes in the median (where possible) vs. on the outside is the fact that the latter requires realigning the ramps in most instances.
^^^^^^^^^
One of the main salient points regarding adding lanes in the median (where possible) vs. on the outside is the fact that the latter requires realigning the ramps in most instances. Of course much of TX' freeway mileage features frontage roads onto which the ramps empty; if there's sufficient space remaining, that would be a mitigating factor for outside lane addition -- the ramp configuration would be a relatively simple fix as compared to standard diamond/parclo/etc. interchanges on most freeway facilities. Of course all this is presuming that the design of the overcrossings and bridges was done with the accommodation of additional lanes in mind regardless of exterior or interior placement.
Expanding to the outside is easy if the road is designed for it. Take I-35E between the US 77 interchange south of Waxahachie and the Ellis/Hill county line. It was rebuilt about a decade ago to the 4 lanes with a center barrier configuration (with all bridges built to handle future expansion), then was widened in the last few years to 6 lanes. Construction was dead simple; all they had to do was put temporary barriers about halfway into the shoulders, grade 10 feet out on each side, lay down new concrete, then remove the barrier and redo the striping. It barely even impacted the flow of traffic. The original outside shoulders were 12' to begin with, so they just became the new outside lanes with no modification other than striping. The ramps were unchanged besides striping, just ending up about 150' shorter than they were previously.
The Google Van was driving up US 59 on the future I-69 frontage road near Rosenberg and has construction photos from March of this year.
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.531704,-95.8608244,3a,75y,26.53h,93.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbrqxiEMh-1JAhClS-7eK7w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
It almost creates a situation opposite to the norm in most other states... median barrier in rural areas and large grassy median in urban areas.Expanding to the outside is easy if the road is designed for it. Take I-35E between the US 77 interchange south of Waxahachie and the Ellis/Hill county line. It was rebuilt about a decade ago to the 4 lanes with a center barrier configuration (with all bridges built to handle future expansion), then was widened in the last few years to 6 lanes. Construction was dead simple; all they had to do was put temporary barriers about halfway into the shoulders, grade 10 feet out on each side, lay down new concrete, then remove the barrier and redo the striping. It barely even impacted the flow of traffic. The original outside shoulders were 12' to begin with, so they just became the new outside lanes with no modification other than striping. The ramps were unchanged besides striping, just ending up about 150' shorter than they were previously.
Clearly TXDOT has over the years elected to go either way when it comes to "expandable" freeway construction; either leaving room in the median or making it easy -- via frontage road configuration -- to add to the outside. The choice of either methodology is probably linked to the physical environment in which the freeway is situated -- more dense adjoining development, or the determined potential for such, would likely result, when the initial 4 lanes (2 + 2) were built, in a wider median intended for expansion there so as to minimize issues with egress to and from the freeway itself; a more rural environment may prompt outside expansion when deemed necessary -- or, like Ranger Hill on I-20, a complete new alignment adjacent to the original 4-lane section.
GMSV of I-69 signage at CR 36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,34.9y,130.93h,90.36t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and south (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7662696,-97.6790517,3a,33.7y,237.51h,86.7t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-_-hLpCkkefOTK26jx3zzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)... This (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,24.1y,260.81h,85.3t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) one (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7690035,-97.6766414,3a,15y,256.84h,80.07t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.02264%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) looks like it was supposed to be one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688719,-97.6765139,3a,15y,79.86h,77.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.71428%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), installed at the wrong angle. Signed as far south as FM 2826 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7396979,-97.6997995,3a,15.4y,84.96h,75.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skD2mjhV35kX4-L1133KlzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).
GMSV of I-69 signage at CR 36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,34.9y,130.93h,90.36t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and south (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7662696,-97.6790517,3a,33.7y,237.51h,86.7t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-_-hLpCkkefOTK26jx3zzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)... This (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,24.1y,260.81h,85.3t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) one (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7690035,-97.6766414,3a,15y,256.84h,80.07t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.02264%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) looks like it was supposed to be one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688719,-97.6765139,3a,15y,79.86h,77.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.71428%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), installed at the wrong angle. Signed as far south as FM 2826 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7396979,-97.6997995,3a,15.4y,84.96h,75.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skD2mjhV35kX4-L1133KlzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).
You would think they would start putting up the correct signs given how long ago the highway was re-designated I-69E...
GMSV of I-69 signage at CR 36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,34.9y,130.93h,90.36t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and south (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7662696,-97.6790517,3a,33.7y,237.51h,86.7t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-_-hLpCkkefOTK26jx3zzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)... This (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,24.1y,260.81h,85.3t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) one (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7690035,-97.6766414,3a,15y,256.84h,80.07t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.02264%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) looks like it was supposed to be one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688719,-97.6765139,3a,15y,79.86h,77.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.71428%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), installed at the wrong angle. Signed as far south as FM 2826 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7396979,-97.6997995,3a,15.4y,84.96h,75.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skD2mjhV35kX4-L1133KlzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).
You would think they would start putting up the correct signs given how long ago the highway was re-designated I-69E...
It was always designated I-69E, whether merely on paper or with field signage -- but the southernmost section (Raymondville to the southern terminus) is the only one with consistently correct signage. The suffix-less signs in the Corpus area are inexplicable save either (a) basic ignorance within that TXDOT district or (b) that same district never had suffixed signs printed, so they're posting what's in the corporate yard as a stopgap measure. Either way, it all seems a bit odd and decidedly unprofessional.
GMSV of I-69 signage at CR 36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,34.9y,130.93h,90.36t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and south (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7662696,-97.6790517,3a,33.7y,237.51h,86.7t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-_-hLpCkkefOTK26jx3zzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)... This (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,24.1y,260.81h,85.3t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) one (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7690035,-97.6766414,3a,15y,256.84h,80.07t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.02264%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) looks like it was supposed to be one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688719,-97.6765139,3a,15y,79.86h,77.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.71428%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), installed at the wrong angle. Signed as far south as FM 2826 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7396979,-97.6997995,3a,15.4y,84.96h,75.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skD2mjhV35kX4-L1133KlzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).
You would think they would start putting up the correct signs given how long ago the highway was re-designated I-69E...
It was always designated I-69E, whether merely on paper or with field signage -- but the southernmost section (Raymondville to the southern terminus) is the only one with consistently correct signage. The suffix-less signs in the Corpus area are inexplicable save either (a) basic ignorance within that TXDOT district or (b) that same district never had suffixed signs printed, so they're posting what's in the corporate yard as a stopgap measure. Either way, it all seems a bit odd and decidedly unprofessional.
A little bit of history on the Corpus Christi section of I-69E.
When AASHTO designated that section in 2012, it originally approved it to be signed as I-69, under the premise that AASHTO does not normally approve suffixed interstate routes, and made an assumption that the other two branches of I-69 would be given different interstate route numbers. In 2015, when more sections of I-69E, C and W were approved, AASHTO changed the designation of the Corpus-Robstown section from I-69 to I-69E (after first rejecting TxDOT"s application for suffixed route numbers on all three branches of I-69 in South Texas, then reversing its original denial) to be consistent with the I-69 branch designations specified in federal legislation. TxDOT apparently hasn't caught up with updating signs along the Corpus-Robstown section to reflect the I-69E designation that was approved in 2015.
The Google Van was driving up US 59 on the future I-69 frontage road near Rosenberg and has construction photos from March of this year.
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.531704,-95.8608244,3a,75y,26.53h,93.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbrqxiEMh-1JAhClS-7eK7w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
The new section completed in 2017 near Driscoll also used “I-69” signage, not “I-69E” signage.GMSV of I-69 signage at CR 36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,34.9y,130.93h,90.36t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and south (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7662696,-97.6790517,3a,33.7y,237.51h,86.7t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-_-hLpCkkefOTK26jx3zzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)... This (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,24.1y,260.81h,85.3t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) one (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7690035,-97.6766414,3a,15y,256.84h,80.07t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.02264%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) looks like it was supposed to be one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688719,-97.6765139,3a,15y,79.86h,77.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.71428%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), installed at the wrong angle. Signed as far south as FM 2826 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7396979,-97.6997995,3a,15.4y,84.96h,75.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skD2mjhV35kX4-L1133KlzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).
You would think they would start putting up the correct signs given how long ago the highway was re-designated I-69E...
It was always designated I-69E, whether merely on paper or with field signage -- but the southernmost section (Raymondville to the southern terminus) is the only one with consistently correct signage. The suffix-less signs in the Corpus area are inexplicable save either (a) basic ignorance within that TXDOT district or (b) that same district never had suffixed signs printed, so they're posting what's in the corporate yard as a stopgap measure. Either way, it all seems a bit odd and decidedly unprofessional.
A little bit of history on the Corpus Christi section of I-69E.
When AASHTO designated that section in 2012, it originally approved it to be signed as I-69, under the premise that AASHTO does not normally approve suffixed interstate routes. In 2015, when more sections of I-69E, C and W were approved, AASHTO changed the designation of the Corpus-Robstown section from I-69 to I-69E (after first rejecting TxDOT"s application for suffixed route numbers on all three branches of I-69 in South Texas, then reversing its original denial) to be consistent with the I-69 branch designations specified in federal legislation. TxDOT apparently hasn't caught up with updating signs along the Corpus-Robstown section to reflect the I-69E designation that was approved in 2015.
The new section completed in 2017 near Driscoll also used “I-69” signage, not “I-69E” signage.GMSV of I-69 signage at CR 36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,34.9y,130.93h,90.36t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and south (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7662696,-97.6790517,3a,33.7y,237.51h,86.7t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-_-hLpCkkefOTK26jx3zzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)... This (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,24.1y,260.81h,85.3t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) one (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7690035,-97.6766414,3a,15y,256.84h,80.07t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.02264%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) looks like it was supposed to be one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688719,-97.6765139,3a,15y,79.86h,77.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.71428%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), installed at the wrong angle. Signed as far south as FM 2826 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7396979,-97.6997995,3a,15.4y,84.96h,75.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skD2mjhV35kX4-L1133KlzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).
You would think they would start putting up the correct signs given how long ago the highway was re-designated I-69E...
It was always designated I-69E, whether merely on paper or with field signage -- but the southernmost section (Raymondville to the southern terminus) is the only one with consistently correct signage. The suffix-less signs in the Corpus area are inexplicable save either (a) basic ignorance within that TXDOT district or (b) that same district never had suffixed signs printed, so they're posting what's in the corporate yard as a stopgap measure. Either way, it all seems a bit odd and decidedly unprofessional.
A little bit of history on the Corpus Christi section of I-69E.
When AASHTO designated that section in 2012, it originally approved it to be signed as I-69, under the premise that AASHTO does not normally approve suffixed interstate routes. In 2015, when more sections of I-69E, C and W were approved, AASHTO changed the designation of the Corpus-Robstown section from I-69 to I-69E (after first rejecting TxDOT"s application for suffixed route numbers on all three branches of I-69 in South Texas, then reversing its original denial) to be consistent with the I-69 branch designations specified in federal legislation. TxDOT apparently hasn't caught up with updating signs along the Corpus-Robstown section to reflect the I-69E designation that was approved in 2015.
I’ve said it before though, they should keep that as I-69 and designate I-69C and W with different numbers.
The I-69 numbering is a done deal. But TX DOT could at least do something about all those horrible 3-digit I-69X shields with the extreme cramped kerning. Set the freaking lettering in Series C rather than Series D. Or decrease the character sizes on the shields more in keeping with older, better looking Interstate shield specs. I really really hate neutered Interstate shields. They suck.You’re missing I-37 to Victoria.
If re-numbering existing routes was on the table I would be more in favor of routing I-37 down along what is going to become I-69E. The last few miles of I-37 going into Corpus Christi would become a 3-digit route of I-37.
I think a fictional I-33 route would be more likely as a long distance Western bypass of Austin and DFW along the US-281 corridor going North out of San Antonio and terminating with I-44 in Wichita Falls. But if re-numbering was on the table, the same I-33 route could be applied to US-281 South of San Antonio along what is now becoming I-69C.
Given the heavy volume of commercial traffic crossing the border at Laredo, which is IIRC has the most commercial truck traffic crossing the Mexican border, I think the I-69 core route should go to Laredo rather than it being called I-69W.
As for I-6, the only place in the nation that makes sense for it is Laredo to Corpus Christi. The question is whether there is enough traffic to justify such a road. OTOH, cities in South Texas are growing. So it seems like a freeway (or toll road) linking those cities would have to be built eventually.
To me, I-47 only makes sense applied to the Houston to Texarkana corridor. But I-69 and I-369 is already applied to that route.
The new section completed in 2017 near Driscoll also used “I-69” signage, not “I-69E” signage.
I’ve said it before though, they should keep that as I-69 and designate I-69C and W with different numbers.
Project ID 010216001
Highway US 77
Description Construct Relief Route Around Driscoll
From Limit CR 28
To Limit CR 16
District Corpus Christi
County Nueces
Est. Construction Cost $82,400,883
Project Length 5.09 (Miles)
Last Updated 8/26/2019
Est. Complete Date 4/22/2022
Project ID 010203082
Highway US 77
Description Construct Main Lanes And Overpasses
From Limit CR 16
To Limit SOUTH OF FM 3354
District Corpus Christi
County Nueces
Est. Construction Cost $23,240,669
Project Length 2.89 (Miles)
Last Updated 8/26/2019
Est. Complete Date 4/22/2022
NACOGDOCHES, Texas (KTRE) - By the length of the groundbreaking lineup, it appeared no one was left out of celebrating the Nacogdoches flyover startup, certainly not Senator Robert Nichols of Jacksonville, the chair of the Senate Committee on Transportation.
“There is about $400-million dollars committed by the state over the next 4-6 years along this route in this area of Texas,” said Nichols.
The 4-lane connector from Spradley Street to Highway 7 west, several overpasses, and access roads are costing over 86 million dollars. The Interstate-69 readiness project will join the 200 miles of I-69 already opened.
QuoteNACOGDOCHES, Texas (KTRE) - By the length of the groundbreaking lineup, it appeared no one was left out of celebrating the Nacogdoches flyover startup, certainly not Senator Robert Nichols of Jacksonville, the chair of the Senate Committee on Transportation.
“There is about $400-million dollars committed by the state over the next 4-6 years along this route in this area of Texas,” said Nichols.
The 4-lane connector from Spradley Street to Highway 7 west, several overpasses, and access roads are costing over 86 million dollars. The Interstate-69 readiness project will join the 200 miles of I-69 already opened.
"City, state dignitaries celebrate groundbreaking for Nacogdoches I-69 flyover project" (KTRE): https://www.ktre.com/2019/10/03/city-state-dignitaries-celebrate-groundbreaking-nacogdoches-i-flyover-project/
Though I know $$$$$ is always the answer, I still submit that when I-49 Arkansas and I-69 Texas meet (figuratively) I-35 and I-49 south someday in TXK, there will be many who will note other KEY interstate corridors completed many decades earlier and wonder, in spite of the money, what the heck took this route so long.
My guess is (on reading this post): would stay US 77, but at least be built up to IH standards. Just in case.The I-69 numbering is a done deal. But TX DOT could at least do something about all those horrible 3-digit I-69X shields with the extreme cramped kerning. Set the freaking lettering in Series C rather than Series D. Or decrease the character sizes on the shields more in keeping with older, better looking Interstate shield specs. I really really hate neutered Interstate shields. They suck.You’re missing I-37 to Victoria.
If re-numbering existing routes was on the table I would be more in favor of routing I-37 down along what is going to become I-69E. The last few miles of I-37 going into Corpus Christi would become a 3-digit route of I-37.
I think a fictional I-33 route would be more likely as a long distance Western bypass of Austin and DFW along the US-281 corridor going North out of San Antonio and terminating with I-44 in Wichita Falls. But if re-numbering was on the table, the same I-33 route could be applied to US-281 South of San Antonio along what is now becoming I-69C.
Given the heavy volume of commercial traffic crossing the border at Laredo, which is IIRC has the most commercial truck traffic crossing the Mexican border, I think the I-69 core route should go to Laredo rather than it being called I-69W.
As for I-6, the only place in the nation that makes sense for it is Laredo to Corpus Christi. The question is whether there is enough traffic to justify such a road. OTOH, cities in South Texas are growing. So it seems like a freeway (or toll road) linking those cities would have to be built eventually.
To me, I-47 only makes sense applied to the Houston to Texarkana corridor. But I-69 and I-369 is already applied to that route.
You're missing I-37 to Victoria.
You're missing the segment of US-77 from I-37 to Victoria.Quote from: sprjus4You're missing I-37 to Victoria.
I didn't get around to responding to that earlier, but since it was quoted again: I-37 to Victoria? That doesn't make any sense. I-37 begins in San Antonio, goes Southeast 142 miles to Corpus Christi. Then it's going to make a 90 degree turn, going up Northwest 80-90 miles (depending on alignment) to Victoria. That's almost a "V" shape route. It's at least a crooked check mark shape.
One possible fictional route would be a version of Interstate 6 going from Laredo to Freer to Corpus Christi and then up to Victoria. That would make more sense than a V-shaped I-37. But I-69W is already set for that Laredo to Freer segment. So I guess that could leave an I-6 route bouncing from Freer to Corpus and up to Victoria.
You're missing the segment of US-77 from I-37 to Victoria
You’re missing an interstate designation (I.E what I-69 currently is) on the segment from I-37 to Victoria.Quote from: sprjus4You're missing the segment of US-77 from I-37 to Victoria
That's still a hard 90 degree angle turn coming from San Antonio. 2 digit Interstate routes shouldn't be doing that. How do you even sign the cardinal direction on a V-shaped route like that? You'll be driving along I-37 South and then it suddenly becomes I-37 North? It doesn't matter since I-69E is already slated to be running along US-77 between Victoria and the Corpus area anyway.
Changing the I-37 designation going into Corpus Christi on its own would be incredibly disruptive to local businesses and motorists there. Switching the name of an existing route number affects a whole lot more than signs along the roadway. While I wouldn't mind seeing I-37 extended down to Brownsville, I do know it would come with plenty of consequences to businesses in the Corpus Christi area. A whole lot of marketing and administrative materials for both business and government have to be revised to change any references made to that route number.
Not my video, just happened to stumble across it. Drone video of the work that has been done so far on the new interchange on the south side of Nacogdoches mentioned a few posts up, taken last week.
The drone video shows a good start. But the Western half of TX Loop 224 is going to need a considerable amount of work to bring up to Interstate standards. The portion of the loop shown in the video (between the US-59/Loop-224 interchange and TX-7 exit) shows a whole lot of driveways emptying out onto the main lanes of the road and exit ramps. Mockinbird Lane still crosses Loop 224 at-grade. Continuous frontage roads have to be built on both sides to isolate the driveways and crossing streets from the future freeway main lanes and the on/off ramps as well.
North of the TX-7 exit Loop 224 turns into even more of a mess. Not only are there plenty of driveways built out to the main lanes of the highway, quite a few properties are hugging way too close and will have to be bought and removed. Hopefully some of that work has started to happen. I can't really tell since the Google Earth Imagery for Nacogdoches is almost 4 years old (Nov 2015). It's still not a good sign if all those residential driveways hitting the freeway main lanes are still there in that drone video.
It does look like there's sufficient room for a frontage road to be deployed between the freeway lanes -- in archetypal TX fashion -- which would take care of the driveway access situation. Also that SB ramp from the diamond interchange (approximately where the drone footage ended) is straight, then curves toward the main SB lanes; this appears to support the idea that a frontage road would extended from that straight section. But it's likely that a full rebuild -- again with full frontage roads -- will be necessary north of the construction zone; most of these divided bypasses were not intended to be limited access facilities (clearly pre-I-69 efforts); purchases for additional ROW are inevitable. Even in the "flyover" zone at the connector to southward US 59 there remain driveways that will have to be truncated or "joisted" over to different access points. It won't be easy or simple -- let's hope TxDOT has incorporated all these potential sticking points into their planning and construction efforts.
The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.
Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.
Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
That could reasonably work.
A lot of future I-69 segments, including 40 miles south of Falfurrius and 40 miles south of Houston are planned like that.The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.
Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
That could reasonably work.
If it looks like I69 south of Robstown, then I may get claustrophobia
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7673179,-97.6778267,3a,75y,29.72h,78.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se61zYfjE1a0mNyyYbXzX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
A lot of future I-69 segments, including 40 miles south of Falfurrius and 40 miles south of Houston are planned like that.The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.
Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
That could reasonably work.
If it looks like I69 south of Robstown, then I may get claustrophobia
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7673179,-97.6778267,3a,75y,29.72h,78.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se61zYfjE1a0mNyyYbXzX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It’s not that bad honestly, and having the full left shoulder gives a lot of breathing room. I’ve driven that stretch near Robstown and around Bishop with that design at least a dozen times since it’s been completed, and have never felt cramped. It’s only on some of those isolated interchanges that they reduce the left shoulder to only 3-4 ft that’s it cramped.
The US-75 freeway northeast of Dallas has a long segment with this design - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4836781,-96.6200904,3a,75y,197.55h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrJz-0sN8Pai_tN9GYDZ8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192A lot of future I-69 segments, including 40 miles south of Falfurrius and 40 miles south of Houston are planned like that.The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.
Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
That could reasonably work.
If it looks like I69 south of Robstown, then I may get claustrophobia
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7673179,-97.6778267,3a,75y,29.72h,78.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se61zYfjE1a0mNyyYbXzX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It’s not that bad honestly, and having the full left shoulder gives a lot of breathing room. I’ve driven that stretch near Robstown and around Bishop with that design at least a dozen times since it’s been completed, and have never felt cramped. It’s only on some of those isolated interchanges that they reduce the left shoulder to only 3-4 ft that’s it cramped.
The key to snaking I-69 through this area is: all of the above! It'll probably look a lot like the pic of I-69E down by Robstown, minus the elevation for most of the run. It probably boils down to: K-rails, 4' inner shoulders/10' outer shoulders, and frontage roads, frontage roads, and more frontage roads. Except for some parking lots used for trailer storage, most facilities look far enough away from the lanes to shove a frontage road through their front yards (going by the 4-year-old GE view). The finished product won't be particularly pretty, but it'll get the job done -- hopefully in a few short years.
The US-75 freeway northeast of Dallas has a long segment with this design - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4836781,-96.6200904,3a,75y,197.55h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrJz-0sN8Pai_tN9GYDZ8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Seems to work. IIRC, a lot of the segments with median barrier are being built with a stealth 3rd outer lane for future expansion purposes. The stretch I mentioned of US-75 originally actually had a ~40 ft grassy median plus the frontage roads & freeway design, but was rebuilt to its current design about 20 years ago with the torn-up outer lane a stealth lane for future expansion purposes.
Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5061733,-96.6180646,3a,75y,14.33h,74.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0F8dqmUhDlVLvKpsLCTZiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656The US-75 freeway northeast of Dallas has a long segment with this design - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4836781,-96.6200904,3a,75y,197.55h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrJz-0sN8Pai_tN9GYDZ8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Seems to work. IIRC, a lot of the segments with median barrier are being built with a stealth 3rd outer lane for future expansion purposes. The stretch I mentioned of US-75 originally actually had a ~40 ft grassy median plus the frontage roads & freeway design, but was rebuilt to its current design about 20 years ago with the torn-up outer lane a stealth lane for future expansion purposes.
The picture sure shows that "stealth" lane in all its glory; it appears to be a full 12' wide, so another 10' of shoulder should do it down the road. Right now it's certainly 4-lane Interstate standard -- but if the rate of growth in the area continues, 6-laning won't be all that far in the future. Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).
Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).
If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.
Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).
If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.
That just seems like a mistake. I-345 needs to stay - it's a major corridor for north-south traffic and destroying it would just create a catastrophe on I-30, I-35E, and TX-366.Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).
If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.
The second option isn't even possible right now going northbound: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/32.7722302,-96.7780709/32.7747035,-96.7922203/32.8017573,-96.7929922/@32.7851225,-96.8047162,14.16z/data=!4m10!4m9!1m0!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-96.8060881!2d32.7698137!3s0x864e990e2d69908b:0x93c8baf93e3d631e!1m0!3e0
But it is possible southbound: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/32.8087309,-96.793012/32.7715106,-96.7782931/@32.7885107,-96.8135235,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m19!4m18!1m15!3m4!1m2!1d-96.7964791!2d32.7937113!3s0x864e9928a80a6491:0xe1f1dda09b4d75a1!3m4!1m2!1d-96.8022813!2d32.7890178!3s0x864e9924c2b368db:0x71f60d7a1eaed1f0!3m4!1m2!1d-96.7992671!2d32.7719069!3s0x864e991b25051697:0xf9635357053f29c0!1m0!3e0
Yeah, if the New Urbanists succeed in removing I-345 completely, taking out that major freeway connection would overwhelm the recently completed I-30/I-35E "Horseshoe" widening project (the "mixmaster" interchange around the South and West sides of downtown). Both I-30 and I-35E generate a heck of a lot of traffic all on their own and that newly upgraded interchange was only designed to handle that. The interchange can't take on all the traffic coming up from I-45 and coming down from North Central Expressway. It would be one hell of a bottle neck situation.
But then the New Urbanists probably have their own plans about that: y'know, remove all the freeways inside of the I-635 loop. I would not put it past them to float that kind of insanity out to the general public.
Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).
If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.
Yeah, if the New Urbanists succeed in removing I-345 completely, taking out that major freeway connection would overwhelm the recently completed I-30/I-35E "Horseshoe" widening project (the "mixmaster" interchange around the South and West sides of downtown). Both I-30 and I-35E generate a heck of a lot of traffic all on their own and that newly upgraded interchange was only designed to handle that. The interchange can't take on all the traffic coming up from I-45 and coming down from North Central Expressway. It would be one hell of a bottle neck situation.
But then the New Urbanists probably have their own plans about that: y'know, remove all the freeways inside of the I-635 loop. I would not put it past them to float that kind of insanity out to the general public.
The New Urbanists should put their money where their mouth is and have the DOT shut down I-345 for a week or even a month, turn the freeway into a bike and pedestrian highway, and see what it does to car traffic. That way they can see what it would be like if they had their way and it would not have to result in permanent traffic hell for the rest of us that would take millions of dollars to undo after seeing that maybe I-345 was a necessary facility to disperse and move traffic. Maybe traffic would readjust and we would all be proven wrong, but this way the proposal could be tested and officials make an educated decision afterwards, rather than ripping the freeway out based on feelings instead of reality.
Despite it happening all the time in Cartoons, you can not simply order Pets and have them delivered.
You do realize that the NU's would actually like to see such traffic congestion; they seem to be under the impression that making driving particularly onerous in urban areas will cause auto owner/drivers to "see the light" and either (a) start using transit to get around in town or (b) move out of the suburbs into dense city centers. In reality, they may get 5-10% compliance with their wishes from that small portion of commuters who have the freedom to actually make those choices.
The champions of I-69 have much to cheer about in 2020. This year the Texas Transportation Commission authorized funding for more than 60 projects on the I-69 System over the next decade with a cost of almost $6 billion. While this level of investment indicates the importance of I-69 to the state, there remain many miles to be funded. As such, the Alliance urges our federal and state officials to pursue ways to speed up the completion of I-69. Texas needs I-69. We do not want to bear the cost of not completing I-69.
https://www.caller.com/story/opinion/2019/12/12/finishing-interstate-69-essential-texas-nafta-trade-mexico-canada/4408644002/
Texans love 69!
I-2 is apart of the I-69 system?
That is unless we have an "I-6" built between Corpus Christi and Freer.I-6?
That is unless we have an "I-6" built between Corpus Christi and Freer.I-6?
Nah. Western I-4 sounds better
That zone is South Central Texas is basically the only area in the US where a "I-6" route could logically exist.
That zone is South Central Texas is basically the only area in the US where a "I-6" route could logically exist.
Then what would FDOT called the long planned route from Jacksonville to Gainesville?
Even if a Gainesville to Jacksonville super highway had an interstate designation, as short as the route may be it would be just as good to have a 3-digit designation with I-10 or I-75 as the parent route.
An "I-6" route between Corpus Christi and Freer would be a little over 70 miles from Freer to the TX-44/TX-358 interchange in Corpus Christi. Another 30 miles could be added by routing "I-6" along the TX-358 freeway SE down to North Padre Island. Or "I-6" could be routed over the new bridge they're building over the new Nueces Bay ship channel then routed along the TX-35 corridor toward the Houston metro. Having two freeways (I-69 and I-6) running almost parallel to each other might seem like overkill. But there are several port towns that would benefit greatly from having real freeway access. Plus there's precedent in other highly populated areas of the country. I-95, I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike all run parallel to each other close to the Delaware river.
A long time ago (before any of the I-69 business in Texas) I imagined an "I-6" route might run West-East from Laredo to Corpus Christi.
Even if a Gainesville to Jacksonville super highway had an interstate designation, as short as the route may be it would be just as good to have a 3-digit designation with I-10 or I-75 as the parent route.There’s very little warrant or demand for a freeway along the TX-35 corridor. I’ve driven that route before, and very little traffic. The most I could see, and even this is a stretch, is 4-laning parts of it, and passing lanes for the rest.
An "I-6" route between Corpus Christi and Freer would be a little over 70 miles from Freer to the TX-44/TX-358 interchange in Corpus Christi. Another 30 miles could be added by routing "I-6" along the TX-358 freeway SE down to North Padre Island. Or "I-6" could be routed over the new bridge they're building over the new Nueces Bay ship channel then routed along the TX-35 corridor toward the Houston metro. Having two freeways (I-69 and I-6) running almost parallel to each other might seem like overkill. But there are several port towns that would benefit greatly from having real freeway access. Plus there's precedent in other highly populated areas of the country. I-95, I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike all run parallel to each other close to the Delaware river.
In an alternate universe where dumbass politicos and their syncophant handlers didn't decide such things, I-69W would logically be I-6! But since we're not living there, Freer-Corpus is at least a moderately acceptable substitute. Nevertheless, at this point there hasn't been any great rush to actually come up with a designation for this relatively new corridor addition; I'm guessing that with bigger regional fish to fry, it'll be years before that subject is addressed; we all will likely have more than sufficient time to speculate.
There’s very little warrant or demand for a freeway along the TX-35 corridor. I’ve driven that route before, and very little traffic. The most I could see, and even this is a stretch, is 4-laning parts of it, and passing lanes for the rest.
First steps in major U.S. 59 flyover construction project completed, TxDOT Lufkin says (KTRE/9)
NACOGDOCHES, Texas (KTRE) - The preliminary stages of a flyover construction project in Nacogdoches have been completed, according to a Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Lufkin District spokesperson Rhonda Oaks.
U.S. 59 motorists can look to the east at U.S. 59, just south of Loop 224, and catch a glimpse of the cleared path for the Nacogdoches direct connect.
“What motorists are seeing now is the clearing from north of Spradley to U.S. 59,” said Oaks. “This week we have completed preparing the right of ways along this path, as well as our drainage structures."
...
Engineering on the direct connect, including a flyover, will be up to interstate standards in anticipation of I-69.
Nacogdoches City Council is also considering to adopt the Federal and State priorities of the Alliance of I-69 Texas for the year 2020. The annual adoption gives the City an opportunity to declare the Federal and State priorities are priorities of the City.
The cost of the project is a little more than $86.1-million and the project should take close to 4 years to complete.
https://www.ktre.com/2019/12/16/first-steps-major-us-flyover-construction-project-completed-txdot-lufkin-says/
"Here's why finishing I-69 is essential to Texas"
FYI, in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times 3 days ago from Barbara Canales, a local judge who is also an Alliance for I-69 board member:QuoteThe champions of I-69 have much to cheer about in 2020. This year the Texas Transportation Commission authorized funding for more than 60 projects on the I-69 System over the next decade with a cost of almost $6 billion. While this level of investment indicates the importance of I-69 to the state, there remain many miles to be funded. As such, the Alliance urges our federal and state officials to pursue ways to speed up the completion of I-69. Texas needs I-69. We do not want to bear the cost of not completing I-69.
https://www.caller.com/story/opinion/2019/12/12/finishing-interstate-69-essential-texas-nafta-trade-mexico-canada/4408644002/
"Here's why finishing I-69 is essential to Texas"
FYI, in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times 3 days ago from Barbara Canales, a local judge who is also an Alliance for I-69 board member:QuoteThe champions of I-69 have much to cheer about in 2020. This year the Texas Transportation Commission authorized funding for more than 60 projects on the I-69 System over the next decade with a cost of almost $6 billion. While this level of investment indicates the importance of I-69 to the state, there remain many miles to be funded. As such, the Alliance urges our federal and state officials to pursue ways to speed up the completion of I-69. Texas needs I-69. We do not want to bear the cost of not completing I-69.
https://www.caller.com/story/opinion/2019/12/12/finishing-interstate-69-essential-texas-nafta-trade-mexico-canada/4408644002/
This column has made the rounds. It's now been also printed in news sources in Victoria, Longview and Texarkana this week. The "champions" are definitely getting their message out.
"Here's why finishing I-69 is essential to Texas"
FYI, in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times 3 days ago from Barbara Canales, a local judge who is also an Alliance for I-69 board member:QuoteThe champions of I-69 have much to cheer about in 2020. This year the Texas Transportation Commission authorized funding for more than 60 projects on the I-69 System over the next decade with a cost of almost $6 billion. While this level of investment indicates the importance of I-69 to the state, there remain many miles to be funded. As such, the Alliance urges our federal and state officials to pursue ways to speed up the completion of I-69. Texas needs I-69. We do not want to bear the cost of not completing I-69.
https://www.caller.com/story/opinion/2019/12/12/finishing-interstate-69-essential-texas-nafta-trade-mexico-canada/4408644002/
This column has made the rounds. It's now been also printed in news sources in Victoria, Longview and Texarkana this week. The "champions" are definitely getting their message out.
Longview? Is either the Alliance or TxDOT even considering a spur there -- especially since the Marshall I-369 plans have seemingly been nailed down and the bypass all but let (i.e., little chance of rerouting at this phase of the project). Since it is the largest city in the area, a spur north from Nacogdoches wouldn't be out of the question somewhere down the line -- but for the present, the corridor backers should concentrate on getting what's currently planned done before tackling additional "add-ons". But it's more than possible that they're just casting their support net a bit wider without implying service to areas not directly along the present corridor branches. We'll undoubtedly see what this is all about in due time!
Longview and Victoria have newspapers owned by the same company, which took over the Tyler paper a few months ago.
My guess is they had I-20 split the difference between Tyler and Longview. Of course way back then Interstates were built on far more direct paths. If I-20 was built from scratch today it would look like a bunch of crooked pieces of elbow macaroni strung together. It would hit every town along the way to Shreveport. And probably be 100 miles longer.
My guess is they had I-20 split the difference between Tyler and Longview. Of course way back then Interstates were built on far more direct paths. If I-20 was built from scratch today it would look like a bunch of crooked pieces of elbow macaroni strung together. It would hit every town along the way to Shreveport. And probably be 100 miles longer.
My guess is they had I-20 split the difference between Tyler and Longview. Of course way back then Interstates were built on far more direct paths. If I-20 was built from scratch today it would look like a bunch of crooked pieces of elbow macaroni strung together. It would hit every town along the way to Shreveport. And probably be 100 miles longer.I-20 actually diverges from US-80's path to serve Tyler. If it were direct, it should be about 5 miles shorter.
Never understood why I-20 is so far from Longview
if/when TX DOT extends the TX-49 toll road up and over Longview and farther East to Marshall (and I-369) it might gain higher vehicle counts.An extension of the road eastwards of it’s current terminus would just be redundant to I-20 at that point. Building local freeways around those cities may be desired, but a toll road paralleling I-20 for 10-15 miles just to connect isn’t needed.
But I think it has to be expanded to a 4 lane divided facility and offer high speed limits for that to happen.The speed limit on the toll road is 75 mph with a posted minimum speed of 65 mph... is that not high enough?
Longview and Victoria have newspapers owned by the same company, which took over the Tyler paper a few months ago.
An extension of the road eastwards of it’s current terminus would just be redundant to I-20 at that point. Building local freeways around those cities may be desired, but a toll road paralleling I-20 for 10-15 miles just to connect isn’t needed.
The town layouts of both Tyler and Longview are a bit odd and not well-controlled. Retail and residential development seems a bit scattered at random in both places. Loop 281 in Longview and Loop 323 in Tyler are really not highways at all; they're busy urban streets with lots and lots of stop lights. Neither road has any room for expansion. Too much development too close to the road and lots of driveways connecting direct to the main lanes.
Parts of downtown Tyler are kind of nice. I like the red brick streets. Those neighborhoods have street curbs and sidewalks.
The TX-49 toll road goes so far around Tyler that I don't expect it to attract much development alongside the 2 lane limited access road. It's little more than a semi-functional route for US-69 traffic needing to bypass Tyler. Perhaps if/when TX DOT extends the TX-49 toll road up and over Longview and farther East to Marshall (and I-369) it might gain higher vehicle counts. But I think it has to be expanded to a 4 lane divided facility and offer high speed limits for that to happen.
Longview and Victoria have newspapers owned by the same company, which took over the Tyler paper a few months ago.
Gannett (who used to own USA Today), or another local company?
Interesting that they're including state road 44 east of US 59 as part of the I-69 system. I wonder if it'll get an interstate number.
There is certainly work ongoing on that corridor - at least between Corpus Christi and Robstown.Interesting that they're including state road 44 east of US 59 as part of the I-69 system. I wonder if it'll get an interstate number.
It's actually been a part of the corridor cluster for a while, but nothing has really been mentioned in detail as to how redeveloped and improved TX 44 will really become, nor has anything specific been mentioned up to now regarding any redesignation (not that there's been a lack of speculation here on the forum) of the route once anything happens to it. By the looks of that map, TX 44 isn't getting as much I-69 -related attention as other parts of the corridors.
Yeah, TX-44 is being converted to a freeway for the full length between I-69E in Robstown and the TX-358 freeway in Corpus Christi.Not all the way to I-69E on the current projects, there is still about a mile long gap that is a 5-lane road east of I-69E.
I don't know the Interstate number it could receive or if it will ultimately receive an Interstate number. If it was designated as an Interstate another question would arise as to where the Interstate would officially end. Would it bump up North along TX-358 to meet I-37? Or might it follow TX-358 down to North Padre Island?I could see it just ending at TX-358, but if it were to continue, routing it along TX-358 down to Flour Bluff would be the most beneficial and provide the main corridor through southeastern Corpus Christi with an interstate designation, along with connecting with NAS Corpus Christi.
I don't know the Interstate number it could receive or if it will ultimately receive an Interstate number. If it was designated as an Interstate another question would arise as to where the Interstate would officially end. Would it bump up North along TX-358 to meet I-37? Or might it follow TX-358 down to North Padre Island?I could see it just ending at TX-358, but if it were to continue, routing it along TX-358 down to Flour Bluff would be the most beneficial and provide the main corridor through southeastern Corpus Christi with an interstate designation, along with connecting with NAS Corpus Christi.
I-x69...I don't know the Interstate number it could receive or if it will ultimately receive an Interstate number. If it was designated as an Interstate another question would arise as to where the Interstate would officially end. Would it bump up North along TX-358 to meet I-37? Or might it follow TX-358 down to North Padre Island?I could see it just ending at TX-358, but if it were to continue, routing it along TX-358 down to Flour Bluff would be the most beneficial and provide the main corridor through southeastern Corpus Christi with an interstate designation, along with connecting with NAS Corpus Christi.
If it's routed to the south like that, and it was to get an interstate number, what would it get? It's not long enough for a 2di, and it wouldn't touch I-37 so it wouldn't be eligible to get an x37 number. Also, odd or even for the first digit?
I-x69...
I-x69...
I-69X :bigass:
southern CC bypassThe proposed Regional Parkway (http://www.corpuschristi-mpo.org/04_studies_rpmcfs.html), or TX-358?
southern CC bypassThe proposed Regional Parkway (http://www.corpuschristi-mpo.org/04_studies_rpmcfs.html), or TX-358?
The TX-358 South Padre Island Drive is certainly not a "bypass", it's a major 6-8 lane urban freeway serving the entire eastern half of the city and a tourist road to Padre Island during peak weekends.
I could see TX-358 gaining an Interstate designation from the additional angle of being a major Hurricane Evacuation Route for the Corpus Christi area.
^
Realistically, I could see TX-358 becoming a I-x37 between I-37 and Park Road 22. It certainly has merit, and it appears to fully meet interstate standards. The busiest stretch between Ayers St and Nile Dr is currently having its ramps reversed and being expanded, and more than likely will meet full urban interstate standards.
and they don't seem in too much of a hurry to change that status.Unless it's I-69 :bigass:
and they don't seem in too much of a hurry to change that status.Unless it's I-69 :bigass:
but I was considering mileage outside of even the I-69 cluster (like TX 288, US 69/96/287 between Beaumont and Port Arthur, etc.) -- that's been around a while.Very true. IIRC, parts of the US-69/US-96/US-287 corridor are not up to interstate standards. TX-288 appears to be for the freeway segment.
but I was considering mileage outside of even the I-69 cluster (like TX 288, US 69/96/287 between Beaumont and Port Arthur, etc.) -- that's been around a while.Very true. IIRC, parts of the US-69/US-96/US-287 corridor are not up to interstate standards. TX-288 appears to be for the freeway segment.
US-75 can be added to that from Dallas to Oklahoma. Easily could become an I-45 extension.
Such an example has at least a couple or more existing precedents. There's the New York version of I-99 ending at the PA state line. I-41 ends at the Illinois state line.
It does look like ODOT will get US-69/75 improved to Interstate quality at least up to US-70 in Durant. A completed Interstate up to that point would serve the giant WinStar Casino (the biggest in the US) more efficiently and move traffic through that area more safely. It's just too bad the lunkheads farther North in Atoka, Stringtown, etc won't get with the program. But those towns are "graying" fast and not retaining any youth. They'll be ghost towns eventually.
A completed Interstate up to that point would serve the giant WinStar Casino (the biggest in the US) more efficiently and move traffic through that area more safely.
Actually, the Choctaw Casino is the one on US 69-US 75; while the Winstar is on I-35 (but who's counting?)
Then, unless the historical objectors start resembling the walking dead, one of the obstacles to upgrading US 69 at least to I-40 if not beyond will be in the rear view mirror. Then the only thing would be for ODOT to cobble up some funding for the project(s) -- which, considering their recent history, might not occur for some time. But I suppose miracles can happen....but I for one don't plan to hold my breath!
Quote from: sparkerThen, unless the historical objectors start resembling the walking dead, one of the obstacles to upgrading US 69 at least to I-40 if not beyond will be in the rear view mirror. Then the only thing would be for ODOT to cobble up some funding for the project(s) -- which, considering their recent history, might not occur for some time. But I suppose miracles can happen....but I for one don't plan to hold my breath!
That's the other really difficult thing about a state losing population.
Most of Oklahoma's projected net population gains are happening within the Oklahoma City and Tulsa MSA's. The only notable exceptions to that are Love and Bryan Counties along the Red River. The WinStar and Choctaw Casinos likely have something to do with that population growth in counties that are otherwise fairly low in population.
Most of Oklahoma's rural counties are showing net population losses. It's pretty bad here in the Southwest part of the state. Some counties, like Tillman County may show losses as much as 10% compared to the 2010 Census. Even Comanche County may end up with a net loss of population. Lawton's current estimated population is down to 93,000 -about 5,000 less than a peak reached a few years ago.
Along the US-69/75 corridor the counties North of Durant are showing net losses. Both Atoka and Pittsburg Counties are losing people. The US-69 corridor doesn't move into growing counties until it reaches Wagoner County -and that county is only growing in its Western-most areas, near Tulsa.
Bids were opened today for 8.29 miles of upgrade southwest of Houston. This is the first section in Wharton County, from the Fort Bend County Line to the north end of the city of Wharton. (Fort Bend county is the first county southwest of Houston, and work is in progress from the Grand Parkway to the Wharton/Fort Bend county line).Nice to see more work continuing to progress on the Houston <-> Corpus Christi segment. Drove through the current segment down to Kendleton currently under construction this past summer, and work was coming along nicely.
The existing facility is mostly 2x2 4-lane divided and generally lacks frontage roads. Frontage roads will be added for most of the length.
The bid works out to $23 million per mile. Looking at the plans, it is 3x3 with 12-foot-wide inner and outer shoulders (122 foot concrete width), built to TxDOT's standard design using a center barrier and no median.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01103201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01103201.htm)
County: WHARTON Let Date: 01/10/20
Type: UPGRADE TO RURAL FREEWAY Seq No: 3201
Time: 0 X Project ID: NH 2020(496)
Highway: US 59 Contract #: 01203201
Length: 0.000 CCSJ: 0089-08-098
Limits:
From: FORT BEND C/L Check: $100,000
To: 0.83 MILES SOUTH OF SH 60 Misc Cost: $1222527.00
Estimate $195,525,805.90 % Over/Under Company
Bidder 1 $191,395,295.32 -2.11% WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 2 $198,029,850.12 +1.28% JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.
Bidder 3 $205,280,801.49 +4.99% ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4 $210,039,775.48 +7.42% WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 5 $230,462,130.37 +17.87% JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY
(https://www.ktre.com/resizer/1z4b6-13ZVDcqPGLiThsLwPrdtE=/1200x600/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-raycom.s3.amazonaws.com/public/6WZSQFEI5RGRBJ3IYYXOZBNC3Q.png)
Crews rescheduled to remove overhead power lines as part of U.S. 59 flyover project
NACOGDOCHES, Texas (KTRE) - Drivers on U.S. 59 near Loop 224 in Nacogdoches County will soon experience a round of rolling stops related to the ongoing U.S. 59 flyover construction project.
Crews will remove overhead electric lines that cross U.S. 59 South and the southwest area of Loop 224. There are nine locations where lines will be removed, and delays should last about 15 minutes each time, said Rhonda Oaks, a spokesperson for Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Lufkin.
https://www.ktre.com/2020/05/06/crews-rescheduled-remove-overhead-power-lines-part-us-flyover-project/
Bids were opened yesterday for upgrading 3 miles of US 77 (IH 69E) on the south side of Kingsville. Looking at the plans, most of the work is adding frontage roads. It looks like some of the existing main lanes will be replaced, and some will get a fresh topping of asphalt.Where do you go to access project plans?
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05083202.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05083202.htm)
County: KLEBERG Let Date: 05/08/20
Type: CONSTRUCT MAINLANES, FRONTAGE ROADS AND STRUCTURE Seq No: 3202
Time: 660 WORKING DAYS Project ID: NH 2020(871)
Highway: US 77 Contract #: 05203202
Length: 3.390 CCSJ: 0102-04-099
Limits:
From: FM 1356 Check: $100,000
To: CR 2130 Misc Cost:
Estimate $48,109,866.82 % Over/Under Company
Bidder 1 $55,237,175.26 +14.81% BAY LTD.
Bidder 2 $63,707,812.88 +32.42% ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 3 $64,999,726.21 +35.11% ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4 $73,104,113.56 +51.95% HAAS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, LTD.
Where do you go to access project plans?
Thank you the information! Very useful.Where do you go to access project plans?
First you identify the county and project ID number on the monthly project lists
Main page https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/general-services/letting/letting-schedule.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/general-services/letting/letting-schedule.html)
May 2020 list https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/letmay.htm (https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/letmay.htm)
Then you go to the plans online page
https://www.txdot.gov/business/letting-bids/plans-online.html (https://www.txdot.gov/business/letting-bids/plans-online.html)
Proceed through a few disclaimer screens, then drill down to the month and find the project among the list, which is by county.
Plans for larger projects are usually several hundred MB, you'll usually want to right click the link, download and open in Adobe Reader for better viewing performance.
The illustrations in plans vary, but there is usually something similar to a schematic, often with the desription "proposed section" or "horizontal alignment", which are usually at the top of the document but not always.
Bids were opened yesterday for upgrading 3 miles of US 77 (IH 69E) on the south side of Kingsville. Looking at the plans, most of the work is adding frontage roads. It looks like some of the existing main lanes will be replaced, and some will get a fresh topping of asphalt.So looking at the project plans, it appears as you said the work is mostly adding frontage roads and overpasses. The existing 74 foot median will be maintained similar to recent projects north of there up to I-37 (except near Bishop and Robstown that reduced the median to a concrete barrier).
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05083202.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05083202.htm)
County: KLEBERG Let Date: 05/08/20
Type: CONSTRUCT MAINLANES, FRONTAGE ROADS AND STRUCTURE Seq No: 3202
Time: 660 WORKING DAYS Project ID: NH 2020(871)
Highway: US 77 Contract #: 05203202
Length: 3.390 CCSJ: 0102-04-099
Limits:
From: FM 1356 Check: $100,000
To: CR 2130 Misc Cost:
Estimate $48,109,866.82 % Over/Under Company
Bidder 1 $55,237,175.26 +14.81% BAY LTD.
Bidder 2 $63,707,812.88 +32.42% ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 3 $64,999,726.21 +35.11% ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4 $73,104,113.56 +51.95% HAAS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, LTD.
More work is happening on the TX-44 freeway West of Corpus Christi.IIRC, that project will complete the freeway from SH-358 to the point it narrows to undivided highway immediately outside Robstown.
Across the harbor in Gregory, TX there's an interchange improvement happening at the US-181/TX-35 split.Never knew about this project... it was not under construction when I drove past the area this past summer.
Does TX DOT have any plans to connect the TX-44 freeway with I-69E in the Robstown area? Currently it looks like there is a work-able path where the TX-44 could dovetail into I-69E on the South side of Robstown where I-69E bends through that curve just South of the Industrial Blvd exit.TxDOT owns that southern path's right of way, however a larger study was completed in 2017 for a full SH-44 Robstown Bypass, and the preferred alternative includes a southern alignment that will connect to I-69E with a system interchange further south near SH-36.
I think they need to take a compromise approach with that bypass. It's going to be less expensive to build that short extension of the TX-44 freeway to I-69E than the longer East half of that bypass. The shorter freeway extension will give Robstown more of a direct benefit. I'm not opposed to building the West half of that loop. A pair of T interchanges along I-69E in two different locations is probably going to be less expensive than building a full interchange between two crossing freeways (especially if the interchange is a directional stack).
Texas doesn't renumber highways.
Adm. Auth., dated 09/14/1992; Adm. Ltr. 003-1992, dated 09/14/1992
Cancelled. (Eastland County) As requested by District, this mileage transferred to SH 112. (This is due to numerous thefts of the popular SH 69 signs.)
Two semi-directional-T interchanges for the TX 44 (eventually I-whatever) freeway would work as long as there are slip lanes between so unnecessary merging is kept to a minimum.
While many threads on here get intermingled, this one has lots of discussion of what amounts to US-69 (primarily in Oklahoma.) While we Texans would doubtfully confuse an INTERSTATE with as US Highway. People from other places might. People who call the interstate "Route" (often said ROOT) or Highway. In Texas it is "Interstate XX" or "Highway XX" (meaning US or SH). FM. RM, Loop, Spur etc having their unique colloquilism.
Texas doesn't renumber highways. They rarely make significant reroutes beyond a loop or a minimal straightening. I-69 / I-369 is planned to follow US -59. No significant deviation except loops around towns. Not even a real deviation going through Lufkin.
Renumbering US-69 is an issue.
While there some esoteric ideas like assigning part of it with a completely NEW Number or some sort of funky US-287 reroute, the concensus seems to leave it be. Convention and AASHTO standards and precedent be damned.
To me there are for are a handful of options that work and work well. These go from least involved to most.
1) Truncate US69 in Jacksonville TX and extend US-175 to SE Texas
2) Truncate US69 in Tyler and extend US-271 to SE Texas
3) Truncate US69 in Denison and reroute US75 along its route. (This requires renumbering US-75 to Dallas, possibly / probably as I-45). This one MIGHT be confusing to the people in Denison.
4) Truncate US69 in Jacksonville. Delete US-175. Renumber all of US175 & the current US-69 south of Jacksonville as US-75.
Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.
About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.
In reality, I cannot see any segments of I-69W northeast of Freer actually getting funding. Maybe in 50 years it'll be segmented together, but it's certain a low priority compared to I-69C and I-69E which are due for major construction activities in the next decade, notably completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, and completing I-69C between McAllen and Falfurrias. Laredo to Freer, and Freer to Corpus Christi may also be slow-paced, but might eventually happen. Nothing earmarked for I-69W.Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.
About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.
As far as I can remember, all the legs have to be built.
In reality, I cannot see any segments of I-69W northeast of Freer actually getting funding. Maybe in 50 years it'll be segmented together, but it's certain a low priority compared to I-69C and I-69E which are due for major construction activities in the next decade, notably completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, and completing I-69C between McAllen and Falfurrias. Nothing earmarked for I-69W.Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.
About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.
As far as I can remember, all the legs have to be built.
In reality, I cannot see any segments of I-69W northeast of Freer actually getting funding. Maybe in 50 years it'll be segmented together, but it's certain a low priority compared to I-69C and I-69E which are due for major construction activities in the next decade, notably completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, and completing I-69C between McAllen and Falfurrias. Nothing earmarked for I-69W.Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.
About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.
As far as I can remember, all the legs have to be built.
I agree it will be the slower leg, but it still will be finished per legislation. It won't be a "on the shelf indefinitely" thing like a lot of projects become.
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today. The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers. I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C. I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today. The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers. I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C. I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?
Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting. Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too. So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today. The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers. I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C. I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?
Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting. Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too. So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?
Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted. Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today. The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers. I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C. I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?
Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting. Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too. So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?
Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted. Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today. The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers. I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C. I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?
Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting. Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too. So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?
Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted. Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
Agreed, but it would save 14 miles of construction, and likely over $100 million in funding that can go elsewhere in the corridor.I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today. The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers. I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C. I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?
Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting. Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too. So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?
Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted. Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog.
Agreed, but it would save 14 miles of construction, and likely over $100 million in funding that can go elsewhere in the corridor.I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today. The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers. I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C. I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?
Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting. Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too. So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?
Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted. Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog.
5 miles added for a trip, likely no additional minutes.
Agreed, but it would save 14 miles of construction, and likely over $100 million in funding that can go elsewhere in the corridor.I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today. The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers. I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C. I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?
Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting. Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too. So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?
Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted. Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog.
5 miles added for a trip, likely no additional minutes.
Sorry, I am not about saving a buck here or there when it comes to roads. Take my tax dollars and buy me some awesome roads. I would rather have that piece upgraded as well.
Aside, most of the traffic that heads south down US 281 to the valley is coming from San Antonio, so it would be natural to have that segment upgraded.
There is this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.515473,-98.185253,3a,20.5y,194.05h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3_rsOnEhJjt4imcEY8ECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.515473,-98.185253,3a,20.5y,194.05h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3_rsOnEhJjt4imcEY8ECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
I'm not crazy after all!
Agreed, but it would save 14 miles of construction, and likely over $100 million in funding that can go elsewhere in the corridor.I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today. The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers. I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C. I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?
Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting. Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too. So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?
Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted. Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog.
5 miles added for a trip, likely no additional minutes.
Sorry, I am not about saving a buck here or there when it comes to roads. Take my tax dollars and buy me some awesome roads. I would rather have that piece upgraded as well.
Aside, most of the traffic that heads south down US 281 to the valley is coming from San Antonio, so it would be natural to have that segment upgraded.
There is this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.515473,-98.185253,3a,20.5y,194.05h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3_rsOnEhJjt4imcEY8ECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.515473,-98.185253,3a,20.5y,194.05h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3_rsOnEhJjt4imcEY8ECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
I'm not crazy after all!
Technically, that future I-69 notification sign shouldn't be posted on that portion of US 281, since it's actually not included in the corridor's definition. But enthusiasm being what it is, someone simply posted it there since there's not a lot of physical difference regarding 281 north vs. south of US 59. So no one's crazy -- just looking at something that is functionally meaningless. As said previously, if someone can make a case for including that stretch within corridor parameters down the line, it'll be done -- but as of right now, that's not the situation.
The more I think about it, the more I realize I-69 is all about bypassing some cities but going right through others. It's being touted as a bypass to the congested I-40 west of Memphis, but then goes right through the Houston and Laredo metro areas.There's also internal gaps in the interstate system in Texas that I-69 would fill - a northeast connection out of Houston, and a connection between the Valley, Corpus Christi, and Houston - that have to be considered.
..... I think where I was going with that was I remember the map showing all of US 281 as I-69C some years ago, and that sign proves (at least in my mind) I didn’t make that up. I wish I had a copy of the older map.
The more I think about it, the more I realize I-69 is all about bypassing some cities but going right through others. It's being touted as a bypass to the congested I-40 west of Memphis, but then goes right through the Houston and Laredo metro areas. A true bypass would make its way somehow to Eagle Pass to link with Fed. 57, the best route to Mexico City. This would probably involve the US 79 or SH 21 corridor and then some sort of big bypass around the north side of San Antonio. Maybe it could even overlap bullshit I-14.
Alternately, to at least bypass Laredo, Texas and Mexico could collaborate on a new border crossing about halfway between Laredo and Brownsville. On the Texas side, it would leave I-69 near Kingsville and make its way southwest along the FM 755 corridor, or perhaps from Robstown on SH 44-SH 359-SH 16. In Mexico, an upgrade of Fed. 54 and a better interchange with 1600 (the Monterrey bypass) would take traffic to Fed. 57.
Yeah, fictional, fuck off. Victors write the history books.
Closing note -- I'm surprised that US 57 isn't at least an expressway with some interchanges by now. It was slapped into place in 1971 with little fanfare, but always seems to have been an afterthought simply to placate the Mexican developers of Federal 57 by giving them a direct 2dus path to our regional version of "main street".
One interesting aspect of the coronavirus is that there are now a lot of virtual meetings in which roadgeeks can participate. One such meeting is about the proposed widening of US 59/ US 77 in Victoria for the Future I-69:If I’m not mistaken, this would be the first project specifically for the I-69W corridor outside Laredo?
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/082520.html
It will take place on August 25.
* edit
Thanks to rte66man for the welcome back over in the Interstate 269 thread.
Take a look at this post, and the link to the U.S. 281 Planning Study:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg233353#msg233353
^ I think it will actually be I-69E. I believe the US 59 section will go right up to the beginning of I-69W, but not actually be part of Future I-69W. Of course, US 77 heads in the direction of Brownsville. In other words, it will include the I-69E/ I-69W interchange location. It will be interesting to see what degree they plan for the interchange.From what I'm seeing, the project does not include any portion of the I-69E corridor, rather the western half of the Victoria loop (to be I-69W between I-69E and US-59 / US-59 Business) that's still two lanes and four lane divided approaching the I-69E corridor.
^ I think it will actually be I-69E. I believe the US 59 section will go right up to the beginning of I-69W, but not actually be part of Future I-69W. Of course, US 77 heads in the direction of Brownsville. In other words, it will include the I-69E/ I-69W interchange location. It will be interesting to see what degree they plan for the interchange.From what I'm seeing, the project does not include any portion of the I-69E corridor, rather the western half of the Victoria loop (to be I-69W between I-69E and US-59 / US-59 Business) that's still two lanes and four lane divided approaching the I-69E corridor.
(https://i.ibb.co/c62mWgn/US77-US59-Interstate-Project.png)
The completion of this project would complete the entire loop to interstate standards (with the exception of the eastern approach to US-59 / Future I-69E), though besides the small portion of I-69W on the western end, it's not to be included in the I-69 system unless some loop route is eventually proposed. I-69E would follow the direct US-59 to US-77 South routing on the southern side of the city.
Unless local pressure is brought to bear regarding a 69W reroute around the northern loop, simple economics would dictate the extant path around the south side.
I wonder why they don't go ahead and signs some of the bypasses between Corpus Christi and Houston as I-69 (Beasley, Kendleton, Wharton, El Campo, Edna, Inez and Victoria) now. The others I didn't mention (like Louise and Ganado) which are currently almost freeway, albeit a few expressway grade interchanges and a gas station driveway away from full freeway, TxDOT can focus small projects of closing off driveways and bulldozing crossovers to make them interstate grade, then sign them as I-69. I know the argument would be that these sections are a few miles apiece, but I think it would be good for route continuity. It would get locals and travelers alike used to the fact that US 59 is pretty much going away in lieu of I-69, and give some validity to the BGSs in Houston that say I-69 goes to Victoria when in reality it goes to Rosenberg.In order to be signed as an interstate, the route must connect to another interstate. None of the bypasses you have mentioned do. Yes, I-2, I-69E and I-69C were all signed down in Valley for some reason, but at least they connect to each other and form a system that’s close to 100 miles long.
I know this is a new world and just because things were done like this before doesn't mean they will be done like this again, but that's how a lot of interstates got built. The bypasses/town freeway sections came first, then the rural freeways were built in between connecting the sections. If you recall, the disjointed sections of the interstates were signed as the interstate on the freeway sections, then they stopped either on a crossroad, or on the road they were displacing and had "TO I-XX" trailblazers on the non freeway parts. All this to say, I think it would help the long term transition. People in and around Houston still call Eastex and Southwest Freeways in Houston 59 (or the cringey I-59). They kinda need to get people used to phasing out US 59 because we all know once this project is complete, US 59 will completely not exist in Texas.
The highlighted portion is the current project proposal posted above, though I don’t recall it supposed to be apart of I-69W.Unless local pressure is brought to bear regarding a 69W reroute around the northern loop, simple economics would dictate the extant path around the south side.
I took a look at the 2045 Victoria MTP (May 2020) and I can’t tell if they have chosen the route for I-69W. Part of the loop is designated as “Future I-69” and it goes beyond US 59, but not all of the way around on the loop. On page 162 of 169:
https://www.victoriatx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2627/2045-MTP
Can anyone tell the route from the map?
The highlighted portion is the current project proposal posted above, though I don’t recall it supposed to be apart of I-69W.Unless local pressure is brought to bear regarding a 69W reroute around the northern loop, simple economics would dictate the extant path around the south side.
I took a look at the 2045 Victoria MTP (May 2020) and I can’t tell if they have chosen the route for I-69W. Part of the loop is designated as “Future I-69” and it goes beyond US 59, but not all of the way around on the loop. On page 162 of 169:
https://www.victoriatx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2627/2045-MTP
Can anyone tell the route from the map?
Under project description, it says preparing for the split of I-69 east and west.
Perhaps I-69W is slated to run along the northern loop while I-69E follows the southern route? I had always been under the impression I-69 would follow the southern route, then split with I-69E continuing south and I-69W / I-69C / I-69 (what is it supposed to be west of Victoria?) following the US-59 / US-77 overlap portion of the loop, then west on US-59.
The loop upgrade is a benefit for US-77 and providing an interstate grade loop around the city, but is not apart of the I-69 system as far as I’m aware, unless they want a I-x69.
I wonder why they don't go ahead and signs some of the bypasses between Corpus Christi and Houston as I-69 (Beasley, Kendleton, Wharton, El Campo, Edna, Inez and Victoria) now. The others I didn't mention (like Louise and Ganado) which are currently almost freeway, albeit a few expressway grade interchanges and a gas station driveway away from full freeway, TxDOT can focus small projects of closing off driveways and bulldozing crossovers to make them interstate grade, then sign them as I-69. I know the argument would be that these sections are a few miles apiece, but I think it would be good for route continuity. It would get locals and travelers alike used to the fact that US 59 is pretty much going away in lieu of I-69, and give some validity to the BGSs in Houston that say I-69 goes to Victoria when in reality it goes to Rosenberg.In order to be signed as an interstate, the route must connect to another interstate. None of the bypasses you have mentioned do. Yes, I-2, I-69E and I-69C were all signed down in Valley for some reason, but at least they connect to each other and form a system thats close to 100 miles long.
I know this is a new world and just because things were done like this before doesn't mean they will be done like this again, but that's how a lot of interstates got built. The bypasses/town freeway sections came first, then the rural freeways were built in between connecting the sections. If you recall, the disjointed sections of the interstates were signed as the interstate on the freeway sections, then they stopped either on a crossroad, or on the road they were displacing and had "TO I-XX" trailblazers on the non freeway parts. All this to say, I think it would help the long term transition. People in and around Houston still call Eastex and Southwest Freeways in Houston 59 (or the cringey I-59). They kinda need to get people used to phasing out US 59 because we all know once this project is complete, US 59 will completely not exist in Texas.
Construction is already underway to extend I-69 southward as a six lane interstate down to Kendleton, so that covers both Beasley and Kendleton bypasses already.
The Wharton Bypass doesnt meet interstate standards since it has numerous intersections with just two interchanges.
The El Campo Bypass is currently being upgraded to interstate standards by constructing frontage roads along the northern half of it. Same goes with the Victoria Bypass up to the railroad overpass. These wont be signed as interstate highways though until they connect with the rest of the system.
Projects are planned to extend I-69 south to the Wharton Bypass as a six lane interstate, then further south to Louise as a four lane interstate. Schematics Ive seen show reconstructing the cross section completely, with a 22 foot paved median / concrete barrier, plus two one-way frontage roads, on most of the bypasses, except the El Campo Bypass since it already had a full upgrade done on the southern portion a few years ago and now currently underway on the northern portion with realigned ramps and new frontage roads.
Legislation changed about 10 years ago that allows stretches of highway that are up to interstate standards that are part of a future interstate corridor to be signed as an interstate even if they do not connect to the rest of the system, with the caveat of them having to be connected in the next 20 years. http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.1.12.html (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.1.12.html) This is the reason I-69E, I-69C and I-2 were signed. Signing the sections that are up to interstate standards keeps the project "on the clock".Interesting... this law must have been an exception only applied for the I-69 corridor specifically, considering it's not in use anywhere else in the country. An interstate highway must connect to another one in order to be designated.
With that being said, again, why don't they sign the existing interstate grade sections as I-69 now, excluding the ones I thought were complete but aren't?
From the Alliance for I-69 Texas website, a project update map released in December 2019 clearly shows the I-69W corridor following the small US-77 / US-59 overlap portion of the loop, and the US-59 route along the southern part of the city, not the rest of the loop.The highlighted portion is the current project proposal posted above, though I don’t recall it supposed to be apart of I-69W.Unless local pressure is brought to bear regarding a 69W reroute around the northern loop, simple economics would dictate the extant path around the south side.
I took a look at the 2045 Victoria MTP (May 2020) and I can’t tell if they have chosen the route for I-69W. Part of the loop is designated as “Future I-69” and it goes beyond US 59, but not all of the way around on the loop. On page 162 of 169:
https://www.victoriatx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2627/2045-MTP
Can anyone tell the route from the map?
Under project description, it says preparing for the split of I-69 east and west.
Perhaps I-69W is slated to run along the northern loop while I-69E follows the southern route? I had always been under the impression I-69 would follow the southern route, then split with I-69E continuing south and I-69W / I-69C / I-69 (what is it supposed to be west of Victoria?) following the US-59 / US-77 overlap portion of the loop, then west on US-59.
The loop upgrade is a benefit for US-77 and providing an interstate grade loop around the city, but is not apart of the I-69 system as far as I’m aware, unless they want a I-x69.
Frankly, I don't think a path has been chosen, and what is highlighted on the map shown are simply the sections of the loop that are slated to become full freeway in any case. Those in the NW corner of the loop -- between US 59 and the US 77 northward divergence -- would be part of the US 77 bypass and possibly part of an Interstate route. But the segment along the current US 59/77 multiplex are also highlighted. Taking an educated guess that I-69W will strike out west somewhere not too far from current US 59, if all the highlighted sections were to eventually be incorporated into the I-69 "family", one would have to be either a spur on the northern loop up to the US 77 interchange or part of a complete Interstate-grade upgrade to that loop. Maybe that local pressure I mentioned in a previous post is actually part of the process, and the northern loop would be the path for I-69W, with the "split" happening SE of Victoria rather than SW -- which would mean the city would have two corridors being upgraded instead of one (possibly enhancing commercial development along both!) This being TX, such a thing isn't out of the question. But in the meantime, the map's illustrations and "highlighting" of the I-69 corridor segments only adds to the uncertainty regarding the actual corridors' alignments and exactly where the E/W junction will be located.
One reason for not signing it could also be that Texas plans to renovate or upgrade the freeways to modern standards (such as reconstructing the mainlines to have a 22 foot paved median with concrete barrier, reversing ramps, construction of one-way two lane frontage roads, and bridge replacements) before posting signage. The segment near El Campo was recently fully upgraded with ramp reversals and one-way two lane frontage roads, so if they are going to immediately designate one portion, it would be that. Near Victoria, upgrade work has occurred in some areas, but still may need to be done in other spot areas.-schematic.pdf
Sure, but you also have to think about the usefulness of the I-69(C/E/W/F/Q/Æ/Ø) designation as a navigation tool. If someone hops onto a segment of I-69 thinking it will connect with another segment of I-69 they are already familiar with, and it ends after one mile instead, they could get confused/lost.
In the original Interstate era, this was handled with "Temporary" bannered routes or "To" routes. But is the expense and effort to install those worth the boost in morale of signing disparate one-mile sections of Interstate as such?
Sure, but you also have to think about the usefulness of the I-69(C/E/W/F/Q/Æ/Ø) designation as a navigation tool. If someone hops onto a segment of I-69 thinking it will connect with another segment of I-69 they are already familiar with, and it ends after one mile instead, they could get confused/lost.
In the original Interstate era, this was handled with "Temporary" bannered routes or "To" routes. But is the expense and effort to install those worth the boost in morale of signing disparate one-mile sections of Interstate as such?
Short answer....Yes!
Haha. I say that because I have seen Texas waste amazing amounts of money in resigning projects that didn't need to be resigned (let's put clearview here), signing in an area that has a construction project that will start literally in days destroying the sign that was just erected, and the coup de gras https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1872983,-97.9128173,3a,59y,43.79h,95.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKbWWb3giD8g60TxQwzIBBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1872983,-97.9128173,3a,59y,43.79h,95.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKbWWb3giD8g60TxQwzIBBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). This is a stubout road built when SH-45 was built here in the 90's. Until recently there was a shield assembly here telling you the directions to turn for EAST or WEST SH-45, FACING THE WOODS!!! I know for a fact these shields were present because I may have a bit of intel on where one of the shields is currently located. The shields were placed there so in the advent of a road reaching that intersection, the driver would know where to go, of course. It's been at least 25 years and there is no road. All to say, I have seen the state waste a lot of money. I honestly don't intend to come off like I am constantly contrary, I don't. My point is always if it's the interest of saving a buck here or a buck there, then why didn't you save a buck here or there the other 800 times you could have easily saved a buck? Lets take all the sections of I-69 currently signed. Was that worth us paying for all those shields? They didn't sign a new highway like Louisiana and Arkansas did for I-49, no, Texas just slapped a shield on an already existing freeway, back slapped each other, shook hands and took pictures and made it seem like they changed the world. I would honestly say they wasted way more money doing the signing they already did than what I am proposing (not to mention signing mile marker for routes without a definite zero post yet, I-369). I mean, if you are gonna waste a bunch of money over here, what's stopping you from wasting more over there?
I guess I keep asking the same questions over and over again. The reasoning for why X road isn't an interstate, or why this road is not like that road, the answer is it's expensive to make x road an interstate. I then turn to some multi billion dollar projects in the state and say, so I guess it was okay there, huh?
Sure, but you also have to think about the usefulness of the I-69(C/E/W/F/Q/Æ/Ø) designation as a navigation tool. If someone hops onto a segment of I-69 thinking it will connect with another segment of I-69 they are already familiar with, and it ends after one mile instead, they could get confused/lost.
In the original Interstate era, this was handled with "Temporary" bannered routes or "To" routes. But is the expense and effort to install those worth the boost in morale of signing disparate one-mile sections of Interstate as such?
Short answer....Yes!
Haha. I say that because I have seen Texas waste amazing amounts of money in resigning projects that didn't need to be resigned (let's put clearview here), signing in an area that has a construction project that will start literally in days destroying the sign that was just erected, and the coup de gras https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1872983,-97.9128173,3a,59y,43.79h,95.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKbWWb3giD8g60TxQwzIBBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1872983,-97.9128173,3a,59y,43.79h,95.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKbWWb3giD8g60TxQwzIBBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). This is a stubout road built when SH-45 was built here in the 90's. Until recently there was a shield assembly here telling you the directions to turn for EAST or WEST SH-45, FACING THE WOODS!!! I know for a fact these shields were present because I may have a bit of intel on where one of the shields is currently located. The shields were placed there so in the advent of a road reaching that intersection, the driver would know where to go, of course. It's been at least 25 years and there is no road. All to say, I have seen the state waste a lot of money. I honestly don't intend to come off like I am constantly contrary, I don't. My point is always if it's the interest of saving a buck here or a buck there, then why didn't you save a buck here or there the other 800 times you could have easily saved a buck? Lets take all the sections of I-69 currently signed. Was that worth us paying for all those shields? They didn't sign a new highway like Louisiana and Arkansas did for I-49, no, Texas just slapped a shield on an already existing freeway, back slapped each other, shook hands and took pictures and made it seem like they changed the world. I would honestly say they wasted way more money doing the signing they already did than what I am proposing (not to mention signing mile marker for routes without a definite zero post yet, I-369). I mean, if you are gonna waste a bunch of money over here, what's stopping you from wasting more over there?
I guess I keep asking the same questions over and over again. The reasoning for why X road isn't an interstate, or why this road is not like that road, the answer is it's expensive to make x road an interstate. I then turn to some multi billion dollar projects in the state and say, so I guess it was okay there, huh?
The short-form answer as to preliminary Interstate signage value, particularly on pre-existing-but-meeting-criteria freeways like US 59 through Houston, is this: the project promoters want to get the camel's nose through the door, so to speak! Here, it's a joint Alliance and TxDOT effort (both "all in" on the corridor concept), so the decision to deploy I-69 signage in arguably the most populated section of the entire corridor was, given the existing ready-to-go facility, a no-brainer. Lots of Texans and commercial drivers from all over the region see that signage on a regular basis, and expectations are formed as to where I-69 is going to go and how long it's going to take to get there. With the isolated I-69E/C/I-2 cluster in the Rio Grande Valley, it's much the same thing but with a slightly different audience -- one seeking some semblance of connectivity with the rest of the state. It's likely I-69E will be the first to actually provide the connection to the rest of the Interstate network; when it does (and if COVID is behind us by then) it'll be accompanied by loud hoopla and a shitload of PR. Later, with I-69C, when it reaches I-37 there will be some but likely less boisterous celebration -- but more sighs of relief from truckers.
The first decade of Interstate deployment ('57-'67) was a lot like this -- sections were built, ribbons cut, politicos yapped, and piece by piece it came together. But after the first ten years the novelty had largely worn off, and the ribbons/blithering became ever rarer (generally for the better!). But with the lack of the good old federal chargeability, things move at a slower pace today -- so 25 years into the corridor's existence, it's still in its infancy south of Kentucky. The signage on eligible completed sections is simply to keep the overall project in the public eye, particularly when funding is sought. If portions of the public regularly clamor for more progress on the corridor, it's difficult for those holding the purse strings to repeatedly procrastinate without occasionally loosening things up and funding it a segment at a time. Right now the emphasis is centered both north and southwest of Houston, although the King Ranch segment of I-69E is also in the design stage, along with spot projects on 69C. So as long as something is going on at any given time, it indicates that things are progressing reasonably well. Of course this year anything of the sort is well down the priority list as far as public perception is concerned -- but OTOH the relative lack of traffic means that projects that would certainly disrupt "normal" flow -- like in situ upgrades of existing facilities -- can be undertaken with less problems (much of the US 59 upgrades fit those parameters). So it's possible that as we (hopefully) emerge from our sequestrations and lockdowns some of us may have a shiny new section of I-69 -- signed as such or not -- on which to travel. And then the cycle continues -- we see positive results and wonder when the next piece of the puzzle will come our way. And that's the likely state of affairs for the next couple of decades until at least two pieces of the South Texas "trident" are in operation, as well as the 69/369 continuum from Houston to Texarkana. And if one wants to see a major ribbon-cutting, replete with all the regalia and BS such an event can hold, wait until the last segment between Brownsville and Texarkana opens -- the eastern half of the state (and pretty much most Houston-based CEO's) will throw one hell of a party if physically possible (hopefully we won't be up to COVID-38 by that time!).
Poking around Texas on Google Maps due to another thread, I found that the Driscoll Relief Route construction on Future I-69E is now showing up in the satellite image...
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6741635,-97.7541586,6510m/data=!3m1!1e3
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today. The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers. I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C. I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?
I took a look at the 2045 Victoria MTP (May 2020) and I can’t tell if they have chosen the route for I-69W. Part of the loop is designated as “Future I-69” and it goes beyond US 59, but not all of the way around on the loop. On page 162 of 169:
https://www.victoriatx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2627/2045-MTP
If I’m not mistaken, this would be the first project specifically for the I-69W corridor outside Laredo?
The loop upgrade is a benefit for US-77 and providing an interstate grade loop around the city, but is not apart of the I-69 system as far as I’m aware, unless they want a I-x69.
Sure, but you also have to think about the usefulness of the I-69(C/E/W/F/Q/Æ/Ø) designation as a navigation tool. If someone hops onto a segment of I-69 thinking it will connect with another segment of I-69 they are already familiar with, and it ends after one mile instead, they could get confused/lost.
In the original Interstate era, this was handled with "Temporary" bannered routes or "To" routes. But is the expense and effort to install those worth the boost in morale of signing disparate one-mile sections of Interstate as such?
The GPS tells us where to go at most every turn.
Do you use Google Maps or Waze?
Having dealt with the GPS on my business partner's car on more than one occasion, I certainly would like to tell the designers/engineers of the system where to go -- or, more precisely, just where to stick their product.
I use Google Maps but plan my own route.
I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close, big chunks going through limited traffic, the US highways as currently is get to the RGV without any delays that needed the blue shields. If they wanted a blue shield to get from Texarkana to the RGV, they could have called it I-47, pick the US77 one and saved a lot of these funds for projects that need it.
I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close, big chunks going through limited traffic, the US highways as currently is get to the RGV without any delays that needed the blue shields. If they wanted a blue shield to get from Texarkana to the RGV, they could have called it I-47, pick the US77 one and saved a lot of these funds for projects that need it.
Perhaps 69C could act as a relief route in case of hurricane evacuation if 69E is blocked?
Being completely fictional here, but what if Houston had a southern bypass to help with hurricane evacuation? I think it would be called I-469 and it could use the TX 36 corridor to the west, the FM 2004 and TX 146 corridors in the south, and a new bridge across Trinity Bay from San Leon to Smith Point which would lead to Winnie in the east. This would give residents a way out from hurricanes.To some extent, once Loop 99 is complete, it will provide this southern bypass. During evacuation, tolls could be lifted.
To some extent, once Loop 99 is complete, it will provide this southern bypass. During evacuation, tolls could be lifted. Unless of course, planning for a fourth loop is desired...?
I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close
.... Being completely fictional here, but what if Houston had a southern bypass to help with hurricane evacuation? I think it would be called I-469 and it could use the TX 36 corridor to the west, the FM 2004 and TX 146 corridors in the south, and a new bridge across Trinity Bay from San Leon to Smith Point which would lead to Winnie in the east. This would give residents a way out from hurricanes.
.... Being completely fictional here, but what if Houston had a southern bypass to help with hurricane evacuation? I think it would be called I-469 and it could use the TX 36 corridor to the west, the FM 2004 and TX 146 corridors in the south, and a new bridge across Trinity Bay from San Leon to Smith Point which would lead to Winnie in the east. This would give residents a way out from hurricanes.
It is not a completely fictional idea. The I-69 Segment Two Planning Committee laid out a plan for a southern I-69 bypass of Houston:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2274283#msg2274283
.... Being completely fictional here, but what if Houston had a southern bypass to help with hurricane evacuation? I think it would be called I-469 and it could use the TX 36 corridor to the west, the FM 2004 and TX 146 corridors in the south, and a new bridge across Trinity Bay from San Leon to Smith Point which would lead to Winnie in the east. This would give residents a way out from hurricanes.
It is not a completely fictional idea. The I-69 Segment Two Planning Committee laid out a plan for a southern I-69 bypass of Houston:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2274283#msg2274283
At one point, wasn't the Grand Parkway -- or at least the west and north legs between the US 59 intersections -- considered for an alternate I-69 alignment; and after it was decided to go right through town with the main corridor, a future/potential I-669? The south and east legs shown here, including the big bridge, could simply be considered to be either an alternate alignment or just an extension of that concept. OTOH, one would think that with the full revamping of the downtown (I-10/45/69) freeway network, any other major Houston projects would be "back-burnered" for the time being, unless as toll facilities they would or could be addressed separately from the historical "freeway" network.
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69? What are they going to do about the number duplicity?
Texas has so many route numbers duplicated between their various numbering systems that I doubt they will do anything about it.
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69? What are they going to do about the number duplicity?
Texas has so many route numbers duplicated between their various numbering systems that I doubt they will do anything about it.
As strange as this sounds, I think you are right. While there are lots of ways to undo this,
Truncate US-69 in Jacksonville and extend US-175. (or renumber all of US-175 to US-75 including the Jacksonville + extension)
Truncate US-69 in Tyler and extend US-271
Truncate US-69 at the Oklahoma state line, Renumber the Current US75 inTexas to IH-45, and extend US-75 along the current US-69.
All the signs point toward them not changing US-69.
For a Texan, the venacular for Interstate is "Interstate X" . Texans would never call an interstate "Highway X". Texans would NEVER call ANY road ROUTE (ROOT?) anything.
Generally the US Highways and State Highways are all generically called "Highway X" or Just "X"
Farm Roads are usually called "Farm to Market X" or sometimes "Farm Road X"
From a Texan point of view it would not be particularly confusing ifUS 69 remained unchanged.
On the other hand, I heard a discusion about perhaps actually sending US-59 back to its original endpoint...
THEN there are the easterners and Yankees who call em Root X or HwyX it might be a problem. In their venacular, it might be "which ROOT 69?"
People with opinions of why (or why not) make a change? I am talking about reasons beyon AASHTO or FHWA standards. Real world reasons.....
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69? What are they going to do about the number duplicity?
Texas has so many route numbers duplicated between their various numbering systems that I doubt they will do anything about it.
As strange as this sounds, I think you are right. While there are lots of ways to undo this,
Truncate US-69 in Jacksonville and extend US-175. (or renumber all of US-175 to US-75 including the Jacksonville + extension)
Truncate US-69 in Tyler and extend US-271
Truncate US-69 at the Oklahoma state line, Renumber the Current US75 inTexas to IH-45, and extend US-75 along the current US-69.
All the signs point toward them not changing US-69.
For a Texan, the venacular for Interstate is "Interstate X" . Texans would never call an interstate "Highway X". Texans would NEVER call ANY road ROUTE (ROOT?) anything.
Generally the US Highways and State Highways are all generically called "Highway X" or Just "X"
Farm Roads are usually called "Farm to Market X" or sometimes "Farm Road X"
From a Texan point of view it would not be particularly confusing ifUS 69 remained unchanged.
On the other hand, I heard a discusion about perhaps actually sending US-59 back to its original endpoint...
THEN there are the easterners and Yankees who call em Root X or HwyX it might be a problem. In their venacular, it might be "which ROOT 69?"
People with opinions of why (or why not) make a change? I am talking about reasons beyon AASHTO or FHWA standards. Real world reasons.....
And, ironically enough, that post and its potentials are being debated on the 69th page of this thread. ;-) :clap:
I've heard nothing new as to the possibilty of doing anything about the 2-69 issue. IMO, something should be done, but it looks like, for now, it's not a very front-burner topic on TxDOT's list.
I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close, big chunks going through limited traffic, the US highways as currently is get to the RGV without any delays that needed the blue shields. If they wanted a blue shield to get from Texarkana to the RGV, they could have called it I-47, pick the US77 one and saved a lot of these funds for projects that need it.
I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close, big chunks going through limited traffic, the US highways as currently is get to the RGV without any delays that needed the blue shields. If they wanted a blue shield to get from Texarkana to the RGV, they could have called it I-47, pick the US77 one and saved a lot of these funds for projects that need it.
Two things: US 281, as illustrated in a study of (current) non-Interstate commercial corridors' relative traffic (reproduced in this or another thread), is one of the nation's most heavily trafficked non-Interstate commercial corridors between the border and I-37; it's right up there with the perennial "champion", CA 99. Whoever suggested it as an Interstate back in 1995 likely saw this coming due to the increasing congestion at other border crossing sites, particularly Laredo (I-35). Whether foresight or prescience, such traffic has manifested itself in the last quarter century. Second -- the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form. Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!). I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle. At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Definitely the finalization of the suffixed approach, long favored within Alliance ranks -- they thought that was the only way to keep their pet Congressfolks busy getting appropriations (i.e., don't confuse them too much with non-69-referenced segments) took place in the 2010's and not earlier. I was in contact with those folks in 2010-11 regarding designation options; their response to me was essentially along those lines, couched in the "maintaining consistency" concept. If I had to cobble up an explanation for the original deployment of unsuffixed I-69 shields along what would become I-69E, it would be along the old "camel's nose through the tent door" sort of dynamic -- "brand" the route with the basic number and worry about the specifics later. And, yeah, the old now-replaced shields may well find themselves up by Nacogdoches in time!
Agreed, with rebuttal. I-69's first signing in Texas was the section of US-77 from I-37 to just south of Calallen. Everyone came out, got their cameras out and smiled as they unveiled brand new I-69 shields. Problem was it was after this that they decided the legs needed to be suffixed (and that section was part of I-69E) so the new signing had to (partially) come down in lieu of I-69E shields. So just saying, that section has been signed and renumbered once already.I-69 shields still remain for the most part on that segment, including the new segments being upgraded south of there, with only I-69E on overheads.
That is a little bit of a more manageable scenario, since the "opps" I-69 shields can be re-purposed somewhere else along the corridor.
Agreed, with rebuttal. I-69's first signing in Texas was the section of US-77 from I-37 to just south of Calallen. Everyone came out, got their cameras out and smiled as they unveiled brand new I-69 shields. Problem was it was after this that they decided the legs needed to be suffixed (and that section was part of I-69E) so the new signing had to (partially) come down in lieu of I-69E shields. So just saying, that section has been signed and renumbered once already.I-69 shields still remain for the most part on that segment, including the new segments being upgraded south of there, with only I-69E on overheads.
That is a little bit of a more manageable scenario, since the "opps" I-69 shields can be re-purposed somewhere else along the corridor.
^
I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.
^
I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.
Yeah, that one is a head scratcher. I thought maybe it was because that is 100% going to be the leg that connects the Valley first so it will be interim I-69 until the other legs are finished, but US-77 in the valley only has I-69E signage so you are going to have I-69 signage turn to I-69E abruptly, but the whole time it will all be I-69E?
^
I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.
Yeah, that one is a head scratcher. I thought maybe it was because that is 100% going to be the leg that connects the Valley first so it will be interim I-69 until the other legs are finished, but US-77 in the valley only has I-69E signage so you are going to have I-69 signage turn to I-69E abruptly, but the whole time it will all be I-69E?
Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)? If so, that may account for the continuation of I-69 signage on what is actually designated I-69E. Perhaps they just didn't have any 69E shields in their corporate yard!
^
I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.
Yeah, that one is a head scratcher. I thought maybe it was because that is 100% going to be the leg that connects the Valley first so it will be interim I-69 until the other legs are finished, but US-77 in the valley only has I-69E signage so you are going to have I-69 signage turn to I-69E abruptly, but the whole time it will all be I-69E?
Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)? If so, that may account for the continuation of I-69 signage on what is actually designated I-69E. Perhaps they just didn't have any 69E shields in their corporate yard!
Yes to Districts. You can clearly see the dividing line here:
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/maps.htm
Do not know about signage autonomy.
Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)?
Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)?
Yes, and yes--there are 26 districts total and signing is typically designed at the district level, though Traffic Operations at TxDOT headquarters in Austin carries out some coordinating functions, such as keeping the TxMUTCD and SHSD up to date, ensuring that each district has access to Clearview licenses and other software resources (for example, there is a Microstation bolt-on--still available for download, I think--that was used to make conventional-road guide signs with all-uppercase Series D lettering, and I think the availability of this is one reason such signs had an uniform appearance statewide before Clearview was rolled out and SignCAD became common), and so on. Some districts have their own traffic-related standard plan sheets; for example, the Houston district has one for shields for the HCTRA toll roads.
I don't think TxDOT does "superdistricts" like Caltrans does (e.g., in California much design activity for thinly populated Districts 1 and 2 is in fact done out of the District 3 offices).
I think you have to realize that many signs are on vendor contracts in Texas.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Definitely the finalization of the suffixed approach, long favored within Alliance ranks -- they thought that was the only way to keep their pet Congressfolks busy getting appropriations (i.e., don't confuse them too much with non-69-referenced segments) took place in the 2010's and not earlier. I was in contact with those folks in 2010-11 regarding designation options; their response to me was essentially along those lines, couched in the "maintaining consistency" concept. If I had to cobble up an explanation for the original deployment of unsuffixed I-69 shields along what would become I-69E, it would be along the old "camel's nose through the tent door" sort of dynamic -- "brand" the route with the basic number and worry about the specifics later. And, yeah, the old now-replaced shields may well find themselves up by Nacogdoches in time!
from: sparker on August 25, 2020, 05:45:26 PM
... But getting back to the matter at hand -- the analysis of the rationale behind maintaining the I-69 alignment as a relief route is pretty spot on; if TX completes its I-69/369 continuum well ahead of full development of the main I-69 trunk across AR and into MS, expect to see serious consequences -- essentially "rolling congestion" along I-30, I-440, and I-40 across the state (possibly lessened once I-57 is completed) due to the present configuration of both freeways, which doesn't readily lend itself to expansion without a substantial overall rebuild. Much freeway design of the '60's, particularly in states that employed a more frugal approach to the original design/construction effort, is that type -- not anticipating the overall traffic increases that have occurred in the last half century. And remember that a relief route "offsite", so to speak, doesn't pose the traffic interruption issues endemic to "expand-in-place" efforts.
One interesting aspect of the coronavirus is that there are now a lot of virtual meetings in which roadgeeks can participate. One such meeting is about the proposed widening of US 59/ US 77 in Victoria for the Future I-69:Meeting materials have been posted to the TxDOT project website.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/082520.html
It will take place on August 25.
* edit
Thanks to rte66man for the welcome back over in the Interstate 269 thread.
I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?
I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?
I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?
I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?
Because the I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W designations were codified into federal law when Congress enacted the legislation that established the I-69 corridor.
I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?
Because the I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W designations were codified into federal law when Congress enacted the legislation that established the I-69 corridor.
The actual suffixes were not codified at that point; the legislative language specified a "east" and "central" corridor; what will become I-69W was not itself specified -- apparently the original intent was to keep that as the mainline I-69 and simply "branch" the others southward from it. When TxDOT and the Alliance decided to simply translate the legislative language into actual suffixed designations circa 2010-11, they thought better of the original approach and subsequently modified the actual Interstate designations from the original legislation to include I-69W along with the "C" and "E" routes, effectively truncating the mainline I-69 at the E/W split near Victoria.
Found some construction images on Google Maps from last fall on I-69E (Southern section) north of Raymondville:Looks to be about 6 miles of mainline construction in the median.
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5977635,-97.7663174,3a,60y,316.77h,98.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn-5Li3sE51DPTjgcFlQooQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?
Because the I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W designations were codified into federal law when Congress enacted the legislation that established the I-69 corridor.
I think former Rep. Bud Shuster gave the US 220 corridor the Interstate 99 designation because there was a streetcar connecting his hometown of Glassport with McKeesport, that was numbered 99. It's annoying, but I think Interstate 238 in the Bay Area is a worse designation. As for Interstates 69E, 69C, and 69W, I would have numbered 69E as Interstate 69, 69C as Interstate 202, and 69W as Interstate 6 (though that last number could have gone to the Interstate 49 South corridor between Lafayette and New Orleans in Louisiana).
I think former Rep. Bud Shuster gave the US 220 corridor the Interstate 99 designation because there was a streetcar connecting his hometown of Glassport with McKeesport, that was numbered 99. It's annoying, but I think Interstate 238 in the Bay Area is a worse designation. As for Interstates 69E, 69C, and 69W, I would have numbered 69E as Interstate 69, 69C as Interstate 202, and 69W as Interstate 6 (though that last number could have gone to the Interstate 49 South corridor between Lafayette and New Orleans in Louisiana).
Back in 2010 in correspondence to the Alliance for I-69/Texas I suggested that the I-69 "main line" proceed down the eastern leg, the western/Laredo branch be I-6, and the central branch, at their option, could be either a southern iteration of I-41 or simply I-169 (also suggesting I-47 for the Texarkana branch). Reply: thanks but no thanks; we're probably sticking with the descriptions transferred to suffixes, including the central branch (which, AFAIK, is the first iteration of the "C" suffix to indicate "central" on any US or Interstate route). Rationales given: don't confuse the congress critters holding the purse strings by stretching their comprehension, and doubling down on the publicity already afforded the "69" label.
I think former Rep. Bud Shuster gave the US 220 corridor the Interstate 99 designation because there was a streetcar connecting his hometown of Glassport with McKeesport, that was numbered 99. It's annoying, but I think Interstate 238 in the Bay Area is a worse designation. As for Interstates 69E, 69C, and 69W, I would have numbered 69E as Interstate 69, 69C as Interstate 202, and 69W as Interstate 6 (though that last number could have gone to the Interstate 49 South corridor between Lafayette and New Orleans in Louisiana).
Back in 2010 in correspondence to the Alliance for I-69/Texas I suggested that the I-69 "main line" proceed down the eastern leg, the western/Laredo branch be I-6, and the central branch, at their option, could be either a southern iteration of I-41 or simply I-169 (also suggesting I-47 for the Texarkana branch). Reply: thanks but no thanks; we're probably sticking with the descriptions transferred to suffixes, including the central branch (which, AFAIK, is the first iteration of the "C" suffix to indicate "central" on any US or Interstate route). Rationales given: don't confuse the congress critters holding the purse strings by stretching their comprehension, and doubling down on the publicity already afforded the "69" label.
The "69" label.... I could hear the 69 jokes coming to my head. ;)
I wonder why they don't go ahead and signs some of the bypasses between Corpus Christi and Houston as I-69 (Beasley, Kendleton, Wharton, El Campo, Edna, Inez and Victoria) now. The others I didn't mention (like Louise and Ganado) which are currently almost freeway, albeit a few expressway grade interchanges and a gas station driveway away from full freeway, TxDOT can focus small projects of closing off driveways and bulldozing crossovers to make them interstate grade, then sign them as I-69. I know the argument would be that these sections are a few miles apiece, but I think it would be good for route continuity. It would get locals and travelers alike used to the fact that US 59 is pretty much going away in lieu of I-69, and give some validity to the BGSs in Houston that say I-69 goes to Victoria when in reality it goes to Rosenberg.
I know this is a new world and just because things were done like this before doesn't mean they will be done like this again, but that's how a lot of interstates got built. The bypasses/town freeway sections came first, then the rural freeways were built in between connecting the sections. If you recall, the disjointed sections of the interstates were signed as the interstate on the freeway sections, then they stopped either on a crossroad, or on the road they were displacing and had "TO I-XX" trailblazers on the non freeway parts. All this to say, I think it would help the long term transition. People in and around Houston still call Eastex and Southwest Freeways in Houston 59 (or the cringey I-59). They kinda need to get people used to phasing out US 59 because we all know once this project is complete, US 59 will completely not exist in Texas.
I wonder why they don't go ahead and signs some of the bypasses between Corpus Christi and Houston as I-69 (Beasley, Kendleton, Wharton, El Campo, Edna, Inez and Victoria) now. The others I didn't mention (like Louise and Ganado) which are currently almost freeway, albeit a few expressway grade interchanges and a gas station driveway away from full freeway, TxDOT can focus small projects of closing off driveways and bulldozing crossovers to make them interstate grade, then sign them as I-69. I know the argument would be that these sections are a few miles apiece, but I think it would be good for route continuity. It would get locals and travelers alike used to the fact that US 59 is pretty much going away in lieu of I-69, and give some validity to the BGSs in Houston that say I-69 goes to Victoria when in reality it goes to Rosenberg.
I know this is a new world and just because things were done like this before doesn't mean they will be done like this again, but that's how a lot of interstates got built. The bypasses/town freeway sections came first, then the rural freeways were built in between connecting the sections. If you recall, the disjointed sections of the interstates were signed as the interstate on the freeway sections, then they stopped either on a crossroad, or on the road they were displacing and had "TO I-XX" trailblazers on the non freeway parts. All this to say, I think it would help the long term transition. People in and around Houston still call Eastex and Southwest Freeways in Houston 59 (or the cringey I-59). They kinda need to get people used to phasing out US 59 because we all know once this project is complete, US 59 will completely not exist in Texas.
Unless Business US-59 becomes Business I-69 (much like how Business US-75 between Houston and DFW became Business I-45), that's where US-59 may live on, much like how US-90 lives on even after I-10 was complete (although US-90 goes further into Del Rio)
or maybe not cause what i said about US-90 going further to Del Rio (and smaller places before) being the one route I-10 avoids in favor of El Paso (which is much bigger than Del Rio)
Having a nice new rural segment segueing into a former through-town portion that was upgraded to barely meet spec is a bit disconcerting (cf. Arbuckle, CA on I-5!)I-27 has a couple of those... Hale Center (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0629041,-101.8470659,3026m/data=!3m1!1e3) and Albernathy (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8305684,-101.8366085,4050m/data=!3m1!1e3).
Having a nice new rural segment segueing into a former through-town portion that was upgraded to barely meet spec is a bit disconcerting (cf. Arbuckle, CA on I-5!)I-27 has a couple of those... Hale Center (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0629041,-101.8470659,3026m/data=!3m1!1e3) and Albernathy (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8305684,-101.8366085,4050m/data=!3m1!1e3).
This segment (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.002787,-101.9071201,6340m/data=!3m1!1e3) near Canyon, TX was just barely bypassed.
Cleveland ISD is the fastest-growing school district in Texas, Superintendent of Schools Chris Trotter said. The district, which currently has 8,600 students, might reach as many as 15,000 by 2025, he estimates. The district has grown nearly 125% since the 2014-15 school year, when it had 3,829 students, according to a November 2019 presentation.
Trotter attributed that growth, in part, to Cleveland ISD’s location, intersected by Interstate 69 and State Highway 105 northeast of Houston.
https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2020/10/01/cleveland-isd-breaks-ground-school.html
Never underestimate the value of an interstate:Quote
Cleveland ISD is the fastest-growing school district in Texas, Superintendent of Schools Chris Trotter said. The district, which currently has 8,600 students, might reach as many as 15,000 by 2025, he estimates. The district has grown nearly 125% since the 2014-15 school year, when it had 3,829 students, according to a November 2019 presentation.
Trotter attributed that growth, in part, to Cleveland ISD’s location, intersected by Interstate 69 and State Highway 105 northeast of Houston.
https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2020/10/01/cleveland-isd-breaks-ground-school.html
Never underestimate the value of an interstate:Quote
Cleveland ISD is the fastest-growing school district in Texas, Superintendent of Schools Chris Trotter said. The district, which currently has 8,600 students, might reach as many as 15,000 by 2025, he estimates. The district has grown nearly 125% since the 2014-15 school year, when it had 3,829 students, according to a November 2019 presentation.
Trotter attributed that growth, in part, to Cleveland ISD’s location, intersected by Interstate 69 and State Highway 105 northeast of Houston.
https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2020/10/01/cleveland-isd-breaks-ground-school.html
I have been banging this drum forever. An interstate makes ALL the difference t so many things, not just that you can drive non-stop.
Never underestimate the value of an interstate:Quote
Cleveland ISD is the fastest-growing school district in Texas, Superintendent of Schools Chris Trotter said. The district, which currently has 8,600 students, might reach as many as 15,000 by 2025, he estimates. The district has grown nearly 125% since the 2014-15 school year, when it had 3,829 students, according to a November 2019 presentation.
Trotter attributed that growth, in part, to Cleveland ISD’s location, intersected by Interstate 69 and State Highway 105 northeast of Houston.
https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2020/10/01/cleveland-isd-breaks-ground-school.html
I have been banging this drum forever. An interstate makes ALL the difference t so many things, not just that you can drive non-stop.
Yes, a freeway (Interstate if you must) does drive growth. That said, Cleveland texas is about the urban sprawl from Houston. It is about the same distance from Downtown Houston as Conroe. The biggest thing Cleveland has going for it is the housing pricing is relatively low. Crime is relatively low.
I can certainly offer you another place that has grown similarly: Princeton TX. Princeton is 15 miles from a freeway of any type. As far as that goes, Frisco and far north Plano were also on small roads when they began their rush. SH121 was 2 lanes at places going either east toward McKinney and west toward Grapevine. Preston Road (which is what the growth surrounded, was a four-lane road (mostly) . While Frisco went nuts after SRT was built and DNT were extended the need for the sprawl to spread northward was necessary even without roads.
Just like Frisco grew up around Preston Rd (SH-289) and Celina and Gunter are sprawling, Cleveland would most probably have grown up without I-69. That said, the growth makes I-69 be needed even more than before.
EDIT: and any news on the US 77/I-69 Driscoll and US 59/I-69 Nacogdoches bypasses too?
I had no idea work on I-69 in East Texas was already started! Do you happen to have the current alignment plan?EDIT: and any news on the US 77/I-69 Driscoll and US 59/I-69 Nacogdoches bypasses too?
The work on I-69 at Nachogdoches was proceeding well when I drove through on September 7. See photos below. The section to the south of the elevated connector was not as far along but all right-of-way was cleared with work in progress.
Further south at Diboll, the forest was cleared from the right-of-way. As I've mentioned before, there is a tremendous amount of work still needing to be done to upgrade the corridor to Interstate standards all the way to Houston, and the projects in progress are addressing the worst slowdown locations.
(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_361.jpg-1600.jpg)
Looking north along I-69, just south of Loop 224, on September 7, 2020
(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_359-1600.jpg)
Construction of elevated connectors on September 7, 2020
I had no idea work on I-69 in East Texas was already started! Do you happen to have the current alignment plan?EDIT: and any news on the US 77/I-69 Driscoll and US 59/I-69 Nacogdoches bypasses too?
The work on I-69 at Nachogdoches was proceeding well when I drove through on September 7. See photos below. The section to the south of the elevated connector was not as far along but all right-of-way was cleared with work in progress.
Further south at Diboll, the forest was cleared from the right-of-way. As I've mentioned before, there is a tremendous amount of work still needing to be done to upgrade the corridor to Interstate standards all the way to Houston, and the projects in progress are addressing the worst slowdown locations.
(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_361.jpg-1600.jpg)
Looking north along I-69, just south of Loop 224, on September 7, 2020
(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_359-1600.jpg)
Construction of elevated connectors on September 7, 2020
Building the town bypasses first and following up with interim connections is always a good idea re rural freeway corridor sections, particularly when dealing with ongoing inflationary realities. Get as much of the most expensive structures and interchange-heavy segments out of the way initially then connect them as funding allows.
EDIT: and any news on the US 77/I-69 Driscoll and US 59/I-69 Nacogdoches bypasses too?
The work on I-69 at Nachogdoches was proceeding well when I drove through on September 7. See photos below. The section to the south of the elevated connector was not as far along but all right-of-way was cleared with work in progress.
Further south at Diboll, the forest was cleared from the right-of-way. As I've mentioned before, there is a tremendous amount of work still needing to be done to upgrade the corridor to Interstate standards all the way to Houston, and the projects in progress are addressing the worst slowdown locations.
(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_361.jpg-1600.jpg)
Looking north along I-69, just south of Loop 224, on September 7, 2020
(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_359-1600.jpg)
Construction of elevated connectors on September 7, 2020
I am unable to see the above pictures. Anybody else have that problem? Windows 10 laptop.
I am unable to see the above pictures. Anybody else have that problem? Windows 10 laptop.You can also right click on the picture(s) and "open image in new tab" so you can see them
Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.
I believe there may be a way you can. Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts. It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.
You can't directly attach a photo to a post. You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post. Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.
I believe there may be a way you can. Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts. It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.
You can't directly attach a photo to a post. You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post. Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.
I believe there may be a way you can. Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts. It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.
You can't directly attach a photo to a post. You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post. Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.
I believe there may be a way you can. Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts. It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.
You can't directly attach a photo to a post. You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post. Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.
There's a forum gallery, but I don't think everyone has access to it.
I believe there may be a way you can. Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts. It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.
You can't directly attach a photo to a post. You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post. Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.
There's a forum gallery, but I don't think everyone has access to it.
A few members requested access so they can upload photos or project graphics. Most members have places where they post their photos and hotlink from. The gallery helps with those who don't have that option, or don't want to create a new account at Flickr or whatnot just to share photos here.
Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.
You can't directly attach a photo to a post. You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post. Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.
I believe there may be a way you can. Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts. It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.
ITB uploads his pictures to Flickr.
[img width=800 height=533]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50869355327_e377a55e41_k.jpg[/img]
[img width=800 height=1200]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50868541878_3a7d8eb8ba_k.jpg[/img]
Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.
You can't directly attach a photo to a post. You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post. Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.
I believe there may be a way you can. Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts. It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.
ITB uploads his pictures to Flickr.
Yep.
I just checked his most recent post with pictures, and here is the pertinent info:Code: [Select][img width=800 height=533]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50869355327_e377a55e41_k.jpg[/img]
Code: [Select][img width=800 height=1200]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50868541878_3a7d8eb8ba_k.jpg[/img]
Et cetera. Those are images hosted on Flickr.
Don't know if this has been referenced before, but while playing around on Google Maps I found some September 2019 photos of construction for Ranch access on I-69E just North of Raymondville...
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5979191,-97.7669605,3a,75y,16.57h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5RnSs6JQPluYTtfWWLdfww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Don't know if this has been referenced before, but while playing around on Google Maps I found some September 2019 photos of construction for Ranch access on I-69E just North of Raymondville...
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5979191,-97.7669605,3a,75y,16.57h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5RnSs6JQPluYTtfWWLdfww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
From the picture shown, it appears that this is decidedly not one of their planned separated access lanes leading to a locked gate (presumably ranch employees would have keys/codes) but instead a variation of a standard diamond interchange with the current carriageways serving as ramps. Likely a request for bidirectional access at this point was made and accommodated. OTOH, being just north of Raymondville at the far southern end of the long ranch-bound segment, it could simply be a local intersecting road. If anyone can obtain pictures of one of the roadside access points under construction, it certainly would be informative as to how TxDOT is addressing that issue.
Don't know if this has been referenced before, but while playing around on Google Maps I found some September 2019 photos of construction for Ranch access on I-69E just North of Raymondville...
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5979191,-97.7669605,3a,75y,16.57h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5RnSs6JQPluYTtfWWLdfww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Don't know if this has been referenced before, but while playing around on Google Maps I found some September 2019 photos of construction for Ranch access on I-69E just North of Raymondville...
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5979191,-97.7669605,3a,75y,16.57h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5RnSs6JQPluYTtfWWLdfww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
From the picture shown, it appears that this is decidedly not one of their planned separated access lanes leading to a locked gate (presumably ranch employees would have keys/codes) but instead a variation of a standard diamond interchange with the current carriageways serving as ramps. Likely a request for bidirectional access at this point was made and accommodated. OTOH, being just north of Raymondville at the far southern end of the long ranch-bound segment, it could simply be a local intersecting road. If anyone can obtain pictures of one of the roadside access points under construction, it certainly would be informative as to how TxDOT is addressing that issue.
It's no less useful than I-35's San Roman Interchange (Exit #32), Caiman Creek Interchange (Exit #48), or Elm Creek Interchange (Exit #63).
Don't know if this has been referenced before, but while playing around on Google Maps I found some September 2019 photos of construction for Ranch access on I-69E just North of Raymondville...https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5979191,-97.7669605,3a,75y,16.57h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5RnSs6JQPluYTtfWWLdfww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Actually, the interchange shown in the picture looks to be conventional -- no question about its utility. What I was looking for was any picture of the "ranch access" accommodations planned for I-69E through the King Ranch area between Raymondville and Serita. Additionally, it appears that the carriageways of existing US 77 are wide enough apart to accommodate a full-width freeway in the median; the bridge bents pictured are oriented to carry lanes over a E-W surface road, presumably the Thomas Ranch Road cited in the accompanying map. It would be useful to see the actual freeway plans for this stretch -- whether it will be simple upgrades of the current facility or, like with I-69C/US 281 to the west, "filling in" a freeway within the existing facility's footprint, with the existing lanes ostensibly repurposed as frontage roads.
Actually, the interchange shown in the picture looks to be conventional -- no question about its utility. What I was looking for was any picture of the "ranch access" accommodations planned for I-69E through the King Ranch area between Raymondville and Serita. Additionally, it appears that the carriageways of existing US 77 are wide enough apart to accommodate a full-width freeway in the median; the bridge bents pictured are oriented to carry lanes over a E-W surface road, presumably the Thomas Ranch Road cited in the accompanying map. It would be useful to see the actual freeway plans for this stretch -- whether it will be simple upgrades of the current facility or, like with I-69C/US 281 to the west, "filling in" a freeway within the existing facility's footprint, with the existing lanes ostensibly repurposed as frontage roads.
I dug up the plans for this project, which is CCSJ 0327-10-057 in Willacy County, let in August 2017. They are not currently available on the TxDOT plans FTP server since indefinite archiving of advertised projects began only in 2019. If anyone is interested in seeing them, I'll upload them to my Google Drive and post a link here.
The project is about four miles in length and runs from just north of Conley Road in Raymondville to a point about a mile south of the Kenedy County line. TxDOT is not fitting the new I-69E mainlanes entirely within the existing US 77 carriageways. Instead, existing southbound US 77 is becoming the southbound frontage road (generally with an asphalt overlay), new southbound I-69E mainlanes are being built in the current US 77 median, existing northbound US 77 is becoming the northbound mainlanes (generally with an asphalt overlay), and a non-continuous northbound frontage road is being built on new alignments in the vicinity of interchanges.
Two interchanges are being provided, neither with an exit number--La Esperanza and Yturria County Road.
To summarize I-69E from Corpus Christi to Brownsville...
I-37 to FM 2826 Completed to Interstate Standards signed as I-69 (not I-69E)
FM 2826 to just North of County Road 10 (Bishop, TX) Under Construction, Driscoll Bypass.
County Road 10 to County Road E 2130 (Kingsville, TX) Completed to Interstate Standards, signed as US 77
County Road E 2130 to County Road 2340 (Riviera, TX) Divided Highway not to interstate standards, will need interchanges and probably a bypass around Riviera.
County Road 2340 to just north of Serita TX, Divided Highway
Serita Texas, Interstate Standard Frontage Road and Interchange already completed about a mile or two of instate standard highway signed as US 77
Serita, Texas to just North of Raymondville - approx. 40 miles of ranch land
Just North of Raymondville 4 mile of interchange Construction to Interstate standards
Raymondville to Brownsville at border with Mexico, signed as I-69E
To summarize I-69E from Corpus Christi to Brownsville...
I-37 to FM 2826 Completed to Interstate Standards signed as I-69 (not I-69E)
FM 2826 to just North of County Road 10 (Bishop, TX) Under Construction, Driscoll Bypass.
County Road 10 to County Road E 2130 (Kingsville, TX) Completed to Interstate Standards, signed as US 77
County Road E 2130 to County Road 2340 (Riviera, TX) Divided Highway not to interstate standards, will need interchanges and probably a bypass around Riviera.
County Road 2340 to just north of Serita TX, Divided Highway
Serita Texas, Interstate Standard Frontage Road and Interchange already completed about a mile or two of instate standard highway signed as US 77
Serita, Texas to just North of Raymondville - approx. 40 miles of ranch land
Just North of Raymondville 4 mile of interchange Construction to Interstate standards
Raymondville to Brownsville at border with Mexico, signed as I-69E
FTFY
To summarize I-69E from Corpus Christi to Brownsville...
I-37 to FM 2826 Completed to Interstate Standards signed as I-69 (not I-69E)
FM 2826 to just North of County Road 10 (Bishop, TX) Under Construction, Driscoll Bypass.
County Road 10 to County Road E 2130 (Kingsville, TX) Completed to Interstate Standards, signed as US 77
County Road E 2130 to County Road 2340 (Riviera, TX) Divided Highway not to interstate standards, will need interchanges and probably a bypass around Riviera.
County Road 2340 to just north of Serita TX, Divided Highway
Serita Texas, Interstate Standard Frontage Road and Interchange already completed about a mile or two of instate standard highway signed as US 77
Serita, Texas to just North of Raymondville - approx. 40 miles of ranch land
Just North of Raymondville 4 mile of interchange Construction to Interstate standards
Raymondville to Brownsville at border with Mexico, signed as I-69E
FTFY
(https://i1.wp.com/www.clixmarketing.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/homer-computer-doh.jpg)
Out of curiosity, are the mileage numbers reflective of US 59? If 69 is ever finished in Texas, will it use mileage from the merging of 69W, 69C, and 69E going north?I’m not even sure how mileage marks work because on US 59/77 near Victoria it says some number, either something like 431A or 735B, although it is less than 200 mi from the border. I can’t remember. But I assume I 69 would start at 0 in Victoria since it has started at that point.
Quote from: GreenLanternCorpsDon't know if this has been referenced before, but while playing around on Google Maps I found some September 2019 photos of construction for Ranch access on I-69E just North of Raymondville...https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5979191,-97.7669605,3a,75y,16.57h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5RnSs6JQPluYTtfWWLdfww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That Street View image is from the existing Northbound US-77 lanes. They're building the main lanes of I-69E in the median of existing US-77. That particular location is going to be a standard exit with slip ramps. The existing US-77 main lanes will effectively become frontage roads. At some point far enough North of Raymondville the existing US-77 main lanes will become the main lanes for I-69E. And those ranch access ramps will become necessary. They're much cheaper to build than continuous frontage roads.
The ranch access exits will look similar to the on/off ramps for a rest area, but on a smaller scale. The ramps will be just long enough to comply with current ramp geometry standards. They won't be like those grandfathered hard-turn ramps on I-25 in Colorado near Raton Pass. But the ramps aren't going to be all that long either. And there likely will not be any way to cross over to the opposing main lanes of the Interstate (no expensive bridge to build).
I think TX DOT should remedy those crossovers on I-40 in the Texas Panhandle. The crossovers need to be removed and then the hard right turns need to be replaced with limited frontage roads and ramps. If it was up to me I-40 would not be signed as an Interstate on that segment. Post signs would have a "TO" thingie stuck above I-40.Could be similar to I-26 in North Carolina with "Future" designation. Provides continuity for drivers but not official designated until upgrades are complete.
Out of curiosity, are the mileage numbers reflective of US 59? If 69 is ever finished in Texas, will it use mileage from the merging of 69W, 69C, and 69E going north?
I think Exit 94.Thegeet already basically answered your question. I-69 will use mileage from the merging of the spurs going north. From the Spur 10 exit it's about 94 miles to the US59/77 interchange south of Victoria, where I-69W and I-69E are supposed to merge.
I think TX DOT should remedy those crossovers on I-40 in the Texas Panhandle. The crossovers need to be removed and then the hard right turns need to be replaced with limited frontage roads and ramps. If it was up to me I-40 would not be signed as an Interstate on that segment. Post signs would have a "TO" thingie stuck above I-40.
Out of curiosity, are the mileage numbers reflective of US 59? If 69 is ever finished in Texas, will it use mileage from the merging of 69W, 69C, and 69E going north?I think Exit 94.Thegeet already basically answered your question. I-69 will use mileage from the merging of the spurs going north. From the Spur 10 exit it's about 94 miles to the US59/77 interchange south of Victoria, where I-69W and I-69E are supposed to merge.
Do you have statistics showing the dangers of these very slightly used turns? The same approach could be used on US 77 in Kenedy County. TX could save a boat load of bucks by leaving US 77 in Kenedy County nearly has in and petitioning wavering in I-69E signage.
Btw, notice the signs in Houston have Clearview font exit number plaques on top of highway gothic exit info signs. They need to be updated soon.
BTW, notice the signs in Houston have Clearview font exit number plaques on top of highway gothic exit info signs. They need to be updated soon.
Btw, notice the signs in Houston have Clearview font exit number plaques on top of highway gothic exit info signs. They need to be updated soon.
Literally the most pointless expenditure of money imaginable. Something that only a small proportion of roadgeeks would care about.
Btw, notice the signs in Houston have Clearview font exit number plaques on top of highway gothic exit info signs. They need to be updated soon.
Literally the most pointless expenditure of money imaginable. Something that only a small proportion of roadgeeks would care about.
What exactly do you think AARoads caters too?
Btw, notice the signs in Houston have Clearview font exit number plaques on top of highway gothic exit info signs. They need to be updated soon.
Literally the most pointless expenditure of money imaginable. Something that only a small proportion of roadgeeks would care about.
Another question: if it was decided to convert Loop 463 US-77 to US-59/BUS-59T into an auxiliary route of I-69, and it only reached I-69W would it be a spur route (I.e., I-569) or a bypass route (I.E., I-269), would it be something completely new like I-1069?
Another question: if it was decided to convert Loop 463 US-77 to US-59/BUS-59T into an auxiliary route of I-69, and it only reached I-69W would it be a spur route (I.e., I-569) or a bypass route (I.E., I-269), would it be something completely new like I-1069?
Precedent is most 3di's off a suffixed interstate behave as if the parent route was not suffixed, with former I-180N in Idaho being the lone exception. I-635 around Dallas is the only example still in existence with the removal of I-80S in Ohio and Pennsylvania plus the cancellation of I-335 around Minneapolis.
At the moment I think there will be more anomalies/children without parents such as I-238 prior to a ten digit interstate number being used - guessing North Carolina may be the state that tests this.
Not quite off-topic: it was announced this week that the Canadian Pacific and the Kansas City Southern will merge. Fascinating how closely (save for the "bow" in the current CP lines around Davenport and the Twin Cities) the future I-49/Texas I-69 corridors parallel each other.
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/164057759_4017937008250803_6996734050887366808_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=uMWU_BgTkf8AX8vi0v9&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=a0dd2139bb1d21cd54da63a084854c9c&oe=6086DE4B)
^ [starts a reply about KCS fitting better with CN and having the option for two north-south lines, thinks better of it]
^ [starts a reply about KCS fitting better with CN and having the option for two north-south lines, thinks better of it]
Didn't CN buy out Illinois Central for that very purpose (access to NOLA and the South)??
GreenLanternCorps, be careful with URLs that have a ')' at the end. SMF's software likes to omit it and give you a broken link unless you use the 'URL' code around it. So, I've fixed it for ya. ;)
Once 69/69E/69C/69W, 369, and extensions of Interstates 14 and 27 are constructed, does anyone believe Texas's "Interstate fever" will finally subside?
Once 69/69E/69C/69W, 369, and extensions of Interstates 14 and 27 are constructed, does anyone believe Texas's "Interstate fever" will finally subside?
Wouldn't be surprised to see the CP/KCS combo look to purchase or lease underutilized lines north out of KC for a more direct way to reach CP' western hub in Calgary from the main KCS stem.
Once 69/69E/69C/69W, 369, and extensions of Interstates 14 and 27 are constructed, does anyone believe Texas's "Interstate fever" will finally subside?
Not a chance, by that time they will need I-33 running from San Antonio to Wichita Falls to replace US 281 as a bypass of Austin and DFW, maybe I-47 running from Beaumont to DFW, I-34 to replace US 287 running from DFW to Amarillo, and possibly even I-32 running from Lubbock to Austin and possibly on to Houston. If I-69, I-14, and I-27 extensions are signs of things to come, there will surely continue to be a need to expand the system due to all the people and jobs moving into the state. Of course if the state turns "blue" like may people predict, that could stymie this growth akin to California, but the need appears to be there if the trajectory continues.
Once 69/69E/69C/69W, 369, and extensions of Interstates 14 and 27 are constructed, does anyone believe Texas's "Interstate fever" will finally subside?
Not a chance, by that time they will need I-33 running from San Antonio to Wichita Falls to replace US 281 as a bypass of Austin and DFW, maybe I-47 running from Beaumont to DFW, I-34 to replace US 287 running from DFW to Amarillo, and possibly even I-32 running from Lubbock to Austin and possibly on to Houston. If I-69, I-14, and I-27 extensions are signs of things to come, there will surely continue to be a need to expand the system due to all the people and jobs moving into the state. Of course if the state turns "blue" like may people predict, that could stymie this growth akin to California, but the need appears to be there if the trajectory continues.
SH-71 & US-290 from Columbus to Junction through Austin as an Interstate.
Anyone know what number SH-44 will be named when it becomes an interstate?
Anyone know what number SH-44 will be named when it becomes an interstate?
Bandied about so far: I-469, I-569, even I-6 (after I-2 was designated). Submitted to AASHTO or, alternately, added to authorizing legislation to date: nada! I'm guessing that this corridor branch will be addressed after I-69E is functionally completed south of I-37; that seems to be the present developmental focus -- so nobody has prioritized a decision regarding designation of that E-W branch.
An I-6, IMO, that should run the whole length between Laredo and Corpus Christi along both SH-44 and US-59.
I-69F! I-69F!
Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...
If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.
Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?
Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...
If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.
Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?
But I wonder if Loop 1604 around San Antonio will eventually be I-810 or I-835 or something similar when it is fully brought out to freeway/Interstate standards. That'd be about the only route within TX that would be likely to be posited as a 3di at some point -- at least currently.Definitely feel an I-x10 is more warranted, the northeast leg serves as an effective bypass of the cluster that is I-10 through Downtown and the inner urban area.
Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...
If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.
Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?
Actually, there’s already an I-410 in San Antonio, so I personally think another I-x10 route is redundant. I think a tollway configuration like SH 99 and Sam Houston would be great.But I wonder if Loop 1604 around San Antonio will eventually be I-810 or I-835 or something similar when it is fully brought out to freeway/Interstate standards. That'd be about the only route within TX that would be likely to be posited as a 3di at some point -- at least currently.Definitely feel an I-x10 is more warranted, the northeast leg serves as an effective bypass of the cluster that is I-10 through Downtown and the inner urban area.
Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...
If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.
Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?
I-69F and CC are hilarious. But...If Texas adds something like a I-1069 or something, I will literally laugh myself drunk.Actually, there’s already an I-410 in San Antonio, so I personally think another I-x10 route is redundant. I think a tollway configuration like SH 99 and Sam Houston would be great.But I wonder if Loop 1604 around San Antonio will eventually be I-810 or I-835 or something similar when it is fully brought out to freeway/Interstate standards. That'd be about the only route within TX that would be likely to be posited as a 3di at some point -- at least currently.Definitely feel an I-x10 is more warranted, the northeast leg serves as an effective bypass of the cluster that is I-10 through Downtown and the inner urban area.
Hey guys, I’ve been on Us 59 this past week from Ganado to i-10. In Richmond/Rosenberg, new signs with exit numbers were installed up to I believe Spur 10, I think Exit 94. Everything south is under construction. I noticed that they were reconstructing Spur 10 exit. The Spur 529 exit is complete. In Beasley/Kendelton, there was a black trash bag taped on three overhead green exit signs for either Grunwald rd or Spur 541.
I want to say it could be done this year, but I doubt it be on hold for funding, or else the other roads wouldn’t be in construction.Hey guys, I’ve been on Us 59 this past week from Ganado to i-10. In Richmond/Rosenberg, new signs with exit numbers were installed up to I believe Spur 10, I think Exit 94. Everything south is under construction. I noticed that they were reconstructing Spur 10 exit. The Spur 529 exit is complete. In Beasley/Kendelton, there was a black trash bag taped on three overhead green exit signs for either Grunwald rd or Spur 541.
Google maps shows the I-69 mainlines now open southbound almost all the way to Spur 10 southwest of Rosenberg. Northbound they have some goofy zigzag at the new mainline bridge over Bamore Road in Rosenberg, so I'm not sure if it is open yet, or they temporarily closed the feeder road, or what.
So are the new mainlines soon to be open in both directions north of Spur 10? What's the timeline on Kendleton to Spur 10, have they found more ways to drag that portion out? I tried searching online, but maybe I'm a search idiot. I assume the Kendleton-Spur 10 portion is taking forever because of funding being spread out? Am I wrong or was that section started before Spur-10 to Reading Road further north?
New set of questions, give me your honest opinion:
When do you think I-169 will be designated and finished?
When will I-69W be constructed outside of Laredo?
Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?
Which route will be the first to full completion? (I-69 main, E, W, or C?)
Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?
The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,” one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.
Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?
I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason. I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction. If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange: all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.
As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones. No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.
As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:
(https://img.texasmonthly.com/2019/03/rm_ep.jpg)Quote from: Texas Monthly – Border Patrol Inland Checkpoints Shut Down So Agents Can Help Process Asylum Seekers (23-MAR-2019)The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,” one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.
Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?
I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason. I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction. If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange: all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.
As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones. No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.
As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:
(https://img.texasmonthly.com/2019/03/rm_ep.jpg)Quote from: Texas Monthly – Border Patrol Inland Checkpoints Shut Down So Agents Can Help Process Asylum Seekers (23-MAR-2019)The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,” one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.
Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.
Actually, I would prefer that there be the checkpoint on the main lanes and the exit be an alternate redirection for when the checkpoints are down. It’s just me, I think.Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?
I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason. I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction. If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange: all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.
As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones. No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.
As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:
(https://img.texasmonthly.com/2019/03/rm_ep.jpg)Quote from: Texas Monthly – Border Patrol Inland Checkpoints Shut Down So Agents Can Help Process Asylum Seekers (23-MAR-2019)The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,” one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.
Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.
Why would you rather remove an opposing lane from use?
What if the checkpoint facilities are closed for a whole month? Indefinitely?
That wouldn't work very well on two-lane highways (such as the one pictured above).
Actually, I would prefer that there be the checkpoint on the main lanes and the exit be an alternate redirection for when the checkpoints are down. It’s just me, I think.Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?
I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason. I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction. If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange: all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.
As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones. No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.
As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:
(https://img.texasmonthly.com/2019/03/rm_ep.jpg)Quote from: Texas Monthly – Border Patrol Inland Checkpoints Shut Down So Agents Can Help Process Asylum Seekers (23-MAR-2019)The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,” one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.
Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.
Why would you rather remove an opposing lane from use?
What if the checkpoint facilities are closed for a whole month? Indefinitely?
That wouldn't work very well on two-lane highways (such as the one pictured above).
Was it originally envisioned that those checkpoints would only be used some of the time? The impression I get is that they're essentially used all the time, to the point where it would make sense to just send the main lanes through them and have signs saying "no inspection, proceed with caution" in the rare event they're actually closed.
It’s pointless to have it to the side of the highway when people will virtually have to show their passports.Actually, I would prefer that there be the checkpoint on the main lanes and the exit be an alternate redirection for when the checkpoints are down. It’s just me, I think.Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?
I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason. I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction. If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange: all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.
As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones. No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.
As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:
(https://img.texasmonthly.com/2019/03/rm_ep.jpg)Quote from: Texas Monthly – Border Patrol Inland Checkpoints Shut Down So Agents Can Help Process Asylum Seekers (23-MAR-2019)The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,” one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.
Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.
Why would you rather remove an opposing lane from use?
What if the checkpoint facilities are closed for a whole month? Indefinitely?
That wouldn't work very well on two-lane highways (such as the one pictured above).
I would prefer that there be no interior border checkpoints. The idea of forcing all travelers to stop for "papers, please" is just abhorrent for intracountry travel in a free society, and it violates the Fourth Amendment (not withstanding judicial opinions to the contrary). Until I traveled US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christie, I had no clue that such things even existed.
This is going back more than 40 years (damn, I'm getting old), but I can remember checkpoints in Arizona and Southern California where my parents had to stop the car along Interstate 8. Officials weren't looking for illegals from Mexico. They were checking for contraband produce that could have certain bugs in it, such as fruit flies. The orange grove business was huge back then. I imagine it still is now. But I guess they have more modern pesticides and other tools to deal with vermin than they had back in the mid 1970's.
I would prefer that there be no interior border checkpoints. The idea of forcing all travelers to stop for "papers, please" is just abhorrent for intracountry travel in a free society, and it violates the Fourth Amendment (not withstanding judicial opinions to the contrary). Until I traveled US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christie, I had no clue that such things even existed.
It’s pointless to have it to the side of the highway when people will virtually have to show their passports.
Okay, but I mean stop then. Every time I’ve gone through these, I’ve always had to stop. Except our school when we played in Mission, TX. But that’s about it. But now, thinking of it, my proposal doesn’t sound very cohesive.I would prefer that there be no interior border checkpoints. The idea of forcing all travelers to stop for "papers, please" is just abhorrent for intracountry travel in a free society, and it violates the Fourth Amendment (not withstanding judicial opinions to the contrary). Until I traveled US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christie, I had no clue that such things even existed.It’s pointless to have it to the side of the highway when people will virtually have to show their passports.
US citizens are not required to show any papers at those checkpoints.
Theoretically at least, the only question the agents are entitled to ask you is what your citizenship is. Of the ten times I've driven through them, that was the only question asked more often than not. The remaining couple of times, the agent merely asked where we had been and what we were doing there. I've never once been asked to show any papers. Even when I answered "Laredo" and then the agent pointed at my Mexican windshield sticker residue and asked if I had been in Mexico before that, my apparent misleading answer caused zero trouble. On the US-277 checkpoint north of Del Rio, the agent sometimes doesn't even step out of the shack. US citizens? – Yes, sir. – Have a safe drive!
I would prefer that there be no interior border checkpoints. The idea of forcing all travelers to stop for "papers, please" is just abhorrent for intracountry travel in a free society, and it violates the Fourth Amendment (not withstanding judicial opinions to the contrary). Until I traveled US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christie, I had no clue that such things even existed.It’s pointless to have it to the side of the highway when people will virtually have to show their passports.
US citizens are not required to show any papers at those checkpoints.
Theoretically at least, the only question the agents are entitled to ask you is what your citizenship is. Of the ten times I've driven through them, that was the only question asked more often than not. The remaining couple of times, the agent merely asked where we had been and what we were doing there. I've never once been asked to show any papers. Even when I answered "Laredo" and then the agent pointed at my Mexican windshield sticker residue and asked if I had been in Mexico before that, my apparent misleading answer caused zero trouble. On the US-277 checkpoint north of Del Rio, the agent sometimes doesn't even step out of the shack. US citizens? – Yes, sir. – Have a safe drive!
Actually, I would prefer that there be the checkpoint on the main lanes and the exit be an alternate redirection for when the checkpoints are down. It’s just me, I think.Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?
I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason. I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction. If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange: all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.
As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones. No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.
As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:
(https://img.texasmonthly.com/2019/03/rm_ep.jpg)Quote from: Texas Monthly – Border Patrol Inland Checkpoints Shut Down So Agents Can Help Process Asylum Seekers (23-MAR-2019)The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,” one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.
Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.
Why would you rather remove an opposing lane from use?
What if the checkpoint facilities are closed for a whole month? Indefinitely?
That wouldn't work very well on two-lane highways (such as the one pictured above).
I would prefer that there be no interior border checkpoints. The idea of forcing all travelers to stop for "papers, please" is just abhorrent for intracountry travel in a free society, and it violates the Fourth Amendment (not withstanding judicial opinions to the contrary). Until I traveled US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christie, I had no clue that such things even existed.
Okay, but I mean stop then. Every time I’ve gone through these, I’ve always had to stop. Except our school when we played in Mission, TX. But that’s about it.
I agree with you on these papers, please checkpoints. The SOCTUS has said otherwise. Weird since the Fourth Amendment is easy to read and understand.
Your papers are not in order.
I have not been in southern Texas in a couple of decades. The way it used to work is they would have a gatekeeper on the main-lanes. They would decide who needed inspection. It worked better if you held up your license as you passed the gatekeeper. He would ask "anything to declare?" If you said yes, you got diverted.
Still there were random checks of those who had nothing to declare, showed ID, and had no suspicious callouts. We spent nearly a month down there. We passed through without being diverted probably close to 15 times. Once, though we were chosen for inspection. You just pull the stuff in your trunk out and lay it on the pavement under a shed. They were matter of fact; maybe a little put out that we went too slowly to suit them. We were changing campgrounds and had everything we had with us (in a 2-door Grand Prix) There was a bunch... we actually had to replace the trunk lid after the trip because we damaged it by overstuffing it closed.
The bottom line is it isn't in the main lanes because (at least in the past) not everyone gets inspected.
I have not been in southern Texas in a couple of decades. The way it used to work is they would have a gatekeeper on the main-lanes. They would decide who needed inspection. It worked better if you held up your license as you passed the gatekeeper. He would ask "anything to declare?" If you said yes, you got diverted.
Still there were random checks of those who had nothing to declare, showed ID, and had no suspicious callouts. We spent nearly a month down there. We passed through without being diverted probably close to 15 times. Once, though we were chosen for inspection. You just pull the stuff in your trunk out and lay it on the pavement under a shed. They were matter of fact; maybe a little put out that we went too slowly to suit them. We were changing campgrounds and had everything we had with us (in a 2-door Grand Prix) There was a bunch... we actually had to replace the trunk lid after the trip because we damaged it by overstuffing it closed.
The bottom line is it isn't in the main lanes because (at least in the past) not everyone gets inspected.
Yeah, I don't think what exists now is the same thing. I've never once been asked if I had anything to declare. At the actual border, yes, but not an the inland checkpoints. Same thing going south into Mexico: at the inland checkpoints, all they've cared about was citizen/traveler status, and to make sure we had our personal and vehicle papers as non-Mexican citizens.
Are they ever going to eliminate/convert the at-grade intersections at the southernmost segment of Interstate 69E in Brownsville? Such as cul-du-sacing Courage St., removing the driveway just north of Courage St., and turning the University Blvd. intersection into a grade-separation or an interchange?I don’t see that as viable at this time, considering the right of way they have to acquire and the proximity of the highway to the toll plaza, and funding.
Are they ever going to eliminate/convert the at-grade intersections at the southernmost segment of Interstate 69E in Brownsville? Such as cul-du-sacing Courage St., removing the driveway just north of Courage St., and turning the University Blvd. intersection into a grade-separation or an interchange?I don’t see that as viable at this time, considering the right of way they have to acquire and the proximity of the highway to the toll plaza, and funding.
Now, regarding the highway, will there be frontage roads for I-69W, E, and C in those areas? If so, would the frontage roads curve separately from the checkpoints, or will the checkpoints be on the frontage roads?
OTOH, if one wants free-flow right to Mexican customs, there's always the north Laredo/I-69W border crossing.
OTOH, if one wants free-flow right to Mexican customs, there's always the north Laredo/I-69W border crossing.
(https://i.imgflip.com/5501i1.jpg)
That crossing is for commercial traffic only. Kind of an important detail.
Crossing at the Colombia Solidarity Bridge, however, involves just three stop signs between San Antonio (I-35) and Monterrey (Carr. Fed. 85)–one at the I-35/TX-255 exit, one at the TX-255/FM-1472 intersection, and one at Carr. Fed. 2 immediately south of the border complex–and zero stoplights.
Any word on when construction of US-59 on SH-185 will begin?
It looks like the let date was changed to 2021. And people anticipated that earlier.Any word on when construction of US-59 on SH-185 will begin?
It depends on what type of construction you are talking about. TxDOT already considers US 59 to be built to Interstate standards through the intersection with SH 185 (yes, despite the vestigial shoulders on the railroad overpass). Per the 2018 implementation report, there is a planned project to build frontage roads from US 87 to SH 185 (CCSJ 0088-05-098), but it has missed its planned let date of December 2019 and has not been advertised yet.
It looks like the let date was changed to 2021. And people anticipated that earlier.
Fun fact: I-69W/US-59 within Laredo will turn in a way that Southbound goes north and Northbound goes south.
Fun fact: I-69W/US-59 within Laredo will turn in a way that Southbound goes north and Northbound goes south.
There are a few other instances of this along the Interstate system -- current and future. Future I-49 in NOLA, in the "northbound" direction, actually will cross the Mississippi River EB before curving south through Gretna and then west toward its US 90 alignment via Morgan City. Also, EB I-64 in Hampton Roads (VA) actually terminates heading west after a half-circle around the east side of Norfolk; VDOT in a moment of being pretty savvy, just declined to put directional banners on that segment of I-64 to avoid adding to any potential confusion.
And if one thoroughly pored over the map of US highways, there would likely be dozens of short reverse-cardinal-direction instances, particularly when negotiating in-town alignments.
Where exactly around Victoria will Interstate 69 split into its 69E and 69W legs? Is this project going to build that interchange?I assume that it will be at the US 59/77 interchange where US 59 starts to go opposite bound (interchange near BUS-77 exit) On Google Maps, I measured the distance between that point and Reading Rd (Exit 100), and it said 102 miles.
Where exactly around Victoria will Interstate 69 split into its 69E and 69W legs? Is this project going to build that interchange?I assume that it will be at the US 59/77 interchange where US 59 starts to go opposite bound (interchange near BUS-77 exit) On Google Maps, I measured the distance between that point and Reading Rd (Exit 100), and it said 102 miles.
I found this on the web: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/i69-driven-by-texans/future-i69-tabloids.pdf
It’s a chart if I-69 status.
What I really want to see is SH185 construction and Wharton Construction.I found this on the web: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/i69-driven-by-texans/future-i69-tabloids.pdf
It’s a chart if I-69 status.
Just to confirm (if Mr. Wiki isn't lying to me):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_International_Bridge
The Laredo World Trade Port of Entry was built in 2000 in an effort to relieve traffic from the congested downtown Laredo bridges.[4] All of Laredo's cross-border commercial vehicle traffic uses this Port of Entry, as the other Laredo bridges prohibit trucks. Passenger vehicles and pedestrians are not permitted to use this crossing.
Just to confirm (if Mr. Wiki isn't lying to me):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_International_Bridge
The Laredo World Trade Port of Entry was built in 2000 in an effort to relieve traffic from the congested downtown Laredo bridges.[4] All of Laredo's cross-border commercial vehicle traffic uses this Port of Entry, as the other Laredo bridges prohibit trucks. Passenger vehicles and pedestrians are not permitted to use this crossing.
Mostly correct. The Colombia Solidarity crossing was originally intended to take the cross-border commercial traffic. That's where most of the toll money was supposed to come from on the Camino Colombia Toll Road (now TX-255): truckers paying higher rates. Mexico dragged its heels on constructing their part of the bypass and, by the time they were ready to start building, the state of Texas had decided to build the World Trade crossing, so Mexico connected their bypass to that instead.
It wasn't long after that the Cross Border Trucking Pilot Program was killed byfears over the safety of Mexican trucks on US roadslobbying by the Teamsters, who stood to lose union drayage jobs. Although that backpedaling was against NAFTA stipulations, current and subsequent US administrations began caring less and less about NAFTA in general, and long-haul US-Mexico trucking doesn't hold much promise of returning–with Democrats being in the unions' pocket and Republicans being paranoid about anything that isn't 'America first'. With the drayage system still firmly in place, and almost all the drayage yards still being located close to the city, most truckers preferred not to pay a toll in order to end up farther away from their destination. So the Camino Colombia Toll Road went belly-up, and the state of Texas purchased the facility at auction on the courthouse steps. Tolls were eventually removed, but that didn't solve the other problems, and it remains a relatively underused border crossing despite the World Trade Bridge frequently seeing long queues.
Currently: Bridge I (Gateway to the Americas) is for pedestrians and passenger vehicles only; Bridge II (Juárez—Lincoln) is for pedestrians, passenger vehicles, and buses only (e.g. Greyhound from Dallas to Monterrey); Bridge III (Colombia Solidarity) is for all modes of traffic (maybe not buses, but I don't know of any carriers/routes that don't stop in either downtown Laredo or Nuevo Laredo, so it might be a moot point); and Bridge IV (World Trade) is for commercial vehicles only.
Maybe once more of Interstate 69W from Laredo to Victoria is constructed, they will start retracting the US 59 designation from Laredo. In fact, once 69W, 69 and 369 are completed, US 59 could be truncated all the way to Interstate 30 along the Arkansas/Texas border in Texarkana. I think the same could be said for US Highways 77, 83 and 281 when Interstates 2, 69C and 69E are completed.I wouldn’t be surprised though if they revert the Business 59 in Laredo to main US-59.
I highly doubt it. There isn't an itch these days to end concurrencies like they did in the 1980s and 1990s. I expect like what they did in Missouri with I49 either leaving the business routes as is or renaming the business routes as the interstate route and leaving the US routes on the bypasses. I think the removal of the US highways in the 1980s and 1990s with truncation actually ruined small towns. Having the US shield come through town meant some would use them as scenic tours. I have to wonder if they regret how they killed US66 it was one thing to be bypassed but completely removing it was nail in the coffin for small towns.Maybe once more of Interstate 69W from Laredo to Victoria is constructed, they will start retracting the US 59 designation from Laredo. In fact, once 69W, 69 and 369 are completed, US 59 could be truncated all the way to Interstate 30 along the Arkansas/Texas border in Texarkana. I think the same could be said for US Highways 77, 83 and 281 when Interstates 2, 69C and 69E are completed.I wouldn’t be surprised though if they revert the Business 59 in Laredo to main US-59.
From the Laredo-area I-69W routing plan, which utilizes the northern arc of Loop 20 (apparently the upgrade construction has already been let or is even under way), it's quite obvious that the main purpose of 69W was to provide a straight but primarily commercial shot from the border crossing to Houston. Cross-border general traffic, having to divert to another route (south on I-35 at the present junction) or continue straight through town on Business US 59, is certainly not readily accommodated by the present arrangement. Chances are that if & when I-2 reaches Laredo, the remainder of the Bullock/Loop 20 corridor south of where I-69W will strike out eastward will be part of I-2, so unless an additional free-flow bridge and approaches is built along I-2 south of town the current arrangement will prevail, with general cross-border traffic squeezed into one of the existing downtown crossings.
I’m not sure, but maybe not.From the Laredo-area I-69W routing plan, which utilizes the northern arc of Loop 20 (apparently the upgrade construction has already been let or is even under way), it's quite obvious that the main purpose of 69W was to provide a straight but primarily commercial shot from the border crossing to Houston. Cross-border general traffic, having to divert to another route (south on I-35 at the present junction) or continue straight through town on Business US 59, is certainly not readily accommodated by the present arrangement. Chances are that if & when I-2 reaches Laredo, the remainder of the Bullock/Loop 20 corridor south of where I-69W will strike out eastward will be part of I-2, so unless an additional free-flow bridge and approaches is built along I-2 south of town the current arrangement will prevail, with general cross-border traffic squeezed into one of the existing downtown crossings.
Is Bridge V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laredo_International_Bridge_5) still on the table?
Maybe once more of Interstate 69W from Laredo to Victoria is constructed, they will start retracting the US 59 designation from Laredo. In fact, once 69W, 69 and 369 are completed, US 59 could be truncated all the way to Interstate 30 along the Arkansas/Texas border in Texarkana. I think the same could be said for US Highways 77, 83 and 281 when Interstates 2, 69C and 69E are completed.
Maybe once more of Interstate 69W from Laredo to Victoria is constructed, they will start retracting the US 59 designation from Laredo. In fact, once 69W, 69 and 369 are completed, US 59 could be truncated all the way to Interstate 30 along the Arkansas/Texas border in Texarkana. I think the same could be said for US Highways 77, 83 and 281 when Interstates 2, 69C and 69E are completed.
Actually, it could be truncated to its intersection with US-270 in Heavner OK. It is concurrent with US-270 or US-71 all the way to Texarkana.
I would expect it to be truncated to Texarkana (or maybe the Red River) as soon as I-69 / I-369 is complete to Texarkana.
This is in response to CoreySamson: US 59 did continue down present-day US 96 between Tenaha and Port Arthur from 1934 (when the route was first designated) to 1939. That year, US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha, and extended to Laredo (replacing the first US 96 between Rosenberg and Laredo). Old 59 between Tenaha and Port Arthur became the new US 96. I think one of two things should have happened instead: 1. Either US 96 should have been extended to Tenaha, leaving US 59 on its pre-existing route to Port Arthur; or 2. When US 59 was rerouted to Laredo, the Tenaha-to-Port-Arthur route should have been designated US 57 instead of US 96. Doing that would have made a better use of the 57 designation than the existing one between Eagle Pass and Moore (which would have made a better US 96 [II] than the existing one).I think that would be great, but Houstonians will be mad about US-59 nowhere to be in Houston. I think that is they plan to go rerouting of US-59 , it will be long after I-69 is finished in Texas. Then, maybe it wouldn’t hurt them as much as far as confusion goes.
This is in response to CoreySamson: US 59 did continue down present-day US 96 between Tenaha and Port Arthur from 1934 (when the route was first designated) to 1939. That year, US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha, and extended to Laredo (replacing the first US 96 between Rosenberg and Laredo). Old 59 between Tenaha and Port Arthur became the new US 96. I think one of two things should have happened instead: 1. Either US 96 should have been extended to Tenaha, leaving US 59 on its pre-existing route to Port Arthur; or 2. When US 59 was rerouted to Laredo, the Tenaha-to-Port-Arthur route should have been designated US 57 instead of US 96. Doing that would have made a better use of the 57 designation than the existing one between Eagle Pass and Moore (which would have made a better US 96 [II] than the existing one).I think that would be great, but Houstonians will be mad about US-59 nowhere to be in Houston. I think that is they plan to go rerouting of US-59 , it will be long after I-69 is finished in Texas. Then, maybe it wouldn’t hurt them as much as far as confusion goes.
BTW: my iPhone maps app says construction of Victoria from SL 463 to FM 1686 is finished by May 2021.
This is in response to CoreySamson: US 59 did continue down present-day US 96 between Tenaha and Port Arthur from 1934 (when the route was first designated) to 1939. That year, US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha, and extended to Laredo (replacing the first US 96 between Rosenberg and Laredo). Old 59 between Tenaha and Port Arthur became the new US 96. I think one of two things should have happened instead: 1. Either US 96 should have been extended to Tenaha, leaving US 59 on its pre-existing route to Port Arthur; or 2. When US 59 was rerouted to Laredo, the Tenaha-to-Port-Arthur route should have been designated US 57 instead of US 96. Doing that would have made a better use of the 57 designation than the existing one between Eagle Pass and Moore (which would have made a better US 96 [II] than the existing one).I think that would be great, but Houstonians will be mad about US-59 nowhere to be in Houston. I think that is they plan to go rerouting of US-59 , it will be long after I-69 is finished in Texas. Then, maybe it wouldn’t hurt them as much as far as confusion goes.
BTW: my iPhone maps app says construction of Victoria from SL 463 to FM 1686 is finished by May 2021.
I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.
I think it would have to take a fine or something to force a change, but I don’t think we have these laws.I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.
It would be more grid compliant, but in Texas this would be highly unlikely. Renumbers or even major reroutes have been almost non-existent in Texas post WWII. The renumbering that should be on the forefront is US-69. The plan to deal with the conflict in Lufkin is pretty much leave it alone. It appears that unless someone outside of Texas intervenes, that it will remain and Interstate-69 will cross (and likely still share mileage with) US-69 in Lufkin.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2527925#msg2527925
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645
I think it would have to take a fine or something to force a change, but I don’t think we have these laws.I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.
It would be more grid compliant, but in Texas this would be highly unlikely. Renumbers or even major reroutes have been almost non-existent in Texas post WWII. The renumbering that should be on the forefront is US-69. The plan to deal with the conflict in Lufkin is pretty much leave it alone. It appears that unless someone outside of Texas intervenes, that it will remain and Interstate-69 will cross (and likely still share mileage with) US-69 in Lufkin.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2527925#msg2527925
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645
Does anyone know what the "eventual" exit number will be when Interstate 69 crosses US 69 around Lufkin?
I think it would have to take a fine or something to force a change, but I don’t think we have these laws.I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.
It would be more grid compliant, but in Texas this would be highly unlikely. Renumbers or even major reroutes have been almost non-existent in Texas post WWII. The renumbering that should be on the forefront is US-69. The plan to deal with the conflict in Lufkin is pretty much leave it alone. It appears that unless someone outside of Texas intervenes, that it will remain and Interstate-69 will cross (and likely still share mileage with) US-69 in Lufkin.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2527925#msg2527925
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645
Theoretically, AASHTO could refuse to grant its' permission to sign it as interstate 69 until they fix the rule violation. FHWA could overrule them and allow an exception (or not). The US Congress could mandate overruling AASHTO. This is assuming that AASHTO doesn't just rubber stamp the waiver. Don't believe for a moment that AASHTO is a non-political entity. They MAY not subscribe to PARTISAN politics, but there is political wrangling that happens. Because of this wrangling, approval is as much situational as it is rules based.
Even if they refuse to allow it, it might be a simple wink wink nod nod thing that happens. I-69 takes a break from north of Lufkin to around the mall. In Hunt and Hopkins counties there were grade crossings on interstate 30 until the mid-eighties. Until they put up the "freeway ends" signs at division street in Greenville hardly anyone thought about it. Then TxDOT came in and built the rest of the overpasses. So in Lufkin. the FREEWAY (I-69) could end for a couple of miles.
The laws are there, but enforcement is uneven and avoidable if you want to bad enough.....
Imagine such a 69ish vibe. In all seriousness, exit 69 would be within Wharton county, if there is an exit at mile 69. For US 69, the exit would likely be something between 250-269.Does anyone know what the "eventual" exit number will be when Interstate 69 crosses US 69 around Lufkin?
Hopefully it's exit 69
Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?
In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.
I was referring to I-40 across New Mexico.Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?
In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.
Since the end of the chargeability era, AASHTO hasn't looked too kindly on "temporary" signage along existing routes. For the time being, about the only indication that a route is part of a designated Interstate corridor -- even if it connects two disparate signed segments -- are green signs, big or small, clearly stating "Future I-xx Corridor".
Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?
In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.
Except in North Carolina, which pervasively posts regular interstate shields that have the word "future" in the top instead of "interstate" as a way to stealth-designate a section that's not up to standards yet.Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?
In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.
Since the end of the chargeability era, AASHTO hasn't looked too kindly on "temporary" signage along existing routes. For the time being, about the only indication that a route is part of a designated Interstate corridor -- even if it connects two disparate signed segments -- are green signs, big or small, clearly stating "Future I-xx Corridor".
It only exists in one place - I-26.Except in North Carolina, which pervasively posts regular interstate shields that have the word "future" in the top instead of "interstate" as a way to stealth-designate a section that's not up to standards yet.Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?
In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.
Since the end of the chargeability era, AASHTO hasn't looked too kindly on "temporary" signage along existing routes. For the time being, about the only indication that a route is part of a designated Interstate corridor -- even if it connects two disparate signed segments -- are green signs, big or small, clearly stating "Future I-xx Corridor".
It also means they have no motivation to finish the road, which is probably why I-26 has languished for 20 years.https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/asheville-i-26-connector/Pages/default.aspx
Except in North Carolina, which pervasively posts regular interstate shields that have the word "future" in the top instead of "interstate" as a way to stealth-designate a section that's not up to standards yet.Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?
In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.
Since the end of the chargeability era, AASHTO hasn't looked too kindly on "temporary" signage along existing routes. For the time being, about the only indication that a route is part of a designated Interstate corridor -- even if it connects two disparate signed segments -- are green signs, big or small, clearly stating "Future I-xx Corridor".
I noticed on google maps that on US-59/Loop 20 SB in Laredo, to get on I-35, you need to use a regular exit with traffic light and the same to go from I-35 to 59/20 NB. Anyone know if they have constructed connectors or if they will?
I saw on the connector bridges that they had a little space for an unbuilt connector. Also, for the Frontage RD type exits, would they stay after the connectors are built, or would the remove/convert the into direct connectors?
Also, unrelated to Laredo:
Would the US-87 exit (SB) in Victoria be converted into a FM 762 (NB) type exit, considering the railroad impeding a regular exit?
Also a comment: if Loop 463 was to become an interstate, it would be easier to acquire right of way for construction of the freeway. My biggest focuses would be building a new overpass at BUS-59T and a new one over lone tree Rd, and also removing intersection related objects/paths at US-59. (I bet it would be I-269, not that it will be an interstate, though)
I meant not as I-69W or I-69, but as a 3-digit auxiliary route like I-369 from Tenaha to Texarkana. Either way, it’s not yet in the plans. But it could be considered if Victoria grows larger.I saw on the connector bridges that they had a little space for an unbuilt connector. Also, for the Frontage RD type exits, would they stay after the connectors are built, or would the remove/convert the into direct connectors?
Also, unrelated to Laredo:
Would the US-87 exit (SB) in Victoria be converted into a FM 762 (NB) type exit, considering the railroad impeding a regular exit?
Also a comment: if Loop 463 was to become an interstate, it would be easier to acquire right of way for construction of the freeway. My biggest focuses would be building a new overpass at BUS-59T and a new one over lone tree Rd, and also removing intersection related objects/paths at US-59. (I bet it would be I-269, not that it will be an interstate, though)
I think this has been discussed previously, but there are no current plans to bring Loop 463 around the north side of Victoria into the I-69 "family"; SB I-69 signage will terminate at the location of the southward US 77 divergence point, and I-69E will continue south from there along 77 while I-69W will "branch off" northwest along or near the US 59 connector before turning SW again to follow 59 out of town. At this point, TxDOT's keeping the alignment pretty simple and straightforward.
I meant not as I-69W or I-69, but as a 3-digit auxiliary route like I-369 from Tenaha to Texarkana. Either way, it’s not yet in the plans. But it could be considered if Victoria grows larger.I saw on the connector bridges that they had a little space for an unbuilt connector. Also, for the Frontage RD type exits, would they stay after the connectors are built, or would the remove/convert the into direct connectors?
Also, unrelated to Laredo:
Would the US-87 exit (SB) in Victoria be converted into a FM 762 (NB) type exit, considering the railroad impeding a regular exit?
Also a comment: if Loop 463 was to become an interstate, it would be easier to acquire right of way for construction of the freeway. My biggest focuses would be building a new overpass at BUS-59T and a new one over lone tree Rd, and also removing intersection related objects/paths at US-59. (I bet it would be I-269, not that it will be an interstate, though)
I think this has been discussed previously, but there are no current plans to bring Loop 463 around the north side of Victoria into the I-69 "family"; SB I-69 signage will terminate at the location of the southward US 77 divergence point, and I-69E will continue south from there along 77 while I-69W will "branch off" northwest along or near the US 59 connector before turning SW again to follow 59 out of town. At this point, TxDOT's keeping the alignment pretty simple and straightforward.
Requested as a 3di or not, with the exception of the approach to the northern US-59 interchange, the loop will be upgraded to full freeway standards in the near future, in the areas it’s not already been upgraded.
I think it's safe to say the loop around Victoria, TX will be fully upgraded to Interstate standards. Most of the North half of the loop (Loop-463) is already a freeway. There's just a couple non-freeway gaps at the NW corner of the loop and on the East side of Victoria going down to the junction with US-59. In both cases plenty of ROW is already reserved for a future freeway.I have faith that Victoria will be a prime place to attract companies. The only thing I wish is that the city limits increased. (As if that was gonna do anything anyways)
It's really kind of surprising Loop-463 (aka Zach Lentz Parkway) is not already a full freeway on Victoria's east side. That's where most of the commercial activity is located. The connection of US-77 to Loop-463 on the NE corner of the loop is one of the busiest areas in Victoria. The junction the US-87 is immediately just West of that. With that being said, I would expect a freeway to freeway "Y" interchange between Loop-463 and current US-59/future I-69 to be built not long after the junction between I-69, I-69E and I-69W in Victoria is finished.
Another interchange of note in Victoria is the one between US-59 & US-77 on the West side of Victoria. Obviously that one has to be seriously modified if I-69W is going to be built over that junction and consume existing US-59 going West out of Victoria.
I wouldn't hold out any hope for Loop-463 to gain any kind of 3-digit Interstate 69 system designation. I think it would be okay if it was re-designated as something like "I-469" since the Southern half of the loop will be re-named I-69 and one SW chunk as I-69W. The whole loop would then have an I-69 naming scheme. It would seem more logical for motorists going through that area. Victoria is going to be one of the most important locations in Texas' I-69 system. But TX DOT just hasn't been into applying Interstate names to its home-grown loop and spur freeways. Some kind of change in philosophy would have to occur before we see any new 3-digit Interstates other than I-369 going up in Texas anytime soon. Heck, as far as I can tell TX DOT still hasn't put up I-169 shields anywhere along TX-550 toll road in Brownsville.
I think it's safe to say the loop around Victoria, TX will be fully upgraded to Interstate standards. Most of the North half of the loop (Loop-463) is already a freeway. There's just a couple non-freeway gaps at the NW corner of the loop and on the East side of Victoria going down to the junction with US-59. In both cases plenty of ROW is already reserved for a future freeway.I have faith that Victoria will be a prime place to attract companies. The only thing I wish is that the city limits increased. (As if that was gonna do anything anyways)
It's really kind of surprising Loop-463 (aka Zach Lentz Parkway) is not already a full freeway on Victoria's east side. That's where most of the commercial activity is located. The connection of US-77 to Loop-463 on the NE corner of the loop is one of the busiest areas in Victoria. The junction the US-87 is immediately just West of that. With that being said, I would expect a freeway to freeway "Y" interchange between Loop-463 and current US-59/future I-69 to be built not long after the junction between I-69, I-69E and I-69W in Victoria is finished.
Another interchange of note in Victoria is the one between US-59 & US-77 on the West side of Victoria. Obviously that one has to be seriously modified if I-69W is going to be built over that junction and consume existing US-59 going West out of Victoria.
I wouldn't hold out any hope for Loop-463 to gain any kind of 3-digit Interstate 69 system designation. I think it would be okay if it was re-designated as something like "I-469" since the Southern half of the loop will be re-named I-69 and one SW chunk as I-69W. The whole loop would then have an I-69 naming scheme. It would seem more logical for motorists going through that area. Victoria is going to be one of the most important locations in Texas' I-69 system. But TX DOT just hasn't been into applying Interstate names to its home-grown loop and spur freeways. Some kind of change in philosophy would have to occur before we see any new 3-digit Interstates other than I-369 going up in Texas anytime soon. Heck, as far as I can tell TX DOT still hasn't put up I-169 shields anywhere along TX-550 toll road in Brownsville.
Speaking of which highway: https://www.virtualbx.com/construction-preview/victoria-city-council-agrees-to-highway-project-for-new-shopping-center/I think it's safe to say the loop around Victoria, TX will be fully upgraded to Interstate standards. Most of the North half of the loop (Loop-463) is already a freeway. There's just a couple non-freeway gaps at the NW corner of the loop and on the East side of Victoria going down to the junction with US-59. In both cases plenty of ROW is already reserved for a future freeway.I have faith that Victoria will be a prime place to attract companies. The only thing I wish is that the city limits increased. (As if that was gonna do anything anyways)
It's really kind of surprising Loop-463 (aka Zach Lentz Parkway) is not already a full freeway on Victoria's east side. That's where most of the commercial activity is located. The connection of US-77 to Loop-463 on the NE corner of the loop is one of the busiest areas in Victoria. The junction the US-87 is immediately just West of that. With that being said, I would expect a freeway to freeway "Y" interchange between Loop-463 and current US-59/future I-69 to be built not long after the junction between I-69, I-69E and I-69W in Victoria is finished.
Another interchange of note in Victoria is the one between US-59 & US-77 on the West side of Victoria. Obviously that one has to be seriously modified if I-69W is going to be built over that junction and consume existing US-59 going West out of Victoria.
I wouldn't hold out any hope for Loop-463 to gain any kind of 3-digit Interstate 69 system designation. I think it would be okay if it was re-designated as something like "I-469" since the Southern half of the loop will be re-named I-69 and one SW chunk as I-69W. The whole loop would then have an I-69 naming scheme. It would seem more logical for motorists going through that area. Victoria is going to be one of the most important locations in Texas' I-69 system. But TX DOT just hasn't been into applying Interstate names to its home-grown loop and spur freeways. Some kind of change in philosophy would have to occur before we see any new 3-digit Interstates other than I-369 going up in Texas anytime soon. Heck, as far as I can tell TX DOT still hasn't put up I-169 shields anywhere along TX-550 toll road in Brownsville.
Companies tend to locate where there is not only multimodal access (a trunk Interstate + a main rail line is considered optimal) but a local jurisdiction that will afford them incentives (usually in the form of expedited permits and ongoing tax breaks/credits). In some cases, a firm will pit a county's unincorporated area near a particular city against that city itself to cut the best deal they can -- with the county or the city. Whether the city and county can present something of a united front depends upon their historical economic relationship (out here in CA it's often adversarial and/or competitive). The name of the public sector game is to enhance one's tax base; enticing a corporation with "perks" -- without going into the red on the deal -- is part and parcel of localized strategy; most jurisdictions will take marginal gains over none at all just to keep the dollars churning.
Man, I hope they don't waste a lot of money upgrading the Victoria loop to interstate standards. It's already a great expressway/freeway that most cities that size would kill for. Much better than most traffic counts would justify.
Nothing is imminent yet. But I think it would be possible for the loop to be upgraded. If it is an interstate in the future, then it may eventually force US-77 out of the loop, decades after designation. I don’t see anything solidified yet, unless the city grows double the size or if TXDoT thinks the route can attract businesses.Quote from: armadillo speedbumpMan, I hope they don't waste a lot of money upgrading the Victoria loop to interstate standards. It's already a great expressway/freeway that most cities that size would kill for. Much better than most traffic counts would justify.
Most of the loop is already a freeway. I-69 and the junction between I-69E and I-69W will force the Southern half of the loop to be brought up to full Interstate standards. The process is going to take a few years. More business and activity in Victoria is along the North half of the loop, particularly in the NE corner. As Texas' I-69 system gets built out that will make it more necessary to do spot upgrades in various locations along the loop.
Victoria may not be growing as fast as other metros in Texas. But the small city happens to be in a critical location along I-69. That at least means something.
The only part of the loop that would need to be upgraded is a small 3 mile segment of US-77 north of US-59 South, that's still 2 lanes. That, along with the US-59 North interchange. The remainder is already freeway, or is planned to be upgraded (the US-59/US-77 segment).That, and widen the interchange as US-59T Business and an interchange at Lone Tree Rd. What do y’all think of it potentially being a full fledged freeway, interstate or not.
The rest has already been upgraded to freeway standards in the past decade.
It's quite a reasonable and logical proposal to upgrade the gaps. Not sure if it warrants an interstate designation though.
That, and widen the interchange as US-59T Business and an interchange at Lone Tree Rd. What do y’all think of it potentially being a full fledged freeway, interstate or not.
According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.Quote from: ThegeetThat, and widen the interchange as US-59T Business and an interchange at Lone Tree Rd. What do y’all think of it potentially being a full fledged freeway, interstate or not.
It's a foregone conclusion the loop around Victoria (Loop-463 and US-59/77) will be all Interstate quality freeway eventually. Keep in mind this is a loop that didn't even exist in the 1990's. It has been slowly upgraded through the years, starting out as a 2-lane road and then expanded to 4-lane divided freeway in various segments. Google Earth imagery dated Jan 2017 shows one upgrade project on the North part of Loop 463 in progress.
They have enough ROW in just about all places along the loop to allow for a freeway plus frontage roads. There is one spot on the NW corner of the loop at Enterprise Drive where 3 properties are built a little too close to the highway center line. Everywhere else the upgrades would be relatively easy.
The only 2 questions up in the air are if Loop-463 gets re-named as a 3-digit Interstate (I think chances are low) and if there will ever be a freeway to freeway Interchange between I-69 and Loop-463 on the East side of Victoria. I think a "Y" interchange there would be the last upgrade project for the Victoria loop. That might come some years after all the other work on the loop is finished, maybe as the rest of I-69 in Texas gets closer to completion. The freeway to freeway interchange between US-59 & US-77 on the West side of Victoria will be a mandatory project. I-69W can't go through US-59's current configuration, a TOTSO exit onto a surface street.
According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.
Where should they build I-69W on new location?
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.Quote from: ThegeetAccording to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.
If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
Quote from: sprjus4Where should they build I-69W on new location?
That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.
If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.
If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.Quote from: ThegeetAccording to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.
If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.Quote from: Bobby5280Quote from: sprjus4Where should they build I-69W on new location?
That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.
If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.
If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.
To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.Quote from: ThegeetAccording to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.
If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.Quote from: Bobby5280Quote from: sprjus4Where should they build I-69W on new location?
That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.
If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.
If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.
To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)
I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.
Nice. I didn’t know railroads played a big role in highways. The only thing is that when a train comes, it’s frustrating for a driver to have to wait.According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.Quote from: ThegeetAccording to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.
If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.Quote from: Bobby5280Quote from: sprjus4Where should they build I-69W on new location?
That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.
If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.
If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.
To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)
I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.
A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails. Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe. In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.Quote from: ThegeetAccording to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.
If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.Quote from: Bobby5280Quote from: sprjus4Where should they build I-69W on new location?
That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.
If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.
If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.
To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)
I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.
A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails. Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe. In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E.
I’m going to guess that Victoria is highly prioritized because TxDOT feels that it is an emerging attraction for new businesses and companies, including “warehouses and redistribution centers” (Victoria Mayor Rawley McCoy). But most importantly, they’re prioritizing the more urban areas first, which are the hardest parts. Why other places similar sizes don’t get this rush, I’m not 100% sure, but it’s an idea.According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.Quote from: ThegeetAccording to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.
If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.Quote from: Bobby5280Quote from: sprjus4Where should they build I-69W on new location?
That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.
If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.
If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.
To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)
I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.
A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails. Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe. In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E.
Just a question, Sparker: This is the same T&NO that ran the SP line from Houston to New Orleans via Lafayette that is now jointly run by UP and BNSF alternatively, am I correct?
Back to the I-69 Colossus Confluence in Victoria: I'm wondering why the rush to actually build a full Victoria freeway loop, even if most of it is or will be freeway grade when I-69/I-69E will be built, when I-69W probably won't be built for quite a while yet? Are there plans to at least 4-lane US 59 between Laredo and Victoria currently as a starter?
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.Quote from: ThegeetAccording to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.
If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.Quote from: Bobby5280Quote from: sprjus4Where should they build I-69W on new location?
That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.
If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.
If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.
To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)
I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.
A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails. Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe. In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E.
Just a question, Sparker: This is the same T&NO that ran the SP line from Houston to New Orleans via Lafayette that is now jointly run by UP and BNSF alternatively, am I correct?
Back to the I-69 Colossus Confluence in Victoria: I'm wondering why the rush to actually build a full Victoria freeway loop, even if most of it is or will be freeway grade when I-69/I-69E will be built, when I-69W probably won't be built for quite a while yet? Are there plans to at least 4-lane US 59 between Laredo and Victoria currently as a starter?
Aside from the desire to attract distribution centers and other businesses to the Victoria area (and other points along the Future I-69 system in Texas) there is also the very pressing concern of I-35 needing a relief valve for re-directing at least some commercial traffic.
I-35 in Texas has very heavy levels of commercial trucking traffic, among the most the in nation. And that starts right at the border in Laredo. Combine that with the factor of the Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin-San Antonio regions adding residents faster than most other places in the nation. The substantial upgrade to I-35 built between Austin and DFW won't be enough to shoulder that burden. I-69 will be able to siphon away some of that burden. Driving through Houston can be a less-than-fun experience, but Houston is just one giant metro as opposed to San Antonio, Austin and DFW. Plus, half of the Grand Parkway is nearly complete from I-69 on the SW side of Houston to I-69 on the NE side. They just need to build the TX-99/I-69 interchange in Greatwood. I'm sure that will happen long before the rest of I-69 is completed between Houston and Laredo.
Aside from the desire to attract distribution centers and other businesses to the Victoria area (and other points along the Future I-69 system in Texas) there is also the very pressing concern of I-35 needing a relief valve for re-directing at least some commercial traffic.
I-35 in Texas has very heavy levels of commercial trucking traffic, among the most the in nation. And that starts right at the border in Laredo. Combine that with the factor of the Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin-San Antonio regions adding residents faster than most other places in the nation. The substantial upgrade to I-35 built between Austin and DFW won't be enough to shoulder that burden. I-69 will be able to siphon away some of that burden. Driving through Houston can be a less-than-fun experience, but Houston is just one giant metro as opposed to San Antonio, Austin and DFW. Plus, half of the Grand Parkway is nearly complete from I-69 on the SW side of Houston to I-69 on the NE side. They just need to build the TX-99/I-69 interchange in Greatwood. I'm sure that will happen long before the rest of I-69 is completed between Houston and Laredo.
While I do agree, I at least want to point out that the AADT just north of San Marcos is about six or seven times higher than the AADT just north of Encinal.
When can we expect to see progress on future I-69W in the Corpus Christi District (i.e., Goliad, Beeville, George West, Freer)?
Ock.When can we expect to see progress on future I-69W in the Corpus Christi District (i.e., Goliad, Beeville, George West, Freer)?
Probably not until I-69E is substantially completed, and I-69C has at least half of its length built out to full Interstate standards. While Laredo is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla of border crossings in terms of sheer commercial volume, it's pretty clear that Hidalgo and Brownsville are, via the MX 40 toll road, positioned to be alternatives when (not if) the funnel spout that is Laredo reaches a point of critical mass. Also -- 69C and 69E serve the lower Rio Grande valley, which has been growing almost exponentially for the last couple of decades. I-69W is seen as ultimately needed -- but not desperately at present; the corridor's primary function is as a relief route rather than a connector to an expanding population center. As such, its development can proceed at a slower pace without touching off political or public reaction. In short, it's more of a "one trick pony" than the other two branches -- that trick being a commercial shortcut from Laredo to Houston not involving San Antonio as a chokepoint.
Looking at updated aerial imagery, has construction began on upgrading US-59 between Kendleton and Wharton? It appears something is ongoing there, almost like frontage road construction.There’s definitely something going on near Hungerford, like another bridge being built, probably frontage rd? Wharton has definitely not been doing much in March except the frontage rds.
It’s been a couple years since I’ve been through the area, but back in 2019, construction had been well underway from Kendleton north to the existing I-69 segment near Rosenberg, but not immediately south - work was also underway for rural frontage road construction on existing right of way in El Campo and Victoria which I imagine is complete now. Good to see progress pushing forward more.
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.
I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
Yes. I-69E should theoretically overlap I-37 where US 77 is concurrent with I-37.I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.
I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
Excellent.
It's official! I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi). Sorry no picture. On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound. It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign. So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!Does that concurrency still use the exit numbers from I-37?
Yes. I-69E should theoretically overlap I-37 where US 77 is concurrent with I-37.I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.
I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
Excellent.It's official! I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi). Sorry no picture. On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound. It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign. So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!In that case, I should go look for the minute order. BTW, Does that concurrency still use the exit numbers from I-37?
Yes. I-69E should theoretically overlap I-37 where US 77 is concurrent with I-37.I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.
I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
Excellent.It's official! I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi). Sorry no picture. On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound. It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign. So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!In that case, I should go look for the minute order. BTW, Does that concurrency still use the exit numbers from I-37?
Yes it does. Nothing has changed other than the overhead BGS.
Not aware of much progress for north of I-37... projects were underway when I was in the area a couple years ago to upgrade the portion in Victoria north of Loop 463 up to the Telferner interchange, the northern portion of the El Campo bypass, and from Kendleton to Rosenburg to interstate standards, but that was it, all on US-59 north of Victoria. Nothing south.Yes. I-69E should theoretically overlap I-37 where US 77 is concurrent with I-37.I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.
I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
Excellent.It's official! I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi). Sorry no picture. On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound. It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign. So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!In that case, I should go look for the minute order. BTW, Does that concurrency still use the exit numbers from I-37?
Yes it does. Nothing has changed other than the overhead BGS.
Makes sense that they'd sign it southbound; that leads directly to an existing signed I-69E portion, where the opposite direction doesn't -- and there are active projects south from there to bring US 77 up to Interstate standards. Question: does anyone with TX connections have any idea when work will commence on the conversion of US 77 to I-69E from I-37 north to Victoria? Looks like Odem and Refugio will require bypasses; the one around Sinton appears to be partially completed as a freeway.
I’m going to guess in 5 years we see Odem getting a freeway built.Not aware of much progress for north of I-37... projects were underway when I was in the area a couple years ago to upgrade the portion in Victoria north of Loop 463 up to the Telferner interchange, the northern portion of the El Campo bypass, and from Kendleton to Rosenburg to interstate standards, but that was it, all on US-59 north of Victoria. Nothing south.Yes. I-69E should theoretically overlap I-37 where US 77 is concurrent with I-37.I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.
I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
Excellent.It's official! I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi). Sorry no picture. On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound. It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign. So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!In that case, I should go look for the minute order. BTW, Does that concurrency still use the exit numbers from I-37?
Yes it does. Nothing has changed other than the overhead BGS.
Makes sense that they'd sign it southbound; that leads directly to an existing signed I-69E portion, where the opposite direction doesn't -- and there are active projects south from there to bring US 77 up to Interstate standards. Question: does anyone with TX connections have any idea when work will commence on the conversion of US 77 to I-69E from I-37 north to Victoria? Looks like Odem and Refugio will require bypasses; the one around Sinton appears to be partially completed as a freeway.
A study (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/corpus-christi/us77-woodsboro-refugio-route-study.html) was done a few years that evaluated a Refugio bypass and upgrade of existing US-77 south of there to Woodsboro. Nothing for construction has commenced that I'm aware of.
Obviously, there's south of I-37 where the segment from Robstown to Bishop is currently being upgraded, including a bypass around Driscoll. That will complete I-69E down to Kingsville from I-37 when those projects complete. If the upgrade from north of Driscoll to the Robstown bypass completed a few years ago is any indication, they will likely sign I-69 (oddly missing the "E" - not really complaining though (!) but I guess not technically right) on the new segment.
It's official! I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi). Sorry no picture. On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound. It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign. So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!
Actually, I remember going to football games with my high school last year. (Tuloso-Midway and Alice), and I never saw I-69E being concurrent with I-37 southbound. This was in October & November 2020, mind y’all .It's official! I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi). Sorry no picture. On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound. It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign. So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!
It's actually been that way since at least May 2019, as I noted the concurrency when I visited Port Aransas two years ago. I didn't mention it here because I assumed it had been that way for a while.
I was there in August 2019 and do not recall it...It's official! I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi). Sorry no picture. On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound. It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign. So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!
It's actually been that way since at least May 2019, as I noted the concurrency when I visited Port Aransas two years ago. I didn't mention it here because I assumed it had been that way for a while.
This is a video showing US 59 in Victoria and I-37/US 77, from last month.Is the interchange / overpass construction in Victoria a new one? I recall a similar configuration shifting to the frontage roads back in 2018, it can’t still be the same one under construction.
This is a video showing US 59 in Victoria and I-37/US 77, from last month.
US 59: There is an interchange for Holt Rd,between SL 463 and FM 1686, which is nearing the final days of construction. There was another interchange for a road called Hanselman Rd between US 87 and SL 463, finished in 2018-ish.This is a video showing US 59 in Victoria and I-37/US 77, from last month.Is the interchange / overpass construction in Victoria a new one? I recall a similar configuration shifting to the frontage roads back in 2018, it can’t still be the same one under construction.
Doesn't appear to show any I-69E signage on I-37 itself, at least from the US-77 approach. Must’ve been recent then.
Nice to see ongoing progress of the SH-358 reconstruction project in Corpus Christi.
Unrelated to the I-69 thread, but any recent photos or video of the US-181 Harbor Bridge project?
I was there in August 2019 and do not recall it...It's official! I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi). Sorry no picture. On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound. It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign. So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!
It's actually been that way since at least May 2019, as I noted the concurrency when I visited Port Aransas two years ago. I didn't mention it here because I assumed it had been that way for a while.
Also Street View in August 2019 does not show any concurrency with I-69E.
Are you sure you're not thinking of US-77?
Nope, it was 1000000% an interstate highway shield with 69E written in it. It was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9) with 69E replacing US 77. Strangely there was no mention of US 77. I drove to Corpus in November of 2020 and the old setup was still signed.I was questioning Scott's claim it was in May 2019, not yours. Was he seeing US-77 and thinking that's what was being discussed?
Nope, it was 1000000% an interstate highway shield with 69E written in it. It was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9) with 69E replacing US 77. Strangely there was no mention of US 77. I drove to Corpus in November of 2020 and the old setup was still signed.I was questioning Scott's claim it was in May 2019, not yours. Was he seeing US-77 and thinking that's what was being discussed?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51220636798_afd580a55f_z.jpg)That signage is not new.
Did they also have the I-69E shield on a stick on I-37 SB? (Like all other highway signage not big&square)Nope, it was 1000000% an interstate highway shield with 69E written in it. It was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9) with 69E replacing US 77. Strangely there was no mention of US 77. I drove to Corpus in November of 2020 and the old setup was still signed.I was questioning Scott's claim it was in May 2019, not yours. Was he seeing US-77 and thinking that's what was being discussed?
Roger that. Disregard.
Did they also have the I-69E shield on a stick on I-37 SB? (Like all other highway signage not big&square)Nope, it was 1000000% an interstate highway shield with 69E written in it. It was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9) with 69E replacing US 77. Strangely there was no mention of US 77. I drove to Corpus in November of 2020 and the old setup was still signed.I was questioning Scott's claim it was in May 2019, not yours. Was he seeing US-77 and thinking that's what was being discussed?
Roger that. Disregard.
Did they also have the I-69E shield on a stick on I-37 SB? (Like all other highway signage not big&square)Nope, it was 1000000% an interstate highway shield with 69E written in it. It was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9) with 69E replacing US 77. Strangely there was no mention of US 77. I drove to Corpus in November of 2020 and the old setup was still signed.I was questioning Scott's claim it was in May 2019, not yours. Was he seeing US-77 and thinking that's what was being discussed?
Roger that. Disregard.
The overhead BGS I am referring to is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9), of course recently replaced. If you look closer in the streetview (the sign I believe has been replaced), the exit number tab (https://goo.gl/maps/SPYAFjmvMShg2fxW7) is button copy!!Does that mean the new BGS is in Clearview? Or did they simply plaster on a I-69E sign on the old sign? Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.
The overhead BGS I am referring to is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9), of course recently replaced. If you look closer in the streetview (the sign I believe has been replaced), the exit number tab (https://goo.gl/maps/SPYAFjmvMShg2fxW7) is button copy!!Does that mean the new BGS is in Clearview? Or did they simply plaster on a I-69E sign on the old sign? Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.
Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.
I bet it was 90’s, considering the disproportioned interstate shield. Whenever you decide to go back to Corpus, I highly recommend taking a video instead of a photo. I think that taking a photo is a high risk, and you might miss the sign. Also, did they replace the US 77 Victoria sign too?The overhead BGS I am referring to is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9), of course recently replaced. If you look closer in the streetview (the sign I believe has been replaced), the exit number tab (https://goo.gl/maps/SPYAFjmvMShg2fxW7) is button copy!!Does that mean the new BGS is in Clearview? Or did they simply plaster on a I-69E sign on the old sign? Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.
The new BGS is regrettably Clearview. Those signs in the pictures have to date back to the 90s, even the button copy one. All this talk is making me regret not taking a picture, but it was 10:00 at night and I don't think my wife would have liked me taking a picture that wouldn't come out as we drove, let alone stop for it.
I've had a quick look at recent Corpus Christi districtwide sign replacements (CCSJs beginning with 0916-00) and haven't found sign panel detail sheets for new signs for the southbound direction at I-37 Exit 17, though the northbound direction was done as part of CCSJ 0916-00-091 (plans approval date of February 10, 2020). I suspect this was a one-off replacement.Ive seen button copy signs on I-459 east of Birmingham, AL. They look kind of washed.Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.
TxDOT abandoned button copy in the mid- to late 1990's. At that point it began upgrading all guide signs statewide to retroreflective sheeting, a process that took about 10 years and resulted in thousands of sign panel detail sheets just for 09XX-00 districtwide sign replacement contracts (XX = number of the TxDOT district, still used in CCSJs though TxDOT has since moved on to three-letter abbreviations of district HQ city for public-facing materials: e.g., 04 = AMA = Amarillo, 07 = LBB = Lubbock, 15 = SAT = San Antonio).
Given that the sign at the StreetView link (which Ethanhopkin14 reports has been replaced) has what appear to be blooms of corrosion at the edges of the lettering and other foreground elements, I believe it was installed fairly early in the statewide sign sheeting upgrade.
I bet it was 90’s, considering the disproportioned interstate shield. Whenever you decide to go back to Corpus, I highly recommend taking a video instead of a photo. I think that taking a photo is a high risk, and you might miss the sign. Also, did they replace the US 77 Victoria sign too?The overhead BGS I am referring to is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9), of course recently replaced. If you look closer in the streetview (the sign I believe has been replaced), the exit number tab (https://goo.gl/maps/SPYAFjmvMShg2fxW7) is button copy!!Does that mean the new BGS is in Clearview? Or did they simply plaster on a I-69E sign on the old sign? Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.
The new BGS is regrettably Clearview. Those signs in the pictures have to date back to the 90s, even the button copy one. All this talk is making me regret not taking a picture, but it was 10:00 at night and I don't think my wife would have liked me taking a picture that wouldn't come out as we drove, let alone stop for it.
Nice. All they really need to do is install exit number tabs on I-69E south of the southern I-37/I-69E/US 77 interchange.I bet it was 90’s, considering the disproportioned interstate shield. Whenever you decide to go back to Corpus, I highly recommend taking a video instead of a photo. I think that taking a photo is a high risk, and you might miss the sign. Also, did they replace the US 77 Victoria sign too?The overhead BGS I am referring to is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9), of course recently replaced. If you look closer in the streetview (the sign I believe has been replaced), the exit number tab (https://goo.gl/maps/SPYAFjmvMShg2fxW7) is button copy!!Does that mean the new BGS is in Clearview? Or did they simply plaster on a I-69E sign on the old sign? Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.
The new BGS is regrettably Clearview. Those signs in the pictures have to date back to the 90s, even the button copy one. All this talk is making me regret not taking a picture, but it was 10:00 at night and I don't think my wife would have liked me taking a picture that wouldn't come out as we drove, let alone stop for it.
If I remember correctly, the whole gantry got new BGSs.
Aw, shucks! I was talking about the wrong project. I thought you were referring to the US 181/SH 35 split. But I jumped the gun. Unfortunately, we decided to go to Beevile at the last minute, so we didn’t get to see the Harbor Bridge. But I assume they’re about to install the wire supports for the south portion. What will the old alignment be turned into when it’s stripped down?US 59: There is an interchange for Holt Rd,between SL 463 and FM 1686, which is nearing the final days of construction. There was another interchange for a road called Hanselman Rd between US 87 and SL 463, finished in 2018-ish.This is a video showing US 59 in Victoria and I-37/US 77, from last month.Is the interchange / overpass construction in Victoria a new one? I recall a similar configuration shifting to the frontage roads back in 2018, it can’t still be the same one under construction.
Doesn't appear to show any I-69E signage on I-37 itself, at least from the US-77 approach. Must’ve been recent then.
Nice to see ongoing progress of the SH-358 reconstruction project in Corpus Christi.
Unrelated to the I-69 thread, but any recent photos or video of the US-181 Harbor Bridge project?
I-37: I bet it was recent, like one or two weeks ago. This is in May 8 when it was recorded. Likely around May 21, an educated guess.
US 181: Unfortunately I don’t have pictures, but i saw the bridge on Wednesday. It was still under construction, but the bridge structure is in place.
How convenient... from the Harbor Bridge project team on Twitter today.That makes me excited as a South Texan who visits Corpus on an occasional basis. Apparently, they will use lights on here as well. They could color it like the American flag and produce fireworks (animation) for the Hooks Baseball team games. Could we see US 181 and/or SH 35 extend and replace SH 286 via this project?
https://twitter.com/HarborBridgePrj/status/1400576295893876739
3.3 Miles of I-69E Added to the Interstate Highway System
The Transportation Commission on Wednesday gave the final approval to signing 3.3 miles of US 77 west of Corpus Christi as I-69E. The Federal Highway Administration approved the action May 25th. The freeway section will be signed concurrently at I-69E/US 77.
In remarks to commissioners, the Alliance pointed out that it is a great day when we can celebrate adding miles of the I-69 Corridor to the nation’s Interstate Highway System — this week in Nueces County and soon in Fort Bend County. We thanked the Commission and TxDOT staffers throughout the Department who continue to plan, fund and build segments of I-69 at an accelerating pace.
There will be a new section of I-69E:So this has got to be the recently-upgraded section from Robstown to the north end of the Driscoll Bypass. Is that correct?Quote3.3 Miles of I-69E Added to the Interstate Highway System
The Transportation Commission on Wednesday gave the final approval to signing 3.3 miles of US 77 west of Corpus Christi as I-69E. The Federal Highway Administration approved the action May 25th. The freeway section will be signed concurrently at I-69E/US 77.
In remarks to commissioners, the Alliance pointed out that it is a great day when we can celebrate adding miles of the I-69 Corridor to the nation’s Interstate Highway System — this week in Nueces County and soon in Fort Bend County. We thanked the Commission and TxDOT staffers throughout the Department who continue to plan, fund and build segments of I-69 at an accelerating pace.
There will be a new section of I-69E:Quote3.3 Miles of I-69E Added to the Interstate Highway SystemSo this has got to be the recently-upgraded section from Robstown to the north end of the Driscoll Bypass. Is that correct?
The Transportation Commission on Wednesday gave the final approval to signing 3.3 miles of US 77 west of Corpus Christi as I-69E. The Federal Highway Administration approved the action May 25th. The freeway section will be signed concurrently at I-69E/US 77.
In remarks to commissioners, the Alliance pointed out that it is a great day when we can celebrate adding miles of the I-69 Corridor to the nation’s Interstate Highway System — this week in Nueces County and soon in Fort Bend County. We thanked the Commission and TxDOT staffers throughout the Department who continue to plan, fund and build segments of I-69 at an accelerating pace.
There will be a new section of I-69E:Quote3.3 Miles of I-69E Added to the Interstate Highway SystemSo this has got to be the recently-upgraded section from Robstown to the north end of the Driscoll Bypass. Is that correct?
The Transportation Commission on Wednesday gave the final approval to signing 3.3 miles of US 77 west of Corpus Christi as I-69E. The Federal Highway Administration approved the action May 25th. The freeway section will be signed concurrently at I-69E/US 77.
In remarks to commissioners, the Alliance pointed out that it is a great day when we can celebrate adding miles of the I-69 Corridor to the nation’s Interstate Highway System — this week in Nueces County and soon in Fort Bend County. We thanked the Commission and TxDOT staffers throughout the Department who continue to plan, fund and build segments of I-69 at an accelerating pace.
Far as I can tell.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/0630/11d.pdf
It’s the segment that was completed a few years ago south of Robstown. It’s already sign posted as “I-69” (without the E) so I’m not sure anything will change on the ground, unless they swap the “I-69” shields with “I-69E” (sadly).
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/0630/11d.pdf
It’s the segment that was completed a few years ago south of Robstown. It’s already sign posted as “I-69” (without the E) so I’m not sure anything will change on the ground, unless they swap the “I-69” shields with “I-69E” (sadly).
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/0630/11d.pdf
It’s the segment that was completed a few years ago south of Robstown. It’s already sign posted as “I-69” (without the E) so I’m not sure anything will change on the ground, unless they swap the “I-69” shields with “I-69E” (sadly).
According to that press release, it will be IH 69-E. If it is signed that way I will die laughing!
In seriousness, we are looking at the possibility of exiting south at Calallan on I-69E which is signed with individual shields as I-69, then go into the newly signed section signed as I-69E. And we wonder how there are so many error shields. When they do go through there to eradicate those I-69 shields, a few will get left behind and will stay all the way up until the highway is complete.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/0630/11d.pdf
It’s the segment that was completed a few years ago south of Robstown. It’s already sign posted as “I-69” (without the E) so I’m not sure anything will change on the ground, unless they swap the “I-69” shields with “I-69E” (sadly).
According to that press release, it will be IH 69-E. If it is signed that way I will die laughing!
In seriousness, we are looking at the possibility of exiting south at Calallan on I-69E which is signed with individual shields as I-69, then go into the newly signed section signed as I-69E. And we wonder how there are so many error shields. When they do go through there to eradicate those I-69 shields, a few will get left behind and will stay all the way up until the highway is complete.
I predict that they will leave at least one non E sign up for many years, just like the washed up US 59 NB shield between Exits 129A and B.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/0630/11d.pdf
It’s the segment that was completed a few years ago south of Robstown. It’s already sign posted as “I-69” (without the E) so I’m not sure anything will change on the ground, unless they swap the “I-69” shields with “I-69E” (sadly).
According to that press release, it will be IH 69-E. If it is signed that way I will die laughing!
In seriousness, we are looking at the possibility of exiting south at Calallan on I-69E which is signed with individual shields as I-69, then go into the newly signed section signed as I-69E. And we wonder how there are so many error shields. When they do go through there to eradicate those I-69 shields, a few will get left behind and will stay all the way up until the highway is complete.
I predict that they will leave at least one non E sign up for many years, just like the washed up US 59 NB shield between Exits 129A and B.
At least if they replace the errant non-suffixed I-69 signs, they'll have a few available to post farther north along the corridor. Save TxDOT a few bucks in the process (marginal, of course, relative to the whole corridor project!).
Exactly. They could use them for the section under construction from Kendleton to South of Rosenberg. Although it is also possible they just decide to discard those shields instead, and make new ones for the main I-69 corridor.https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/0630/11d.pdf
It’s the segment that was completed a few years ago south of Robstown. It’s already sign posted as “I-69” (without the E) so I’m not sure anything will change on the ground, unless they swap the “I-69” shields with “I-69E” (sadly).
According to that press release, it will be IH 69-E. If it is signed that way I will die laughing!
In seriousness, we are looking at the possibility of exiting south at Calallan on I-69E which is signed with individual shields as I-69, then go into the newly signed section signed as I-69E. And we wonder how there are so many error shields. When they do go through there to eradicate those I-69 shields, a few will get left behind and will stay all the way up until the highway is complete.
I predict that they will leave at least one non E sign up for many years, just like the washed up US 59 NB shield between Exits 129A and B.
At least if they replace the errant non-suffixed I-69 signs, they'll have a few available to post farther north along the corridor. Save TxDOT a few bucks in the process (marginal, of course, relative to the whole corridor project!).
Yes, if they ever replace the current I-69 shields on I-69E, they will be repurposed somewhere along the corridor where the interstate is only I-69. Only thing is, it doesn't really save any money. They still have to make new I69E shields to replace the current I-69 ones, that, had they not made the error, would have just been placed in their correct spot anyway. In fact you might argue it is a money loser, since you paid workers to install the wrong shield, then pay them again to take them down, and install the right ones, then pay them to install them in the correct spot, instead of paying them to install shields, then paying them to install other shields somewhere else along the corridor.
Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.Do you have a link to that?
Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.The Driscoll Bypass is definitely starting to take shape. Latest satellite view from Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6824055,-97.746814,2835m/data=!3m1!1e3
I screened it with my phone. It’s kinda blurry though.Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.Do you have a link to that?
That satellite imagery has been there for a couple of months. It’s likely closer to completion at this point. On Zachry Construction”˜a website, its expected finish date is August 2022.Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.The Driscoll Bypass is definitely starting to take shape. Latest satellite view from Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6824055,-97.746814,2835m/data=!3m1!1e3
I screened it with my phone. It’s kinda blurry though.Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.Do you have a link to that?
https://flic.kr/p/2majo25That satellite imagery has been there for a couple of months. It’s likely closer to completion at this point. On Zachry Construction”˜a website, its expected finish date is August 2022.Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.The Driscoll Bypass is definitely starting to take shape. Latest satellite view from Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6824055,-97.746814,2835m/data=!3m1!1e3
XD. I honestly think it could be open months earlier. And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.I screened it with my phone. It’s kinda blurry though.Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.Do you have a link to that?
https://flic.kr/p/2majo25That satellite imagery has been there for a couple of months. It’s likely closer to completion at this point. On Zachry Construction”˜a website, its expected finish date is August 2022.Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.The Driscoll Bypass is definitely starting to take shape. Latest satellite view from Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6824055,-97.746814,2835m/data=!3m1!1e3
We all know those expected completion dates are always met. :-D
And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.
And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.
Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.
And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.
Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.
I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren’t for the “connect to Interstate” requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I’m not necessarily complaining about.
BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?
Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.
Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.
I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren’t for the “connect to Interstate” requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I’m not necessarily complaining about.
BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?
A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system. That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist. The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.
Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.
Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.
I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren’t for the “connect to Interstate” requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I’m not necessarily complaining about.
BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?
A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system. That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist. The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.
Because according to the I-69 tabloid by TxDOT, there’s an unfounded segment set to be started in 2035. Interesting to see what happens if they don’t finish in that 20 year timeline.Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.
Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.
I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren’t for the “connect to Interstate” requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I’m not necessarily complaining about.
BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?
A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system. That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist. The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.
Sposed to be!
Because according to the I-69 tabloid by TxDOT, there’s an unfounded segment set to be started in 2035. Interesting to see what happens if they don’t finish in that 20 year timeline.Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.
Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.
I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren’t for the “connect to Interstate” requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I’m not necessarily complaining about.
BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?
A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system. That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist. The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.
Sposed to be!
Not bad. After all, such segment is only inside a county with one of the least populations in the country. And really, it’s just two things: unpaved roads which lead to nowhere or to other unpaved roads, and crossovers (which can be solved by placing an “Emergency Vehicles Only” sign or a no U-Turn sign).Because according to the I-69 tabloid by TxDOT, there’s an unfounded segment set to be started in 2035. Interesting to see what happens if they don’t finish in that 20 year timeline.Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.
Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.
I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren’t for the “connect to Interstate” requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I’m not necessarily complaining about.
BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?
A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system. That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist. The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.
Sposed to be!
An extension will get tacked on as a rider to some uncontroversial bill, and nothing will subsequently change.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built? FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic. One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built? FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic. One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
That would likely involve designating a Spur route (I-569).^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built? FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic. One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
From the plans I've seen, I-69C is simply slated to end at I-69W/US 59 south of George West; any connection to I-37 would be accomplished by a short NE leg along 69W. But I've also heard vague rumors that there are local politicos who want 69C extended north over US 281 as a shortcut to north I-37, even though that would mean modifying the original legislated route descriptions. If anyone can verify that such an idea has gotten official traction, please let the rest of us know!
That would likely involve designating a Spur route (I-569).^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built? FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic. One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
From the plans I've seen, I-69C is simply slated to end at I-69W/US 59 south of George West; any connection to I-37 would be accomplished by a short NE leg along 69W. But I've also heard vague rumors that there are local politicos who want 69C extended north over US 281 as a shortcut to north I-37, even though that would mean modifying the original legislated route descriptions. If anyone can verify that such an idea has gotten official traction, please let the rest of us know!
Meanwhile, work on I-69W/US-59 still has a long way to go. Even just between George West and Victoria, still needs upgrades and progress.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built? FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic. One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
The only progress for I-69W that is about to occur is at the 59/77/BU 59T interchange, something carrying over from the US 77 freeway project, which will occur right after they finish the SH 185 project.Meanwhile, work on I-69W/US-59 still has a long way to go. Even just between George West and Victoria, still needs upgrades and progress.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built? FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic. One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.
Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.
Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me. IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.
Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.
I screened it with my phone. It’s kinda blurry though.Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.Do you have a link to that?
https://flic.kr/p/2majo25
Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.
Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me. IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.
Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.
How long can we expect US 77 in Ytturia (N of Raymondville) to be co-signed I-69E?
Would this also apply for US 281 and US 59 once fully complete?How long can we expect US 77 in Ytturia (N of Raymondville) to be co-signed I-69E?
If it's already signed as I-69E, hopefully forever! If it hasn't been signed yet, it's because (a) it's not yet at Interstate standards, or (b) it's been completed, but FHWA hasn't signed off on it yet. Now -- if the experience of US 75/I-45 and US 81/I-35 are any indication, once I-69E is completed from Victoria to its southern terminus near the border, signage for US 77 might be removed. But the co-signage will almost certainly continue until full completion.
Besides, if AASHTO were to block I-69C, they would’ve sued already.Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.
Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me. IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.
Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.
All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99). The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo. Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan. TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously. The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others.
At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.
Why would the congressional delegation need to understand anything? They already did their part in creating the corridor. Now it's up to the DOTs to actually build everything.Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.
Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me. IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.
Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.
All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99). The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo. Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan. TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously. The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others.
At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.
Why would the congressional delegation need to understand anything? They already did their part in creating the corridor. Now it's up to the DOTs to actually build everything.Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.
Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me. IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.
Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.
All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99). The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo. Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan. TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously. The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others.
At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.
BTW, google maps has updated street view for US 59 from East of Ganado to Houston. It is dated April 2021.Yay, visible exit numbers!
Something tells me they’re moving Spur 529 onto Kroesche Rd. Or maybe it’s just me.Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.Yay, visible exit numbers!
Odd that they'd sign Spur 529 via Exit 95 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5323648,-95.8268349,3a,53.9y,264.6h,89.32t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sjq8kZcFfjsGgCLJAMxN8Gw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40), rather than via Exit 94 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5349501,-95.8480401,3a,15.1y,277.95h,91.56t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sGX8qMJiGA9fC6MmM9YMU2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) where there's more direct access.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built? FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic. One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for? Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula. Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects. That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.Why would the congressional delegation need to understand anything? They already did their part in creating the corridor. Now it's up to the DOTs to actually build everything.Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.
Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me. IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.
Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.
All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99). The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo. Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan. TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously. The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others.
At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.
Not quite that cut-and-dry, especially in TX. Keeping the fed funds coming year after year requires the cooperation of that same delegation, whose composition may change a bit over the years, with new additions requiring being brought "up to speed" on what's expected of them and what benefits they can and will receive for their continued support. A massive project such as this occasionally requires a modicum of "ass-kissing" as well as making it easy to maintain such support; staying "on message" by condensing corridor business to easily understandable parameters (such as, in this instance, referring to the corridor concepts receiving funding as "I-69" components) is a part of the methodology. In this way the representatives are functioning as active ongoing partners and project "boosters" rather than simply the vehicles by which the original corridor was designated; since many of those weren't around in their present capacity back in '95, emphasizing that these folks have a vested (electoral) interest in ensuring that the project is progressing consistently is something that TxDOT and the corridor boosters engage in on a regular basis. In TX, the recognition of the fact that building roads, particularly new facilities, is intrinsically intertwined with regional/district politics is a bit more overt than in other jurisdictions -- and care is taken that no party "drops the ball", so to speak, to the point where long-planned corridors are relegated to low priority or even shelved, as with some states' DOT's.
What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for? Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula. Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects. That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.Earmarks are back:
What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for? Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula. Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects. That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.Earmarks are back:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/
What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for? Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula. Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects. That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.Earmarks are back:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/
And, in reality, they have been for some time -- but not overtly. Since there's no chargeability issues with which to contend, projects, including improvements to freeways, can and have been "back-doored" as local efficiency and safety measures (interchanges serving outlying housing developments have been doing this for years), taking advantage of multiple federal pools besides the annual USDOT outlays. Before long, a divided highway has a handful of interchanges along its length, so when a comprehensive upgrade is slated, it's already partially completed.
But some states seem to be more adept at directing "off-book" funds to their projects than others who take a more passive approach, letting the yearly "pool" revenues dictate the limitations and timeframes of their backlog of work. Congresspersons who are able to "call dibs" and direct alternate revenue sources to their projects have been invaluable to those states they represent -- they're simply doing their job providing for their districts. But now that some sanity has been restored (along with actual earmarks) in a long-impecunious legislative environment, things may actually pick up in terms of project horizons, including the I-69 "family" of facilities. If TX' delegation is competent, that corridor could actually be completed in 20-25 years (unless more branches and spurs are added!)
How long would you think the I-69 system would finish in its entirety?What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for? Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula. Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects. That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.Earmarks are back:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/
And, in reality, they have been for some time -- but not overtly. Since there's no chargeability issues with which to contend, projects, including improvements to freeways, can and have been "back-doored" as local efficiency and safety measures (interchanges serving outlying housing developments have been doing this for years), taking advantage of multiple federal pools besides the annual USDOT outlays. Before long, a divided highway has a handful of interchanges along its length, so when a comprehensive upgrade is slated, it's already partially completed.
But some states seem to be more adept at directing "off-book" funds to their projects than others who take a more passive approach, letting the yearly "pool" revenues dictate the limitations and timeframes of their backlog of work. Congresspersons who are able to "call dibs" and direct alternate revenue sources to their projects have been invaluable to those states they represent -- they're simply doing their job providing for their districts. But now that some sanity has been restored (along with actual earmarks) in a long-impecunious legislative environment, things may actually pick up in terms of project horizons, including the I-69 "family" of facilities. If TX' delegation is competent, that corridor could actually be completed in 20-25 years (unless more branches and spurs are added!)
I actually think 20-25 years is a very long view if we are talking about Texas. I honestly don't see it being 15 unless we have 8 additional years of pure progressive (inner-city) political control.
I would agree if we are discussing Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee.
The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.
Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.
Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.
Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana. Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59). Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44. 69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston. But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon. But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado. Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.
I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.
Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana. Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59). Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44. 69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston. But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon. But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado. Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.
I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.
Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana. Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59). Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44. 69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston. But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon. But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado. Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.
Because of the local-service aspects of the proposed I-69 loop road around the south and east side of metro Shreveport, it's likely that I-69 will be constructed at least as far north as I-20 before much of the rural segment northeast of there including the remaining LA mileage and most of AR's pathway is completed or even underway. With the persistent lack of available funding within MS, I'd expect the Dean bridge and its eastern approach to US 61 to be the very last corridor portion developed.
I think Mississippi will be the last state to finish their portion of I-69, if ever.I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.
Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana. Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59). Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44. 69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston. But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon. But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado. Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.
I think Mississippi will be the last state to finish their portion of I-69, if ever.I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.
Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana. Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59). Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44. 69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston. But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon. But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado. Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.Drove by the area today, managed to take a picture of the new gantry. Indeed, both I-37 and I-69E are co-signed at the northern US-77 interchange. Interestingly enough, no other I-69E shields until its southern split near Calallen, just I-37 and US-77.
I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
OMG!!!!! Thank you so much!!!! Now I don’t have to spend money on Amazon fire stick to check for updated street view.I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.Drove by the area today, managed to take a picture of the new gantry. Indeed, both I-37 and I-69E are co-signed at the northern US-77 interchange. Interestingly enough, no other I-69E shields for I-69E until it’s southern split near Calallen, just I-37 and US-77.
I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
(https://i.ibb.co/ydJYNWJ/I69EI37.jpg)
^ Odem and Refugio both need to be bypassed. They are the only things standing in the way of a free-flowing 75 mph expressway between Corpus Christi and Houston. Add the under construction Driscoll Bypass and the proposed Riviera Bypass, and you have a free-flowing expressway between the Rio Grande Valley and Houston.I’ve been to Houston enough times so far, but I’m really looking forward to seeing US77 near Corpus Christi and Kingsville to see its progress. And I also want to see what they’re doing on US59 between Splendora and Cleveland, specifically at SH 105.
I’ll try to get some pictures along US-77 between Robstown and Kingsville soon enough, I have yet to drive on that route since 2019 when construction had been in its earliest phases. Curious to see the latest progress. I’ll probably reach Houston in a couple of weeks.
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.Drove by the area today, managed to take a picture of the new gantry. Indeed, both I-37 and I-69E are co-signed at the northern US-77 interchange. Interestingly enough, no other I-69E shields until its southern split near Calallen, just I-37 and US-77.
I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
(https://i.ibb.co/ydJYNWJ/I69EI37.jpg)
They should hold off on signing Interstate 169 until the roadway is completed as a four-lane highway between TX 48 and Interstate 69E.True. Technically they could sign it now, but it’s too small of a section of freeway to unveil a I-169 sign. Also, when can we expect them to construct a direct connector from I-69E NB? Or is that not possible due to funding?
I know this is a crazy thought and will likely never happen, but I really wish they would sign slut 527 here in Houston as IH 569.
I know this is a crazy thought and will likely never happen, but I really wish they would sign slut 527 here in Houston as IH 569.
It is possible. Although it isn’t likely right now, it may be in the future. And yeah, it’s crazy. Especially when you bring it out with a nice typo (sorry).
A simple ^^^^ could have sufficed
Once this segment is done, I assume the I-69E signage will get extended to Kingsville?In this case, it would be interesting to see whether they shift the paving or install median barriers.
Brahma Boulevard was closed but I don't think the median is to standard here.
I’ve seen waaaaay worse lol.Quote from: Plutonic PandaA simple ^^^^ could have sufficed
Yeah, no kidding! Why quote a huge post (including all the images) just to add a couple of sentences? It causes all kinds of unnecessary scrolling. This isn't the only forum where I've seen participants do that.
You’re welcome.I’ve seen waaaaay worse lol.Quote from: Plutonic PandaA simple ^^^^ could have sufficed
Yeah, no kidding! Why quote a huge post (including all the images) just to add a couple of sentences? It causes all kinds of unnecessary scrolling. This isn't the only forum where I've seen participants do that.
Thegeet, thank you for fixing that!
Whiling the updates to I-69E/US-77 at Discroll and I-69/US-59 at FB County is nice and all, but any updates on the direct I-69/US-59 Nacogdoches intersection?None. But, from May:
and what about the I-69/US-59 Cleveland interstate standard upgrade?No updates either. In fact, I am unaware of the details, other than they will have new frontage roads. Are they supposed to take down the underpass at the SH 105 interchange?
Nope, nothing about it eitherand what about the I-69/US-59 Cleveland interstate standard upgrade?No updates either. In fact, I am unaware of the details, other than they will have new frontage roads. Are they supposed to take down the underpass at the SH 105 interchange?
Also, any word on the Diboll bypass yet?
and what about the I-69/US-59 Cleveland interstate standard upgrade?
Didn't they do that sort of thing (sign disconnected segments of Interstate highways as Interstates) back in the 1970's and earlier when big parts of the Interstate highway system were still under construction? I seem to remember segments of I-10 being treated in that fashion.
How long will it take upon freeway completion for I-69 to be designated on US 59:My guess, with at least the second one, is that given the project is effectively extending from an existing I-69 segment, it would be signed immediately.
1. From Cleveland to Splendora?
2. Spur 10 to Fort Bend/Wharton county line ?
In that case, US 59 in Cleveland would be signed Immediately too. And so would Bishop to Kingsville, US 77.How long will it take upon freeway completion for I-69 to be designated on US 59:My guess, with at least the second one, is that given the project is effectively extending from an existing I-69 segment, it would be signed immediately.
1. From Cleveland to Splendora?
2. Spur 10 to Fort Bend/Wharton county line ?
A similar project of this nature, the Driscoll Bypass and interstate upgrade between Bishop and Robstown, already has “I-69E” shields on the new signage, as seen in the above pictures.
^ Not sure how they’ll address US-77 south of the official I-69E project near Driscoll, but it could and should be singable as immediately I-69E.Singable? Like US 31W?
XD, yes. But the I-69 anthem would be Summer of ”˜69 by Bryan Adams, or better yet, I-69 by Roman GianArthur.^ Not sure how they’ll address US-77 south of the official I-69E project near Driscoll, but it could and should be singable as immediately I-69E.Singable? Like US 31W?
Whiling the updates to I-69E/US-77 at Discroll and I-69/US-59 at FB County is nice and all, but any updates on the direct I-69/US-59 Nacogdoches intersection?None. But, from May:
XD, yes. But the I-69 anthem would be Summer of ”˜69 by Bryan Adams, or better yet, I-69 by Roman GianArthur.^ Not sure how they’ll address US-77 south of the official I-69E project near Driscoll, but it could and should be singable as immediately I-69E.Singable? Like US 31W?
I guess construction will last forever, forever, no!XD, yes. But the I-69 anthem would be Summer of ”˜69 by Bryan Adams, or better yet, I-69 by Roman GianArthur.^ Not sure how they’ll address US-77 south of the official I-69E project near Driscoll, but it could and should be singable as immediately I-69E.Singable? Like US 31W?
'Summer of 69E'
I guess construction will last forever, forever, no!XD, yes. But the I-69 anthem would be Summer of ”˜69 by Bryan Adams, or better yet, I-69 by Roman GianArthur.^ Not sure how they’ll address US-77 south of the official I-69E project near Driscoll, but it could and should be singable as immediately I-69E.Singable? Like US 31W?
'Summer of 69E'
P.S. if the infrastructure bill is passed by Congress, will it cover I-69 in any capacity?
Just sayin thisIn addition, Laredo metro is 259,172.
the population of Brownsville (182,271), McAllen (141,968), Edinburg (95,847), and Harlingen (65,129) combined makes the RGV metroplex have about a population of 485,215+
Add in the population of Mission (83,567) and Pharr (78,073) and you get 646,855+
EDIT: Weslaco (40,464) also makes the RGV metroplex population 687,319+. In comparison Corpus Christi population is 325,780+, even when you add in Robstown (11,400) and Portland (17,025) it only goes as far as 354,205+.
EDIT: And yes, I'm making the RGV metroplex seem bigger than it actually is, like just combine DFW like everyone in their mother nowadays, maybe add in Arlington in there and they'll easily out number the Houston metroplex by a long shot. Just wanted to talk about the population of the RGV, Brownsville does have a population of nearly 200k tho.
Was this bridge in Jefferson, TX ever going to be on the future I-369 route? It just got hit by containers off a derailed train:
http://www.ksla.com/story/35834420/hwy-59-shut-down-in-jefferson-tx-after-2-trains-collide
(http://ksla.images.worldnow.com/images/14327139_G.jpg)
Just sayin this
the population of Brownsville (182,271), McAllen (141,968), Edinburg (95,847), and Harlingen (65,129) combined makes the RGV metroplex have about a population of 485,215+
Add in the population of Mission (83,567) and Pharr (78,073) and you get 646,855+
EDIT: Weslaco (40,464) also makes the RGV metroplex population 687,319+. In comparison Corpus Christi population is 325,780+, even when you add in Robstown (11,400) and Portland (17,025) it only goes as far as 354,205+.
EDIT: And yes, I'm making the RGV metroplex seem bigger than it actually is, like just combine DFW like everyone in their mother nowadays, maybe add in Arlington in there and they'll easily out number the Houston metroplex by a long shot. Just wanted to talk about the population of the RGV, Brownsville does have a population of nearly 200k tho.
Just sayin this
the population of Brownsville (182,271), McAllen (141,968), Edinburg (95,847), and Harlingen (65,129) combined makes the RGV metroplex have about a population of 485,215+
Add in the population of Mission (83,567) and Pharr (78,073) and you get 646,855+
EDIT: Weslaco (40,464) also makes the RGV metroplex population 687,319+. In comparison Corpus Christi population is 325,780+, even when you add in Robstown (11,400) and Portland (17,025) it only goes as far as 354,205+.
EDIT: And yes, I'm making the RGV metroplex seem bigger than it actually is, like just combine DFW like everyone in their mother nowadays, maybe add in Arlington in there and they'll easily out number the Houston metroplex by a long shot. Just wanted to talk about the population of the RGV, Brownsville does have a population of nearly 200k tho.
Forget city limits, there's too many small towns in the area for that. Just combine the populations of Hidalgo/Cameron/Willacy counties and you get nearly 1.2 million.
There is a hell of a lot of American citizens living in the Rio Grande Valley area of far South Texas. Over 1.2 million people live in the cluster of cities from La Joya on the West end to Brownsville and the Padre Island/Port Isabel area on the East End. That region doesn't get a lot of attention since there is no major stand-out city in that cluster of cities and towns.That and the I-69W corridor.
Roma, Escobares, Los Alverez, Rio Grande City and Las Lomas make up another cluster of towns. Going farther North towns like Zapata are a little bit more isolated.
Laredo has a 2019 population estimate of over 260,000 residents. Plus it is the busiest non-coastal/inland port of entry in the United States.
All of that adds up to plenty of justification to fully build-out the I-2 corridor all the way to Laredo.
Any word on how the Kenedy County part of I-69 upgrading is going?Per GSV the Sarita and Thomas Ranch exits appear to be finished but it looks like no work has taken place on the ranch access roads and crossings.
Yturria is finished I think. The rest between there and Riviera will be built by 2035.Any word on how the Kenedy County part of I-69 upgrading is going?Per GSV the Sarita and Thomas Ranch exits appear to be finished but it looks like no work has taken place on the ranch access roads and crossings.
Yturria is finished I think. The rest between there and Riviera will be built by 2035.Any word on how the Kenedy County part of I-69 upgrading is going?Per GSV the Sarita and Thomas Ranch exits appear to be finished but it looks like no work has taken place on the ranch access roads and crossings.
OK, I see Sarita. No signed exit number. Probably no part of I-69E yet, not connecting to the rest of I-69E elsewhere...Any word on how the Kenedy County part of I-69 upgrading is going?Per GSV the Sarita and Thomas Ranch exits appear to be finished but it looks like no work has taken place on the ranch access roads and crossings.
Yturria is finished I think. The rest between there and Riviera will be built by 2035.Anyone seen signage? Is there an exit number, or signed road (or place) name?
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.Drove by the area today, managed to take a picture of the new gantry. Indeed, both I-37 and I-69E are co-signed at the northern US-77 interchange. Interestingly enough, no other I-69E shields until its southern split near Calallen, just I-37 and US-77.
I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
(https://i.ibb.co/ydJYNWJ/I69EI37.jpg)
I don't see any slip ramps on OSM or Google Satellite (SB, that is. NB, is this (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5380552,-97.7745459,241m/data=!3m1!1e3) Exit 52 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69E#Exit_list)?) until... holy cow. North of Yturria. Seriously? You gotta get off that early to take US77 Bus?
Finally, on that note, is Exit 51 (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5352488,-97.775383,3a,37.4y,189.22h,92.04t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s7ksDVcRYhSl6ud-V1zSRyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) still a thing?
Same geometry + one more puzzle piece (new mainlanes) = opposite functionality; an exit becomes an entrance.
It's not the mainline behind the camera & ahead to the left with an exit straight ahead anymore--it's the frontage road behind the camera & straight ahead, with an entrance ramp bearing off left.
Is I-69E now signed farther north than the US77 Bus (Raymondville) exit?
Anyone seen signage? Is there an exit number, or signed road (or place) name?
Thanks for the replies.And instead of “Exit 1 Mile” , they read “1/2 mile” (numbers for simulation only). And it’s already signed I-69E on the reassurance markers IIRC.
Hmph. Unnumbered exits on a razzafrazzn interstate? What kinda tomfoolery is this? Mumble grumble.
Hopefully that was just not included in the plans for whatever reason, and eventually it'll show up properly in the field?
Hmph. Unnumbered exits on a razzafrazzn interstate? What kinda tomfoolery is this? Mumble grumble.
Hopefully that was just not included in the plans for whatever reason, and eventually it'll show up properly in the field?
(https://www.trains.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/TRN_CP_KCS_traffic_map.jpg)
(https://www.trains.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/TRN_CP_KCS_Logos.jpg)
CP and KCS project dramatic rise in daily train counts
The Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern merger application highlights projected increases in traffic on the new railroad’s north-south spine, as well as planned capacity improvements. (Trains.com, with information from CP-KCS)
WASHINGTON — Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern say their proposed merger will generate significant traffic growth, with daily train counts on the combined system’s north-south spine projected to more than double within three years.
The traffic details were among those included in the railways’ 4,342-page, 1-gigabyte merger application filed with U.S. regulators late Friday. The document, posted to the Surface Transportation Board website overnight Monday, includes Canadian Pacific Kansas City’s operating plans, outlines capacity expansion projects, and makes projections for traffic and job growth that would flow from the creation of the first railroad to link Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/cp-and-kcs-project-dramatic-rise-in-daily-train-counts/?fbclid=IwAR0O-VcBN4JrVVuCyd8iUsNgSw8rbYAddESBAuadLV-c5f5p4x_H8HNXfmo
Is that part close to Arkansas/Oklahoma border in Oklahoma or Arkansas?
There is an overpass being constructed at Violet Rd, but I can't find anything with regards to a completion date.OK wow. Whoever's doing the OSM editing down there is feeling a little frisky...
Instead of Exit 51, there is now a “TO Business US 77” sign to direct BUS-77 users to use the last SB Yturria exit.I’ve been waiting for google to try to implement new imagery for street view in that area, but alas, google has gone M.I.A. again.
There is an overpass being constructed at Violet Rd, but I can't find anything with regards to a completion date.Assuming the imagery in google is taken in April 2021 (like other imagery in Texas), it should probably be already in use, or near completion (finished by December).
Breaking News: Google Maps has reported a northbound closure on US 77 in Driscoll. This could be the connection in progress for the new I-69E bypass. Or maybe it was an accident. Still, it is something worth monitoring.
I’m hoping someone on YT will let us see the new bypass. When the entire bypass opens entirely, I-69E will be signed in Bishop and Kingsville.Breaking News: Google Maps has reported a northbound closure on US 77 in Driscoll. This could be the connection in progress for the new I-69E bypass. Or maybe it was an accident. Still, it is something worth monitoring.
Waze shows the Northbound lane of the bypass as being open so you’re likely right.
There has been newer portions of I-69E north of Raymondville up to Yturria Ranch as indicated on Google Maps Street View from last monthAs expected, exit 51 is removed. Also, the northbound Driscoll Bypass is open. The old north US 77 lanes are closed through Driscoll.
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5682796,-97.7699849,3a,75y,7.46h,83.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D297.65137%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
There has been newer portions of I-69E north of Raymondville up to Yturria Ranch as indicated on Google Maps Street View from last monthAs expected, exit 51 is removed. Also, the northbound Driscoll Bypass is open. The old north US 77 lanes are closed through Driscoll.
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5682796,-97.7699849,3a,75y,7.46h,83.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D297.65137%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
I don’t think they will cover it, considering the lack of exposure of Driscoll recently. But it’s possible.There has been newer portions of I-69E north of Raymondville up to Yturria Ranch as indicated on Google Maps Street View from last monthAs expected, exit 51 is removed. Also, the northbound Driscoll Bypass is open. The old north US 77 lanes are closed through Driscoll.
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5682796,-97.7699849,3a,75y,7.46h,83.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D297.65137%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
I just noticed Exit 51 closed for southbound I-69E. I am hoping to see any media of the Driscoll Bypass as well.
I don’t think they will cover it, considering the lack of exposure of Driscoll recently. But it’s possible.There has been newer portions of I-69E north of Raymondville up to Yturria Ranch as indicated on Google Maps Street View from last monthAs expected, exit 51 is removed. Also, the northbound Driscoll Bypass is open. The old north US 77 lanes are closed through Driscoll.
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5682796,-97.7699849,3a,75y,7.46h,83.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D297.65137%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
I just noticed Exit 51 closed for southbound I-69E. I am hoping to see any media of the Driscoll Bypass as well.
Recent update of the US 59 & TX Loop 224 interchange project as of yesterday:Cool, thanks for sharing! Doesn't look like there's much progress on the northern section of the project, but pleasantly surprised how much south of it is done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p0ybTIAxM0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p0ybTIAxM0)
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/lufkin/us59south-loop224.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/lufkin/us59south-loop224.html)
According to TxDOT, this is supposed to be open by the summer of 2023.
Nice, I-69E is clearly posted going north from Yturria.
But how far. The Google car turned around there. :(
I mean, if you want to know bad enough, there is a way to get a better look at the signs...Going there ourselves? Just an educated guess.
Nah, get Scotty up in the Enterprise to teleport ya there. :-D :bigass:(https://i.redd.it/57u98971lq371.jpg)
It looks like in the southern portion of the Kingsville bypass, they are adding in frontage roads down to Business US 77.Yes. Indeed they are. They will then construct a new interchange for BUS 77.
There's also the Victoria overpass over County RdI’ve asked TxDOT about this a few months ago and they said they would’ve had it opened by November. Now fast forward to today, and now they’re making a new bridge for drainage.
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.8350582,-96.907669,3a,75y,36.44h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKfU7u95_QjfJVQ9oEQTB9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1 (northbound)
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.8362747,-96.9074138,3a,75y,218.51h,84.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHN1jpBYxo6olUQc6sWFzbA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DHN1jpBYxo6olUQc6sWFzbA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D244.4355%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1 (southbound)
Interesting that I-69E is completed northbound only through Driscoll. Completely leaves the southbound lanes about a half mile to the east.
Nice, I-69E is clearly posted going north from Yturria.
But how far. The Google car turned around there. :(
I wanted to know the same thing, but I guess we'll have to wait for Google street view to reach this part of I-69E or a video.
Jeff Royston was just in Driscoll on Sunday and texted us two photos:
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/us-077-n-at-us-077b-driscoll.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/us-077-n-at-us-077b-driscoll.jpg)
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/ih-069-us-077-n-driscoll.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/ih-069-us-077-n-driscoll.jpg)
He wroteQuoteInteresting that I-69E is completed northbound only through Driscoll. Completely leaves the southbound lanes about a half mile to the east.Nice, I-69E is clearly posted going north from Yturria.
But how far. The Google car turned around there. :(
I wanted to know the same thing, but I guess we'll have to wait for Google street view to reach this part of I-69E or a video.
Lame dude :thumbdown:
There's also work over the frontage road around the US-77 and I-37 sectionhttps://amp.caller.com/amp/8166554002
or really, just work around the US-77 and I-37 sections (not just the frontage road)
Northbound - https://www.google.com/maps/@27.8765577,-97.623557,3a,75y,4.5h,79.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNDaXfBo1f9LfEP6zz0sGlA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
Southbound - https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9081578,-97.6275465,3a,15y,226.16h,87.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgQmbmwEtsVo5JATtbd2iDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
what is all this for?
Jeff Royston was just in Driscoll on Sunday and texted us two photos:Exit open! Compare GMSV (1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6416647,-97.7655199,3a,15y,28.04h,92.73t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s6xqh321QyviClga132lm3A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D6xqh321QyviClga132lm3A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D78.76142%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40), 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6489408,-97.7616259,3a,19.3y,33.33h,92.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdV9aPasp-ckZJ5S0bBb14g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192))
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/us-077-n-at-us-077b-driscoll.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/us-077-n-at-us-077b-driscoll.jpg)
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/ih-069-us-077-n-driscoll.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/ih-069-us-077-n-driscoll.jpg)/me drools. Wheredis?
He wroteQuoteInteresting that I-69E is completed northbound only through Driscoll. Completely leaves the southbound lanes about a half mile to the east.
Highlights:There's a tiny little segment fully built out at Sarita; mainlines, frontage roads, interchange. OSM labels this as I-69E, though this is almost certainly jumping the gun; I don't expect there to be signage until it's connected to one of the existing segments.
I-69E/US 77: New footage in Yturria, Driscoll NB lanes opened, fully captured by Google.
I-69C/US 281: Premont Bypass under construction, left exit to be constructed.
I-69W/US 59: I-35 interchange project construction in progress.
I-69/US 59: Victoria overpass at County Rd complete, closed for drainage bridge construction. Loop 541 interchange open in Kendleton.
List might change.
There's a tiny little segment fully built out at Sarita; mainlines, frontage roads, interchange. OSM labels this as I-69E, though this is almost certainly jumping the gun; I don't expect there to be signage until it's connected to one of the existing segments.That section near Sarita seems simply like an interchange with ramps and frontage roads in the immediate vicinity - not necessarily a full freeway segment. However, it’s designed to be extended both north and south.
TXDOT need to get on the stick and get the section of US 59 upgraded from Texarkana to the existing I-69 piece around the Cleveland, TX area, especially that narrow and rather dangerous section between Teneha and Timpson.
On the N side, while it appears new bridges over Los Olmos Creek at the Kenedy/Kleberg county line aren't required (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_schematics/map_32.pdf), The Riviera relief route was on the STIP (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/transportation-planning/stips.html) for FY 2026 as of the May 2019 (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/tpp/stip/2019-2022/revisions/0519/financials.pdf) quarterly revision, it was removed for Aug 2019 (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/tpp/stip/2019-2022/revisions/0819/financials.pdf). I'm sure others will have a clearer idea what this means.You’re telling me that the Riviera bypass is going to be tolled? I didn’t see this coming at all.
TXDOT need to get on the stick and get the section of US 59 upgraded from Texarkana to the existing I-69 piece around the Cleveland, TX area, especially that narrow and rather dangerous section between Teneha and Timpson.Speaking of that section of US 59…surely the new I-69/I-369 won’t make such a 90 degree turn to head north towards Marshall like 59 does now?
TXDOT need to get on the stick and get the section of US 59 upgraded from Texarkana to the existing I-69 piece around the Cleveland, TX area, especially that narrow and rather dangerous section between Teneha and Timpson.
As for I-69C, after the Premont bypass, this would leave us with a bypass around George West, another bypass around Three Rivers (whiling not needed, most of the US-281/I-69C traffic comes from San Antonio), and then some upgrades for the following spots (like Alice bypass and the between La Gloria and Falfurrias)The Alice bypass will be worked on next year. The contract will be let in June.
Basically, I-69 south of Houston is around 40% complete whereas north of Houston is around 20% done.Construction in Fort Bend is done, afaik. Now it’s on to Hungerford and El Campo. Hungerford is already doing the frontage roads.
If I had to place a bet on which portion will be done first, it will be I-69E, then I-69C then I-69W for the three suffixed routes of I-69 south of Victoria.
Basically, I-69 south of Houston is around 40% complete whereas north of Houston is around 20% done.Construction in Fort Bend is done, afaik. Now it’s on to Hungerford and El Campo. Hungerford is already doing the frontage roads.
If I had to place a bet on which portion will be done first, it will be I-69E, then I-69C then I-69W for the three suffixed routes of I-69 south of Victoria.
Probably when the FHWA approves the Interstate designation and concurrence, speculating early next year.Basically, I-69 south of Houston is around 40% complete whereas north of Houston is around 20% done.Construction in Fort Bend is done, afaik. Now it’s on to Hungerford and El Campo. Hungerford is already doing the frontage roads.
If I had to place a bet on which portion will be done first, it will be I-69E, then I-69C then I-69W for the three suffixed routes of I-69 south of Victoria.
I wonder when I-69 will be extended southwards again from Rosenberg?
That document is dated 4/3/2012; things have likely changed since then. Didn't Texas decide to move away from new toll facilities a while back?it appears new bridges over Los Olmos Creek at the Kenedy/Kleberg county line aren't required (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_schematics/map_32.pdf)You’re telling me that the Riviera bypass is going to be tolled? I didn’t see this coming at all.
Basically, I-69 south of Houston is around 40% complete whereas north of Houston is around 20% done.It also helps that Corpus Christi (which has the beaches) and the RGV (which has the South Padre Island) are more tour-worthy than East Texas, even when not by much. Not to mention how RGV is growing
If I had to place a bet on which portion will be done first, it will be I-69E, then I-69C then I-69W for the three suffixed routes of I-69 south of Victoria.
Oops. I forgot. The TTC project for tolls was no good and abandoned.That document is dated 4/3/2012; things have likely changed since then. Didn't Texas decide to move away from new toll facilities a while back?it appears new bridges over Los Olmos Creek at the Kenedy/Kleberg county line aren't required (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_schematics/map_32.pdf)You’re telling me that the Riviera bypass is going to be tolled? I didn’t see this coming at all.
And no shoulders either (except for the short sections by the bridges).TXDOT need to get on the stick and get the section of US 59 upgraded from Texarkana to the existing I-69 piece around the Cleveland, TX area, especially that narrow and rather dangerous section between Teneha and Timpson.
Huh? Tenaha to Timpson is a 4 lane affair today. Are you speaking to the fact it has no median?
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/pharr.htmI-69E construction barely makes it into Kenedy County from Willacy. Looks like just enough to cover the Thomas Ranch Rd interchange at the county line.
Oops. I forgot. The TTC project for tolls was no good and abandoned.That document is dated 4/3/2012; things have likely changed since then. Didn't Texas decide to move away from new toll facilities a while back?it appears new bridges over Los Olmos Creek at the Kenedy/Kleberg county line aren't required (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_schematics/map_32.pdf)You’re telling me that the Riviera bypass is going to be tolled? I didn’t see this coming at all.
New imagery surfaced on Google Maps on US 59 in Hungerford (Wharton County) and Fort Bend County. The SB Loop 541 exit is open. There are additionally new BGSs. The Fort Bend stretch before Rosenberg is not designated as I-69. In Hungerford new bridges are being constructed and new frontage roads are being built. I’m not sure if the new bridge at the Wharton/Fort Bend county line will be a frontage road or not.
Not a bad plan. Yet TxDOT will route I-69W on the current US 59 routing around Laredo, with the sharp turn. One of my pet peeves. I wish TxDOT bought some land for later use to make it more direct.New imagery surfaced on Google Maps on US 59 in Hungerford (Wharton County) and Fort Bend County. The SB Loop 541 exit is open. There are additionally new BGSs. The Fort Bend stretch before Rosenberg is not designated as I-69. In Hungerford new bridges are being constructed and new frontage roads are being built. I’m not sure if the new bridge at the Wharton/Fort Bend county line will be a frontage road or not.
It looks like the bridge next to the current eastbound road will be the freeway for eastbound. This is since the current roadway turns back to pre-freeway after the westbound frontage road ends in a cul-de-sac.
Additionally for US 59 upgrading I thought of a new freeway coming out of the Bob Bullock Loop and connecting with US 59 outside of Laredo. I am not sure if something like this was previously planned or not. However, one notable positive is that there will be no known displacements of residence or business. One potential downside though is probably bypassing retail traffic.
New imagery surfaced on Google Maps on US 59 in Hungerford (Wharton County) and Fort Bend County. The SB Loop 541 exit is open.Link? I don't see this.
https://goo.gl/maps/J7NvtW8WE5stYdqf7New imagery surfaced on Google Maps on US 59 in Hungerford (Wharton County) and Fort Bend County. The SB Loop 541 exit is open.Link? I don't see this.
The updated Street View imagery in Hungerford is available in Google Earth. When Thegeet said the imagery was new he didn't say how new. The imagery is dated from this month, December 2021.Surry. Btw, I am intrigued to see how they handle the lanes, and amy potential slight realignment, as seen on their schematic sheet.
New I-69 signage south of RosenburgI was casually checking the new street view yesterday, so how did i not noticed this?
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5298312,-95.8649107,3a,16.2y,284.12h,88.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKSGiPZBNsyiz3sMwU08pVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://goo.gl/maps/J7NvtW8WE5stYdqf7Aah, thanks. I was just checking regular imagery, not Street View. :pan:
New I-69 signage south of RosenburgAnd as soon as you drive ahead a few yards to the ramp gore, it's plain US59 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5293706,-95.865656,3a,15y,259.23h,90.52t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sqNJenPSbxIvBKPQGzz5uiw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40?hl=en&authuser=0). LOL what a tease.
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5298312,-95.8649107,3a,16.2y,284.12h,88.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKSGiPZBNsyiz3sMwU08pVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://goo.gl/maps/J7NvtW8WE5stYdqf7Aah, thanks. I was just checking regular imagery, not Street View. :pan:New I-69 signage south of RosenburgAnd as soon as you drive ahead a few yards to the ramp gore, it's plain US59 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5293706,-95.865656,3a,15y,259.23h,90.52t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sqNJenPSbxIvBKPQGzz5uiw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40?hl=en&authuser=0). LOL what a tease.
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5298312,-95.8649107,3a,16.2y,284.12h,88.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKSGiPZBNsyiz3sMwU08pVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
Meanwhile heading the other direction, there's a new I-69 sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5346416,-95.8550902,3a,16.4y,105.91h,91.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_KuHZD8Am6EKLXW3x-51Gg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0) that wasn't there in May. In one sense, not as big a deal in that it's already north of the previously accepted end @ Spur 529, but at least it's something? But this sign's new, darnit! :D
With no access to the mainlanes between here & Spur 529, one could argue that with I-69 already in progress, it begins at least at the last access point to the mainlanes behind the camera car. ...Whever one deems that to be.
Also, Exit 94 is signed & numbered in both (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5273975,-95.8683937,3a,25.4y,72.03h,95.53t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1suGFWk364YlEIHN9AoOFpHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) directions (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5349374,-95.8481701,3a,15y,285.45h,92t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1smabr6rf2UmrtYPEkwULYRQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dmabr6rf2UmrtYPEkwULYRQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D20.883677%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40). South of here, where work is more clearly ongoing, no exit numbers.
Does this mean something? "This is Exit 94 from the thing that has an Exit 94"? You be the judge.
*deep breath*
I think I'll extend I-69 a tiny bit in TravelMapping...
Newer I-69E shields in Robstown, Texas
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7752819,-97.6686443,3a,15y,148.98h,77.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D132.38371%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7855692,-97.6548781,3a,15y,73.95h,83.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMD3MPsKA8dkrnJGXFkp_jw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
Newer I-69E shields in Robstown, Texas
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7752819,-97.6686443,3a,15y,148.98h,77.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D132.38371%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7855692,-97.6548781,3a,15y,73.95h,83.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMD3MPsKA8dkrnJGXFkp_jw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
Strange that in the 2nd link, there is the one I-69E shield you referenced, but at the same intersection (for those looking east on TX 44), there is a non-suffixed I-69 one, and up past the RR track on the service road, another one that's just I-69. Hopefully by the next signage contract (but preferably sooner), there will be uniformity amongst the shields.
Newer I-69E shields in Robstown, Texas
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7752819,-97.6686443,3a,15y,148.98h,77.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D132.38371%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7855692,-97.6548781,3a,15y,73.95h,83.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMD3MPsKA8dkrnJGXFkp_jw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
Strange that in the 2nd link, there is the one I-69E shield you referenced, but at the same intersection (for those looking east on TX 44), there is a non-suffixed I-69 one, and up past the RR track on the service road, another one that's just I-69. Hopefully by the next signage contract (but preferably sooner), there will be uniformity amongst the shields.
I have found it odd that they would half replace the I-69 signs with I-69E signs at the intersection.
I look forward to Interstate 69E's completion between Raymondville and Robstown. Then Interstate 2 and Interstate 69C will finally connect with the rest of the Interstate System. Maybe the Parking Area north of Raymondville could be upgraded into a Rest Area: https://www.google.com/maps/@26.6983513,-97.7645573,2066m/data=!3m1!1e3.
https://goo.gl/maps/5tJ4jSTMc5FGHTHp9
https://goo.gl/maps/pC9abMTS1rW9P4PJ6
Recent SV imagery of a new bridge between Wharton and Hungerford. Will this be part of a new interchange a la FM 762 (Exit 101) Or will it replace one of the existing lanes?
https://goo.gl/maps/5tJ4jSTMc5FGHTHp9
https://goo.gl/maps/pC9abMTS1rW9P4PJ6
Recent SV imagery of a new bridge between Wharton and Hungerford. Will this be part of a new interchange a la FM 762 (Exit 101) Or will it replace one of the existing lanes?
That'll replace part of the southbound lanes per the schematic. Interesting thing is the design on that bent is used by the Houston District on their projects using the Horizontal Scheme from their Green Ribbon Project. Aside from the I-10 widening project that runs through the Houston and Yoakum Districts, this is the first time I've seen a Houston Green Ribbon Project scheme outside of the Houston District that isn't tied to a project that crosses into the Houston District.
In case they ever have to expand the southern direct Lufkin ramps eventually (from US-59 south of Lufkin to the loop), how can they do it?They would have to tear down and have more room to do so, AFAIK.
it's only 1x1 as I speak
In case they ever have to expand the southern direct Lufkin ramps eventually (from US-59 south of Lufkin to the loop), how can they do it?
it's only 1x1 as I speak
The existing alignment could likely be utilized as an urban freeway, but the flyovers need to be completely reconstructed to at least have 2 lanes each way, and ideally have continuity and a 55 mph design.The exit could be converted into a “left exit” . I also agree that an urban freeway could’ve been better, had it not been for businesses and development.
The rest of the bypass could be reconstructed to have an urban 2x2 or 3x3 with full control of access and a 65-70 mph design.
The northern end of the bypass is done better, even with the “exit” situation for northbound.
Given the bypass has at least access control for most parts, and particularly the southern substandard section in question, it’s reasonable to evaluate upgrading that to modern standards and even 6 lanes if needed and retain the urban freeway with easy access to a number of businesses, stores, hotels, restaurants, etc. via interchanges.
Not sure if an outer bypass is fully warranted, unless volumes are high enough it’s desired to avoid an urban situation altogether.
The existing alignment could likely be utilized as an urban freeway, but the flyovers need to be completely reconstructed to at least have 2 lanes each way, and ideally have continuity and a 55 mph design.The exit could be converted into a “left exit” . I also agree that an urban freeway could’ve been better, had it not been for businesses and development.
The rest of the bypass could be reconstructed to have an urban 2x2 or 3x3 with full control of access and a 65-70 mph design.
The northern end of the bypass is done better, even with the “exit” situation for northbound.
Given the bypass has at least access control for most parts, and particularly the southern substandard section in question, it’s reasonable to evaluate upgrading that to modern standards and even 6 lanes if needed and retain the urban freeway with easy access to a number of businesses, stores, hotels, restaurants, etc. via interchanges.
Not sure if an outer bypass is fully warranted, unless volumes are high enough it’s desired to avoid an urban situation altogether.
The existing alignment could likely be utilized as an urban freeway, but the flyovers need to be completely reconstructed to at least have 2 lanes each way, and ideally have continuity and a 55 mph design.
The rest of the bypass could be reconstructed to have an urban 2x2 or 3x3 with full control of access and a 65-70 mph design.
The northern end of the bypass is done better, even with the “exit” situation for northbound.
Given the bypass has at least access control for most parts, and particularly the southern substandard section in question, it’s reasonable to evaluate upgrading that to modern standards and even 6 lanes if needed and retain the urban freeway with easy access to a number of businesses, stores, hotels, restaurants, etc. via interchanges.
Not sure if an outer bypass is fully warranted, unless volumes are high enough it’s desired to avoid an urban situation altogether.
The existing alignment could likely be utilized as an urban freeway, but the flyovers need to be completely reconstructed to at least have 2 lanes each way, and ideally have continuity and a 55 mph design.
The rest of the bypass could be reconstructed to have an urban 2x2 or 3x3 with full control of access and a 65-70 mph design.
The northern end of the bypass is done better, even with the “exit” situation for northbound.
Given the bypass has at least access control for most parts, and particularly the southern substandard section in question, it’s reasonable to evaluate upgrading that to modern standards and even 6 lanes if needed and retain the urban freeway with easy access to a number of businesses, stores, hotels, restaurants, etc. via interchanges.
Not sure if an outer bypass is fully warranted, unless volumes are high enough it’s desired to avoid an urban situation altogether.
Here's a fictional redesign I came up with for that junction, sort of illustrating the concept I mentioned above. The flyovers have a curve radius capable of handling a 60 mph design speed, and would be 2 lanes in each direction.
The red indicates the I-69 mainline.
(https://i.ibb.co/0n4TtZ9/Lufkin-Bypass-Redesign.png)
Whiling we're on the subject of future direct rampsRight.
When they do eventually have to make one for Carthage, should they turn to the left side of the loop or the right side of the loop?
Whiling we're on the subject of future direct rampsRight.
When they do eventually have to make one for Carthage, should they turn to the left side of the loop or the right side of the loop?
US 59 is already signed to the right, so it makes sense to continue that.The folks in Carthage would prefer left.....Whiling we're on the subject of future direct rampsRight.
When they do eventually have to make one for Carthage, should they turn to the left side of the loop or the right side of the loop?
US 59 is already signed to the right, so it makes sense to continue that.The folks in Carthage would prefer left.....Whiling we're on the subject of future direct rampsRight.
When they do eventually have to make one for Carthage, should they turn to the left side of the loop or the right side of the loop?
Does that mean they will undo US 59 from the East?US 59 is already signed to the right, so it makes sense to continue that.The folks in Carthage would prefer left.....Whiling we're on the subject of future direct rampsRight.
When they do eventually have to make one for Carthage, should they turn to the left side of the loop or the right side of the loop?
Yes BUT....
It is a continuous loop. Most of the business in Carthage is on the west loop. TXDOT has been incrementally improving the west loop to freeway. The only seeming impediments to freeway with frontage roads on the West Loop is the part they have already started upgrading. THe Atlanta District Chief engineer previously was the Panola County TXDOT chief, the powers that be in Carthage have an inroad.
Does that mean they will undo US 59 from the East?US 59 is already signed to the right, so it makes sense to continue that.The folks in Carthage would prefer left.....Whiling we're on the subject of future direct rampsRight.
When they do eventually have to make one for Carthage, should they turn to the left side of the loop or the right side of the loop?
Yes BUT....
It is a continuous loop. Most of the business in Carthage is on the west loop. TXDOT has been incrementally improving the west loop to freeway. The only seeming impediments to freeway with frontage roads on the West Loop is the part they have already started upgrading. THe Atlanta District Chief engineer previously was the Panola County TXDOT chief, the powers that be in Carthage have an inroad.
Public hearing regarding the US-77 bypass around Sinton to interstate standards.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/011322.html
I'd like to see some more progress on a Refugio or Odem bypass over this type of project... US-77 already functions as a 75 mph divided highway with no traffic signals around Sinton. Those areas seem higher priority, yet we just keep getting more rural upgrade projects. Not saying all of US-77 / US-59 should not be freeway between Corpus Christi and Houston eventually... but the rural areas should be last.
Interesting about the hearings, but in unrelated (but related to the area) news, a Love's Gas Station with a McDonald's opened on FM 1945:That's been open since at least 2018.
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.0110534,-97.5305367,3a,15y,289.84h,85.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfYe2qygc2bvz7IBPIW1dBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Interesting about the hearings, but in unrelated (but related to the area) news, a Love's Gas Station with a McDonald's opened on FM 1945:That's been open since at least 2018.
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.0110534,-97.5305367,3a,15y,289.84h,85.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfYe2qygc2bvz7IBPIW1dBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There isn't much that needs to be done in Sinton. Just the extension of frontage roads to cut off some driveways connecting directly to the US-77 main lanes. A bridge over County Road 1196 will be necessary. But it's too close to the exit for TX-188 to get one for itself (not without causing a bunch of weaving conflicts). I guess Sinton would be a piece of "low hanging fruit."What if they decided to make the overpass over US 77. I do realize that this practice is being replaced (see US 59 upgrade), but it’s still possible. But more than likely, it will be a dual interchange thing like US 59 in Edna. (Well that one has three roads, but still.)
Still it would seem to make more sense for TX DOT to tackle the Odem bypass project as early as anything else. That's the first stop NE of the split with I-37. It's something that can be signed as I-69E as soon as it is completed since it would be connected to I-37.
Still it would seem to make more sense for TX DOT to tackle the Odem bypass project as early as anything else. That's the first stop NE of the split with I-37. It's something that can be signed as I-69E as soon as it is completed since it would be connected to I-37.That, and interstate designations aside altogether, Odem and Refugio are the last towns / slow downs between Corpus Christi and Houston, the rest of the corridor is free-flowing 75 mph divided highway with zero traffic signals. These two gaps need to be filled.
What if they decided to make the overpass over US 77.
Does this mean they will have to tear down what looks like fairly recently paved on and off ramps in order to implement X-ramps?Quote from: ThegeetWhat if they decided to make the overpass over US 77.
Are you talking about the intersection in Sinton with County Road 1196? No, I think it would be worse to bridge that over the existing US-77 main lanes. Doing so would disrupt its direct at-grade connections with the businesses alongside existing US-77. The bridge would have to span over the current US-77 main lanes and the flanking frontage roads in order to build in a reasonable incline grade for the bridge approaches. It might possibly cost a little more, but it would be less disruptive for US-77 to leap-frog over CR-1196.
I have a feeling the a reroute around Refugio will be the final piece of the I-69E branch. Refugio is a major stopping town for rest, refueling, dining, etc. I believe they will get to Woodsboro, Odem, and Riviera before Refugio. Riviera is also the last stopping town for drivers southbound on US-77 (they won't see anything for almost 60 miles later in Raymondville). Until the last couple of decades, it used to be that Kingsville was that last stopover until Raymondville (72-mile stretch). Towns like Ricardo and Woodsboro might not need a bypass around it since it's already four-lanes right through those towns; just need a couple of overpasses in each town.Refugio is indeed set for 2031 construction. Therefore, we won’t expect anything except development this decade.
As for I-69C, a bypass around Premont would be the only thing left along US-281. Reroutes around Alice, Falfurrias, and Encino have already been done long ago.
Does this mean they will have to tear down what looks like fairly recently paved on and off ramps in order to implement X-ramps?
Aside from some projects in the Victoria area it looks like TX DOT is building out I-69 between Houston and Corpus Christi in a fairly linear direction from Houston going farther Southeast.They also need to work on Jackson County stretch. Other than Edna, it needs new frontage roads and interchanges.(And possibly a new rest area) Txdot isn’t expected to start studies until the next decade, let alone construction.
In the near term I-69 is will soon be completed down to the Wharton area. Farther down to El Campo, Louise, Ganado, Edna and Inez the existing US-59 main lanes already have a lot of grade separations and exits. Much of the freeway quality stuff is already Interstate quality. Most of the remaining upgrade work along that stretch will involve building new frontage roads and removing at-grade crossings between towns. That could actually get finished pretty quickly
Either way, the work in Refugio could indeed end up being the last to do along the Houston-Corpus Christi stretch.Quote from: ThegeetDoes this mean they will have to tear down what looks like fairly recently paved on and off ramps in order to implement X-ramps?
I don't think TX DOT is going to spend that kind of money there. Grade-separated, braided X ramps would be an extravagance in that location. I think they'll just hop CR-1196 over US-77 and not give it any slip ramps between the frontage roads and US-77 main lanes. The locals will have to take the frontage roads to the TX-188 intersection to get on the US-77 main lanes.
Does this mean they will have to tear down what looks like fairly recently paved on and off ramps in order to implement X-ramps?Quote from: ThegeetWhat if they decided to make the overpass over US 77.
Are you talking about the intersection in Sinton with County Road 1196? No, I think it would be worse to bridge that over the existing US-77 main lanes. Doing so would disrupt its direct at-grade connections with the businesses alongside existing US-77. The bridge would have to span over the current US-77 main lanes and the flanking frontage roads in order to build in a reasonable incline grade for the bridge approaches. It might possibly cost a little more, but it would be less disruptive for US-77 to leap-frog over CR-1196.
Refugio is indeed set for 2031 construction. Therefore, we won’t expect anything except development this decade.Cite? A little Googling around and I came up with 2029.
I was checking the status on the TxDOT project tracker. https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/project-tracker.htmlRefugio is indeed set for 2031 construction. Therefore, we won’t expect anything except development this decade.Cite? A little Googling around and I came up with 2029.
Nov 2020: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/i69-driven-by-texans/future-i69-tabloids.pdf
Nov 2021: https://apps3.txdot.gov/apps/estip/fileloader.ashx?pg_file_id=3644
Nov 2020: The map on page 2 of https://destinyhosted.com/nuecedocs/2021/CC-REG/20210120_589/13038_Alliance_I69-_Report.pdf lists the Refugio Relief Route as "UTP Funded: 2025 - 2030".
There isn't much that needs to be done in Sinton.
While they're coming up with stuff to do in Sinton, they should really consider realigning US-181. The route it takes through town is dumb as hell. It should just stay on the bypass that is currently signed as TX-89.
Some I-69/US-59 project concept of a some upgrade at Lufkin near Moffett overpassThat’s the Lufkin frontage road project between Moffett Rd. and SH 103 that’s in progress.
https://lufkindailynews.com/news/community/article_d8e68324-9253-50f9-955a-5fd9a857ec34.html
Also meanwhile, TxDOT is also apparently planning to upgrade SH-36 between I-69/US-59 in Rosenburg and US-290 in BrenhamImagine if it took ages to upgrade US 290.
they're really considering upgrading SH-36 before upgrading the rest of US-290, are they
Interstate standards require certain lane widths, certain safety standards, eliminating any crossovers of main lanes with other roads, providing access roads and more, Oaks said.heh
Because it's a slow day at work, and because I'm curious, I did a quick trip down Future I-369/69/E?C/W (Via Google maps, and consulting other websites) to get an idea of what is either finished or under construction for the entire route.
I-369
Texarkana - Complete from I-30 to just short of the US-59 interchange (which will have to be rebuilt)
Domino - Completed interchange at FM3129
Atlanta - Partially complete interchange at North End of bypass (will probably have to be completely rebuilt)
Marshall - Partially complete interchange on Loop 390 near with TX 43 (Will require second lane and frontage roads)
Carthage - Loop with interchanges, but will require extensive upgrading which ever side the route follows.
When can we expect a flyover in Carthage?
I-69 overpass @ FM 2914 (just below Shepherd) - also completed
Just drove south to Bishop. Other than Calallen (a district within the city limits of CC), new I-69E signs were posted near the entrance ramps. Nearly all I-69 signs were replaced, except a few SB n the south side of Robstown. The Business 77 NB exit for Driscoll is also open. The completed Driscoll overpasses are now painted beige and salmon. The SB bypass is about 85% paved. The reassurance markers on the main lanes still show I-69 instead of I-69E. Unfortunately, I couldn’t take enough pictures, but the new I-69E signs (sorry, no new ones on BGS) are appearing throughout the freeway. I will upload the pictures soon.
Virtually all of Brownsville to Houston is already free-flowing - only exceptions being Riviera, Odem, and Refugio now.
In regards to free flowing, or full interstate standards?Virtually all of Brownsville to Houston is already free-flowing - only exceptions being Riviera, Odem, and Refugio now.
Very neat. :bigass:
When do we think this portion from Brownsville to Houston will be complete?
Virtually all of Brownsville to Houston is already free-flowing - only exceptions being Riviera, Odem, and Refugio now.
The rate at which they're going right now, I would say the by the end of the next decade (maybe sooner), you'll have a fully-functional interstate route from Houston to Brownsville.Virtually all of Brownsville to Houston is already free-flowing - only exceptions being Riviera, Odem, and Refugio now.
Very neat. :bigass:
When do we think this portion from Brownsville to Houston will be complete?
Now if only US-290 is a fully free-flow, if not functional interstate from Houston to Austin tooThe rate at which they're going right now, I would say the by the end of the next decade (maybe sooner), you'll have a fully-functional interstate route from Houston to Brownsville.Virtually all of Brownsville to Houston is already free-flowing - only exceptions being Riviera, Odem, and Refugio now.
Very neat. :bigass:
When do we think this portion from Brownsville to Houston will be complete?
Interstate standards… decades off unless upgrades are expedited on those long rural segments to add continuous frontage roads and rural overpasses every few miles. South of I-37 will likely be completed within the next decade, the segment north of I-37 is further away.
Yes, we already have TX-71 (which is nearly free-flow from Austin to Columbus), but that is more of a alternative in the same way TX-6 is to I-45 or US-90 Alt is to I-10 (tho TX-71 is more popular than those other two), whiling i think US-290 has more traffic..........if i'm not mistaken
I highly think that I-69 from Victoria to Houston will be finished in about 2040. They still have to work on Jackson county, which has segments of non-freeway road, and they will want to replace every overpass over US 59. I think funding is a key part in time. They even told me that Jackson county wouldn’t begin studies until the mid 2030’s.
I don't expect Houston-Victoria to be done by 2030.The weird thing is they say it is a freeway, but it is still called “ Convert Non-Freeway” .
Construction progress would have to be much faster than it's been over the past 8 years.
The southern extent of I-69 has been at roughly Spur 529 since 2013, and only now does it look like the next section is getting ready to open up. That'll get us to what, Wharton or Hungerford at best, about 1/3 of the way there?
El Campo looks like it might be substantially ready, but Ganado and Edna, while mostly freeway, would want more complete one-way frontage road setups, with reconfigured ramps for more high-speed movement. Unsure about bridge clearance, but they might need to be redone anyway due to road width; the one place I peeked at GMSV the shoulders looked a bit narrow.
The Project Tracker shows a "Convert NoN-Freeway" corridor study from the N end of US59Bus (Victoria) to the Victoria/Jackson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Jackson) county line with construction in 10+years.
I fully expect I-69E between Corpus and the RGV to be completely interstate-grade by 2030. I also believe unsuffixed I-69 in Texas will be completely free flowing up to Garrison by then, given how the Corrigan and Diboll bypasses are projected to commence shortly.
^ some typos & autocorrect fails, you've just gotta leave in for the lulz! :-DExactly. I wanted us to get a good laugh.
Forgive me for asking but...how much work for I-69 will need to be done in little Marion County and around the "Bed and breakfast capital of Texas", Jefferson?Well, if they decide to build west of Jefferson, it would be three interchanges (including the Business interchanges), but if East, then four total.
When the original talk years ago, had the freeway veering left about where the new truck stop is. (across from Jefferson Street on Walcott..) This appears to be off the table now. Going west, Big Cypress is not going to be a simple cross. On the east it is a little simpler. You would cross Big Cypress and the Scenic Railway with one facility,cross FM-34, cross KCS, and then cross UPRR and SH 49 with one facility.
There are also some historic property issues to the west.
Looks like I-37 & US 77 interchange is finally being worked on. Hopefully it's to upgrade the interchange :colorful:
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9038242,-97.6304114,3a,75y,275.8h,89.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDZ6pxMhDNVQnwPJbJpy69A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DDZ6pxMhDNVQnwPJbJpy69A%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D231.48509%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9031203,-97.631788,3a,75y,159.72h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-YoE7s9BZjRR0mfdJavNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9031203,-97.631788,3a,75y,159.72h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-YoE7s9BZjRR0mfdJavNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
Looks like I-37 & US 77 interchange is finally being worked on. Hopefully it's to upgrade the interchange :colorful:
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9038242,-97.6304114,3a,75y,275.8h,89.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDZ6pxMhDNVQnwPJbJpy69A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DDZ6pxMhDNVQnwPJbJpy69A%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D231.48509%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9031203,-97.631788,3a,75y,159.72h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-YoE7s9BZjRR0mfdJavNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9031203,-97.631788,3a,75y,159.72h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-YoE7s9BZjRR0mfdJavNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
Isn't that for the bridge itself and not for the interchange?
I-69E sign spotted near SH 44 interchange: https://goo.gl/maps/a92tNST8Q5m1an7y6
They’re also using at least one with Series C, which is inexplicably used on US 59 in Rosenberg.Quote from: ThegeetI-69E sign spotted near SH 44 interchange: https://goo.gl/maps/a92tNST8Q5m1an7y6
Ugh, TX DOT really needs to be using Series C letters on those I-69E shields. Series D just doesn't fit worth a damn. And the neutered I-69E shields they have up in various places in South Texas are just freaking horrible.
Breaking News: Google Maps has reported a northbound closure on US 77 in Driscoll. This could be the connection in progress for the new I-69E bypass. Or maybe it was an accident. Still, it is something worth monitoring.
Waze shows the Northbound lane of the bypass as being open so you’re likely right.
New BGSs for I-69W: https://goo.gl/maps/4UoSMeL3PjBHSmP58
New BGSs for I-69W: https://goo.gl/maps/4UoSMeL3PjBHSmP58
I hope to God they fixed that sign before they hoisted it into place--that's a pretty significant error.
It’s a visual error with GSV. If you move down a frame you can see the sign is correct.New BGSs for I-69W: https://goo.gl/maps/4UoSMeL3PjBHSmP58
I hope to God they fixed that sign before they hoisted it into place--that's a pretty significant error.
I'm still not seeing the actual error that requires replacing.The link that I posted contained a glitch by Google on one of the signs, and it looked like a misspelling of “Laredo” and “Solitary” .
I'm still not seeing the actual error that requires replacing.
Oops. Big Google Translate moment.I'm still not seeing the actual error that requires replacing.
There is indeed a StreetView stitching error that goes away when you advance or retreat one step. But the underlying legend is incorrect. The sign says "Laredo Columbia Solitary Bridge"; the actual name of the facility is Laredo-Colombia Solidarity Bridge.
There is indeed a StreetView stitching error that goes away when you advance or retreat one step. But the underlying legend is incorrect. The sign says "Laredo Columbia Solitary Bridge"; the actual name of the facility is Laredo-Colombia Solidarity Bridge.
Bids were opened today for upgrading an 8-mile section of US 77 (I-69E) from south of the Kingsville bypass to south of road 628 (north of Riviera). Looking at the plans, the full length will have continuous frontage roads in both directions, and the existing 300-foot-wide right-of-way is mostly kept as-is without widening the corridor.
Unfortunately bids are well over budget (23.6%) in spite of 6 bidders. A project on I-10 in Beaumont came at $307 million, 11% over budget. I think inflation has arrived. http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033001.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033001.htm)
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033002.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033002.htm)
County: KLEBERG Let Date: 03/03/22
Type: CONVERT NON-FREEWAY Seq No: 3002
Time: 1184 WORKING DAYS Project ID: C 102-4-97
Highway: US 77 Contract #: 03223002
Length: 8.648 CCSJ: 0102-04-097
Limits:
From: CR 2130 Check: $100,000
To: 1.5 MI. N. OF SH 285 Misc Cost:
Estimate $142,982,383.44 % Over/Under Company
Bidder 1 $176,703,809.06 +23.58% ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 2 $178,477,111.34 +24.82% POSILLICO CIVIL, INC.
Bidder 3 $180,874,386.05 +26.50% JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Bidder 4 $182,953,594.08 +27.96% WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 5 $199,965,468.73 +39.85% ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 6 $203,692,480.95 +42.46% SOUTHLAND CONTRACTING, INC.
Is TxDOT going to award a contract based on the overpriced bids, or are they going to re-bid the project to see if they can get something lower?
I was thinking they might reject the bids and reduce the scope of the project to fit the available funds they have in hand. Maybe break it out into multiple phases: the first phase paid for by whatever funds they have in hand now, and contracts to cover later phases of work when additional funding becomes available.Is TxDOT going to award a contract based on the overpriced bids, or are they going to re-bid the project to see if they can get something lower?
This is just speculation on my part, but I think not, because six prime bids translates into a competitive bidding process and there have been significant cost increases in underlying inputs such as labor, petroleum products, construction materials, etc. While TxDOT could in theory re-scope the project to bring the headline cost down, like they did with I-10 just northwest of El Paso, I don't see any obvious ways to do that for this project while increasing output per dollar.
Can’t they redirect funds to other projects if I-69?I was thinking they might reject the bids and reduce the scope of the project to fit the available funds they have in hand. Maybe break it out into multiple phases: the first phase paid for by whatever funds they have in hand now, and contracts to cover later phases of work when additional funding becomes available.Is TxDOT going to award a contract based on the overpriced bids, or are they going to re-bid the project to see if they can get something lower?
This is just speculation on my part, but I think not, because six prime bids translates into a competitive bidding process and there have been significant cost increases in underlying inputs such as labor, petroleum products, construction materials, etc. While TxDOT could in theory re-scope the project to bring the headline cost down, like they did with I-10 just northwest of El Paso, I don't see any obvious ways to do that for this project while increasing output per dollar.
Actually, with gasoline prices spiking lately I can't help but wonder if some pending projects could be suspended temporarily.Gas prices in South Texas (where I live) have dropped slightly recently.
Bids were opened today for upgrading an 8-mile section of US 77 (I-69E) from south of the Kingsville bypass to south of road 628 (north of Riviera). Looking at the plans, the full length will have continuous frontage roads in both directions, and the existing 300-foot-wide right-of-way is mostly kept as-is without widening the corridor.
Unfortunately bids are well over budget (23.6%) in spite of 6 bidders. A project on I-10 in Beaumont came at $307 million, 11% over budget. I think inflation has arrived. http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033001.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033001.htm)
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033002.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033002.htm)
Will any of the existing business routes be converted into Interstate 69 Business Routes? Especially if the US Highways the existing and future Interstate 69s parallel are truncated?Either that or maybe new state “Loop” routes are designated or brought back. (i.e., Loop 525 in El Campo, Loop 183 in Wharton and Hungerford)
Will any of the existing business routes be converted into Interstate 69 Business Routes? Especially if the US Highways the existing and future Interstate 69s parallel are truncated?Either that or maybe new state “Loop” routes are designated or brought back. (i.e., Loop 525 in El Campo, Loop 183 in Wharton and Hungerford)
I think it has to be a certain long enough length. The Victoria El Campo and Wharton routes are long enough I believe. If anything, why was Loop 175 the designation for the southern Victoria loop?Will any of the existing business routes be converted into Interstate 69 Business Routes? Especially if the US Highways the existing and future Interstate 69s parallel are truncated?Either that or maybe new state “Loop” routes are designated or brought back. (i.e., Loop 525 in El Campo, Loop 183 in Wharton and Hungerford)
That has always fascinated me. How Texas decides when to use a business route and when to use a loop designation to serve the same purpose. There is zero constancy.
I think it has to be a certain long enough length. The Victoria El Campo and Wharton routes are long enough I believe. If anything, why was Loop 175 the designation for the southern Victoria loop?Will any of the existing business routes be converted into Interstate 69 Business Routes? Especially if the US Highways the existing and future Interstate 69s parallel are truncated?Either that or maybe new state “Loop” routes are designated or brought back. (i.e., Loop 525 in El Campo, Loop 183 in Wharton and Hungerford)
That has always fascinated me. How Texas decides when to use a business route and when to use a loop designation to serve the same purpose. There is zero constancy.
BUSINESS INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 10-G
Minute Order 100223, dated 01/21/1991; DesLtr 01-1992, dated 01/30/1992
From IH 10 west of Fort Stockton, eastward to IH 10 east of Fort Stockton, a distance of approximately 4.4 miles. (Pecos County) New designation; this mileage transferred from US 290.
STATE HIGHWAY LOOP NO. 466
Minute Order 060985, dated 06/12/1968; Adm. Cir. 051-1968, dated 06/15/1968
Ozona Loop - From IH 10 west of Ozona, eastward along old location of US 290 to IH 10, east of Ozona. (Crockett County) New designation; to be marked US 290 business route; effective when IH 10 is open to through traffic.
STATE HIGHWAY LOOP NO. 467
Minute Order 061007, dated 06/12/1968; Adm. Cir. 051-1968, dated 06/15/1968
Sonora Loop - From IH 10 west of Sonora, eastward along old location US 290 to IH 10 east of Sonora. (Sutton County) New designation; to be marked US 290 business route; effective when IH 10 is open to through traffic.
The Corrigan Bypass is about to be let on Thursday: https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/btc/btcp_2.htm#017604056
The Corrigan Bypass is about to be let on Thursday: https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/btc/btcp_2.htm#017604056
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05053201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05053201.htm)
Bid is 15% above estimate. I expect the low bid to be approved and proceed to construction. The project length on IH 69 is 6.4 miles (not 10.86 miles)
County: POLK Let Date: 05/05/22
Type: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT Seq No: 3201
Time: 902 WORKING DAYS Project ID: NH 2013(222)
Highway: US 59 Contract #: 05223201
Length: 10.860 CCSJ: 0176-04-056
Limits:
From: 3.4 MI N OF US 287 Check: $100,000
To: US 287 Misc Cost:
Estimate $150,506,214.09 % Over/Under Company
Bidder 1 $172,799,108.00 +14.81% JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Bidder 2 $182,816,096.99 +21.47% SACYR CONSTRUCTION USA LLC
Bidder 3 $187,266,075.72 +24.42% WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 4 $197,961,185.45 +31.53% WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 5 $215,777,432.19 +43.37% JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY
Not surprising that bids are coming in significantly above the Engineer's estimate with rampant inflation, not to mention fuel costs. So from 3.4 mi N of US-287 to US-287 would only cover the northern half of the Corrigan Bypass. So what about the southern half?
Corrigan is about 14 miles South of Diboll. What's the latest with the Diboll bypass? According to some online news articles the process to clear the ROW has been underway for some time. Completion was in the 2024-25 time frame (depending on the news article).
Once a contractor's bid is chosen how long will it be for construction to get started on the Corrigan bypass?First, the contractor has to sign a contract. Then, it has 90 days to start construction. The signing can take anywhere from a week to a year. The bid for US 59 Frontage road project between US 87 and SH 185 in Victoria was chosen in September and work didn’t start until April.
Corrigan is about 14 miles South of Diboll. What's the latest with the Diboll bypass? According to some online news articles the process to clear the ROW has been underway for some time. Completion was in the 2024-25 time frame (depending on the news article). Other work is in progress a little farther up the road in Lufkin. Upgrading the East half of Loop-287 to Interstate standards seems to be taking place in chunks. The area of US-59 between the Diboll bypass and Loop 287 in Lufkin could be a bit challenging.
It seems frustrating just how long it has been taking for US-59 to be upgraded on the North side of the Houston metro. The stretch of I-69 between the Grand Parkway and Cleveland still isn't finished.
How far along is the I-69 upgrade southwest of Houston? Some July 2021 imagery in Google Earth shows the freeway in use on the main lanes between Rosenberg and Kendleton. I haven't read much about these segments opening to traffic.A new NB bridge is being built across the Wharton/Fort Bend county line. Additional lanes are still being constructed south of Rosenberg. NB Traffic in Hungerford has been shifted to the frontage road via the future exit ramp for Ponderosa Rd or FM 1161. NB traffic exiting to FM 2919 slights onto the unfinished future NB bridge.
I am just suspiciously wondering what is going with US 77 south of Kingsville, because it looks like there are construction equipment within Ricardo as of March 2022 on GSV (Google Street View). Are they putting I-69E straight through Ricardo as I was thinking due the presence of equipment? :hmmm:That's the plan... there's no point to bypass the town. The existing highway is easily upgradable.
From the looks of it on GSV, it appears they are working on utility relocations along US-77 from Kingsville to Riviera in anticipation of construction starting soon.I am just suspiciously wondering what is going with US 77 south of Kingsville, because it looks like there are construction equipment within Ricardo as of March 2022 on GSV (Google Street View). Are they putting I-69E straight through Ricardo as I was thinking due the presence of equipment? :hmmm:That's the plan... there's no point to bypass the town. The existing highway is easily upgradable.
Ricardo and Woodsboro are two of the towns that don't need to go around; the interstate will go right through it.True. There’s enough right of way to build a freeway through. This would be my ideal scenario for freeways and interstates. I don’t know why.
From the looks of it on GSV, it appears they are working on utility relocations along US-77 from Kingsville to Riviera in anticipation of construction starting soon.I am just suspiciously wondering what is going with US 77 south of Kingsville, because it looks like there are construction equipment within Ricardo as of March 2022 on GSV (Google Street View). Are they putting I-69E straight through Ricardo as I was thinking due the presence of equipment? :hmmm:That's the plan... there's no point to bypass the town. The existing highway is easily upgradable.
About 3-4 years for a bypass or stretch of similar length. For a new overpass, usually 1-2 years.From the looks of it on GSV, it appears they are working on utility relocations along US-77 from Kingsville to Riviera in anticipation of construction starting soon.I am just suspiciously wondering what is going with US 77 south of Kingsville, because it looks like there are construction equipment within Ricardo as of March 2022 on GSV (Google Street View). Are they putting I-69E straight through Ricardo as I was thinking due the presence of equipment? :hmmm:That's the plan... there's no point to bypass the town. The existing highway is easily upgradable.
Makes sense why utility vehicles were present on US 77. How long does it usually take for a stretch of freeway to be finished, 1-2 years?
You can see that they've just about finished moving the power lines away from the roadway and the dirt work you're seeing is for the relocation of a natural gas pipeline that runs along the highway. There might be some water and sewer mains and underground telecom lines that need to be moved as well, before construction starts.From the looks of it on GSV, it appears they are working on utility relocations along US-77 from Kingsville to Riviera in anticipation of construction starting soon.I am just suspiciously wondering what is going with US 77 south of Kingsville, because it looks like there are construction equipment within Ricardo as of March 2022 on GSV (Google Street View). Are they putting I-69E straight through Ricardo as I was thinking due the presence of equipment? :hmmm:That's the plan... there's no point to bypass the town. The existing highway is easily upgradable.
Makes sense why utility vehicles were present on US 77. How long does it usually take for a stretch of freeway to be finished, 1-2 years?
But if you're willing to expand your scope a bit, using US 259 to TX 43 to Loop 390 up to Marshall is a great alternate to this route (plus you get to skip the Marshall speed trap cameras!).
Quick question: has the freeway been built completely through Lufkin or is there still a lot of construction going on?The only construction going on is the Frontage rd near the Northern US 59/69 interchange. The rest needs construction which will occur in the future.
Quick question: has the freeway been built completely through Lufkin or is there still a lot of construction going on?The only construction going on is the Frontage rd near the Northern US 59/69 interchange. The rest needs construction which will occur in the future.
I did notice these strange US 59 mile markers (https://goo.gl/maps/FHdDyzCX3CFpdEKw7) in and around the Victoria area that were put up sometime between 2018 and 2021 per GSV. These would be the first enhanced mile markers I've seen in the entire state (SkyPesos would enjoy this), though I am extremely confused as to where the 641A MM is coming from.
Yes. It appears you may be right.I did notice these strange US 59 mile markers (https://goo.gl/maps/FHdDyzCX3CFpdEKw7) in and around the Victoria area that were put up sometime between 2018 and 2021 per GSV. These would be the first enhanced mile markers I've seen in the entire state (SkyPesos would enjoy this), though I am extremely confused as to where the 641A MM is coming from.
My guess: 641 is the reference marker location (the nominal distance south of an east-west parallel that overlaps the top edge of the Texas Panhandle), and A designates realigned mileage.
Did the markers count down as you went north?
(Nacogdoches to Carthage)
US-259 is mostly 70 mph. SH -315 is 65 and seventy. Mount Enterprise is smaller than any of the 3 towns US-59 goes through. Central Heights is getting bigger, but until the past couple of years it was negligible.
On US-59, the rural parts are MOSTLY 75 mph, but you go through Garrison, Timpson, and in Tenaha, you actually turn to head north after you are mostly through town.
The only real issue on SH-315 is cars making left turns, especially in Clayton. They stop and get rear ended.
The real rural speed on SH-315 is about the same as on US-59. At real road speeds, the difference is even greater than at the speed limit.
I am not saying that it is for the better, I am just saying it is. The extra twenty minutes are a real difference to many.
Why doesn’t TxDOT prioritize upgrading the segment (either SH-315 or US-59 or somewhere in between) between Nacogdoches and Carthage to either a four lane divided highway or limited access highway?
And then northeast towards Louisiana as well, that is only a 3 lane road (was previously 4 lane undivided but TxDOT restriped it to have passing lanes instead.
A mix of this, along with bypassing all the towns south of Nacogdoches to Houston, would create a viable consistent 70-75 mph expressway north of Houston to I-20, similar to US-59/US-77 between Houston to Corpus Christi.
It’s not a freeway for most of the length, but it’s a continuous free-flowing 75 mph divided highway the whole way with no traffic lights or towns (except Refugio and Odem).
In the future, upgrade rural segments between and as money allows, designate new portions to I-69. But IMO, rural segments should be last. Free flow and divided should be the immediate goal.
- SH 44 main lanes are open from 1.5 miles east of IH-69E Robstown all the way to Corpus. The new main lanes is relatively recent, but may not be very recent. However, the 1.5 mile non-freeway section has a narrow right-of-way and will be more difficult to upgrade.
Observations from a July 4 weekend trip from Houston to South Texas
- US 59 (IH-69) reconstruction to 3x3 freeway in west Fort Bend County is substantially complete. (Freeway is wider east of Richmond.) All main lanes are open, but there's some final work such as on frontage roads.
I'm looking at the timeline of the US 59 to I-69 upgrade in Fort Bend County. It seems like the upgrade from a four lane divided highway to a freeway was completed in 2019, but they immediately continued work to expand it to six lanes between the Wharton county line and the original beginning of the freeway near Rosenberg?
I-69 is complete between Kendleton and Rosenberg with 3 lanes and full shoulders in each direction, however is still only signed as US-59.The signing of the upgraded sections of US-59 as I-69 is not automatic upon completion of construction. Extending the I-69 designation over sections of US-59 that have recently been upgraded to interstate standards has to be signed off by the FHWA, then AASHTO before I-69 sign can go up on those sections.
Additionally, there’s still a 55 mph work zone speed limit all the way up to SH-99, however traffic was easily moving in excess of 75 mph. It’s a pointless limit that needs to be reverted back to 65 mph. There’s zero work occurring.
When do the FHWA and AASHTO meetings for approval take place this year?I-69 is complete between Kendleton and Rosenberg with 3 lanes and full shoulders in each direction, however is still only signed as US-59.The signing of the upgraded sections of US-59 as I-69 is not automatic upon completion of construction. Extending the I-69 designation over sections of US-59 that have recently been upgraded to interstate standards has to be signed off by the FHWA, then AASHTO before I-69 sign can go up on those sections.
Additionally, there’s still a 55 mph work zone speed limit all the way up to SH-99, however traffic was easily moving in excess of 75 mph. It’s a pointless limit that needs to be reverted back to 65 mph. There’s zero work occurring.
The AASHTO has two meetings where US and interstate route number applications are considered: the Spring Meeting that is held in May, and the Annual Meeting that's held in October. I haven't seen the route numbering decisions from AASHTO's spring meeting. If someone has those decisions, please post them.When do the FHWA and AASHTO meetings for approval take place this year?I-69 is complete between Kendleton and Rosenberg with 3 lanes and full shoulders in each direction, however is still only signed as US-59.The signing of the upgraded sections of US-59 as I-69 is not automatic upon completion of construction. Extending the I-69 designation over sections of US-59 that have recently been upgraded to interstate standards has to be signed off by the FHWA, then AASHTO before I-69 sign can go up on those sections.
Additionally, there’s still a 55 mph work zone speed limit all the way up to SH-99, however traffic was easily moving in excess of 75 mph. It’s a pointless limit that needs to be reverted back to 65 mph. There’s zero work occurring.
The AASHTO has two meetings where US and interstate route number applications are considered: the Spring Meeting that is held in May, and the Annual Meeting that's held in October. I haven't seen the route numbering decisions from AASHTO's spring meeting. If someone has those decisions, please post them.When do the FHWA and AASHTO meetings for approval take place this year?I-69 is complete between Kendleton and Rosenberg with 3 lanes and full shoulders in each direction, however is still only signed as US-59.The signing of the upgraded sections of US-59 as I-69 is not automatic upon completion of construction. Extending the I-69 designation over sections of US-59 that have recently been upgraded to interstate standards has to be signed off by the FHWA, then AASHTO before I-69 sign can go up on those sections.
Additionally, there’s still a 55 mph work zone speed limit all the way up to SH-99, however traffic was easily moving in excess of 75 mph. It’s a pointless limit that needs to be reverted back to 65 mph. There’s zero work occurring.
Maybe this drone video of the Diboll bypass has already been posted, but I looked and didn't find it.
Maybe this drone video of the Diboll bypass has already been posted, but I looked and didn't find it.
Forgive me if this is old news, but does this mean I-69 is complete in Willacy County?
https://www.kltv.com/2022/12/07/txdot-breaks-ground-170-million-relief-route-corrigan/Once a contractor's bid is chosen how long will it be for construction to get started on the Corrigan bypass?First, the contractor has to sign a contract. Then, it has 90 days to start construction. The signing can take anywhere from a week to a year. The bid for US 59 Frontage road project between US 87 and SH 185 in Victoria was chosen in September and work didn’t start until April.
Corrigan is about 14 miles South of Diboll.
https://www.kltv.com/2022/12/07/txdot-breaks-ground-170-million-relief-route-corrigan/Once a contractor's bid is chosen how long will it be for construction to get started on the Corrigan bypass?First, the contractor has to sign a contract. Then, it has 90 days to start construction. The signing can take anywhere from a week to a year. The bid for US 59 Frontage road project between US 87 and SH 185 in Victoria was chosen in September and work didn’t start until April.
Corrigan is about 14 miles South of Diboll.
Traffic woes are caused by a single red light in town at the intersection of U.S. 59 and 289. With U.S. 59 being a major route for commuters between Lufkin and Livingston, traffic can get so out of hand that officers sometimes have to come and direct traffic according to Hudman.
“I don’t know if everybody knows this but we’re the first red light out of Houston,” Hudman said. “It’s pretty significant.”
But TxDOT is aiming to remedy the problem with a $172.8 million Corrigan Relief Route that broke ground Dec. 5.
The seven-mile project includes an overpass that will run above Corrigan, bypassing the town and giving relief to commuters and the community from the constant traffic jams.
It still looks like the bypass around Corrigan will skirt the town to the West. Not above the town.
It still looks like the bypass around Corrigan will skirt the town to the West. Not above the town.
Looking at the drawings, it appears that US 59/I-69 will be elevated over US 289, so I guess one part will go "slightly" over the ground level near Corrigan, but not the whole freeway over the town proper as seems to be suggested by the article's wording.
6 years?? For 6 miles of rural interstate highway construction?
Gypsy. That’s all I gotta say. (It’s an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)
That’s why I’m planning to detoxify the word one day.Gypsy. That’s all I gotta say. (It’s an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)
You may not want to use it any longer–the Roma people consider it an ethnic slur directed toward them.
That’s why I’m planning to detoxify the word one day.Gypsy. That’s all I gotta say. (It’s an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)
You may not want to use it any longer–the Roma people consider it an ethnic slur directed toward them.
🤣🤣🤣🤣…then how do y’all explain that song from Fleetwood Mac?That’s why I’m planning to detoxify the word one day.Gypsy. That’s all I gotta say. (It’s an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)
You may not want to use it any longer–the Roma people consider it an ethnic slur directed toward them.
🤣🤣🤣🤣…then how do y’all explain that song from Fleetwood Mac?
She was just a wish..she was just...a wish.🤣🤣🤣🤣…then how do y’all explain that song from Fleetwood Mac?
She is dancing away from you now
Just don't talk trash about Travelers.I promise. When I use the word, I will only use it out of casuality and not for discrimination.
I think she wrote that song about herself. Also, it was 1982.Indeed. And that’s my favorite Fleetwood Mac song of all time.
Infographics YouTube video on the Interstate just got posted yesterday. Of course, most of the comments were about the number! :-D
https://youtu.be/4anVYVJvtBI (https://youtu.be/4anVYVJvtBI)
In addition to Max Concrete's observations, the narrative stretches the truth when talking about the Ohio River crossing. It states "after getting off the I-69 and crossing into Kentucky, you would eventually find yourself back on the interstate." Cripes, it's less than 6 miles from the existing river crossing to I-69 at the south end of Henderson, it's what, a 10-minute non-interstate drive? And the progress on the ORX Crossing project, which is scheduled to be in place just past the end of the decade, seems to get short shrift here. Which is funny, because the video seems to identify the yet-unfinished section of I-69 between SR 144 and I-465 south of Indy as "done". It also hints that the I-465 section around Indy that connects the northern and southern pieces of I-69 in IN is some kind of detour, when it will actually be an integral, co-signed part of I-69 once the southern connection is made.There were a lot of inaccuracies with dates in the infographic as well. the most glaring one was that claims I-69 was finished from Indianapolis to Angola by 1956. Construction began in the Fort Wayne area in 1956, with the last sections between Indy and Angola opening in 1971. The other inaccuracy was the Lansing-Port Huron section starting construction in 1992. That's also inaccurate. The last remaining sections around Lansing were completed in 1992; prior to that motorists had to exit I-69 and follow US-27 (designated a TEMPORARY I-69) through Lansing to rejoin I-69 on the other side of town. I could go on here, but don't want to get too off-topic.
This is more of a question. I am looking for opinions. In several cases, US-59 runs adjacent to a rail line. How should the frontage roads be handled in that situation.I would build a self closing exit ramp that automatically closes when trains are approaching, and forces traffic up the overpass and onto the other exit.
1) Build them as if the rail line was not there.
2) Build a 2-laned 2-way access road on the other side of the rail line. and no frontage roads along the freeway side of the tracks.
3) Force the traffic off the frontage roads and onto the freeway in these areas and build no frontage roads.
I prefer option 2, but it adds crossing the rail line into the equation, which in itself has several options.
Your thoughts?
This is more of a question. I am looking for opinions. In several cases, US-59 runs adjacent to a rail line. How should the frontage roads be handled in that situation.
1) Build them as if the rail line was not there.
2) Build a 2-laned 2-way access road on the other side of the rail line. and no frontage roads along the freeway side of the tracks.
3) Force the traffic off the frontage roads and onto the freeway in these areas and build no frontage roads.
I prefer option 2, but it adds crossing the rail line into the equation, which in itself has several options.
Your thoughts?
This is more of a question. I am looking for opinions. In several cases, US-59 runs adjacent to a rail line. How should the frontage roads be handled in that situation.
1) Build them as if the rail line was not there.
2) Build a 2-laned 2-way access road on the other side of the rail line. and no frontage roads along the freeway side of the tracks.
3) Force the traffic off the frontage roads and onto the freeway in these areas and build no frontage roads.
I prefer option 2, but it adds crossing the rail line into the equation, which in itself has several options.
Your thoughts?
The ROW would just be widened on the side opposite of the rail line, which I think has been the case so far where they’ve widen sections parallel with tracks.
The current main lanes closest to the tracks typically become the location of the frontage road once they build out.
That is correct. That is what the seem to do.
The point I was trying to ask is; isn't it pointless to build a through frontage road between a limited access lane and railroad tracks?
Building the access road across the tracks seems to make better sense for a couple reasons.
1) Fewer grade railroad crossings. (In one ten-mile section, you could do away with 6 grade crossings even with a grade crossing for access on either end.)
2) Better access to the land across the railroad tracks without crossing railroad grade crossings.
I suspect the main reason railroad lines aren't located between a freeway and its frontage road is to avoid having heavy volumes of entering and exiting traffic trying to cross the rail line at speed and on a skew. While such crossings can be grade-separated, there is a heavy penalty to do so in terms of structure cost, especially since rail needs a minimum clearance of 17 feet.
This said, I'm surprised it's not more common to omit frontage roads when a freeway closely parallels a rail line.
I suspect the main reason railroad lines aren't located between a freeway and its frontage road is to avoid having heavy volumes of entering and exiting traffic trying to cross the rail line at speed and on a skew. While such crossings can be grade-separated, there is a heavy penalty to do so in terms of structure cost, especially since rail needs a minimum clearance of 17 feet.
This said, I'm surprised it's not more common to omit frontage roads when a freeway closely parallels a rail line.
I agree. I don't think skewed angled crossings or 90 degree curves either one are good solutions. I think the sections I am talking about could cross at places where grade separated crossings already exist. Even then, the current traffic volumes on these frontage road sections would probably be in the less than 100 vehicles per day range. It would be two primary types of traffic.
1) People who cross the tracks on the existing (private) grade crossings.
2) Agricultural vehicles
Frankly they are areas where frontage roads really are not highly needed. A FM type road immediately across the tracks would provide a far better access as well as minimizing the numbers of grade crossings altogether. In most cases, rural frontage roads are to provide access to the properties adjacent to the freeway, not for local services to front. An FM road across the tracks would provide that less expensively and make crossing of the railroad tracks safer.
any updates on either of the Diboll or Nacogdoches bypasses?
any updates on either of the Diboll or Nacogdoches bypasses?
any updates on either of the Diboll or Nacogdoches bypasses?
has the Corrigan Bypass been delayed (knowing the 2020 and 2021 delays, probably)According to TxDOT Project Tracker:
it was supposed to begin in late 2022
W.I.P.:
I-69E (US-77) Driscoll bypass (should be nearly done)
I-69C (US-281) Premont bypass
I-69 (US 59) Wharton improvements
I-69 (US 59) Cleveland improvements
I-69 (US 59) Diboll bypass
I-69 (US 59) Lufkin improvements
I-69 (US 59) Nacogdoches bypass
Either in Early phase or Study phase (either way, far future):
I-69W (US 59) Laredo loop - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/laredo/archive/032817.html
I-69E (US 77) Sinton improvements - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-77-sinton-san-patricio.html
I-69E (US 77) Odem bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-77-odem-area.html
I-69E (US 77) Refugio bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/corpus-christi/us77-proposed-woodsboro-refugio.html
I-69C (US 281) Alice overpass/improvements - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-281-alice.html
I-69 (US 59) Corrigan bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/lufkin/archive/121715.html
I-69 (US 59) North Nacogdoches - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/lufkin/us-59-us-259-north-nacogdoches-i-69.html
I-369 (US 59/future Loop 390) Marshall bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/south-section-i20-us59.html https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/middle-section-us80-i20.html https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/north-section-us59-us80.html (none of which are funded.....yet)
Any update on the US-77 bypass around Riviera. Last I saw that was supposed to start this year, but that was from a couple years ago.
From that, it looks like the Rivera Bypass has slipped to the right quite a bit from what I last saw a couple years ago. Once they get that done, there won't be much more to do to get US-77 between Rivera and Raymondville up to interstate standards. The remaining section is about 48 miles long and goes through mainly undeveloped ranchland...should be relatively easy to upgrade that to interstate standards, I would think.Any update on the US-77 bypass around Riviera. Last I saw that was supposed to start this year, but that was from a couple years ago.
According to the latest information from TxDOT (current as of last February 6) (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/statewide/interstate-69-system/020623-tabloid-i-69.pdf), the Riviera bypass is being developed under CCSJ 0327-08-002 with letting projected for sometime in 2027. The latest project with signing I have in my files for US 77 in Riviera is CCSJ 0102-04-104, a mill-and-overlay contract let in May 2017.
^ I understand it is cheaper to upgrade the rural segments of US-77 south of Riviera to interstate standards, but why are they continuing to push off bypasses around Odem and Refugio? Those are scheduled now for after 2030, and they represent areas of significant chokepoints for long-distance traffic, having to encounter slow speed limits, traffic lights, and congestion.A big part of the reason TxDOT going full-court press to complete I-69E between Raymondville and I-37 near Corpus Christi is due to federal legislation that allowed the signing of I-69E, I-69C, and I-2 in the Rio Grande Valley. That legislation, signed circa 2010, stipulated that those interstate segments in the RGV have to be connected to the rest of the interstate highway system within 25 years of designation, or their interstate designations would have to be removed. From a technical perspective, the stretch of US-77 between Raymondville and I-37 was determined to be the easiest segment to upgrade to interstate standards to meet that federal requirement within the established timeframe; thus it was prioritized over the other two branches between the Mexican border and Victoria, and the stretch of I-69E from I-37 to Victoria.
The segment of US-77 between Riviera and Raymondville, on the other hand, is going to be constructed this decade, when that already exists as a four-lane divided highway with a 75 mph speed limit and no traffic signals or really any major intersections, to begin with.
I understand the whole thing will eventually need to be upgraded, but I think the priorities are wrong. Corpus Christi to Houston is an important corridor and already exists as a free-flowing 75 mph highway with no traffic signals or interruptions, with only those two exceptions. Completing bypasses around Odem and Refugio would at least complete a free-flowing uninterrupted highway between Houston and Brownsville.
I suspect--without having done any digging into the specifics--that the rural segments are being programmed for earlier construction because they are cheaper on a per-mile basis and present fewer headaches in terms of land acquisition and utility relocation. While doing the town bypasses first would front-load the time savings to through traffic, I can easily see it leading to bottlenecks in terms of staffing for project development.It’s just surprising to me, given TxDOT virtually everywhere else has seemingly pushed for town bypasses first well before doing rural upgrades. I mean, look at US-59 north of Houston, for example. You’d think on terms of prioritization, even though they’re cheaper per mile, the rural segments would be lower priority than relief routes.
^ But then I also see them prioritizing upgrades to US-281 over the next decade, again, before getting to US-77 north of I-37. And not even the full rural stretches of US-77 north of I-37 need to be prioritized, just simply the two town bypasses.That's because, from a technical perspective, US-281 from Edinburg to where it would join I-69W (US-59) at George West is probably the next easiest section to upgrade. It's 4 lane, mostly through remote ranchland, with a few towns that will require bypasses, some of which are already built or being built. If you're looking for low-hanging fruit, US-281 and US-77 (between Raymondville and I-37) would be it.
^ But by that point, in terms of meeting the requirement to be connected to the system, it wouldn’t matter. Because I-69E would connect with I-37, and I-2 connects both I-69E and I-69W, so there would be no gap.I don't think upgrading 281 is about connecting the RGV interstates to the rest of the system; rather, its about TxDOT completing what they think is the next easiest segment to get done.
I drove the section of US-77 from Odem to I-37. Yes, that needs a bypass as soon as possible. There is way too much traffic going though that town. I also drove I-69E in Calallen. Sign mounted posts have now been converted from I-69 to I-69E shields.I wouldn’t say the portion southwest of Odem to I-37 needs to be bypassed. Ultimately, the whole highway should be upgraded to controlled access freeway with frontage roads, however in the short term, a bypass around Odem to either the north or south needs to be built (tying into the existing US-77 between I-37 and just south of Odem) both to allow uninterrupted flow around the town, and also to provide a grade separation of the two railroad lines that pass through.
https://goo.gl/maps/2XGjbe6LH5SZRwdo7Because a whole lot of people don't care enough about the "E" as much as roadgeeks do.
https://goo.gl/maps/PoM3cYAMW3ri6W5N6
Why are thereI-69 shields here instead of I-69E? One error is normal but in multiple places is not coincidence.
https://goo.gl/maps/2XGjbe6LH5SZRwdo7
https://goo.gl/maps/PoM3cYAMW3ri6W5N6
Why are thereI-69 shields here instead of I-69E? One error is normal but in multiple places is not coincidence.
I think I-69E will be complete from I-37 to the border and there will still be I-69 shields along it's course.
Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concernedTennessee has really done nothing, except a Union City bypass that has been under construction for over a decade.
Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)They didn’t forget, they just don’t have funding.
And other priorities.Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concernedTennessee has really done nothing, except a Union City bypass that has been under construction for over a decade.QuoteLouisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)They didn’t forget, they just don’t have funding.
TN did also bothered with the I-269 outer loop in Memphis.............and that's where their progress endsAnd other priorities.Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concernedTennessee has really done nothing, except a Union City bypass that has been under construction for over a decade.QuoteLouisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)They didn’t forget, they just don’t have funding.
I'd be fine with that since in my mind, that's the "legitimate" branch in South Texas.
also, is the Union City Bypass cancelled in the middle of development hell? or just expensive AF?Should be open end of this year according to this TDOT spokesperson:
Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned
Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)
also, is the Union City Bypass cancelled in the middle of development hell? or just expensive AF?Should be open end of this year according to this TDOT spokesperson:
https://www.wbbjtv.com/2023/02/15/update-given-on-new-interstate-69-in-west-tennessee/
Check the I-69 in MS thread for background on this, posted todayLooking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned
Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)
Mississippi did sign that one segment south of Memphis. It was actually one of the first newly constructed segments of I-69 to be signed.
I don't understand why they want I-69E, I-69W, and I-69, why not have spur routes?Because those route designations were written into law by Congress.
As far as I know, the only other state to roll some pork on the original I-69 bill was Arkansas for their Little Rock - Monticello highway. Texas got some additional pork on the Tenaha - Texarkana route.
I don't understand why they want I-69E, I-69W, and I-69, why not have spur routes?
I am baffled why they didn't pick one to be I-69 and make the rest 3dis of I-69
This has been explained:Back in 2010, I (via my consulting entity) submitted a paper to the Alliance for I-69 Texas suggesting just that except for designating US 281 as I-169. Their response was that they were inclined to follow the original "placeholder" designations of "Central" & "East" as the signed designations (a) because it followed the "letter of the law" as laid out in the HPC 18 legislative description, and (b) so as not to confuse the legislators tasked with pushing the various funding bills through Congress. Obviously they followed suit with the "69W" designation to Laredo using the same rationale.
My take on this is the Alliance used the "69" number as a virtual trademark -- to the extent that each aspect of the corridor was to retain some sort of reference to 69. Frankly, I was shocked to see that they had selected I-2 for the US 83 connector; I had expected it would be I-569 or something similar. But since no suffix was previously suggested for the Freer-Corpus added segment, I wouldn't be surprised if, when funding is sought for any activity on that segment, that it comes with a I-6 designation to match I-2 to the south as a "cross-trident" connector.
I guess the Alliance didn't trust their selected Congressional critters to do anything except walk & talk a straight line between point A (concept) and point B (funding & construction).It took a literal interpretation of an act of Congress (the authorization of HPC 18 and the subsequent Interstate designation) to get the W-C-E 69 "trident" into the Interstate lexicon (although "West" was never legislatively specified). I'm sure many of us thought the "east" and "central" routings within that legislation were merely placeholders and not the final definition (I certainly did) -- but TxDOT and the Alliance for I-69 Texas thought otherwise -- and had the final say. In other words, the folks who started the dance to begin with were able to dictate what the decorations looked like!Back circa late 2010 or early 2011 I submitted an analysis to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, in which I stated that the suffixed branches within the I-69 cluster were simply placeholders, since they were spelled out rather than stated as a single suffixed number (i.e. I-69 East vis-Ã -vis I-69E), and as such, could be changed quite easily by a simple alteration of the HPC 18/20 language. I suggested that I-69 itself replace I-69 East down to the border at Brownsville; that the segment along US 59 from Laredo to Victoria should become I-6, and that I-69 Central become I-169, which would then shunt east over US 83 to the main I-69 trunk at Harlingen (no I-2 in sight for this proposal). Also: the segment from Tenaha north to Texarkana should be I-47. Part of the rationale I expressed to the Alliance was that the suffixed numbers violated FHWA and AASHTO guidelines -- and although the legislated aspect of the corridor designations did in fact allow them to ignore those guidelines, it might be more appropriate from a regional standpoint to consider better-fitting alternative designations.
The response was that while my ideas had merit, the Congresspersons on board the proposal didn't want to "rock the boat" by substituting numbers that late in the game, that all their documentation referred to the branches as some form of the original "69" proposal -- besides, it had become recognized as a sort of "trademark" for the proposal in general and that the internal preference was for some iteration of "69" to be applied to all corridors covered by the original legislation (obviously that didn't apply to the I-2 corridor, as it was addressed separately and later).
And that was the end of that! However, when I-2 was designated a couple of years later, I was as surprised as anyone -- fully expecting US 83 to be I-169 or I-569, etc. to "keep it in the family", so to speak. I guess the Laredo-bound ambitions of that corridor had a bit to do with the choice.Nevertheless, Congressfolks can and do override AASHTO and/or FHWA internal criteria; that's how the E-C-W branches of I-69 came about. Actually, the directional references were originally simply "placeholders" within the original legislation, designed to describe the relative orientation of the branches -- but both the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts at TXDOT took a truly literalist view of the legislation, hence the field-posted suffixed shields (with more to come).Back in late 2010 I actually wrote a numbering proposal to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, suggesting the following: I-69 mainline down what's now I-69E, I-6 along I-69W, and I-169 for I-69C, which would have turned east on what's now I-2 to Harlingen. Also: I-47 for the I-369 corridor (hey, it's 115 miles long!). Received a reply after a few weeks stating that as far as numbering, their hands were tied by the legal definitions attached to the original HPC 18 & 20 legislation. I shot back that those appeared to be simply "placeholder" designations to delineate the three branches (and 69W wasn't even mentioned in the original language), and that any of their "pet" area congressfolks could slip in amendments to specify different numbers. That got a quick reply essentially inferring that they didn't want to deviate one little bit from the original legislation, since the support for the project was on relatively thin ice at the time (this was around the time of the 2010 midterm elections) and that some of the newly elected conservatives from TX would have to be persuaded to support the concept and its associated expenditures -- and that selling the whole "69" package as is to the new congressional delegation was job #1 in order to maintain what progress was being made. Thus, to them, every segment of the cluster had to reference the number "69" to avoid confusing those legislators who weren't the sharpest pencils in the box! :sleep:
At that point I simply rolled my eyes, figuring any further comment would be pointless. But if they were dealing with elected legislators, I could -- with some imaginative stretch -- see their POV; they'd put a lot more aggregate effort into their corridor than had I! But I still think my ideas had some merit -- but the chances of any changes being made is ultra-slim -- now that there is nascent suffixed signage on all 3 branches (plus I-2!).... the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form. Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!). I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle. At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively. For example...
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJFurthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East". And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.The actual Interstate designations waited until those segments were ready for and requested to be added to the Interstate system proper...this is what vdeane makes her reference to.
However, reading through the actual TEA-21 legislation (copied in the 1998 MTR post linked upthread), the legislation makes it pretty clear that I-69C and I-69E were written into Federal law in that act (much as I-99 had been previous to that), so with those two routes it was "settled" in 1998 when TEA-21 was passed.
I don't understand why they want I-69E, I-69W, and I-69, why not have spur routes?
*sigh* Why isn't this a sticky yet? Or is it? I don't know. Anyway...I am baffled why they didn't pick one to be I-69 and make the rest 3dis of I-69
This has been explained:Back in 2010, I (via my consulting entity) submitted a paper to the Alliance for I-69 Texas suggesting just that except for designating US 281 as I-169. Their response was that they were inclined to follow the original "placeholder" designations of "Central" & "East" as the signed designations (a) because it followed the "letter of the law" as laid out in the HPC 18 legislative description, and (b) so as not to confuse the legislators tasked with pushing the various funding bills through Congress. Obviously they followed suit with the "69W" designation to Laredo using the same rationale.
My take on this is the Alliance used the "69" number as a virtual trademark -- to the extent that each aspect of the corridor was to retain some sort of reference to 69. Frankly, I was shocked to see that they had selected I-2 for the US 83 connector; I had expected it would be I-569 or something similar. But since no suffix was previously suggested for the Freer-Corpus added segment, I wouldn't be surprised if, when funding is sought for any activity on that segment, that it comes with a I-6 designation to match I-2 to the south as a "cross-trident" connector.
I guess the Alliance didn't trust their selected Congressional critters to do anything except walk & talk a straight line between point A (concept) and point B (funding & construction).It took a literal interpretation of an act of Congress (the authorization of HPC 18 and the subsequent Interstate designation) to get the W-C-E 69 "trident" into the Interstate lexicon (although "West" was never legislatively specified). I'm sure many of us thought the "east" and "central" routings within that legislation were merely placeholders and not the final definition (I certainly did) -- but TxDOT and the Alliance for I-69 Texas thought otherwise -- and had the final say. In other words, the folks who started the dance to begin with were able to dictate what the decorations looked like!Back circa late 2010 or early 2011 I submitted an analysis to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, in which I stated that the suffixed branches within the I-69 cluster were simply placeholders, since they were spelled out rather than stated as a single suffixed number (i.e. I-69 East vis-Ã -vis I-69E), and as such, could be changed quite easily by a simple alteration of the HPC 18/20 language. I suggested that I-69 itself replace I-69 East down to the border at Brownsville; that the segment along US 59 from Laredo to Victoria should become I-6, and that I-69 Central become I-169, which would then shunt east over US 83 to the main I-69 trunk at Harlingen (no I-2 in sight for this proposal). Also: the segment from Tenaha north to Texarkana should be I-47. Part of the rationale I expressed to the Alliance was that the suffixed numbers violated FHWA and AASHTO guidelines -- and although the legislated aspect of the corridor designations did in fact allow them to ignore those guidelines, it might be more appropriate from a regional standpoint to consider better-fitting alternative designations.
The response was that while my ideas had merit, the Congresspersons on board the proposal didn't want to "rock the boat" by substituting numbers that late in the game, that all their documentation referred to the branches as some form of the original "69" proposal -- besides, it had become recognized as a sort of "trademark" for the proposal in general and that the internal preference was for some iteration of "69" to be applied to all corridors covered by the original legislation (obviously that didn't apply to the I-2 corridor, as it was addressed separately and later).
And that was the end of that! However, when I-2 was designated a couple of years later, I was as surprised as anyone -- fully expecting US 83 to be I-169 or I-569, etc. to "keep it in the family", so to speak. I guess the Laredo-bound ambitions of that corridor had a bit to do with the choice.Nevertheless, Congressfolks can and do override AASHTO and/or FHWA internal criteria; that's how the E-C-W branches of I-69 came about. Actually, the directional references were originally simply "placeholders" within the original legislation, designed to describe the relative orientation of the branches -- but both the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts at TXDOT took a truly literalist view of the legislation, hence the field-posted suffixed shields (with more to come).Back in late 2010 I actually wrote a numbering proposal to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, suggesting the following: I-69 mainline down what's now I-69E, I-6 along I-69W, and I-169 for I-69C, which would have turned east on what's now I-2 to Harlingen. Also: I-47 for the I-369 corridor (hey, it's 115 miles long!). Received a reply after a few weeks stating that as far as numbering, their hands were tied by the legal definitions attached to the original HPC 18 & 20 legislation. I shot back that those appeared to be simply "placeholder" designations to delineate the three branches (and 69W wasn't even mentioned in the original language), and that any of their "pet" area congressfolks could slip in amendments to specify different numbers. That got a quick reply essentially inferring that they didn't want to deviate one little bit from the original legislation, since the support for the project was on relatively thin ice at the time (this was around the time of the 2010 midterm elections) and that some of the newly elected conservatives from TX would have to be persuaded to support the concept and its associated expenditures -- and that selling the whole "69" package as is to the new congressional delegation was job #1 in order to maintain what progress was being made. Thus, to them, every segment of the cluster had to reference the number "69" to avoid confusing those legislators who weren't the sharpest pencils in the box! :sleep:
At that point I simply rolled my eyes, figuring any further comment would be pointless. But if they were dealing with elected legislators, I could -- with some imaginative stretch -- see their POV; they'd put a lot more aggregate effort into their corridor than had I! But I still think my ideas had some merit -- but the chances of any changes being made is ultra-slim -- now that there is nascent suffixed signage on all 3 branches (plus I-2!).... the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form. Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!). I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle. At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively. For example...
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJFurthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East". And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.The actual Interstate designations waited until those segments were ready for and requested to be added to the Interstate system proper...this is what vdeane makes her reference to.
However, reading through the actual TEA-21 legislation (copied in the 1998 MTR post linked upthread), the legislation makes it pretty clear that I-69C and I-69E were written into Federal law in that act (much as I-99 had been previous to that), so with those two routes it was "settled" in 1998 when TEA-21 was passed.
The main lanes of I-69 are now open through the TX-105 interchange in Cleveland and just south of it as of last night (meaning the I-69/US 59 corridor is now 3x3 all the way to Cleveland now). However, I did not see any I-69 shields in the area.US-59 is still posted at 55 mph between Sugar Land and Kendleton despite construction being completed for a couple years now and open as a six lane interstate highway with full control of access. On the much busier, wider portion north of Sugar Land, the speed limit raises to 65 mph.
TxDOT also did their dumb habit of not removing the construction speed limit signs upon opening the new section. Hence, the speed limit was still 45 mph (never have I been going 15 over and getting passed by everyone!). However, a partially uncovered sign indicated that the real speed limit will be 65.
Because a bunch of old men in Congress couldn't differentiate the 3 routes for the Mexico to Canada Highway in Texas.That is the dumbest thing I have heard, so basically it pretty much nullifies any 3 digit spur route.
To them it looked like they were funding 3 new "original" highways so the numbers were changed to share the 69 scheme to help them keep the story straight.
Yes, they are original new highways, but to keep the pork barrel from rolling too far and have other states also demand 3 new orginal routes as well, (becuase that is how trading pork in Congress works).
As far as I know, the only other state to roll some pork on the original I-69 bill was Arkansas for their Little Rock - Monticello highway. Texas got some additional pork on the Tenaha - Texarkana route.
I personally think I-369 is a waste… a routing via a complete I-69 to I-49 in Louisiana / Arkansas to Texarkana would be around 8-9 more miles, and basically the entire north-south segment of that route is already complete.IMO, I don’t know if Texas cares about the overall routing of I-69. For them it’s a way to connect Texarkana to Houston, Corpus Christi/Laredo/Rio Grande Valley. It will be a long time before it’s all built but at least they don’t have to deal with other states and can build it piecemeal whenever they have funding.
I-369 is over 100 miles of construction that would parallel an existing interstate highway that carries low traffic volumes.
Prioritize completing I-69 between Tenaha and I-49, and the entire segment between Tenaha and Texarkana is taken care of. Traffic largely stays on US-59 in Texas today because no reliable / good route exists between the US-59 corridor and Shreveport. US-79 exists but it’s mostly a two-lane road with a 65 mph speed limit in Texas, and a 55 mph speed limit in Louisiana. It was a lot of four lane undivided in Texas, but they restriped a good amount to be an alternating passing configuration. I-69 would fill that gap and likely draw more traffic onto I-49. Divert funds for building I-369 in Texas towards upgrading / building I-69 south of Tenaha towards Houston.
IMO, I don’t know if Texas cares about the overall routing of I-69. For them it’s a way to connect Texarkana to Houston, Corpus Christi/Laredo/Rio Grande Valley. It will be a long time before it’s all built but at least they don’t have to deal with other states and can build it piecemeal whenever they have funding.That's the thing though - besides the ~25 miles in Louisiana between the Texas state line and I-49, the routing is already fully complete in Louisiana and Arkansas. I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana was constructed over the last decade or so. It's a largely desolate highway with low traffic volumes and has room for growth.
There is precedent going back to the early days of Interstate construction for apparently duplicative freeway routings to be approved--the Kansas Turnpike/free I-35 between Emporia and Kansas City, or US 69 in Kansas/US 71 (now I-49) in Missouri both come to mind.I-369 would attract traffic from the US-59 corridor… it is slightly more direct than I-49. My point, however, is that in an effort to cut down on costs, it would not be much more out of the way to simply direct through traffic to I-49.
Has an origin-destination study been performed in the general area of Tenaha/Carthage/Shreveport/Texarkana to confirm that I-369 will attract little traffic from the existing US 59 routing or a conceptual US 59/US 79/I-49 alternative?
Does anyone think Interstate 369 will ever be completed? I have my doubts, and think existing 369 (and Loop 151) should have been numbered Interstate 230.Read the discussion immediately above this post.
Does anyone think Interstate 369 will ever be completed? I have my doubts, and think existing 369 (and Loop 151) should have been numbered Interstate 230.I don't think I-369 is going to be completed anytime soon, if ever. The current plans for the corridor are just the Marshall bypass and a highway overpass at FM 1794. As of now, TXDOT's main priority seems to be upgrading US 59 between Houston and Victoria and US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christi. Not to mention the issue of extending the current highway both north and south of Texarkana.
Does anyone think Interstate 369 will ever be completed? I have my doubts, and think existing 369 (and Loop 151) should have been numbered Interstate 230.Read the discussion immediately above this post.
I think I-369 in Texas stands a far better chance of being completed than the I-69 segment in Louisiana.I’m skeptical, that’s over 100 miles of construction that’s redundant to I-49.
^ At the very least, upgrading US-79 would provide an interstate highway connector between I-69 and I-20 going into Shreveport.
Regardless of whatever happens with I-369, I see a number of trucks use this route to cut over to both Shreveport and those ultimately bound to I-20 East. It should at least be four lanes divided.
In terms of mileage, US-79 / I-20 / I-220 / I-49 is only 10 miles longer than US-59. Travel times are both equal or off by +/- 1 minute. Upgrading US-79 to a 75 mph (currently has a 55-65 mph posted) would shave off around 7 minutes.
It’s a better investment for TxDOT, IMO. Improves the connection to I-20 East and Shreveport, and provides an outlet to I-49 North reducing the need to upgrade US-59, saving at least 70 miles of redundant construction. If some trucks still desire to shave 10 miles and follow 100 miles of arterial roadway, that’s not enough of a reason IMO to pour the money in, unless it’s significant enough it’s still causing bottlenecks.
It just creates confusion within the whole interstate system.
Perhaps but in terms of priorities and actual projects… I see it being decades off. Completing I-69 south of Tenaha is a much larger priority, with particular emphasis on town bypasses and removing all the traffic signals.^ At the very least, upgrading US-79 would provide an interstate highway connector between I-69 and I-20 going into Shreveport.
Regardless of whatever happens with I-369, I see a number of trucks use this route to cut over to both Shreveport and those ultimately bound to I-20 East. It should at least be four lanes divided.
In terms of mileage, US-79 / I-20 / I-220 / I-49 is only 10 miles longer than US-59. Travel times are both equal or off by +/- 1 minute. Upgrading US-79 to a 75 mph (currently has a 55-65 mph posted) would shave off around 7 minutes.
It’s a better investment for TxDOT, IMO. Improves the connection to I-20 East and Shreveport, and provides an outlet to I-49 North reducing the need to upgrade US-59, saving at least 70 miles of redundant construction. If some trucks still desire to shave 10 miles and follow 100 miles of arterial roadway, that’s not enough of a reason IMO to pour the money in, unless it’s significant enough it’s still causing bottlenecks.
I see Texas definitely doing I-369. They are trying to grow Texarkana, and putting another Interstate feeder into it makes it more appealing to the warehousing and industrial types that they are seeking for the area. They are competing with the Arkansas side for growth, and Arkansas has some cost of doing business advantages otherwise, especially since the Arkansas side also has income tax exemption like all of Texas.
^ At the very least, upgrading US-79 would provide an interstate highway connector between I-69 and I-20 going into Shreveport.
Regardless of whatever happens with I-369, I see a number of trucks use this route to cut over to both Shreveport and those ultimately bound to I-20 East. It should at least be four lanes divided.
In terms of mileage, US-79 / I-20 / I-220 / I-49 is only 10 miles longer than US-59. Travel times are both equal or off by +/- 1 minute. Upgrading US-79 to a 75 mph (currently has a 55-65 mph posted) would shave off around 7 minutes.
It’s a better investment for TxDOT, IMO. Improves the connection to I-20 East and Shreveport, and provides an outlet to I-49 North reducing the need to upgrade US-59, saving at least 70 miles of redundant construction. If some trucks still desire to shave 10 miles and follow 100 miles of arterial roadway, that’s not enough of a reason IMO to pour the money in, unless it’s significant enough it’s still causing bottlenecks.
I see Texas definitely doing I-369. They are trying to grow Texarkana, and putting another Interstate feeder into it makes it more appealing to the warehousing and industrial types that they are seeking for the area. They are competing with the Arkansas side for growth, and Arkansas has some cost of doing business advantages otherwise, especially since the Arkansas side also has income tax exemption like all of Texas.
I’m skeptical, that’s over 100 miles of construction that’s redundant to I-49.
It runs parallel to the proposed I-369 corridor within 15 miles to the east, for around 70 miles. I-369 could be a good redundancy, but given the traffic volumes, it’s likely adequate enough to simply tie I-69 traffic into I-49 heading to Texarkana.Quote from: sprjus4I’m skeptical, that’s over 100 miles of construction that’s redundant to I-49.
I-49 going South of Texarakana into Louisiana does zero to serve interests of cities in Texas.
The state of Texas is far more vested in the various I-69 projects than any other states along the extended route. Texas also doesn't have to do anything to help neighboring states get their mainline segments of I-69 completed.Texas has seemed quite uninterested in any major projects along the I-69 / I-369 combo north of Houston bypass a few bypasses. A good chunk of US-59 is still a four lane undivided highway.
Texas has taken more of a go slow approach to I-69/I-369, relying on upgrading sections through major cities (Lufkin/Nacogdoches, Marshall) and upgrading preexisting freeway and near-freeway segments near Shepherd and Cleveland and southwest of Houston. Given their mass of projects statewide, that's no surprise.
An Brownsville/Victoria/Houston/Texarkana freeway along US 59 has been a major goal of Texas officials almost as much as a Laredo/Houston/Texarkana corridor as part of a national I-69 corridor connecting South Texas to the Midwest. The I-69 Colossus simply combined those two distinct corridors into one system. I don't think they would take too kindly to removing Texarkana from the system by diverting US 59 traffic through Shreveport. I do think that US 59 and I-49 are far enough apart from each other and have different enough objectives to warrant them coexisting and meeting at Texarkana.
Until the ICC of I-49 is built through Shreveport, you would have a situation of traffic using I-20/LA 3132/I-220 and I-49 north (or I-49/LA 3132/I-20). Plus, Texarkana has made it clear that they want US 59 upgraded from Loop 151 southward as part of their own access to their downtown area.
Texas is also fortunate that, much like Kentucky, the I-69 corridor will largely following existing highways, most of which are already 4 lanes with many sections that are freeways at or close to interstate standards. Due to the shear length of highways that need to be upgraded to interstate standards will result in a hefty bill for Texas to complete its portion of I-69. But comparing that to states that will have to build their sections of I-69 on new location, I would imagine the cost per mile would be lower in Texas versus those other states building on new location.
I do think that US 59 and I-49 are far enough apart from each other and have different enough objectives to warrant them coexisting and meeting at Texarkana.Perhaps, but they are also close enough to be competitive with each other, at least in their current state. Like I mentioned - even today, I-49 is around the same travel time, and the route I've utilized both times heading north, to get off US-59 and onto a reliable 75 mph free-flowing interstate highway. I'm not suggesting, per se, I-369 should never be built, but we all know that in reality, it is at least a couple of decades from becoming a reality. TxDOT simply has higher priorities, and I-69 should be complete south of Tenaha, IMO, before any major upgrades begin on US-59 north of there (not counting the Marshall bypass).
Until the ICC of I-49 is built through Shreveport, you would have a situation of traffic using I-20/LA 3132/I-220 and I-49 north (or I-49/LA 3132/I-20). Plus, Texarkana has made it clear that they want US 59 upgraded from Loop 151 southward as part of their own access to their downtown area.With the current I-69 proposal, yes, but if you upgraded US-79 to at least a four-lane divided highway, you would be using I-20 -> I-220 -> I-49 which would already be more direct than the ICC.
Kentucky and Texas are not in the same situation at all.Kentucky still had a significant amount of work to do as the existing parkways did not meet interstate standards, particularly with respect to interchange design and some low overpasses where the roadway was lowered to increase clearance. Running through the numbers in my head from memory, reconfiguring the two cloverleaf interchanges in Calvert City and Nortonville were about $60 million apiece; about $10-15 million to reconfigure each of the "bowtie" style tollbooth interchanges, about $50 million to reconfigure the old TOTSO interchange with US-45 in Mayfield, plus about $20 million for mainline modifications (e.g., lowering the roadway beneath select overpasses, cable barriers, lengthening acceleration/deceleration lanes at select interchanges, etc.) between Mayfield and I-24, and about the same amount for the WK Parkway from I-24 to the Pennyrile interchange, and along the Pennyrile from the WK to Henderson.
The “existing highways” in Texas range from four lane divided highway with no access control to many sections with 4 lanes undivided. Only very short bypass segments may meet freeway standards, and even then many of the existing bypasses have intersections.
All of that has to be upgraded. It’s not cheap.
Kentucky, on the other hand, already had hundreds of miles of limited access parkway that met interstate standards (or very close). They didn’t have private driveways, intersections, etc. that needed hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to upgrade. Comparing that to Texas already having “existing highways” is not even close.
All of that work is still significantly less costly than upgrading 300+ miles of non-limited-access to interstate standards.Kentucky and Texas are not in the same situation at all.Kentucky still had a significant amount of work to do as the existing parkways did not meet interstate standards, particularly with respect to interchange design and some low overpasses where the roadway was lowered to increase clearance. Running through the numbers in my head from memory, reconfiguring the two cloverleaf interchanges in Calvert City and Nortonville were about $60 million apiece; about $10-15 million to reconfigure each of the "bowtie" style tollbooth interchanges, about $50 million to reconfigure the old TOTSO interchange with US-45 in Mayfield, plus about $20 million for mainline modifications (e.g., lowering the roadway beneath select overpasses, cable barriers, lengthening acceleration/deceleration lanes at select interchanges, etc.) between Mayfield and I-24, and about the same amount for the WK Parkway from I-24 to the Pennyrile interchange, and along the Pennyrile from the WK to Henderson.
The “existing highways” in Texas range from four lane divided highway with no access control to many sections with 4 lanes undivided. Only very short bypass segments may meet freeway standards, and even then many of the existing bypasses have intersections.
All of that has to be upgraded. It’s not cheap.
Kentucky, on the other hand, already had hundreds of miles of limited access parkway that met interstate standards (or very close). They didn’t have private driveways, intersections, etc. that needed hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to upgrade. Comparing that to Texas already having “existing highways” is not even close.
So for the work performed in Kentucky so far: $300 million, give or take.
That doesn't include the last remaining "bowtie" interchange at Wingo, mainline modifications from Mayfield to Fulton, or reconfiguring the interchange at the KY/TN state line. Depending on what design that Tennessee comes up with, I can see the interchange at the state line being north of $100 million, and right now no one knows how that bill will be split between Kentucky and Tennessee.
Point is, there was still significant work that had to be done on the Kentucky parkway segments that were incorporated into I-69 before interstate shields could be installed, but it was a lot less costly than building a freeway on new location.
Those "bowtie" interchanges looked awfully goofy to me. Were they designed and constructed before standard diamond interchanges became the norm? I would agree that Kentucky had it easy that the parkways already had been constructed, so building 69 was easier than it would have been in other states.The bowtie interchanges were in place because there were mainline toll plazas where they met up.
Those "bowtie" interchanges looked awfully goofy to me. Were they designed and constructed before standard diamond interchanges became the norm? I would agree that Kentucky had it easy that the parkways already had been constructed, so building 69 was easier than it would have been in other states.
The bowtie interchanges were in place because there were mainline toll plazas where they met up.
I think we can agree that both Kentucky and Texas have it pretty easy on this project when compared with what LA and AR are faced with. Basically, no existing corridor at all so most of it will have to be built from scratch. And that will not happen quickly.Kentucky has it easy because the existing highway is limited access and the needed changes aren't hard to carry out under traffic. However, in the case of Texas, many highway designers would argue it's just as tough, if not tougher, to convert an existing full access highway to a limited access highway, than building a new "greenfield" route.
^ They’re in the process of reconstructing the US-77 interchange to route the movements to the right side… I would hope they retain that existing connection. The further north option makes no sense.And if they decided otherwise, we would probably see hypothetically future former US 77 become Business I-69(E).
The preliminary list of alignment options for the US 77 Odem bypass (northwest of Corpus Christi) has been narrowed to three options.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us-77-odem-area/041323-route-options-screening-rationale.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us-77-odem-area/041323-route-options-screening-rationale.pdf)
Option A is obviously the most sensible, but we can't assume that the most logical and sensible option will be selected.
Then how were they able to do it with US 281 in Falfurrias?The preliminary list of alignment options for the US 77 Odem bypass (northwest of Corpus Christi) has been narrowed to three options.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us-77-odem-area/041323-route-options-screening-rationale.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us-77-odem-area/041323-route-options-screening-rationale.pdf)
Option A is obviously the most sensible, but we can't assume that the most logical and sensible option will be selected.
A-1 and B-1 are eliminated based on logic....there is no way to build an interstate highway slicing right though Odem, heck they couldn't even build it though Driscoll. Just upgrade the same four miles between the last Sinton interchange and the first Odem interchange, then build around Odem, and rejoin the last few miles from just south of Odem to I-37.
In Woodsboro, you just might be able to pull off an upgrade of US-77 to interstate standards without the need to build a bypass around the town as practically the whole town's development is to the east of the highway.
Just upgrade the same four miles between the last Sinton interchange and the first Odem interchangeOne of the issues with that is the right of way constraints on US-77 between the two towns. There are a number of properties that flank the existing US-77 highway to the west, and a railroad line to the east. Any upgrades would involve demolishing at least 20 buildings including two churches.
In Woodsboro, you just might be able to pull off an upgrade of US-77 to interstate standards without the need to build a bypass around the town as practically the whole town's development is to the east of the highway.TxDOT did a study on the Woodsboro-Refugio portion of the route around 5 years ago, and all the alternatives for the Refugio bypass included upgrading the existing highway near Woodsboro.
Why can’t we just demolish the railline and relocate it? :-DJust upgrade the same four miles between the last Sinton interchange and the first Odem interchangeOne of the issues with that is the right of way constraints on US-77 between the two towns. There are a number of properties that flank the existing US-77 highway to the west, and a railroad line to the east. Any upgrades would involve demolishing at least 20 buildings including two churches.
In this instance, it may be best to build the 3 mile portion on new location and seamlessly tie into an Odem bypass to the east. The portion to the south of Odem to I-37 on the other hand is fully upgradable with minimal disruption, and should be done without question.QuoteIn Woodsboro, you just might be able to pull off an upgrade of US-77 to interstate standards without the need to build a bypass around the town as practically the whole town's development is to the east of the highway.TxDOT did a study on the Woodsboro-Refugio portion of the route around 5 years ago, and all the alternatives for the Refugio bypass included upgrading the existing highway near Woodsboro.
Woodsboro-Refugio Study Website: https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/corpus-christi/us77-woodsboro-refugio.html
Refugio Bypass Routes: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us77-woodsboro-refugio/050318-potential-routes.pdf (I believe the eastern route was the preferred alternative).
Schematic of Woodsboro upgrade: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us77-woodsboro-refugio/050318-prosposed-route.pdf
Why can’t we just demolish the railline and relocate it? :-D
Just joking.
Why can’t we just demolish the railline and relocate it? :-D
Just joking.
Not as crazy as it sounds. It's been done before. I'm thinking of US-12 west of Wayzata, MN. But it's not exactly cheap or obstacle-free.
At this point for US-77 between Victoria and Brownsville, the only towns that need bypasses built around are Refugio, Odem, and Riviera. I don't believe there will be a need to go around Woodsboro, Ricardo, and Sarita; those towns can use the existing US-77 to be upgraded to interstate standards.Ricardo is already under construction, Woodsboro is set to be upgraded per the schematics I posted just a few posts back, and Sarita is already up to freeway standards.
The I-69E upgrade thru Ricardo will be fairly easy. Sarita has one freeway exit in the middle of town, but needs more work on the North and South sides. Again, US-77 has a wide existing ROW thru there. Riviera and Refugio will require new terrain bypasses.I think TxDOT is looking at letting a contract for the Riviera Bypass within the next couple of years.
An announcement posted by the Federal Highway Administration states that $14 million in funding has been awarded to TxDOT to replace the US Highway 59 Bridge over the San Antonio River near Goliad. I'm curious as to whether TxDOT will simply replace this bridge with a like structure in its place, or use this as an opportunity to design the new bridge to accommodate future expansion for I-69.
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.
Page 17 of the document says "Once US 59 is constructed to meet interstate standards through these sections, it can be redesignated as I-369".
That sounds to me like there are no plans for I-369 to become I-69.
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.
Page 17 of the document says "Once US 59 is constructed to meet interstate standards through these sections, it can be redesignated as I-369".
That sounds to me like there are no plans for I-369 to become I-69.
I-369 (I thought) is a Tenaha to Texarkana naming convention. I-69 will probably reach Tenaha with I-369 ramps to the north and sit with ghost ramps to the east untilLouisiana decides whenplanet Earth is overtaken by our sun's supernova.
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.Actually, I-69 departs from US 59 at the US 84 intersection in Tenaha. It will then enter Louisiana.
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.Actually, I-69 departs from US 59 at the US 84 intersection in Tenaha. It will then enter Louisiana.
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.Actually, I-69 departs from US 59 at the US 84 intersection in Tenaha. It will then enter Louisiana.
There is still a lot of debate about exactly where this is going to happen. The consensus location right now seems to be that US 59/ I-69 would loop to the north of Timpson and Teneha and meet up with the current US-59 near Woods Community. I-369 would go north from there and I-69 would proceed into Louisiana.
This requires the fewest Louisiana miles to reach I-49. All the bridges across the Sabine River would be completely in Texas and it actually is shorter than the US-84 tracking route.
The folks in Mansfield prefer the US-84 route because it would skirt just north of Mansfield. I really don't think Mansfield and DeSoto Parish have enough clout for it to really make any long-term difference.
There is absolutely nothing finalized or even firm after the northeast boundary of Nacogdoches County. (Garrison). Even on I-369 about the only thing set in stone is the Marshall bypass. It is assumed most of the rural stretches will follow US-59, but...
As to Louisiana, I really don't see them building ANY of I-69 except perhaps the parts between I-49 and US-71 (or maybe I-20) in the next 35 years.
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.Actually, I-69 departs from US 59 at the US 84 intersection in Tenaha. It will then enter Louisiana.
There is still a lot of debate about exactly where this is going to happen. The consensus location right now seems to be that US 59/ I-69 would loop to the north of Timpson and Teneha and meet up with the current US-59 near Woods Community. I-369 would go north from there and I-69 would proceed into Louisiana.
This requires the fewest Louisiana miles to reach I-49. All the bridges across the Sabine River would be completely in Texas and it actually is shorter than the US-84 tracking route.
The folks in Mansfield prefer the US-84 route because it would skirt just north of Mansfield. I really don't think Mansfield and DeSoto Parish have enough clout for it to really make any long-term difference.
There is absolutely nothing finalized or even firm after the northeast boundary of Nacogdoches County. (Garrison). Even on I-369 about the only thing set in stone is the Marshall bypass. It is assumed most of the rural stretches will follow US-59, but...
As to Louisiana, I really don't see them building ANY of I-69 except perhaps the parts between I-49 and US-71 (or maybe I-20) in the next 35 years.
They talked about building a "frontage road" which would essentially establish the center line as far as Stonewall in SIU 15. But thats as far as its gotten.
They have years and years of unspent earmarks stacking up in the Federal Budget, but they said SIU 14 and 15 alone would cost $2 billion and the earmarks haven't even reached half of that. (not including SIU 16)
When asked about SIU 16 they said Texas hasn't taken any action on their side, that they are stretched thin as it is.
I figure they will cross the state line somewhere near the historical Texas-US international boundary marker from 1842.
Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few. And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.
Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.
Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."
Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
:-/
The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few. And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.
The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few. And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.
I'm not aware of any other toll-free interstates being tolled, although I have read reports of multiple studies in other states. The new bridge toll would be $2.88 in 2021 dollars for local traffic, and through traffic (mostly Texans) would be hit with higher tolls.In Virginia, the I-264 Downtown Tunnel between Norfolk and Portsmouth began tolling in 2014 after being toll-free since 1990, to help fund construction of a second Midtown Tunnel on another roadway altogether (US-58).
The I-65 bridge over the Ohio River between Louisville, Kentucky and southern Indiana used to be toll-free. Following its reconstruction last decade, it is now tolled. Kentucky and Ohio are looking at taking a similar approach to reconstructing the Brent Spence Bridge, also over the Ohio River, but further east.
I'm not aware of any other toll-free interstates being tolled, although I have read reports of multiple studies in other states. The new bridge toll would be $2.88 in 2021 dollars for local traffic, and through traffic (mostly Texans) would be hit with higher tolls.
Kentucky and Ohio are looking at taking a similar approach to reconstructing the Brent Spence Bridge, also over the Ohio River, but further east.I thought that bridge was not going to be tolled.
Maybe they changed their mind, but last I heard the Brent Spence will be tolled following its reconstruction.Kentucky and Ohio are looking at taking a similar approach to reconstructing the Brent Spence Bridge, also over the Ohio River, but further east.I thought that bridge was not going to be tolled.
Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few. And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.
Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.
Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."
Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
:-/
Arkansas is building their section of I-69, but at glacial speed. They just broke ground on another section between US-278 east of Monticello and AR-293. Next will be the section between AR-293 and US-65. After the initial 2-lane buildouts are finished for those sections, work is expected to shift to the western section of the Monticello Bypass, but that's years away.Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few. And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.
Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.
Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."
Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
:-/
There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange. I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Last time I remember anyone talking about tolling on this bridge was when Matt Bevin lost his gubernatorial reelection (partly for saying the bridge would be tolled). I think the tolling decision won't be made until absolutely necessary depending on the amount of funding received. At the time it seemed like they would need tolls to fund the bridge but with the new infrastructure package who knows how much they'll need. Probably will still need a significant amount, but not as bad as before.Maybe they changed their mind, but last I heard the Brent Spence will be tolled following its reconstruction.Kentucky and Ohio are looking at taking a similar approach to reconstructing the Brent Spence Bridge, also over the Ohio River, but further east.I thought that bridge was not going to be tolled.
TN is also doing a half-assed job in completing its sections of I-69. AFAIK, Memphis to Dyersburg has not been worked on yet, and neither has the connection to KY. At least the Union City bypass is being built, although it's taking forever to get it done.Arkansas is building their section of I-69, but at glacial speed. They just broke ground on another section between US-278 east of Monticello and AR-293. Next will be the section between AR-293 and US-65. After the initial 2-lane buildouts are finished for those sections, work is expected to shift to the western section of the Monticello Bypass, but that's years away.Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few. And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.
Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.
Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."
Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
:-/
There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange. I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Mississippi is just broke and the political will is not there to raise the required revenue to maintain its existing roads and bridges, let alone build I-69. So don't hold your breath on Mississippi doing anything with I-69 any time soon.
Tennessee has been waiting on Kentucky to finish their upgrades to the Purchase Parkway and completion of the bypass around Union City before they will do anything about the interchange at the state line. At least the good news is that Kentucky is now working on upgrading the final 14 miles of the Purchase Parkway to interstate standards, which includes converting the last "bowtie" interchange at Wingo to a standard diamond configuration. With that and the bypass around Union City opening in the next couple of years, I think we'll see Tennessee shift their focus to the South Fulton interchange and the bypass around Troy.TN is also doing a half-assed job in completing its sections of I-69. AFAIK, Memphis to Dyersburg has not been worked on yet, and neither has the connection to KY. At least the Union City bypass is being built, although it's taking forever to get it done.Arkansas is building their section of I-69, but at glacial speed. They just broke ground on another section between US-278 east of Monticello and AR-293. Next will be the section between AR-293 and US-65. After the initial 2-lane buildouts are finished for those sections, work is expected to shift to the western section of the Monticello Bypass, but that's years away.Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few. And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.
Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.
Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."
Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
:-/
There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange. I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Mississippi is just broke and the political will is not there to raise the required revenue to maintain its existing roads and bridges, let alone build I-69. So don't hold your breath on Mississippi doing anything with I-69 any time soon.
Arkansas is building their section of I-69, but at glacial speed. They just broke ground on another section between US-278 east of Monticello and AR-293. Next will be the section between AR-293 and US-65. After the initial 2-lane buildouts are finished for those sections, work is expected to shift to the western section of the Monticello Bypass, but that's years away.Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few. And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.
Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.
Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."
Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
:-/
There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange. I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Mississippi is just broke and the political will is not there to raise the required revenue to maintain its existing roads and bridges, let alone build I-69. So don't hold your breath on Mississippi doing anything with I-69 any time soon.
It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69. It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it.These definitely aren’t comparable… the super-two sections of highway being built in Arkansas have limited access (no private driveways) and sufficient right of way for widening to 4 lanes along with full control of access upgrade with interchanges and overpasses. They are certainly much higher quality than those earlier Texas bypasses that had no access control.
It is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-130.)Is this even a real project? It seems to be I-69 would definitely be a higher priority, albeit still low.
It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69. It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it.These definitely aren’t comparable… the super-two sections of highway being built in Arkansas have limited access (no private driveways) and sufficient right of way for widening to 4 lanes along with full control of access upgrade with interchanges and overpasses. They are certainly much higher quality than those earlier Texas bypasses that had no access control.QuoteIt is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-530.)Is this even a real project? It seems to be I-69 would definitely be a higher priority, albeit still low.
The I-57 extension will be finished long before I-69 through Arkansas gets done. If I were to wager a guess on how Arkansas prioritizes its major highway projects, I would think it would be in this order, only the top 4 of which are actually programmed by ArDOT:It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69. It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it.These definitely aren’t comparable… the super-two sections of highway being built in Arkansas have limited access (no private driveways) and sufficient right of way for widening to 4 lanes along with full control of access upgrade with interchanges and overpasses. They are certainly much higher quality than those earlier Texas bypasses that had no access control.QuoteIt is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-530.)Is this even a real project? It seems to be I-69 would definitely be a higher priority, albeit still low.
Is it a real project? Is I-69 a real project?
Sure there is no access, but the problems in Texas are about Texas inability to limit access to properties. Down the road Arkansas can open the access if I-69 falls through. It may be in some sort of preparation. It is not something that cannot be undone. It could be kept as is as a two lane limited access for another half century waiting for a freeway to get built. Regardless of what they are building it is needed in east central Arkansas. I just don't think the freeway will ever get there.
As to the I-57 extension, it is probably as real as I-69.
The I-57 extension will be finished long before I-69 through Arkansas gets done. If I were to wager a guess on how Arkansas prioritizes its major highway projects, I would think it would be in this order, only the top 4 of which are actually programmed by ArDOT:It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69. It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it.These definitely aren’t comparable… the super-two sections of highway being built in Arkansas have limited access (no private driveways) and sufficient right of way for widening to 4 lanes along with full control of access upgrade with interchanges and overpasses. They are certainly much higher quality than those earlier Texas bypasses that had no access control.QuoteIt is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-530.)Is this even a real project? It seems to be I-69 would definitely be a higher priority, albeit still low.
Is it a real project? Is I-69 a real project?
Sure there is no access, but the problems in Texas are about Texas inability to limit access to properties. Down the road Arkansas can open the access if I-69 falls through. It may be in some sort of preparation. It is not something that cannot be undone. It could be kept as is as a two lane limited access for another half century waiting for a freeway to get built. Regardless of what they are building it is needed in east central Arkansas. I just don't think the freeway will ever get there.
As to the I-57 extension, it is probably as real as I-69.
1. I-49 from I-40 to AR-22, including the new Arkansas River Bridge.
2. US-67/Future I-57 from Walnut Ridge to MO State Line
3. First 2 lanes of Future I-49 (AR-549?) from US-71 (south of Fort Smith) to Y-City
4. Western Section Monticello Bypass (US-278 Bypass/Future I-69)
5. Remaining sections of Future I-49 between Y-City and Texarkana
6. Remaining sections of Future I-69 from Monticello to Louisiana border
If Arkansas is going to have to come up with most or all of the funding they're obviously going to concentrate on highway projects that provide the most benefits to their own state residents. I-69 is more of a national project and it doesn't run through the busiest areas of Arkansas.
If Louisiana were to build I-69 toward Arkansas, there might be an incentive, but for Louisiana, a road from Alexandria to Monroe or Ruston to points north makes more sense evacuating South Louisiana. So would US-425 to Ferriday and then US-61 to Baton Rouge.
La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that don’t directly benefit the state.That is true, save for the section between I-49 S and I-20 E just because it adds an additional crossing of the Red River and a relief route for Shreveport/Bossier and Barksdale AFB.
La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that don’t directly benefit the state.
I-69 or I-49? I-69 is certainly an international trade corridor, especially for trucks coming up from Mexico along I-35, US-59, and US-281 heading north and northeast out of Texas.La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that don’t directly benefit the state.
It has virtually NOTHING to do with international trade.
I-69 or I-49? I-69 is certainly an international trade corridor, especially for trucks coming up from Mexico along I-35, US-59, and US-281 heading north and northeast out of Texas.La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that don’t directly benefit the state.
It has virtually NOTHING to do with international trade.
Bids received this month for work on I-69.
The first is US 281, future I-69C, at Alice. This upgrades the existing Alice bypass to freeway standards. I looked at the plans and there is a 1.5-mile-long bridge structure on the north side, from CR 117 southward. Looking at Google maps, I don't see any reason for the bridge.
After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly
After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly
Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?
"It was founded in 1885 as a shipping point on the Houston, East and West Texas Railway, when that railroad was being constructed through the county. The community was named by members of the Hicks family for Tenehaw Municipality, the original name of Shelby County."
After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly
Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?
I said it Yankee style "TEN-naha"
He said it Texas style "TEENA-haw" or at least that is what it sounded like with his rural accent.Quote"It was founded in 1885 as a shipping point on the Houston, East and West Texas Railway, when that railroad was being constructed through the county. The community was named by members of the Hicks family for Tenehaw Municipality, the original name of Shelby County."
After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly
Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?
I said it Yankee style "TEN-naha"
He said it Texas style "TEENA-haw" or at least that is what it sounded like with his rural accent.Quote"It was founded in 1885 as a shipping point on the Houston, East and West Texas Railway, when that railroad was being constructed through the county. The community was named by members of the Hicks family for Tenehaw Municipality, the original name of Shelby County."
I had the honor of meeting the mayor of Logan, TX (population 40), in Panola County last week...
He said he hasn't heard anything in several years about any work being done for it. Said most of it is planning is between Nachodoches and Carthage.
After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly
Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?
I said it Yankee style "TEN-naha"
He said it Texas style "TEENA-haw" or at least that is what it sounded like with his rural accent.
Bids were opened today for upgrading 6 miles north of Cleveland to interstate standards.Does this fill the gap to Shepherd, and is the Shepherd bypass at interstate standards?
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/06273402.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/06273402.htm)
The plans show 2x2 main lanes with continuous frontage roads on both sides, including the side adjacent to the railroad (northbound). There is a center barrier on the main lanes, no median. It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.
County: SAN JACINTO Let Date: 06/27/23
Type: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT Seq No: 3402
Time: 1309 WORKING DAYS Project ID: F 2023(773)
Highway: US 59 Contract #: 06233402
Length: 6.620 CCSJ: 0177-02-057
Limits:
From: FM 2914 Check: $100,000
To: LIBERTY C/L Misc Cost:
Estimate $176,543,400.31 % Over/Under Company
Bidder 1 $189,820,653.98 +7.52% WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2 $192,087,573.02 +8.80% JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Does this fill the gap to Shepherd, and is the Shepherd bypass at interstate standards?
It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.
FWIW the Rockingham Bypass in NC is 7.2 miles for $146.2M or about $20.3M/mile; it’s 4 lanes with no frontage roads. It’s a 2019 contract so it would be more today but not $30M/mile.It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.
I wonder how this compares to states that do not have extensive frontage roads. It also makes you wonder if greenfield alignments might be cheaper than upgrades of existing highways which necessitates extensive frontage roads and a larger right-of-way footprint.
The average cost in rural Europe seems to be around $ 20 million per mile, barring any expensive tunnels or bridges.
FWIW the Rockingham Bypass in NC is 7.2 miles for $146.2M or about $20.3M/mile; it’s 4 lanes with no frontage roads. It’s a 2019 contract so it would be more today but not $30M/mile.It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.
I wonder how this compares to states that do not have extensive frontage roads. It also makes you wonder if greenfield alignments might be cheaper than upgrades of existing highways which necessitates extensive frontage roads and a larger right-of-way footprint.
The average cost in rural Europe seems to be around $ 20 million per mile, barring any expensive tunnels or bridges.
So do those figures in the linked file account for just materials or is labor included as well? For projects that receive any federal funding have minimum wage requirements for each job position under the Davis-Bacon Act, based on the local prevailing wages at the time the contract is awarded. Due to the challenges of finding skilled labor, wages on major projects are likely much higher than those prescribed by Davis-Bacon, just to get people hired to do the work. Remember all the handouts folks were getting for COVID-19 (in some states up to $100K per year to sit at home on their couch, smoking dope). So how do you get people to work if they can make as much, if not more, sitting on their asses and holding out their hand and getting a check from We the American Taxpayer?FWIW the Rockingham Bypass in NC is 7.2 miles for $146.2M or about $20.3M/mile; it’s 4 lanes with no frontage roads. It’s a 2019 contract so it would be more today but not $30M/mile.It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.
I wonder how this compares to states that do not have extensive frontage roads. It also makes you wonder if greenfield alignments might be cheaper than upgrades of existing highways which necessitates extensive frontage roads and a larger right-of-way footprint.
The average cost in rural Europe seems to be around $ 20 million per mile, barring any expensive tunnels or bridges.
The plans for the I-69 work generally show a width of 94 feet for the main lanes (full inner and outer shoulders) and 36 feet on each frontage road (8 foot outer and 4 foot inner shoulder) for a total of 72 feet. So the material for the frontage roads is around 76% of the main lane material. So it is reasonable and expected that the cost per mile will be around 50% higher than a facility without frontage roads.
I don't know about North Carolina, but highway cost inflation in Texas has been extreme in the last two years, with costs up around 48% in the last two years. Inflation alone accounts for price-per-mile increase from $20 million to $30 million.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/cst/hci-binder.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/cst/hci-binder.pdf)
So do those figures in the linked file account for just materials or is labor included as well? For projects that receive any federal funding have minimum wage requirements for each job position under the Davis-Bacon Act, based on the local prevailing wages at the time the contract is awarded. Due to the challenges of finding skilled labor, wages on major projects are likely much higher than those prescribed by Davis-Bacon, just to get people hired to do the work. Remember all the handouts folks were getting for COVID-19 (in some states up to $100K per year to sit at home on their couch, smoking dope). So how do you get people to work if they can make as much, if not more, sitting on their asses and holding out their hand and getting a check from We the American Taxpayer?
Since construction was largely exempt from covid-related drawdowns, but federal stimulus packages like ARPA, Build Back Better, Inflation Reduction, etc. have greatly increased the funding available, I suspect we may now be in a situation of too much work chasing too few contractors. Labor (skilled or unskilled) is not the only constraint on contractor capacity--management resource (typically white-collar) comes into play as well, as does capital. Financing costs are significantly higher due to increased interest rates.
https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prevThat sends me to an article about right to farm in Texas… nothing about an interstate highway. Also, it’s paywalled.
A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.
Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.
https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev
A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.
Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.
Not sure what's included in the scope of work to upgrade US-59 between Wharton and El Campo, but I can see replacing the bridges that carry US-59 over the Colorado River at Wharton being a significant cost driver. There will likely be some ROW acquisition and utility relocation costs if TxDOT intends to add frontage roads to both sides of the mainline.https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev
A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.
Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.
The article is paywalled, but the map is visible. The 7.9-mile section is proposed to receive $438 million new funding in the 2024 UTP, or $55 million per mile. Existing work in Wharton was previously allocated $339 million. All work is listed to start in FY 2024-2027. See page 165 https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf)
Without the details of the article, I don't know where the $3.6 million comes from, which is obviously less than 1% of the overall cost. $55 million per mile seems high, but I'm assuming it is all-inclusive including right-of-way, utility relocation, engineering, construction, etc. A job to rebuild and expand I-10 to 3x3 with frontage roads received a low bid for construction of $35 million per mile in June. I think this section of I-69 will have 2x2 main lanes.
Not sure what's included in the scope of work to upgrade US-59 between Wharton and El Campo, but I can see replacing the bridges that carry US-59 over the Colorado River at Wharton being a significant cost driver. There will likely be some ROW acquisition and utility relocation costs if TxDOT intends to add frontage roads to both sides of the mainline.https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev
A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.
Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.
The article is paywalled, but the map is visible. The 7.9-mile section is proposed to receive $438 million new funding in the 2024 UTP, or $55 million per mile. Existing work in Wharton was previously allocated $339 million. All work is listed to start in FY 2024-2027. See page 165 https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf)
Without the details of the article, I don't know where the $3.6 million comes from, which is obviously less than 1% of the overall cost. $55 million per mile seems high, but I'm assuming it is all-inclusive including right-of-way, utility relocation, engineering, construction, etc. A job to rebuild and expand I-10 to 3x3 with frontage roads received a low bid for construction of $35 million per mile in June. I think this section of I-69 will have 2x2 main lanes.
$438 million seems awful high for 8 miles of new Interstate. The recently completed section going into Kendleton has 3x3 main lanes. I kind of wonder if the 3x3 configuration will continue through Wharton.
The existing US-59 bridges over the Colorado River look like they have wide enough shoulders to qualify for Interstate standards. But those bridges look pretty old. If a 3x3 configuration is in the cards then those bridges would obviously be replaced. They might get replaced anyway.
Not sure what's included in the scope of work to upgrade US-59 between Wharton and El Campo, but I can see replacing the bridges that carry US-59 over the Colorado River at Wharton being a significant cost driver. There will likely be some ROW acquisition and utility relocation costs if TxDOT intends to add frontage roads to both sides of the mainline.https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev
A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.
Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.
The article is paywalled, but the map is visible. The 7.9-mile section is proposed to receive $438 million new funding in the 2024 UTP, or $55 million per mile. Existing work in Wharton was previously allocated $339 million. All work is listed to start in FY 2024-2027. See page 165 https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf)
Without the details of the article, I don't know where the $3.6 million comes from, which is obviously less than 1% of the overall cost. $55 million per mile seems high, but I'm assuming it is all-inclusive including right-of-way, utility relocation, engineering, construction, etc. A job to rebuild and expand I-10 to 3x3 with frontage roads received a low bid for construction of $35 million per mile in June. I think this section of I-69 will have 2x2 main lanes.
Speaking of local airports, the intersection at Jackson County Airport could also use an overpass alongside the Cordele exit.BTW, when are we going to see Jackson County get its first taste of I-69 construction?
Speaking of local airports, the intersection at Jackson County Airport could also use an overpass alongside the Cordele exit.BTW, when are we going to see Jackson County get its first taste of I-69 construction?
In order to be designated as I-69, it must both meet interstate standards and connect with an existing interstate highway segment.Speaking of local airports, the intersection at Jackson County Airport could also use an overpass alongside the Cordele exit.BTW, when are we going to see Jackson County get its first taste of I-69 construction?
The bypass around Edna has been up to Interstate quality for as long as I can remember, ending at the Jackson County Airport intersection, it should have been redesignated as I-69 already; not sure why the hold-up there.
On another note, I'm going to predict that I-69 reaches Laredo/McAllen/Brownsville before it gets to Shreveport.Easily, it’s not even a question. They have been pretty aggressive with completing I-69E between I-37 and Brownsville, and could be complete by 2030.
This is a map of the corridor upgrades as depicted in the paywalled article:
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journal-spectator.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/f3/3f3fd260-229b-11ee-bcde-c3b5c69e6682/64b1d5773cf1d.image.jpg?resize=1095%2C714)
On another note, I'm going to predict that I-69 reaches Laredo/McAllen/Brownsville before it gets to Shreveport.
Quick question. What would happen if the Valley interstates didn't connect to the rest of the system by 2038? Do they lose their interstate status, or will an extension be asked for and granted to keep them isolated beyond the 25-year grace period?If I were a betting man, Texas would seek an extension from Congress, and likely get it. But, I think that I-69E will be finished from I-37 to the Valley before that time period expires. The main obstacle now for completing I-69E is the bypass around Riviera, which is slated to start construction in 2027. Beyond the Riviera Bypass, the remaining 50-60 miles of US-77 from Riviera to Yturria runs through mostly undeveloped areas and should be relatively easy to upgrade to interstate standards.
should be relatively easy to upgrade to interstate standards.
After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly
Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?
I said it Yankee style "TEN-naha"
He said it Texas style "TEENA-haw" or at least that is what it sounded like with his rural accent.Quote"It was founded in 1885 as a shipping point on the Houston, East and West Texas Railway, when that railroad was being constructed through the county. The community was named by members of the Hicks family for Tenehaw Municipality, the original name of Shelby County."
More likely Tinn e haw
Quick question. What would happen if the Valley interstates didn't connect to the rest of the system by 2038? Do they lose their interstate status, or will an extension be asked for and granted to keep them isolated beyond the 25-year grace period?
Bids were opened today to upgrade 4.5 miles of US 59 in Laredo to full freeway standards, from the existing freeway at International Parkway south to Sinatra Parkway. The plans show 3x3 main lanes and 2x2 frontage roads on right-of-way width between 400 and 450 feet.
Quote from: MaxConcreteBids were opened today to upgrade 4.5 miles of US 59 in Laredo to full freeway standards, from the existing freeway at International Parkway south to Sinatra Parkway. The plans show 3x3 main lanes and 2x2 frontage roads on right-of-way width between 400 and 450 feet.
That project would build out the easier "low hanging fruit" portion of the Bob Bullock Loop to Interstate standards.
The difficult part is just South of the Sinatra Parkway intersection. The United ISD Food Production Center facility stands in the path of any further extension of the freeway Southward. Much of the National Guard's parking lot would also get "eaten" by an Interstate quality upgrade. There is a lot of wide open territory to the right of US-59 just South of those two properties.
The most difficult hurdle may be the Lake Casa Blanca International State Park on the right side of US-59 and the Casa Blanca Golf Course to the left. It's going to take some creative design work to shoot that gap and connect into the existing freeway immediately South of there.
Bids were opened today to upgrade 4.5 miles of US 59 in Laredo to full freeway standards, from the existing freeway at International Parkway south to Sinatra Parkway. The plans show 3x3 main lanes and 2x2 frontage roads on right-of-way width between 400 and 450 feet.
This is on the far southwest end of I-69W, and will probably be signed as such when the work is done. However, I-69W between Laredo and Victoria is in the very far future, and the full length may never be built to interstate standards. Virtually all other parts of I-69 and I-369 are (justifiably) higher priority, and those other parts will take decades to complete.
I apologize if this has been brought up before, but is the plan to take the US-59 corridor north of Nacogdoches or rather US-259 to TX-315 or perhaps some other routing? I'm not asking because I got a ticket in Garrison yesterday and am now hoping they get bypassed forever.
I apologize if this has been brought up before, but is the plan to take the US-59 corridor north of Nacogdoches or rather US-259 to TX-315 or perhaps some other routing? I'm not asking because I got a ticket in Garrison yesterday and am now hoping they get bypassed forever.
While there is minimal in the way of formal plans beyond Nacogdoches county (or more aptly the Lufkin TxDOT region) , at this point it appears that a large loop bypassing, Garrison, Timpson, and Tenaha (probably north of all three) along the ROUGH path of US-59 is the primary plan being gossipped. Then there is discussion that it might go SOUTH of Garrison and Timpson to stay out of Rusk county (and the Tyler TxDOT region). TxDOT seems to favor a location out near Woods in Panola County for the I-69 / I-369 split. The folks in Shelby county want the split closer to Tenaha.
So basically the plan is to continue along US-59 for both until the split. The US-259 route seems a long-shot at best. Seemingly the ONLY way it might come in play if there is an absolute cancellation of I-69 from Shelby / Panola counties to I-49.
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
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.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 would have been very surprised if the US 259 corridor got an Interstate upgrade. Then again, this is Texas, so anything is possible.
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
When are they gonna upgrade US-59 (future I-69W) anywhere between Laredo and Goliad?I honestly see them completing US 77/I-69E south of I-37 before they even start on a segment of US 59/I-69W east of Laredo
It is mostly 2-lane undivided there, meaning they’ll have to go from that to a 4-lane divided expressway, and that’s before all the bypasses and any realignments
When are they gonna upgrade US-59 (future I-69W) anywhere between Laredo and Goliad?I honestly see them completing US 77/I-69E south of I-37 before they even start on a segment of US 59/I-69W east of Laredo
It is mostly 2-lane undivided there, meaning they’ll have to go from that to a 4-lane divided expressway, and that’s before all the bypasses and any realignments
When are they gonna upgrade US-59 (future I-69W) anywhere between Laredo and Goliad?Better yet, which one will be first: I-69W from Laredo to Victoria, or I-69 in Jackson County?
It is mostly 2-lane undivided there, meaning they’ll have to go from that to a 4-lane divided expressway, and that’s before all the bypasses and any realignments
If TX DOT was smart about it they would get to work acquiring ROW around towns where the I-69W route will have to be built on new terrain bypasses. That means bypasses around Goliad, Beeville, George West and Freer. They could start out with modest Super 2 roadways that have at-grade intersections, but preserve enough ROW to eventually upgrade it to 4-lane divided, limited access.
If they fart around for 20 or more years before doing anything at all it could cost the taxpayers a bunch. The new terrain bypasses may have to go farther around these towns due to additional development (such as speculators deliberately building a bunch of crap in the freeway's future path).
TX DOT could take decades filling in the gaps between towns if they choose. But they need to get the more difficult stuff (town bypasses) built sooner than later. They're already kind of doing this with I-69 North of Houston. Towns like Corrigan, Diboll, Lufkin and Nacogdoches have I-69 projects in progress. TX DOT isn't simply upgrading US-59 into I-69 North out of Houston in a linear fashion.
I would agree that building super-2 bypasses would be a good start. US-59 currently does not have the traffic volumes or warrants for a freeway, let alone a divided highway, but preserving that right of way, and allowing it to be a continuous 75 mph super-2 throughout would be an improvement over those current in-town situations.
Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?
Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?
Not really; it's more of a Arkansas thing. Toll SH 49, Loop 390, and former Toll SH 255 would seem to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?
Not really; it's more of a Arkansas thing. Toll SH 49, Loop 390, and former Toll SH 255 would seem to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
Not sure how SL-290 fits here. It is not currently controlled access at any point. The other two are 2-laned controlled access. As you said, still outliers in Texas even at that.
Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?
There are a not insignificant number of small towns that fight bypasses due to the lost revenue that the traffic brings to whatever commercial district (or speedtrap toll road) they already have, such as a few instances along US-69 in Oklahoma, if we remember. This might also be a case of Texas not wanting to pick a fight before its time.
The Super-2 bypasses I'm suggesting for Goliad, Beeville, George West, etc do not have to be built with limited access from the outset. They can start out as mere 2-lane roads with at-grade intersections. The whole point is just doing the minimum to get the ROW reserved. Bridges, exit ramps and better quality main travel lanes can be added in phases.Quote from: edwaleniDoes Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?
They've done it in various places.
The re-build of US-82 going East of Sherman to Honey Grove started out as a Super-2 with some limited access exits in the 2000's. The second pair of lanes was added only a couple or so years ago. The Collin County Outer Loop to the North of McKinney and Propser is starting out as a 2-lane frontage road with 300'-400' of ROW reserved off to the side. The TX-49 toll road in Tyler is just 2 lanes, but was built so a second roadway could be added later. This approach of building up a freeway or turnpike in phases is becoming more common.Quote from: MikieTimTThere are a not insignificant number of small towns that fight bypasses due to the lost revenue that the traffic brings to whatever commercial district (or speedtrap toll road) they already have, such as a few instances along US-69 in Oklahoma, if we remember. This might also be a case of Texas not wanting to pick a fight before its time.
The problem is these small towns (including the speed traps of Stringtown and Atoka in Oklahoma) are steadily losing population under current status-quo conditions. Some of these places could become ghost towns. At some point the residents of a small town in decline could reverse their opposition to a freeway bypass or even routing a freeway thru town as a means of trying to stop the decline.
The Super-2 bypasses I'm suggesting for Goliad, Beeville, George West, etc do not have to be built with limited access from the outset. They can start out as mere 2-lane roads with at-grade intersections. The whole point is just doing the minimum to get the ROW reserved. Bridges, exit ramps and better quality main travel lanes can be added in phases.Quote from: edwaleniDoes Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?
They've done it in various places.
The re-build of US-82 going East of Sherman to Honey Grove started out as a Super-2 with some limited access exits in the 2000's. The second pair of lanes was added only a couple or so years ago. The Collin County Outer Loop to the North of McKinney and Propser is starting out as a 2-lane frontage road with 300'-400' of ROW reserved off to the side. The TX-49 toll road in Tyler is just 2 lanes, but was built so a second roadway could be added later. This approach of building up a freeway or turnpike in phases is becoming more common.Quote from: MikieTimTThere are a not insignificant number of small towns that fight bypasses due to the lost revenue that the traffic brings to whatever commercial district (or speedtrap toll road) they already have, such as a few instances along US-69 in Oklahoma, if we remember. This might also be a case of Texas not wanting to pick a fight before its time.
The problem is these small towns (including the speed traps of Stringtown and Atoka in Oklahoma) are steadily losing population under current status-quo conditions. Some of these places could become ghost towns. At some point the residents of a small town in decline could reverse their opposition to a freeway bypass or even routing a freeway thru town as a means of trying to stop the decline.
Interesting. Some friends of mine just moved to Atoka. They absolutely love it. They are in their late 20's and say its the most friendliest town they have ever been in. 3 kids born and they want to stay.
But it doesn't appear TxDOT does Super-2's as a strategic activity, just when necessary.
US-82 has always had driveways east of Bells. There are select grade separations but even FM road intersections (ex: FM-1396) mostly are at grade. It does bypass all the little towns in Fannin and Grayson counties, but NOT a super 2.
Construction projects in Kingsville and Driscoll are still not finished. Once those are done I-69E can be signed down to the South end of Kingsville.Quote from: bwana39US-82 has always had driveways east of Bells. There are select grade separations but even FM road intersections (ex: FM-1396) mostly are at grade. It does bypass all the little towns in Fannin and Grayson counties, but NOT a super 2.
News flash: a Super 2 roadway does not have to be 100% limited access. Not far from here the Duncan Bypass is a Super 2 facility. It does still have a couple of at-grade intersections. But it still qualifies as a Super 2. The roadway is built with Interstate quality grading. That's the main factor. And enough ROW is preserved to eventually turn it into a fully limited access freeway. It's a less expensive approach than the old Texas standard of building a divided highway with a giant median in between the two roadways.
I drove from Houston to Boca Chica (South Padre) for the rocket launch.
Status of I-69
Freeway in Fort Bend County (to Kendleton) appears to be 100% complete. 3x3 main lanes have been open for a while, more than a year, but I did not see any lingering work on the frontage roads.
Wharton County, Kendleton to north Wharton: Traffic is on the frontage roads with work proceeding on the main lanes. Main lane progress is variable, substantial progress on the north half and less on the south half. I think it is at least 2 years before completion. A $341 project for work through Wharton is scheduled to be awarded in December.
Wharton to Victoria. Most of the highway has a recent, smooth asphalt overlay.
Corpus, multiplex with I-37: Substantial work in progress
South half of Kingsville bypass: traffic is on the frontage roads and main lanes look around 75% complete
Kingsville to Riviera: work is substantially progressed on the northbound frontage road, with most bridges in place. Minimal work on the southbound main lanes (which will be in the existing median.)
I-69C interchange at I-2 in Pharr: new ramps are either open or past 50% complete. There is substantial work on I-2 main lanes west of the interchange. I did not drive I-69C north of the interchange.
Nice! I wonder when work will start on the Odem bypass. I was looking at the aerial view and it almost appears like ROW is being cleared but maybe this is for something else, but it follows closely to the Option A and B route in this spot:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/S3YdX64N6RVRpdLe9?g_st=ic
Kingsville to Riviera: work is substantially progressed on the northbound frontage road, with most bridges in place. Minimal work on the southbound main lanes (which will be in the existing median.)
From the GSV in Ricardo, it looks like that's exactly what they're doing. Upgrading US-77 on the spot through town. The long pole in the tent to completing the remainder of I-69E between I-37 and the Mexican border is the bypass around Riviera. The latest I saw on that had construction on the Riviera Bypass starting in 2027. After the bypass around Riviera is finished, there will be about 45 miles left between Riviera and Yturria, which runs through a very sparsely populated area. I can't imagine that stretch being too hard to upgrade to interstate standards.Kingsville to Riviera: work is substantially progressed on the northbound frontage road, with most bridges in place. Minimal work on the southbound main lanes (which will be in the existing median.)
Does the progress include though (or around) Ricardo? I believe they can (and should) be able to upgrade US-77 on its current route right through Ricardo and not need to bypass around.
Bids were opened this week totaling $567 million for two major projects on I-69 and I-69E.
This project (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/12053028.htm) on I-69E in Kenedy county (just north of the Rio Grande Valley) will add overpasses to remove crossovers. In my opinion, most other work on I-69 is higher priority, since none of these crossovers has a traffic signal or any kind of slowdown. But it probably was "shovel ready", and other work is not.
County: KENEDY Let Date: 12/05/23
Type: INTERSTATE DESIGNATION Seq No: 3028
Time: 840 WORKING DAYS Project ID: F 2024(529)
Highway: US 77 Contract #: 12233028
Length: 11.643 CCSJ: 0327-05-041
Limits:
From: NORIAS RD Check: $100,000
To: 1.34 MI N OF WILLACY/KENEDY C.L. Misc Cost:
Estimate $181,963,013.52 % Over/Under Company
Bidder 1 $190,998,296.01 +4.97% POSILLICO CIVIL, INC.
Bidder 2 $229,719,235.18 +26.25% PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 3 $235,230,487.56 +29.27% ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 4 $240,050,877.21 +31.92% WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 5 $246,771,391.00 +35.62% ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
The second project (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/12063201.htm) upgrades the section through Wharton to a 3x3 freeway, including a new bridge over the Colorado River, which surely is a reason for the high cost. Williams Brothers is currently building the section to the north.
County: WHARTON Let Date: 12/06/23
Type: CONVERT NON-FREEWAY Seq No: 3201
Time: 0 X Project ID: F 2024(436)
Highway: US 59 Contract #: 12233201
Length: 7.779 CCSJ: 0089-07-154
Limits:
From: 0.26 MI. NORTH OF FM 102 Check: $100,000
To: 1 MI SOUTH OF FM 961 Misc Cost:
Estimate $375,500,377.07 % Over/Under Company
Bidder 1 $376,415,384.91 +0.24% WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 2 $419,260,054.87 +11.65% PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 3 $424,392,986.67 +13.02% WEBBER, LLC
Is the bypass around Riviera funded and/or scheduled for construction?
I believe this is because TxDOT is trying to push the completion of I-69E between I-37 and Brownsville entirely.From what I'm seeing, it looks like the bypass around Riviera will be the last piece of the puzzle to complete I-69E from I-37 to the Mexican border. If that's the case and the Riviera Bypass starts construction as scheduled in 2027, then you'll likely see that stretch of I-69E completed by 2030.
You still have the nearly 50 mile segment south of Riviera to Yturria that needs upgrades. Well the segment is largely desolated and operates functionally as a freeway, there’s still numerous of ranch access points that need to be closed / relocated. In Texas fashion, I imagine a number of frontage road miles, along with grade separations constructed.I believe this is because TxDOT is trying to push the completion of I-69E between I-37 and Brownsville entirely.From what I'm seeing, it looks like the bypass around Riviera will be the last piece of the puzzle to complete I-69E from I-37 to the Mexican border. If that's the case and the Riviera Bypass starts construction as scheduled in 2027, then you'll likely see that stretch of I-69E completed by 2030.
Would a future Interstate 69E bypass of Riviera go to the west of the town or to the east?East.
You still have the nearly 50 mile segment south of Riviera to Yturria that needs upgrades. Well the segment is largely desolated and operates functionally as a freeway, there’s still numerous of ranch access points that need to be closed / relocated. In Texas fashion, I imagine a number of frontage road miles, along with grade separations constructed.
True, but it appears that's being worked as well and it's starting to look like a lot of the work between Riviera and Yturria will be finished (or close to finished) by the time the Riviera Bypass opens.You still have the nearly 50 mile segment south of Riviera to Yturria that needs upgrades. Well the segment is largely desolated and operates functionally as a freeway, there’s still numerous of ranch access points that need to be closed / relocated. In Texas fashion, I imagine a number of frontage road miles, along with grade separations constructed.I believe this is because TxDOT is trying to push the completion of I-69E between I-37 and Brownsville entirely.From what I'm seeing, it looks like the bypass around Riviera will be the last piece of the puzzle to complete I-69E from I-37 to the Mexican border. If that's the case and the Riviera Bypass starts construction as scheduled in 2027, then you'll likely see that stretch of I-69E completed by 2030.
Would a future Interstate 69E bypass of Riviera go to the west of the town or to the east?
Beyond just I-69W, this looks like it will eliminate the remaining traffic signals on the entirety of Loop 20 around Laredo, allowing 60-65 mph travel between US-83 south of the city and I-35 north of the city.
Beyond just I-69W, this looks like it will eliminate the remaining traffic signals on the entirety of Loop 20 around Laredo, allowing 60-65 mph travel between US-83 south of the city and I-35 north of the city.
Anyone have links to any schematics for this?
Also, have they decided whether they will still use the entirety of Loop 20 north of US 59 for I-69, or will they build a cut-off for a more direct connection?
The first half of the Corrigan bypass is now visible on Google Maps satellite
With US 287 being studied for interstate feasibility, that might come sooner rather than later.The first half of the Corrigan bypass is now visible on Google Maps satellite
This bypass should at least extend to US-287 on both ends. It should run US-287 on the southeast side of Corrigan to US-59 south of Corrigan as well.
Now, if they could update the El Campo imagery…With US 287 being studies for interstate feasibility, that might come sooner rather than later.The first half of the Corrigan bypass is now visible on Google Maps satellite
This bypass should at least extend to US-287 on both ends. It should run US-287 on the southeast side of Corrigan to US-59 south of Corrigan as well.
Here is the image of the future US 59/future Interstate 69 western bypass of Corrigan: https://www.google.com/maps/@30.9904612,-94.8325865,4797m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu.