Print

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

[Grzrd]

Very nice photos, Ethan!

Agreed. Thanks for sharing!

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 ...:

....
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 requires:

20.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.

(bottom quote from Interstate 22 thread)

Russell Zapalac, TxDOT's Chief Planning and Projects Officer, recently made a presentation to the Texas Transportation Commission. 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".

I assume that he used "I-69W" merely as a way to distinguish that prong from I-69C and I-69E.  FHWA would probably approve the I-69 designation for that segment of Loop 20, but I can also see FHWA not being comfortable with an isolated I-69 segment west of I-35 for a long foreseeable period of time.  Congress did not specifically include Loop 20 in HPC 20; will FHWA require an interim I-x35 designation?

[Grzrd]

The Alliance for I-69 Texas website reports that the TTC made the I-69 designation official today:

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 ... 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. 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......

[The High Plains Traveler]

Apologies if this is covered above. We drove U.S. 77 from I-37 to south of Harlingen yesterday. It is marked as I-69 from I-37 to where the freeway ends at Robtown. At that point is an "END I-69" sign. There are several interchanges under construction from there south to Harlingen and a few "Future I-69 Interstate Corridor" signs. The existing freeway at Harlingen is only posted as U.S. 77 and U.S. 83. The only I-69E signage is at the I-2/U.S. 83 interchange. No reassurance markers. No exit numbers or Interstate mileposts.

Later this week I should be able to drive I-2.

[Grzrd]

I-69 "inside" I-610 was also absent from AASHTO's recent posting of its route numbering decisions. 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:

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.

The good news is that it seems like they are working closely with FHWA in order to develop a successful submittal.

[nolia_boi504]

Any info on when the overhead BGS will be changed to show I-69 for Southwest Freeway outside of I-610? Will it be co-signed I-69/US-59? If so, will the US59 eventually be dropped?

[txstateends]

Will it be co-signed I-69/US-59? If so, will the US59 eventually be dropped?

Good question.  *So far*, all the parts of US 59 with new I-69 (as well as I-369 in Texarkana) signage/shields still include US 59 signage/shields for now.  Nothing has been said officially yet as to the future status of US 59 along the corridors where I-69 and I-369 (plus I-69W and maybe I-69C later on) will overlap the US route.  It could very well be that eventually, US 59 could be mostly or completely phased out in TX.  If that were to happen, who knows where US 59's southern terminus would end up (Texarkana (but with the way US 59 gets treated in AR, maybe not)? Or somewhere in OK?)....  For now though, I don't see any US 66-scale (or US 81 Fort Worth-Laredo, or US 75 Dallas-Galveston, etc...) uprooting of US 59 anytime soon.

((The same conversation could be true about the 3 US routes (77, 83, 281) involved in the Valley's interstate additions, but again, so far, nothing has been said about any future removal/shortening of any of the 3 US designations for now.))

[Grzrd]

Will it be co-signed I-69/US-59? If so, will the US59 eventually be dropped?

The Texas Transportation Commission February 28, 2013 Minutes 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):

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

I have no idea whether TxDOT intends to ask the TTC to de-designate US 59 in the future.

[Grzrd]

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 yet

Not quite sure how well this January 2013 map will work for you. (pp. 7-8/122 of pdf):

... 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.

(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications thread)

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html

the SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:

The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year

This article reports that work is beginning on the ramps that will connect SH 550 to I-69E:

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 ....

Another I-69 Corridor Section of Independent Utility ("SIU") nearing completion ...... 

[Grzrd]

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 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)

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):




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.

edit

TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C).

[Grzrd]

If I am interpreting this Victoria Advocate editorial correctly, it looks like, one day, to begin traveling southward on I-69E from the I-69/I-69E interchange, one will begin with a northwestward journey along Loop 463, until it meets up with US 77 south of Victoria:

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.

I wonder why they would not simply route I-69E along the former Loop 175/US 59?

[NE2]

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?

[nolia_boi504]

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?

Is there an updated version of this PDF? It says "By the end of 2013 the final 11 miles of US 59 in Houston and five miles of US 59 in Texarkana are expected to be added to I-69." -- I don't believe the portion inside of the 610 loop are ready to be designated yet, is it?

[Grzrd]

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:

US 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?

I think you're right; two possible splits look likely for the south side (assuming the northern Loop 463 route will be designated as I-69):

1. if US 59 from Victoria to US 281 is designated as I-69C, then the south end of US 59 Biz will have a three-way split with I-69, I-69C and I-69E; or

2. if US 59 from Victoria to US 281 is designated as I-69, then it will simply be the I-69/I-69E split.

Any local knowledge regarding Loop 463 is welcome, particularly if US 59 on the east side is considered part of the Loop.

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.

It is interesting how the Victoria Advocate editorial board does not even mention the potential I-69C (or I-69) route southwest of Victoria:

.... around Loop 463 and then follow U.S. Highway 77

Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria may never be upgraded to an interstate.

I don't believe the portion inside of the 610 loop are ready to be designated yet, is it?

From upthread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg256017#msg256017 

[Grzrd]

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).

[apjung]

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).

I'm pleasantly surprised that TxDOT no longer calls their Interstates as IH (ie. IH-37, IH-69C, IH-2, etc.)
I guess because people would get confused between IH-2 with the I-H2 in Hawaii.

[NE2]

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
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/may30/8.pdf (p. 4)

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.

[yakra]

[Grzrd]

The Texas Transportation Commission February 28, 2013 Minutes 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):

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

This article (behind paywall) 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) and upgrade the section from SH 99 to "north of Spur 529":

[Grzrd]

The Texas Official Travel Map has been updated to show I-2, I-69C, and I-69E:



I-369 in Texarkana is also shown on the map.

[NE2]

Yay I-blank.

[nolia_boi504]

The Texas Official Travel Map has been updated to show I-2, I-69C, and I-69E:

I-369 in Texarkana is also shown on the map.

I wonder why they only showed half of Grand Pkwy Segment E (between I-10 and FM 529).

Also a solid white line follows FM 1093 from I-610 Westloop up to Grand Pkwy. But I think the white line should have followed Westpark Twy from Southwest Fwy and continued as FM 1093 at the Ft Bend / Harris County line.

[triplemultiplex]

Yay I-blank.

I-blankblank7 is even better!

Ah, font errors...  I can relate.

[lordsutch]

Any local knowledge regarding Loop 463 is welcome, particularly if US 59 on the east side is considered part of the Loop.

AFAIK US 59 between US 77 south and Loop 463 is not cosigned as Loop 463. Nor is the US 77 concurrency southwest of Victoria, according to Street View.

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.

Then again it's all probably moot because 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."

[OCGuy81]

Great photos! And being from California, I love seeing the state name in the Interstate shields! Nicely done.

[agentsteel53]

I-blankblank7 is even better!

where do you see that?