News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-69 in TX

Started by Grzrd, October 09, 2010, 01:18:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

J N Winkler

Quote from: Thegeet on April 10, 2021, 11:55:00 AMAny word on when construction of US-59 on SH-185 will begin?

It depends on what type of construction you are talking about.  TxDOT already considers US 59 to be built to Interstate standards through the intersection with SH 185 (yes, despite the vestigial shoulders on the railroad overpass).  Per the 2018 implementation report, there is a planned project to build frontage roads from US 87 to SH 185 (CCSJ 0088-05-098), but it has missed its planned let date of December 2019 and has not been advertised yet.
"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


Thegeet

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 10, 2021, 01:16:07 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on April 10, 2021, 11:55:00 AMAny word on when construction of US-59 on SH-185 will begin?

It depends on what type of construction you are talking about.  TxDOT already considers US 59 to be built to Interstate standards through the intersection with SH 185 (yes, despite the vestigial shoulders on the railroad overpass).  Per the 2018 implementation report, there is a planned project to build frontage roads from US 87 to SH 185 (CCSJ 0088-05-098), but it has missed its planned let date of December 2019 and has not been advertised yet.
It looks like the let date was changed to 2021. And people anticipated that earlier.

J N Winkler

Quote from: Thegeet on April 11, 2021, 01:21:58 PMIt looks like the let date was changed to 2021. And people anticipated that earlier.

As a general rule, letting dates for projects are rarely set in stone and are much more likely to be postponed than to be moved up.  Where TxDOT is concerned, I try to find the CCSJ (if one exists) for any project I am interested in, as that is the key to the kingdom.  It's assigned once the work is packaged for construction and appears in the UTP, letting lists, etc.
"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

Fun fact: I-69W/US-59 within Laredo will turn in a way that Southbound goes north and Northbound goes south.

sparker

Quote from: Thegeet on April 12, 2021, 01:39:29 PM
Fun fact: I-69W/US-59 within Laredo will turn in a way that Southbound goes north and Northbound goes south.

There are a few other instances of this along the Interstate system -- current and future.  Future I-49 in NOLA, in the "northbound" direction, actually will cross the Mississippi River EB before curving south through Gretna and then west toward its US 90 alignment via Morgan City.  Also, EB I-64 in Hampton Roads (VA) actually terminates heading west after a half-circle around the east side of Norfolk; VDOT in a moment of being pretty savvy, just declined to put directional banners on that segment of I-64 to avoid adding to any potential confusion.

And if one thoroughly pored over the map of US highways, there would likely be dozens of short reverse-cardinal-direction instances, particularly when negotiating in-town alignments.   

abqtraveler

Quote from: sparker on April 12, 2021, 03:29:18 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on April 12, 2021, 01:39:29 PM
Fun fact: I-69W/US-59 within Laredo will turn in a way that Southbound goes north and Northbound goes south.

There are a few other instances of this along the Interstate system -- current and future.  Future I-49 in NOLA, in the "northbound" direction, actually will cross the Mississippi River EB before curving south through Gretna and then west toward its US 90 alignment via Morgan City.  Also, EB I-64 in Hampton Roads (VA) actually terminates heading west after a half-circle around the east side of Norfolk; VDOT in a moment of being pretty savvy, just declined to put directional banners on that segment of I-64 to avoid adding to any potential confusion.

And if one thoroughly pored over the map of US highways, there would likely be dozens of short reverse-cardinal-direction instances, particularly when negotiating in-town alignments.

In New Mexico, there's I-25 that does that weird jog through the Glorieta Pass, where northbound I-25 actually heads in a southeasterly direction for about 60 miles between Santa Fe and Las Vegas. In Connecticut, the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge carries I-95, but crossing the bridge, the northbound lanes actually head south while the southbound lanes head north.
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

sprjus4

Future I-87 (US-64) in North Carolina will head in a generally southernly direction between Rocky Mount and Williamston.

Thegeet

It also occurs at the current US59/77 concurrency south of Victoria, although US 77 is north on NB and south on SB.

Thegeet

#1884
Here's construction on US-59 in Victoria between SL463 and FM1686.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/150105947@N06/?
January 2021

The Ghostbuster

Where exactly around Victoria will Interstate 69 split into its 69E and 69W legs? Is this project going to build that interchange?

Thegeet

#1886
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 13, 2021, 09:32:56 PM
Where exactly around Victoria will Interstate 69 split into its 69E and 69W legs? Is this project going to build that interchange?
I assume that it will be at the US 59/77 interchange where US 59 starts to go opposite bound (interchange near BUS-77 exit) On Google Maps, I measured the distance between that point and Reading Rd (Exit 100), and it said 102 miles.

edwaleni

Quote from: Thegeet on April 13, 2021, 10:15:02 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 13, 2021, 09:32:56 PM
Where exactly around Victoria will Interstate 69 split into its 69E and 69W legs? Is this project going to build that interchange?
I assume that it will be at the US 59/77 interchange where US 59 starts to go opposite bound (interchange near BUS-77 exit) On Google Maps, I measured the distance between that point and Reading Rd (Exit 100), and it said 102 miles.

It appears I-69C will end at a future I-69W at George West and then I-69W will continue on to Victoria to meet I-69E and become I-69 to Houston.

Also they are going to connect all 3 of these by building an interstate to replace TX-44 between Corpus Christi to Freer (I-6?) This is supposed to connect the port of Corpus Christi with Laredo.

As to where 69W and 69E will come together at Victoria, according to the Yoakum District Plan, I-69W will use the co-signed US-59/US-77 South Bypass of Victoria to reach the 69E stem coming up US-77.

The plan says that they have funded a conversion to interstate standards of 1.1 miles of this bypass in prep for the future 69W.


armadillo speedbump

Just to confirm (if Mr. Wiki isn't lying to me):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_International_Bridge

The Laredo World Trade Port of Entry was built in 2000 in an effort to relieve traffic from the congested downtown Laredo bridges.[4] All of Laredo's cross-border commercial vehicle traffic uses this Port of Entry, as the other Laredo bridges prohibit trucks. Passenger vehicles and pedestrians are not permitted to use this crossing.

The Ghostbuster

Would it have killed them to have had Interstate 35 extend all the way to the border, instead of terminating it four blocks short of it? Then again, Interstate 69E terminates just short of the Mexican border too. I don't think Interstate 69W should have been the only Interstate of the three to go directly to the border.

Thegeet

I mean, I-35 still has space to build some overpasses south of its terminus. The trick would be the border tolls and booths.

armadillo speedbump

#1891
Quote from: Thegeet on April 11, 2021, 02:11:20 AM
I found this on the web: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/i69-driven-by-texans/future-i69-tabloids.pdf

It's a chart if I-69 status.


So that says the 59/I69 upgrade from the southwest Rosenberg curve towards Kendleton was LET in 2014 and 2015.  Not a complex project and on flat, relatively unconstrained terrain, yet 7 years later and still not complete.  Ridiculous.

Thegeet

Wouldn't surprise me if they finished this year.

Thegeet

#1893
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on April 14, 2021, 10:35:22 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on April 11, 2021, 02:11:20 AM
I found this on the web: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/i69-driven-by-texans/future-i69-tabloids.pdf

It's a chart if I-69 status.
What I really want to see is SH185 construction and Wharton Construction.
Another thing. They seem to completely ignore Jackson County.
So that says the 59/I69 upgrade from the southwest Rosenberg curve towards Kendleton was LET in 2014 and 2015.  Not a complex project and on flat, relatively unconstrained terrain, yet 7 years later and still not complete.  Ridiculous.

kphoger

Quote from: armadillo speedbump on April 14, 2021, 09:21:09 PM
Just to confirm (if Mr. Wiki isn't lying to me):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_International_Bridge

The Laredo World Trade Port of Entry was built in 2000 in an effort to relieve traffic from the congested downtown Laredo bridges.[4] All of Laredo's cross-border commercial vehicle traffic uses this Port of Entry, as the other Laredo bridges prohibit trucks. Passenger vehicles and pedestrians are not permitted to use this crossing.

Mostly correct.  The Colombia Solidarity crossing was originally intended to take the cross-border commercial traffic.  That's where most of the toll money was supposed to come from on the Camino Colombia Toll Road (now TX-255):  truckers paying higher rates.  Mexico dragged its heels on constructing their part of the bypass and, by the time they were ready to start building, the state of Texas had decided to build the World Trade crossing, so Mexico connected their bypass to that instead.

It wasn't long after that the Cross Border Trucking Pilot Program was killed by fears over the safety of Mexican trucks on US roads lobbying by the Teamsters, who stood to lose union drayage jobs.  Although that backpedaling was against NAFTA stipulations, current and subsequent US administrations began caring less and less about NAFTA in general, and long-haul US-Mexico trucking doesn't hold much promise of returning–with Democrats being in the unions' pocket and Republicans being paranoid about anything that isn't 'America first'.  With the drayage system still firmly in place, and almost all the drayage yards still being located close to the city, most truckers preferred not to pay a toll in order to end up farther away from their destination.  So the Camino Colombia Toll Road went belly-up, and the state of Texas purchased the facility at auction on the courthouse steps.  Tolls were eventually removed, but that didn't solve the other problems, and it remains a relatively underused border crossing despite the World Trade Bridge frequently seeing long queues.

Currently:  Bridge I (Gateway to the Americas) is for pedestrians and passenger vehicles only;  Bridge II (Juárez—Lincoln) is for pedestrians, passenger vehicles, and buses only (e.g. Greyhound from Dallas to Monterrey);  Bridge III (Colombia Solidarity) is for all modes of traffic (maybe not buses, but I don't know of any carriers/routes that don't stop in either downtown Laredo or Nuevo Laredo, so it might be a moot point);  and Bridge IV (World Trade) is for commercial vehicles only.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

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

Thegeet

Now that I think, I don't like US-59 being on Loop 20. But now it's too late to create a standalone freeway for I-69W.

sparker

Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2021, 12:32:43 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on April 14, 2021, 09:21:09 PM
Just to confirm (if Mr. Wiki isn't lying to me):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_International_Bridge

The Laredo World Trade Port of Entry was built in 2000 in an effort to relieve traffic from the congested downtown Laredo bridges.[4] All of Laredo's cross-border commercial vehicle traffic uses this Port of Entry, as the other Laredo bridges prohibit trucks. Passenger vehicles and pedestrians are not permitted to use this crossing.

Mostly correct.  The Colombia Solidarity crossing was originally intended to take the cross-border commercial traffic.  That's where most of the toll money was supposed to come from on the Camino Colombia Toll Road (now TX-255):  truckers paying higher rates.  Mexico dragged its heels on constructing their part of the bypass and, by the time they were ready to start building, the state of Texas had decided to build the World Trade crossing, so Mexico connected their bypass to that instead.

It wasn't long after that the Cross Border Trucking Pilot Program was killed by fears over the safety of Mexican trucks on US roads lobbying by the Teamsters, who stood to lose union drayage jobs.  Although that backpedaling was against NAFTA stipulations, current and subsequent US administrations began caring less and less about NAFTA in general, and long-haul US-Mexico trucking doesn't hold much promise of returning–with Democrats being in the unions' pocket and Republicans being paranoid about anything that isn't 'America first'.  With the drayage system still firmly in place, and almost all the drayage yards still being located close to the city, most truckers preferred not to pay a toll in order to end up farther away from their destination.  So the Camino Colombia Toll Road went belly-up, and the state of Texas purchased the facility at auction on the courthouse steps.  Tolls were eventually removed, but that didn't solve the other problems, and it remains a relatively underused border crossing despite the World Trade Bridge frequently seeing long queues.

Currently:  Bridge I (Gateway to the Americas) is for pedestrians and passenger vehicles only;  Bridge II (Juárez—Lincoln) is for pedestrians, passenger vehicles, and buses only (e.g. Greyhound from Dallas to Monterrey);  Bridge III (Colombia Solidarity) is for all modes of traffic (maybe not buses, but I don't know of any carriers/routes that don't stop in either downtown Laredo or Nuevo Laredo, so it might be a moot point);  and Bridge IV (World Trade) is for commercial vehicles only.

At present, this may be the sole instance where the entire traffic content from a specific Interstate route (even though it's less than a mile of I-69W*) is limited to commercial vehicles only.  If Caltrans ever gets around to fully upgrading present CA 905 to Interstate standards as I-905, there may be a second at Otay Mesa east of the I-5 Tijuana general-traffic crossing.

*This is assuming that general traffic can utilize I-69W as far west as FM 1472 as long as it exits there.  Haven't been there; don't know the specifics.

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.         

The Ghostbuster

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.

Thegeet

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2021, 08:37:55 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.
I wouldn't be surprised though if they revert the Business 59 in Laredo to main US-59.

motorola870

#1899
Quote from: Thegeet on April 15, 2021, 09:57:53 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2021, 08:37:55 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.
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.



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.