AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in TX  (Read 648516 times)

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 605
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 05:08:19 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1925 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: 12122
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 10:19:09 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1926 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: 6301
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:44:40 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1927 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

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12122
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 10:19:09 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1928 on: April 20, 2021, 12:56:43 PM »

It also means they have no motivation to finish the road, which is probably why I-26 has languished for 20 years.
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: 6301
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:44:40 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1929 on: April 20, 2021, 12:59:40 PM »

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
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3041
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: June 21, 2021, 10:06:53 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1930 on: April 20, 2021, 01:08:03 PM »

I think the "Temporary" designations are history. It is much better to sign new or existing roads that are planning to become Interstates as "Future".
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8077
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:51:26 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1931 on: April 20, 2021, 02:25:28 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.

Since all of the completed segments of the I-73 and/or 74 corridor are presently signed with "real" Interstate shields, it looks like the almost-to-spec-but-for-the-"Future"-indicator shields are conceptually history -- or else US 64 from Knightsdale to Williamston would have seen I-87 versions posted by now, since that designation occurred five years ago, and it's nearly 90 miles of continuous freeway -- and up to I-standards east of Tarboro.  But it looks like NCDOT is being a little bit more circumspect about such signage these days.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 91
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 04:03:13 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1932 on: April 21, 2021, 01:20:03 PM »

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?
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7019
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 03:13:47 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1933 on: April 21, 2021, 01:53:58 PM »

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?

If you look at the interchange in satellite view, you will see ramp stubs for:

US 59 NB to I-35 SB (right-turning)

I-35 NB to US 59 NB (right-turning)--draft signing for this movement is included in the construction plans for CCSJ 0018-06-138 and references just LP 20 SB (this was before I-69 was extended to Texas; US 59 and LP 20 have an opposite-directions overlap at this point)

I-35 SB to US 59 NB (left-turning)

I understand that the long-term plan is for this to be a full Maltese cross stack with all movements served by free-flowing semidirectional direct connectors, but I don't at the moment recall whether the construction plans I've seen show baselines for all of the movements that are currently missing.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 91
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 04:03:13 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1934 on: April 21, 2021, 11:36:41 PM »

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)
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8077
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:51:26 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1935 on: April 22, 2021, 01:27:47 PM »

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. 
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 91
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 04:03:13 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1936 on: April 22, 2021, 01:37:00 PM »

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/lufkin.htm

Notice that the Nacogdoches flyover is still marked as preliminary design, rather than Construction.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 91
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 04:03:13 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1937 on: April 23, 2021, 10:22:03 PM »

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, itís not yet in the plans. But it could be considered if Victoria grows larger.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2021, 10:37:08 PM by Thegeet »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8077
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:51:26 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1938 on: April 24, 2021, 12:33:15 AM »

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, itís not yet in the plans. But it could be considered if Victoria grows larger.

As of the last census, incorporated Victoria was around 65K population; considering the whole metro area just about doubles that.  It would have to grow to substantially more than that to warrant a 3di around the north side of town.  And TxDOT certainly hasn't seen fit to request auxiliary Interstate designations over their loop routes -- or else we'd have seen x20's in Midland/Odessa and/or Abilene.  I think it's safe to guess that Loop 463 will retain its number for the foreseeable future.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6301
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:44:40 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1939 on: April 24, 2021, 02:58:03 AM »

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 itís not already been upgraded.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8077
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:51:26 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1940 on: April 24, 2021, 04:14:13 AM »

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 itís not already been upgraded.

This may well be another in the string of TxDOT volleyball installations.  Hope the immediate surrounding area doesn't see dense development so ramps/flyovers can be placed down the line. 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2516
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 04:58:47 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1941 on: April 24, 2021, 01:24:11 PM »

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.

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.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 91
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 04:03:13 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1942 on: April 24, 2021, 10:29:21 PM »

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.

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 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)
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8077
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:51:26 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1943 on: April 25, 2021, 12:12:44 AM »

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.

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 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)

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. 
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 91
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 04:03:13 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1944 on: April 25, 2021, 12:44:45 AM »

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.

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 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)

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.
Speaking of which highway: https://www.virtualbx.com/construction-preview/victoria-city-council-agrees-to-highway-project-for-new-shopping-center/
Looks like theyíre making a new shopping center for Victoria. As if the mall wasnít enough, we will now have another place to shop, albeit a plaza-ish configuration.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2021, 12:46:58 AM by Thegeet »
Logged

armadillo speedbump

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 52
  • Location: texas
  • Last Login: June 19, 2021, 06:55:15 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1945 on: April 25, 2021, 11:08:07 PM »

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. 

It's not a fast growing area.  Victoria County, which extends out 10-20 miles each direction from the city center, had a population of 86,800 in 2010 and an estimated 92,100 in 2019.  Growing by less than 600 persons a year.  DFW averages +139,000 a year, San Antonio more than 40,000 a year.  Somewhat apples and oranges, except when deciding how to dole out limited transportation dollars.  (I realize that some of the forum Empire Builders think money grows on trees.)  And the Federal government's new War on Sensible and Affordable Energy isn't helping employment there anytime soon.

There's so many more important road needs in this state than redesigning well functioning off ramps, medians, etc. just to get an interstate number.  I wish we had a national expressway equivalent to the interstate highway program.  You could solve a lot more needs for the same amount of money if politicians didn't get stuck on the status symbol and alleged (and exaggerated) econ development impacts of an I-number.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2516
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 04:58:47 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1946 on: April 26, 2021, 09:52:42 AM »

Quote from: armadillo speedbump
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.

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.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 91
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 04:03:13 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1947 on: April 26, 2021, 12:36:51 PM »

Quote from: armadillo speedbump
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.

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.
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 donít see anything solidified yet, unless the city grows double the size or if TXDoT thinks the route can attract businesses.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6301
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:44:40 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1948 on: April 26, 2021, 12:56:57 PM »

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).

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.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 91
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 04:03:13 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1949 on: April 26, 2021, 01:14:52 PM »

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).

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 yíall think of it potentially being a full fledged freeway, interstate or not.
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.