AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-69 in TX  (Read 687423 times)

motorola870

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 96
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: July 31, 2021, 05:42:45 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1900 on: April 16, 2021, 02:46:34 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2021, 02:50:31 AM by motorola870 »
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 20202
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: September 05, 2021, 06:26:16 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1901 on: April 16, 2021, 10:51:54 AM »

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 still on the table?
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 182
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 01:37:50 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1902 on: April 16, 2021, 11:28:18 AM »

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 still on the table?
I’m not sure, but maybe not.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 844
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 11:14:42 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1903 on: April 16, 2021, 05:30:46 PM »

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.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

CoreySamson

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1198
  • Buc-ee's Fanboy

  • Age: 18
  • Location: Greater Houston, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 01:36:04 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1904 on: April 16, 2021, 05:34:05 PM »

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.
Logged
Houston-area teenage roadgeek.
Amateur guitarist, keyboardist, and vocalist.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1905 on: April 16, 2021, 05:55:54 PM »

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.

If it were to be truncated to Heavener/US 270, it's highly likely it would just continue south by subsuming US 259, which would carry it back to Nacogdoches.  But all that is moot until such time as both I-49 and I-369 reach full fruition. 
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3135
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 12:21:17 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1906 on: April 16, 2021, 09:31:51 PM »

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).
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 182
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 01:37:50 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1907 on: April 17, 2021, 11:49:34 AM »

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.
Logged

achilles765

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 292
  • Interstate 14 should connect Austin and Houston

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 12:56:22 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1908 on: April 17, 2021, 01:40:47 PM »

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.

Most of us who have been here for a while still refer to it as 59. You can tell pretty easily and pretty quickly when somebody is new in town when they refer to it as interstate 69
Logged
I love freeways and roads in any state but Texas will always be first in my heart

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 844
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 11:14:42 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1909 on: April 17, 2021, 06:54:21 PM »

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 don't think Houstonians will even notice. It will still be the Southwest and Eastex Freeways regardless what the numbers are.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 182
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 01:37:50 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1910 on: April 18, 2021, 12:30:58 AM »

Anyone know what happened to the I-169 shield unveiled in 2016?
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 182
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 01:37:50 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1911 on: April 18, 2021, 06:26:46 PM »

Update on County Rd interchange in Victoria: they’re mostly done with the overpass. There are yellow rails, which will be concreted soon. Afterwards, the road will be ready to pave.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 844
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 11:14:42 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1912 on: April 19, 2021, 08:24:05 AM »

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
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3135
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 12:21:17 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1913 on: April 19, 2021, 01:25:07 PM »

Does anyone know what the "eventual" exit number will be when Interstate 69 crosses US 69 around Lufkin?
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 182
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 01:37:50 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1914 on: April 19, 2021, 01:44:24 PM »

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.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 844
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 11:14:42 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1915 on: April 19, 2021, 03:55:34 PM »

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.

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....
.

« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 04:17:12 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

debragga

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 158
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Monroe, Louisiana
  • Last Login: September 15, 2021, 01:19:51 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1916 on: April 19, 2021, 06:12:59 PM »

Does anyone know what the "eventual" exit number will be when Interstate 69 crosses US 69 around Lufkin?

Hopefully it's exit 69
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 662
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 10:11:56 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1917 on: April 19, 2021, 06:18:59 PM »

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.

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....
.

There is a lot of precedence on signing completed segments of interstate as interstates, even though they may not connect to other parts of the interstate system. When the interstate highway system was being built, many states built bypasses around towns first, then connected them by upgrading the pre-existing US or state routes to interstate standards. Interstate 40 through New Mexico was not fully completed until the mid-1980s; yet completed but not-yet-connected segments were signed as I-40. In places where I-40 had not been completed, the interstate transitioned into US-66 that was either 2 lanes or 4 lanes in some places, until one hit the next section of freeway. Then I-40 resumed again. All told, it took around 30 years to complete I-40 through New Mexico, so in that time there was plenty of going back and forth between US-66 and I-40 while driving across the state.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6976
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:13:13 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1918 on: April 19, 2021, 07:38:58 PM »

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.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 182
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 01:37:50 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1919 on: April 19, 2021, 08:55:11 PM »

Does anyone know what the "eventual" exit number will be when Interstate 69 crosses US 69 around Lufkin?

Hopefully it's exit 69
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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1920 on: April 20, 2021, 03:25:40 AM »

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". 
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6976
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:13:13 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1921 on: April 20, 2021, 09:32:36 AM »

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 was referring to I-40 across New Mexico.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 662
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 10:11:56 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1922 on: April 20, 2021, 09:41:03 AM »

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.

Nope, there were no Temporary I-40 designations for sections of US-66 that connected to the completed sections of I-40.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12469
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 01:10:28 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1923 on: April 20, 2021, 12:43:57 PM »

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". 
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.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6976
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:13:13 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1924 on: April 20, 2021, 12:45:01 PM »

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". 
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.
It only exists in one place - I-26.

And it's a logical designation to provide continuity for drivers.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.