I-69 in TX

[abqtraveler]

Anyone know what number SH-44 will be named when it becomes an interstate?

Bandied about so far:  I-469, I-569, even I-6 (after I-2 was designated).  Submitted to AASHTO or, alternately, added to authorizing legislation to date:  nada!  I'm guessing that this corridor branch will be addressed after I-69E is functionally completed south of I-37; that seems to be the present developmental focus -- so nobody has prioritized a decision regarding designation of that E-W branch.

It would be a good candidate for I-6.

[sprjus4]

An I-6, IMO, that should run the whole length between Laredo and Corpus Christi along both SH-44 and US-59.

[Thegeet]

Heck, maybe, it could be a four digit interstate! Okay, sorry. That won't age well.

[sparker]

An I-6, IMO, that should run the whole length between Laredo and Corpus Christi along both SH-44 and US-59.

A decent idea, but one that would likely be short-circuited by the posting of I-69W at the north Laredo border crossing approach; having been there about three years now, there's likely an expectation that Laredo-Freer would be designated with that same number.  At the risk of sliding into fictional, a better I-6 extension might be continuing west along TX 44 to the P2P/I-27 when and if that corridor is actually developed -- providing a connection to a "real port" rather than just a series of POE's. 

[Scott5114]

I-69F! I-69F!

[sparker]

I-69F! I-69F!

Only extrapolating/guessing what the "F" stands for (don't think the town of Freer deserves its own suffix!); I'd posit a more apt (but ultimately just as ridiculous) I-69L for "lateral".  But I-6 is as good as anything else; that particular late-added branch wasn't included in the original HPC 18 legislative description that specified the east/central/west branches subsequently taken literally by the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their TxDOT cohorts (hence the suffixes that are posted).  No such language covers Corpus-Freer, so the designation can be a more grid-friendly number (or, alternately, something pulled directly out of someone's ass!).  Hope for the former!

[Scott5114]

Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...

If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.

Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?

[sparker]

Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...

If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.

Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?

Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...

If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.

Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?

And I thought I didn't like overlong 3di's! -- even I-369 (which I still think should be I-47!), which somehow got through the Alliance/TxDOT vetting.  But, even at 115 miles long, it's up in the far NE corner of the state and more or less out of non-local public view.  I don't think local backers think much of 3di's; that they don't have cachet with the developmental business community, particularly those establishing distribution/warehousing facilities (and they would be, for the most part, correct!).  So they'll designate everything they can as a trunk (like I-2), which is why I think Corpus-Freer will end up as I-6 even if it only goes as far west as that small town.  But I wonder if Loop 1604 around San Antonio will eventually be I-810 or I-835 or something similar when it is fully brought out to freeway/Interstate standards.  That'd be about the only route within TX that would be likely to be posited as a 3di at some point -- at least currently.

[sprjus4]

Well, they got I-369 and I-169.

[sprjus4]

But I wonder if Loop 1604 around San Antonio will eventually be I-810 or I-835 or something similar when it is fully brought out to freeway/Interstate standards.  That'd be about the only route within TX that would be likely to be posited as a 3di at some point -- at least currently.

Definitely feel an I-x10 is more warranted, the northeast leg serves as an effective bypass of the cluster that is I-10 through Downtown and the inner urban area.

[Thegeet]

Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...

If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.

Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?

I-69F and CC are hilarious. But...If Texas adds something like a I-1069 or something, I will literally laugh myself drunk.

But I wonder if Loop 1604 around San Antonio will eventually be I-810 or I-835 or something similar when it is fully brought out to freeway/Interstate standards.  That'd be about the only route within TX that would be likely to be posited as a 3di at some point -- at least currently.

Definitely feel an I-x10 is more warranted, the northeast leg serves as an effective bypass of the cluster that is I-10 through Downtown and the inner urban area.

Actually, there's already an I-410 in San Antonio, so I personally think another I-x10 route is redundant. I think a tollway configuration like SH 99 and Sam Houston would be great.

[sparker]

Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...

If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.

Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?

I-69F and CC are hilarious. But...If Texas adds something like a I-1069 or something, I will literally laugh myself drunk.

But I wonder if Loop 1604 around San Antonio will eventually be I-810 or I-835 or something similar when it is fully brought out to freeway/Interstate standards.  That'd be about the only route within TX that would be likely to be posited as a 3di at some point -- at least currently.

Definitely feel an I-x10 is more warranted, the northeast leg serves as an effective bypass of the cluster that is I-10 through Downtown and the inner urban area.

Actually, there's already an I-410 in San Antonio, so I personally think another I-x10 route is redundant. I think a tollway configuration like SH 99 and Sam Houston would be great.

Seeing as Loop 1604 has been a series of conventional highways gradually upgraded section by section into a freeway, it's unlikely that the present progression will change formats to a full-blown toll facility.  That being said, if money somehow becomes tight, just the northern arc between sections of I-10 might get the Interstate designation, with the southern sections that remain conventional roads either replaced by tollways or simply upgraded but on a much more extended schedule.  That section is going to have to duck around more recent development in any case; plopping a freeway (or toll road) down on the existing alignment may not be feasible.

[Thegeet]

Although if there was a need for another interstate loop, I think they would implement I-835.

[armadillo speedbump]

Hey guys, I've been on Us 59 this past week from Ganado to i-10. In Richmond/Rosenberg, new signs with exit numbers were installed up to I believe Spur 10, I think Exit 94. Everything south is under construction. I noticed that they were reconstructing Spur 10 exit. The Spur 529 exit is complete. In Beasley/Kendelton, there was a black trash bag taped on three overhead green exit signs for either Grunwald rd or Spur 541. 

Thanks for the report.

Google maps shows the I-69 mainlines now open southbound almost all the way to Spur 10 southwest of Rosenberg. Northbound they have some goofy zigzag at the new mainline bridge over Bamore Road in Rosenberg, so I'm not sure if it is open yet, or they temporarily closed the feeder road, or what.

So are the new mainlines soon to be open in both directions north of Spur 10?  What's the timeline on Kendleton to Spur 10, have they found more ways to drag that portion out?  I tried searching online, but maybe I'm a search idiot.  I assume the Kendleton-Spur 10 portion is taking forever because of funding being spread out?  Am I wrong or was that section started before Spur-10 to Reading Road further north?

[Thegeet]

Hey guys, I've been on Us 59 this past week from Ganado to i-10. In Richmond/Rosenberg, new signs with exit numbers were installed up to I believe Spur 10, I think Exit 94. Everything south is under construction. I noticed that they were reconstructing Spur 10 exit. The Spur 529 exit is complete. In Beasley/Kendelton, there was a black trash bag taped on three overhead green exit signs for either Grunwald rd or Spur 541. 

Google maps shows the I-69 mainlines now open southbound almost all the way to Spur 10 southwest of Rosenberg. Northbound they have some goofy zigzag at the new mainline bridge over Bamore Road in Rosenberg, so I'm not sure if it is open yet, or they temporarily closed the feeder road, or what.

So are the new mainlines soon to be open in both directions north of Spur 10?  What's the timeline on Kendleton to Spur 10, have they found more ways to drag that portion out?  I tried searching online, but maybe I'm a search idiot.  I assume the Kendleton-Spur 10 portion is taking forever because of funding being spread out?  Am I wrong or was that section started before Spur-10 to Reading Road further north?

I want to say it could be done this year, but I doubt it be on hold for funding, or else the other roads wouldn't be in construction.

[Thegeet]

New set of questions, give me your honest opinion:
When do you think I-169 will be designated and finished?
When will I-69W be constructed outside of Laredo?
Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?
Which route will be the first to full completion? (I-69 main, E, W, or C?)

[The Ghostbuster]

Why is the Interstate 169/TX 550 interchange with Interstate 69E a half interchange? Were traffic counts insufficient to add connections to Interstate 69E-to-Interstate 169/TX 550 East and Interstate 169/TX 550 West-to-Interstate 69E South?

[sparker]

New set of questions, give me your honest opinion:
When do you think I-169 will be designated and finished?
When will I-69W be constructed outside of Laredo?
Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?
Which route will be the first to full completion? (I-69 main, E, W, or C?)

I-169:  Sometime within the next 10 years; depends upon volume increases at the Port of Brownsville.
I-69W: When and if enough trucking firms entering at North Laredo whine about having to endure a 2-lane US 59 to Houston -- and that noise reaches representatives from the districts along 69W.  With the branch from Freer to Corpus, Laredo-Freer might get done prior to Freer-George West.  From G.West to Victoria -- if I-69C is at least free-flow from I-2 north to US 59, then 69W along that stretch may see commensurate development.
Customs: have no idea; never crossed the border east of Nogales.
Full completion:  Either I-69E or I-69C; probably both will be done at about the same time, given border traffic and present progress.  69C has less towns to negotiate, so if and when construction letting occurs, it'll likely be for bigger chunks at a time.  But the I-69 trunk NE from Victoria will likely be completed to the I-369 split within 20-25 years; from there to the LA line may take a lot longer, as TxDOT will likely prioritize I-369, since for Houston businessfolks (who have a lot of clout) Job #1 is a straight shot to I-30 at Texarkana; they've been waiting for that for a half-century or more.  I'm going to take an educated guesstimate and project that the 69/369 continuum, I-69E, and I-69C will be done within a 5-year envelope of each other; full completion of I-69W may lag by 5-10 years beyond the others.   

[kphoger]

Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?

I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason.  I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction.  If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange:  all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.

As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones.  No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.

As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:

The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... "We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,"  one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.

[kphoger]

South of the border, such checkpoint facilities were built over the main lanes.  They have been removed in recent years, but the scars remain and traffic still has to slow down for no good reason.

Here are the ones I'm familiar with:

Nuevo Laredo – before, after
Allende – before / after

[Thegeet]

Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?

I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason.  I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction.  If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange:  all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.

As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones.  No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.

As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:

The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... "We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,"  one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.

Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.

[kphoger]

Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?

I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason.  I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction.  If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange:  all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.

As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones.  No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.

As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:

The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... "We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,"  one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.

Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.

Why would you rather remove an opposing lane from use?

What if the checkpoint facilities are closed for a whole month?  Indefinitely?

That wouldn't work very well on two-lane highways (such as the one pictured above).

[Thegeet]

Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?

I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason.  I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction.  If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange:  all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.

As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones.  No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.

As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:

The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... "We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,"  one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.

Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.

Why would you rather remove an opposing lane from use?

What if the checkpoint facilities are closed for a whole month?  Indefinitely?

That wouldn't work very well on two-lane highways (such as the one pictured above).

Actually, I would prefer that there be the checkpoint on the main lanes and the exit be an alternate redirection for when the checkpoints are down. It's just me, I think.

[zzcarp]

Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?

I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason.  I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction.  If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange:  all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.

As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones.  No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.

As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:

The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... "We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,"  one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.

Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.

Why would you rather remove an opposing lane from use?

What if the checkpoint facilities are closed for a whole month?  Indefinitely?

That wouldn't work very well on two-lane highways (such as the one pictured above).

Actually, I would prefer that there be the checkpoint on the main lanes and the exit be an alternate redirection for when the checkpoints are down. It's just me, I think.

I would prefer that there be no interior border checkpoints. The idea of forcing all travelers to stop for "papers, please" is just abhorrent for intracountry travel in a free society, and it violates the Fourth Amendment (not withstanding judicial opinions to the contrary). Until I traveled US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christie, I had no clue that such things even existed.

[vdeane]

Was it originally envisioned that those checkpoints would only be used some of the time?  The impression I get is that they're essentially used all the time, to the point where it would make sense to just send the main lanes through them and have signs saying "no inspection, proceed with caution" in the rare event they're actually closed.