Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sprjus4]

^ It almost reminds me of I-27 in a lot of places… the existing highway that was bypassed was largely 4 lanes divided.

[Bobby5280]

One bright side to building the A-3 option: they won't have to build flanking frontage roads alongside the new freeway between Odem and Sinton. The existing US-77 highway could sort of serve that purpose.

[jgb191]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[abqtraveler]

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.

[abqtraveler]

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.

https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-300-million-9-bridge-projects-part-investing

Below is a link to a GSV of the bridge that will be replaced.

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.6501967,-97.4340298,3a,90y,72.96h,72.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM8RJHPNP4PiophvNB_ybZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Rick Powell]

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.

I think $14M buys you a 4-lane (or 2- 2 lane) bridges here. The apparent right of way would need to be expanded to fit an I-69 ready section, thus we'd expect a completed or in-progress environmental study to clear it if they are going for an expanded version.

[sprjus4]

^ I could see them replacing it with a two-lane bridge for now… the traffic volumes do not warrant 4 lanes let alone interstate cross section. In the future, they could twin the bridge if widening is desired later.

[MaxConcrete]

I drove from Nacogdoches to Houston on Monday. Observations:

* On the south end of Nacogdoches, the main lanes look substantially complete but plenty of work still remains on the ends when the new route connects to the existing road
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20230416-17_193-1600.jpg


* There is some frontage road construction in progress just north of Lufkin, and on the northeast side of the existing loop (photo).
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20230416-17_196-1600.jpg


* Work on the Diboll bypass is proceeding well. I think it will be open in less than 2 years. This view is at FM 1818 on the east side of Diboll
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20230416-17_200-1600.jpg


* There is no sign of any work underway on the Corrigan bypass at the ends where it connects to the existing highway. I did not go west on US 287 to look for any evidence on the west side of Corrigan.

* Between Corrigan and Cleveland there are areas where right-of-way is cleared, but no work in progress.

* The new 3x3 main lanes on the south side of Cleveland are fully open, and it looks like all construction is complete on that section. I don't know when the main lanes opened (it may not be recent), but the last time I drove through there was still a lot of work to be done.

My impression from driving this section is always there same: there is a tremendous amount of work to be done north of Cleveland to get to 100% interstate standards, and it's going to take a long time and a lot of money.

[MaxConcrete]

Public meeting is posted for upgrading 6 miles, from the north end of Shepherd to the Trinity River. This is 56 miles north of downtown Houston.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/lufkin/us59-042723.html

Observations
* Main lanes are 2x2, including the planned new Trinity River bridge.
* Corridor is planned to be 500 feet wide, which is extra wide by usual TxDOT standards. The existing corridor is 190 feet wide, so 310 feet more is needed. The center median is 92 feet wide, and the schematic shows the potential future third lane in each direction.
* The northbound frontage road is continuous to the Trinity River, but does not cross the river. The southbound frontage road is continuous south of the river, except for a missing section on the north side of Shepherd.
* Unfortunately construction is scheduled to start in 2029.
 

[sprjus4]

For Texas, the 100 foot median with a future 6 lane still maintaining a 76 foot median is surprising… especially given their recent love for narrow cross sections. Very much appreciate the wider design here!

While I understand the mentality is upgrading north of Houston and working north one segment at a time… I wish they’d just leave these rural areas alone for now… outside the town bypasses, the divided highway functions largely adequate with no traffic signals and 75 mph.

They need to focus on the town bypasses, then north of Nacogdoches where it’s still a “poor boy” 4 lane or 5 lane section. That should be the priority, tying into the existing divided highway portions to the south. Then lastly, upgrade the divided highway to full interstate.

[MaxConcrete]

TxDOT is soliciting consultants to prepare plans for upgrading US 59 to interstate standards from Texarkana south to Queen City (16 miles)

See page 17 for map
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/051223/presentation.pdf

The document mentions that I-69 will follow the existing corridor. Soonest possible construction start is 2030.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[MaxConcrete]

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.

[edwaleni]

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 until Louisiana decides when.

[cjk374]

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 until Louisiana decides when planet Earth is overtaken by our sun's supernova.

FTFY

[Thegeet]

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.

[bwana39]

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 (Desoto Parish Seat). 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.

[edwaleni]

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.

[bwana39]

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.

The "frontage road" would only extend from I-49 to the river / LA-1.  Locally, it seems to be on the radar.
There is an investment group in the planning stage to build a toll bridge across the river. It may or may not wind up being part of the I-69 facility.

I don't disagree with your assessment of where the crossing from Texas to Louisiana is likely. It might fall a couple of miles further north, but just that: 2-3 miles.  The Louisiana folks probably want it further south,but the river bottom is pretty wide just north of Haslam.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.
 

[abqtraveler]

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.

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.

[bwana39]

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 agree with all of this EXCEPT the I-10 Red River Bridge. While there are proposals to build additional metro Baton Rouge Bridges, The I-10 bridge being upgraded seems to be nowhere. A new bridge southeast of Baton Rouge or a New Bridge north of Port Allen are in the discussions.  But I do agree that one if not both will assuredly come ahead of I-69.

[MaxConcrete]

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.

Also, Louisiana can't afford a new bridge for I-10 in Lake Charles, so now it is planned to be tolled. This is in spite of the fact that the new bridge has a substantially lower vertical clearance (73') than the existing bridge (135').

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.