AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-69 in TX  (Read 664345 times)

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2564
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 04:39:49 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1950 on: April 26, 2021, 02:37:32 PM »

Quote from: Thegeet
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.

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.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2021, 02:39:55 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 153
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:35 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1951 on: April 26, 2021, 10:54:55 PM »

Quote from: Thegeet
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.

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.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6606
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:49:45 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1952 on: April 26, 2021, 11:01:58 PM »

TOTSO = turn off to stay on

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

Thegeet

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 153
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:35 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1953 on: April 26, 2021, 11:09:27 PM »

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 havenít established the future terminus as the current 59/77 interchange (likely wonít happen this way), then maybe it could terminate in between the interchange and SH-185. Sorry if I sound stupid.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2021, 11:33:19 PM by Thegeet »
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2564
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 04:39:49 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1954 on: April 27, 2021, 08:37:24 PM »

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

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.

Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 153
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:35 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1955 on: April 27, 2021, 11:51:29 PM »

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

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)
« Last Edit: April 28, 2021, 02:21:09 AM by Thegeet »
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 627
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 11:04:11 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1956 on: April 28, 2021, 09:32:30 AM »

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

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.
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

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3408
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Kyle, TX
  • Last Login: July 24, 2021, 04:24:57 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1957 on: April 28, 2021, 09:33:50 AM »

Plus usually a right of way already cleared
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19208
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 06:35:07 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1958 on: April 28, 2021, 10:10:16 AM »

And along a relatively level path.  Between two points where there's already a town.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

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

Thegeet

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 153
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:35 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1959 on: April 28, 2021, 08:30:28 PM »

Ah. Okay.

New topic: Where would the Odem bypass route for US-77(I-69E) be built? West or East?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8262
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:50:57 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1960 on: April 28, 2021, 08:39:41 PM »

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

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.


A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 153
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:35 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1961 on: April 28, 2021, 08:44:52 PM »

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

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.


A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 
Nice. I didn’t know railroads played a big role in highways. The only thing is that when a train comes, it’s frustrating for a driver to have to wait.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2021, 08:50:24 PM by Thegeet »
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1435
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 03:57:54 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1962 on: April 28, 2021, 11:04:24 PM »

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

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.


A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 

Just a question, Sparker: This is the same T&NO that ran the SP line from Houston to New Orleans via Lafayette that is now jointly run by UP and BNSF alternatively, am I correct?

Back to the I-69 Colossus Confluence in Victoria: I'm wondering why the rush to actually build a full Victoria freeway loop, even if most of it is or will be freeway grade when I-69/I-69E will be built, when I-69W probably won't be built for quite a while yet? Are there plans to at least 4-lane US 59 between Laredo and Victoria currently as a starter?


Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 153
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:35 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1963 on: April 28, 2021, 11:19:02 PM »

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

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.


A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 

Just a question, Sparker: This is the same T&NO that ran the SP line from Houston to New Orleans via Lafayette that is now jointly run by UP and BNSF alternatively, am I correct?

Back to the I-69 Colossus Confluence in Victoria: I'm wondering why the rush to actually build a full Victoria freeway loop, even if most of it is or will be freeway grade when I-69/I-69E will be built, when I-69W probably won't be built for quite a while yet? Are there plans to at least 4-lane US 59 between Laredo and Victoria currently as a starter?



Iím going to guess that Victoria is highly prioritized because TxDOT feels that it is an emerging attraction for new businesses and companies, including ďwarehouses and redistribution centersĒ (Victoria Mayor Rawley McCoy). But most importantly, theyíre prioritizing the more urban areas first, which are the hardest parts. Why other places similar sizes donít get this rush, Iím not 100% sure, but itís an idea.

According to TXDOTís project tracker, theyíre already developing the route at the US-59T BUS interchange to widen to 4 lanes total.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8262
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:50:57 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1964 on: April 29, 2021, 07:06:43 AM »

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

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.


A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 

Just a question, Sparker: This is the same T&NO that ran the SP line from Houston to New Orleans via Lafayette that is now jointly run by UP and BNSF alternatively, am I correct?

Back to the I-69 Colossus Confluence in Victoria: I'm wondering why the rush to actually build a full Victoria freeway loop, even if most of it is or will be freeway grade when I-69/I-69E will be built, when I-69W probably won't be built for quite a while yet? Are there plans to at least 4-lane US 59 between Laredo and Victoria currently as a starter?




Absolutely correct re T&NO.  Until 1959, Texas state law required railroads with trackage within TX to be incorporated in TX.  This led to the major RR lines establishing subsidiaries to, at least on paper, be TX-based.  T&NO never had any locomotives or rolling stock (freight/passenger cars) advertising the subsidiary name; all were labeled "Southern Pacific" as with the CA-based parent company (although locomotives running on the T&NO lines had small discreet "T&NO" stencils within the specification list on their chasses.  The major T&NO line ran from El Paso east to New Orleans via Alpine, Del Rio, San Antonio, Houston (which was T&NO's "official" HQ), Lake Charles, Lafayette, Morgan City, and NO itself -- basically tracing US 90 (or Alternate US 90) in both states.  Branches were Houston-Brownsville, Houston-DFW, and Victoria-DFW, crossing the main E-W line at Flatonia.  Missouri Pacific had two subsidiary companies: Missouri Pacific of Texas, which owned and operated most of the NE-SW lines in TX, and the more famous Texas & Pacific, which ran along US 80 and/or I-20 across the entire state before dipping SE at Shreveport to serve Baton Rouge and NO.  Likewise, Santa Fe had a subsidiary that paper-owned their TX trackage, the Gulf, Colorado, and Santa Fe.  The only part of TX that was exempt from the ownership rule was the Panhandle north of the Red River, which was "grandfathered" in when the ownership rule came into effect in the 1890's.  When UP bought SP (1996),  which had "re-absorbed" its T&NO subsidiary in 1960, it deemed the section of E-W line east of Lake Charles to be superfluous and overly high-maintenance (particularly the section east of Lafayette, which featured a multitude of bridges); they sold that line to BNSF, which didn't have a NO server (UP already had the former MP line into Baton Rouge and the former T&P line from Shreveport by which to access New Orleans).  BTW, MP and SP had parallel trackage from Houston to Brownsville; after SP's UP acquisition, the latter company either sold most of the SP trackage to Kansas City Southern or, south of Corpus Christi, simply abandoned the SP line in favor of the former MP.     
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2564
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 04:39:49 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1965 on: April 29, 2021, 02:49:31 PM »

Aside from the desire to attract distribution centers and other businesses to the Victoria area (and other points along the Future I-69 system in Texas) there is also the very pressing concern of I-35 needing a relief valve for re-directing at least some commercial traffic.

I-35 in Texas has very heavy levels of commercial trucking traffic, among the most the in nation. And that starts right at the border in Laredo. Combine that with the factor of the Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin-San Antonio regions adding residents faster than most other places in the nation. The substantial upgrade to I-35 built between Austin and DFW won't be enough to shoulder that burden. I-69 will be able to siphon away some of that burden. Driving through Houston can be a less-than-fun experience, but Houston is just one giant metro as opposed to San Antonio, Austin and DFW. Plus, half of the Grand Parkway is nearly complete from I-69 on the SW side of Houston to I-69 on the NE side. They just need to build the TX-99/I-69 interchange in Greatwood. I'm sure that will happen long before the rest of I-69 is completed between Houston and Laredo.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19208
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 06:35:07 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1966 on: April 29, 2021, 03:35:39 PM »

Aside from the desire to attract distribution centers and other businesses to the Victoria area (and other points along the Future I-69 system in Texas) there is also the very pressing concern of I-35 needing a relief valve for re-directing at least some commercial traffic.

I-35 in Texas has very heavy levels of commercial trucking traffic, among the most the in nation. And that starts right at the border in Laredo. Combine that with the factor of the Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin-San Antonio regions adding residents faster than most other places in the nation. The substantial upgrade to I-35 built between Austin and DFW won't be enough to shoulder that burden. I-69 will be able to siphon away some of that burden. Driving through Houston can be a less-than-fun experience, but Houston is just one giant metro as opposed to San Antonio, Austin and DFW. Plus, half of the Grand Parkway is nearly complete from I-69 on the SW side of Houston to I-69 on the NE side. They just need to build the TX-99/I-69 interchange in Greatwood. I'm sure that will happen long before the rest of I-69 is completed between Houston and Laredo.

While I do agree, I at least want to point out that the AADT just north of San Marcos is about six or seven times higher than the AADT just north of Encinal.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

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

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8262
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:50:57 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1967 on: April 29, 2021, 03:57:06 PM »

Aside from the desire to attract distribution centers and other businesses to the Victoria area (and other points along the Future I-69 system in Texas) there is also the very pressing concern of I-35 needing a relief valve for re-directing at least some commercial traffic.

I-35 in Texas has very heavy levels of commercial trucking traffic, among the most the in nation. And that starts right at the border in Laredo. Combine that with the factor of the Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin-San Antonio regions adding residents faster than most other places in the nation. The substantial upgrade to I-35 built between Austin and DFW won't be enough to shoulder that burden. I-69 will be able to siphon away some of that burden. Driving through Houston can be a less-than-fun experience, but Houston is just one giant metro as opposed to San Antonio, Austin and DFW. Plus, half of the Grand Parkway is nearly complete from I-69 on the SW side of Houston to I-69 on the NE side. They just need to build the TX-99/I-69 interchange in Greatwood. I'm sure that will happen long before the rest of I-69 is completed between Houston and Laredo.

While I do agree, I at least want to point out that the AADT just north of San Marcos is about six or seven times higher than the AADT just north of Encinal.

While it might siphon off only a small portion of current NB I-35 traffic compared to the potential of I-69W/I-69 as a Laredo-Houston direct shot, development of the P2P (I-27) corridor, branching off with US 83 just north of metro Laredo, may help in this regard, particularly with any commercial destination west of the I-35 corridor.  But in reality there can be no comparison between any part of I-35 from San Antonio all the way north to Temple, which constitutes the area experiencing the greatest population growth in the region, with anything south toward Laredo.  North of, for instance, the southern junction of I-35 and Loop 1604 there will be regularized commuter traffic with which to contend, and this condition will likely persist to the northern outskirts of Temple, adding a magnitude of local traffic to any through traffic on I-35; from Laredo to the San Antonio outskirts, there is little in the way of development (as of yet); while there's plenty of commercial traffic, it hasn't been inundated with the levels seen in the line of metro areas to the north and the rapidly filling spaces between them.  Building out I-35 to beyond 6 lanes along that stretch may not be critical as both facility expansion and making more relief routes (besides 130!) available to disperse the increassed traffic in and north of San Antonio.       
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 153
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:35 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1968 on: April 30, 2021, 06:39:17 PM »

When can we expect to see progress on future I-69W in the Corpus Christi District (i.e., Goliad, Beeville, George West, Freer)?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8262
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:50:57 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1969 on: May 01, 2021, 02:25:21 AM »

When can we expect to see progress on future I-69W in the Corpus Christi District (i.e., Goliad, Beeville, George West, Freer)?

Probably not until I-69E is substantially completed, and I-69C has at least half of its length built out to full Interstate standards.  While Laredo is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla of border crossings in terms of sheer commercial volume, it's pretty clear that Hidalgo and Brownsville are, via the MX 40 toll road, positioned to be alternatives when (not if) the funnel spout that is Laredo reaches a point of critical mass.  Also -- 69C and 69E serve the lower Rio Grande valley, which has been growing almost exponentially for the last couple of decades.  I-69W is seen as ultimately needed -- but not desperately at present; the corridor's primary function is as a relief route rather than a connector to an expanding population center.  As such, its development can proceed at a slower pace without touching off political or public reaction.  In short, it's more of a "one trick pony" than the other two branches -- that trick being a commercial shortcut from Laredo to Houston not involving San Antonio as a chokepoint. 
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 153
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:35 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1970 on: May 01, 2021, 02:45:07 AM »

When can we expect to see progress on future I-69W in the Corpus Christi District (i.e., Goliad, Beeville, George West, Freer)?

Probably not until I-69E is substantially completed, and I-69C has at least half of its length built out to full Interstate standards.  While Laredo is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla of border crossings in terms of sheer commercial volume, it's pretty clear that Hidalgo and Brownsville are, via the MX 40 toll road, positioned to be alternatives when (not if) the funnel spout that is Laredo reaches a point of critical mass.  Also -- 69C and 69E serve the lower Rio Grande valley, which has been growing almost exponentially for the last couple of decades.  I-69W is seen as ultimately needed -- but not desperately at present; the corridor's primary function is as a relief route rather than a connector to an expanding population center.  As such, its development can proceed at a slower pace without touching off political or public reaction.  In short, it's more of a "one trick pony" than the other two branches -- that trick being a commercial shortcut from Laredo to Houston not involving San Antonio as a chokepoint. 
Ock.
thanks.

Google maps has uploaded new satellite imagery north of Raymondville, showing new main lanes open for US-77.

Also, one more question: about how much more expensive (or highly unlikely from what I’ve heard, cheaper) would it be to construct most of I-69 in Texas over mostly existing corridors as compared to I-69 in mostly new terrain?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2021, 02:52:57 AM by Thegeet »
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6606
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:49:45 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1971 on: May 01, 2021, 02:54:02 AM »

Looking at updated aerial imagery, has construction began on upgrading US-59 between Kendleton and Wharton? It appears something is ongoing there, almost like frontage road construction.

Itís been a couple years since Iíve been through the area, but back in 2019, construction had been well underway from Kendleton north to the existing I-69 segment near Rosenberg, but not immediately south - work was also underway for rural frontage road construction on existing right of way in El Campo and Victoria which I imagine is complete now. Good to see progress pushing forward more.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2021, 02:58:58 AM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 153
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:35 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1972 on: May 01, 2021, 03:18:05 AM »

Looking at updated aerial imagery, has construction began on upgrading US-59 between Kendleton and Wharton? It appears something is ongoing there, almost like frontage road construction.

Itís been a couple years since Iíve been through the area, but back in 2019, construction had been well underway from Kendleton north to the existing I-69 segment near Rosenberg, but not immediately south - work was also underway for rural frontage road construction on existing right of way in El Campo and Victoria which I imagine is complete now. Good to see progress pushing forward more.
Thereís definitely something going on near Hungerford, like another bridge being built, probably frontage rd? Wharton has definitely not been doing much in March except the frontage rds.
Great job on pointing that out, btw.


Also, El campo btw, has closed the main lanes for extensive (maybe exaggerating) reconstruction. Wharton county is making progress. Wharton, the city, wonít start main construction until 2023. But more importantly, Jackson county hasnít even started.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2021, 03:24:04 AM by Thegeet »
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 03:18:13 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1973 on: June 01, 2021, 10:30:44 AM »

It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6606
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:49:45 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1974 on: June 01, 2021, 10:54:29 AM »

I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting theyíd make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

Iíll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
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.