I-69 in TX

[sprjus4]

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

[The Ghostbuster]

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".

[sparker]

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.

[Thegeet]

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?

[J N Winkler]

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.

[Thegeet]

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)

[sparker]

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. 

[Thegeet]

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

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

[Thegeet]

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

[sparker]

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, it's 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.

[sprjus4]

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 it's not already been upgraded.

[sparker]

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 it's 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. 

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Thegeet]

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)

[sparker]

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. 

[Thegeet]

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 they're making a new shopping center for Victoria. As if the mall wasn't enough, we will now have another place to shop, albeit a plaza-ish configuration.

[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. 

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Thegeet]

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 don't see anything solidified yet, unless the city grows double the size or if TXDoT thinks the route can attract businesses.

[sprjus4]

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.

[Thegeet]

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 y'all think of it potentially being a full fledged freeway, interstate or not.

[Bobby5280]

That, and widen the interchange as US-59T Business and an interchange at Lone Tree Rd. What do y'all think of it potentially being a full fledged freeway, interstate or not.

It's a foregone conclusion the loop around Victoria (Loop-463 and US-59/77) will be all Interstate quality freeway eventually. Keep in mind this is a loop that didn't even exist in the 1990's. It has been slowly upgraded through the years, starting out as a 2-lane road and then expanded to 4-lane divided freeway in various segments. Google Earth imagery dated Jan 2017 shows one upgrade project on the North part of Loop 463 in progress.

They have enough ROW in just about all places along the loop to allow for a freeway plus frontage roads. There is one spot on the NW corner of the loop at Enterprise Drive where 3 properties are built a little too close to the highway center line. Everywhere else the upgrades would be relatively easy.

The only 2 questions up in the air are if Loop-463 gets re-named as a 3-digit Interstate (I think chances are low) and if there will ever be a freeway to freeway Interchange between I-69 and Loop-463 on the East side of Victoria. I think a "Y" interchange there would be the last upgrade project for the Victoria loop. That might come some years after all the other work on the loop is finished, maybe as the rest of I-69 in Texas gets closer to completion. The freeway to freeway interchange between US-59 & US-77 on the West side of Victoria will be a mandatory project. I-69W can't go through US-59's current configuration, a TOTSO exit onto a surface street.

[Thegeet]

That, and widen the interchange as US-59T Business and an interchange at Lone Tree Rd. What do y'all think of it potentially being a full fledged freeway, interstate or not.

It's a foregone conclusion the loop around Victoria (Loop-463 and US-59/77) will be all Interstate quality freeway eventually. Keep in mind this is a loop that didn't even exist in the 1990's. It has been slowly upgraded through the years, starting out as a 2-lane road and then expanded to 4-lane divided freeway in various segments. Google Earth imagery dated Jan 2017 shows one upgrade project on the North part of Loop 463 in progress.

They have enough ROW in just about all places along the loop to allow for a freeway plus frontage roads. There is one spot on the NW corner of the loop at Enterprise Drive where 3 properties are built a little too close to the highway center line. Everywhere else the upgrades would be relatively easy.

The only 2 questions up in the air are if Loop-463 gets re-named as a 3-digit Interstate (I think chances are low) and if there will ever be a freeway to freeway Interchange between I-69 and Loop-463 on the East side of Victoria. I think a "Y" interchange there would be the last upgrade project for the Victoria loop. That might come some years after all the other work on the loop is finished, maybe as the rest of I-69 in Texas gets closer to completion. The freeway to freeway interchange between US-59 & US-77 on the West side of Victoria will be a mandatory project. I-69W can't go through US-59's current configuration, a TOTSO exit onto a surface street.

According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

Yes, TOTSO is a way to say it (I assume it refers to something of the exit) and I never liked the way US-59 was contradicting the direction of US-77. I really think they could build the I-69W route in a new location. The US-77 SB exit to US-59/US-77Bus can stay as the exit for Business 77.

[sprjus4]

TOTSO = turn off to stay on

Where should they build I-69W on new location?

[Thegeet]

OHHHHHHHHH. Exit to stay. The equivalent of TX-238 turn left to stay.

If they have it all set up to terminate I-69 at the current 59/77 interchange, then maybe I-69W could run through a mile south from the current US-59T Business route exit (maybe sideways momentarily) (28.7510427, -97.0873984). Or if they haven't established the future terminus as the current 59/77 interchange (likely won't happen this way), then maybe it could terminate in between the interchange and SH-185. Sorry if I sound stupid.