Print

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

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[abqtraveler]

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.

[Rick Powell]

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.

It depends. When trying to shoehorn a limited access highway into an existing location, the expenses range from low (like the Kentucky parkways where they are to near-interstate standards and little adjacent development) to astronomical (like an urban section where everything is tight, roadway work needs to be carefully staged, accesses need to be maintained via new frontage roads, etc.)

[sprjus4]

Kentucky and Texas are not in the same situation at all.

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.

[Anthony_JK]

Kentucky still had to upgrade their parkways (especially their interchanges, which still utilized the old toll booths within loop ramps) to meet Interstate design standards.

Outside of US 59 from just outside of Laredo to Victoria, which would have to be completely rebuilt from 2-lane to 4-lane AND upgraded to freeway, much of US 59 from Houston north to Nacogdoches could be upgraded quite easily with continuous frontage roads, overpasses at major intersections, and bypasses of some towns (Jefferson, Atlanta, etc.) The Diboll bypass is already under construction, as is the upgrades through Lufkin and Nacogdoches. It's not cheap, but at least it's quite doable by Texas standards, if it's crawling along incrementally. North of US 259, though, some level of new alignment will have to be built for the segment to Marshall/Texarkana and the branch off to Louisiana, whether it be located near Tenaha, or elsewhere. It may be that new alignment might be less expensive and more prudent in those cases.

[sprjus4]

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).

In the interim, it would be valuable for TxDOT to upgrade / construct a freeway alignment near US-79 - for two reasons. One, it would provide a much more adequate connector over the existing two-lane road, for US-59 traffic (Houston) to access I-20 east (to Shreveport, Jackson, Meridian, Birmingham, Atlanta, etc.), independent of I-69 altogether. I understand that the existing I-69 proposal would already do that, with a southern bypass of Shreveport, but that too is also many decades off.

In addition to the benefits of a US-79 connector for I-20 / Shreveport connection (just west of the Texas border, on the Texas side) - it would in the interim, provide interstate traffic easier access to I-49 to Texarkana, until I-369 is finally constructed in the more long term.

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.

[abqtraveler]

Kentucky and Texas are not in the same situation at all.

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.

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.

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[sprjus4]

Kentucky and Texas are not in the same situation at all.

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.

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.

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.

All of that work is still significantly less costly than upgrading 300+ miles of non-limited-access to interstate standards.

Kentucky already had a mainline in place, full control of access, and most overpass bridges. All the work centered around modifying a few of the bridge under crossings and modifying a few interchanges.

Texas, has to build over a hundred new bridges, control the access with hundreds of miles of frontage road, and build probably a hundred new interchanges. Plus major interchange modifications at bypass tie ins, etc.

While Kentucky had to do some work, it wasn’t nearly as much Texas will have for its entire length of I-69 along US-59. The cost of buying right of way, frontage road construction, etc. may well be similar or slightly less than a full new freeway alignment. Comparing Kentucky to Texas isn’t even close.

Perhaps, comparing the full freeway sections of US-59 in place, to the Kentucky parkways, is a better comparison. But non-limited-access is a whole lot different than full control of access.

[sprjus4]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

To expand on that point, they allowed all toll collection to be done at a single point, under the bridge.

[MaxConcrete]

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

Option A is obviously the most sensible, but we can't assume that the most logical and sensible option will be selected.

[sprjus4]

^ 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.

[StogieGuy7]

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.

[Rick Powell]

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.

[sprjus4]

Upgrading these non-limited-access highways is certainly not as easy as using existing freeways like Kentucky is able. As far as costs, upgrading existing four lane divided highway is generally cheaper up front, however right of way can be a factor that can sometimes make upgrading more expensive than constructing a new alignment. If there’s a dense amount of houses or businesses on either side, that requires numerous right of way takes that can get expensive.

US-77 / US-59 is beneficial to Texas in many areas having a decent amount of open farmland / forest, or enough buffer, but it still costs more than Kentucky is having to deal with. Construction of frontage roads to fully control access, overpasses, bridge replacements, town bypasses, etc. can add billions of dollars over a significant distance compared to an existing freeway already being there.

[Thegeet]

^ 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).

Also, thoughts on the central option?

[Bobby5280]

The A-3 option is the one that makes most logical sense to build. The "B" options are unnecessary. And the farther North "C" option is just stupid. Both the B and C options should just be cancelled out since TX DOT is pretty much re-building the existing I-37/US-77 "Y" interchange.

The A-3 option will be easier to build than the A-2 option. The A-2 option would probably require buying and removing some existing properties next to US-77 immediately SW of Sinton. TX DOT would have limited room to expand the existing 4-lane highway outward without demolishing properties since there is a railroad line on the other side of the road. The A-3 option would be on new terrain parallel to existing US-77, on the South side of the rail line.

[jgb191]

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

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.

[Thegeet]

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

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.

Then how were they able to do it with US 281 in Falfurrias?

[sprjus4]

I've seen this comparison to Falfurrias come up a few times... let's address it.

While it is true that US-281 was upgraded to full freeway standards along the existing alignment near Falfurrias, this is not comparable to Odem, Refugio, or Driscoll. The "existing alignment" near Falfurrias was constructed in the late 1990s / early 2000s as a bypass of what is now US-281 Business through the downtown / city core. That (US-281 Business) is the roadway that could be compared to the current US-77 through Odem, Refugio, or Driscoll. It was not feasible to upgrade that road.

The bypass built in the late 1990s / early 2000s was only a 5-lane surface road with no control of access, however it was built with a large right of way to accommodate a future freeway upgrade and frontage roads. That is why the "existing" US-281 alignment was upgraded in that particular instance.

Here are aerial images of the US-281 bypass near Falfurrias before and after the freeway upgrade.



There was plenty of room to build a large freeway footprint with minimal disruptions. This is not the case in Odem. The existing US-77 alignment is flanked with businesses and any freeway upgrade would destroy anything along US-77 in town. Odem will be bypassed.

[sprjus4]

Just upgrade the same four miles between the last Sinton interchange and the first Odem interchange

One 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.

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.

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

[Thegeet]

Just upgrade the same four miles between the last Sinton interchange and the first Odem interchange

One 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.

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.

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? 


Just joking.

[kphoger]

Why can’t we just demolish the railline and relocate it? 

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.

[J N Winkler]

Why can’t we just demolish the railline and relocate it? 

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.

Another example is the K-18 freeway expansion west of Manhattan, which was done in the late 2000's/early 2010's.  It involved relocating a length of rail line (part of the Union Pacific's Salina subdivision) to the south in order to make room for a diamond interchange at West 56th Street to serve the Manhattan Regional Airport.  The construction plans sets for one of the three major contracts included one for the rail work, with the UP's red-white-blue shield logo on the title sheet.  The length involved was about one mile.

I suspect it will come down to a comparison of the cost and difficulty of three alternatives:

*  Acquiring property (including structures) to run I-69E along the west side of the existing railroad line

*  Relocating the railroad so that I-69E can be built partially in the existing rail footprint with minimum ROW acquisition to the west

*  Building I-69E to the east of the railroad

Personally, I think the third is the most plausible, though it seems a shame to waste two lanes of highly improved roadway on the west side.