I-69 in TX

[Thegeet]

Anyways, would the future I-69W/E interchange start construction after the BU 59T interchange is finished?

[sparker]

I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.

Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.

All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99).  The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo.  Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan.  TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously.  The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others. 

At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.   

Why would the congressional delegation need to understand anything?  They already did their part in creating the corridor.  Now it's up to the DOTs to actually build everything.

Not quite that cut-and-dry, especially in TX.  Keeping the fed funds coming year after year requires the cooperation of that same delegation, whose composition may change a bit over the years, with new additions requiring being brought "up to speed" on what's expected of them and what benefits they can and will receive for their continued support.  A massive project such as this occasionally requires a modicum of "ass-kissing" as well as making it easy to maintain such support; staying "on message" by condensing corridor business to easily understandable parameters (such as, in this instance, referring to the corridor concepts receiving funding as "I-69" components) is a part of the methodology.  In this way the representatives are functioning as active ongoing partners and project "boosters" rather than simply the vehicles by which the original corridor was designated; since many of those weren't around in their present capacity back in '95, emphasizing that these folks have a vested (electoral) interest in ensuring that the project is progressing consistently is something that TxDOT and the corridor boosters engage in on a regular basis.  In TX, the recognition of the fact that building roads, particularly new facilities, is intrinsically intertwined with regional/district politics is a bit more overt than in other jurisdictions -- and care is taken that no party "drops the ball", so to speak, to the point where long-planned corridors are relegated to low priority or even shelved, as with some states' DOT's. 

[yakra]

BTW, google maps has updated street view for US 59 from East of Ganado to Houston. It is dated April 2021.

Yay, visible exit numbers!

Odd that they'd sign Spur 529 via Exit 95, rather than via Exit 94 where there's more direct access.


Edit: quoted the wrong post

[Thegeet]

Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.

Yay, visible exit numbers!

Odd that they'd sign Spur 529 via Exit 95, rather than via Exit 94 where there's more direct access.

Something tells me they're moving Spur 529 onto Kroesche Rd. Or maybe it's just me.

[ethanhopkin14]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.

I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.

Not so fast.  Texas is notorious for not building a road to interstate standards if it's not an interstate.  To the point of being grossly substandard.  I am not just talking about grade crossings and turnarounds.  TxDOT builds divided highways on the cheep.  The base is very poor, the shoulders are not always present or compliant, and the road is filled with slight hills (some blind) that will need to be leveled out.  Saying U.S. 281 is a divided highway between Alice and George West so all you have to do is remove the crossovers and a few at-grade crossings is just scratching the surface.  The whole road will have to be raised and re-done. 

[vdeane]

I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.

Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.

All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99).  The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo.  Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan.  TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously.  The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others. 

At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.   

Why would the congressional delegation need to understand anything?  They already did their part in creating the corridor.  Now it's up to the DOTs to actually build everything.

Not quite that cut-and-dry, especially in TX.  Keeping the fed funds coming year after year requires the cooperation of that same delegation, whose composition may change a bit over the years, with new additions requiring being brought "up to speed" on what's expected of them and what benefits they can and will receive for their continued support.  A massive project such as this occasionally requires a modicum of "ass-kissing" as well as making it easy to maintain such support; staying "on message" by condensing corridor business to easily understandable parameters (such as, in this instance, referring to the corridor concepts receiving funding as "I-69" components) is a part of the methodology.  In this way the representatives are functioning as active ongoing partners and project "boosters" rather than simply the vehicles by which the original corridor was designated; since many of those weren't around in their present capacity back in '95, emphasizing that these folks have a vested (electoral) interest in ensuring that the project is progressing consistently is something that TxDOT and the corridor boosters engage in on a regular basis.  In TX, the recognition of the fact that building roads, particularly new facilities, is intrinsically intertwined with regional/district politics is a bit more overt than in other jurisdictions -- and care is taken that no party "drops the ball", so to speak, to the point where long-planned corridors are relegated to low priority or even shelved, as with some states' DOT's. 

What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for?  Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula.  Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects.  That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.

[wdcrft63]

What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for?  Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula.  Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects.  That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.

Earmarks are back:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/

[sparker]

What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for?  Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula.  Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects.  That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.

Earmarks are back:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/

And, in reality, they have been for some time -- but not overtly.  Since there's no chargeability issues with which to contend, projects, including improvements to freeways, can and have been "back-doored" as local efficiency and safety measures (interchanges serving outlying housing developments have been doing this for years), taking advantage of multiple federal pools besides the annual USDOT outlays.  Before long, a divided highway has a handful of interchanges along its length, so when a comprehensive upgrade is slated, it's already partially completed. 

But some states seem to be more adept at directing "off-book" funds to their projects than others who take a more passive approach, letting the yearly "pool" revenues dictate the limitations and timeframes of their backlog of work.  Congresspersons who are able to "call dibs" and direct alternate revenue sources to their projects have been invaluable to those states they represent -- they're simply doing their job providing for their districts.  But now that some sanity has been restored (along with actual earmarks) in a long-impecunious legislative environment, things may actually pick up in terms of project horizons, including the I-69 "family" of facilities.  If TX' delegation is competent, that corridor could actually be completed in 20-25 years (unless more branches and spurs are added!) 

[bwana39]

What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for?  Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula.  Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects.  That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.

Earmarks are back:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/

And, in reality, they have been for some time -- but not overtly.  Since there's no chargeability issues with which to contend, projects, including improvements to freeways, can and have been "back-doored" as local efficiency and safety measures (interchanges serving outlying housing developments have been doing this for years), taking advantage of multiple federal pools besides the annual USDOT outlays.  Before long, a divided highway has a handful of interchanges along its length, so when a comprehensive upgrade is slated, it's already partially completed. 

But some states seem to be more adept at directing "off-book" funds to their projects than others who take a more passive approach, letting the yearly "pool" revenues dictate the limitations and timeframes of their backlog of work.  Congresspersons who are able to "call dibs" and direct alternate revenue sources to their projects have been invaluable to those states they represent -- they're simply doing their job providing for their districts.  But now that some sanity has been restored (along with actual earmarks) in a long-impecunious legislative environment, things may actually pick up in terms of project horizons, including the I-69 "family" of facilities.  If TX' delegation is competent, that corridor could actually be completed in 20-25 years (unless more branches and spurs are added!)

I actually think 20-25 years is a very long view if we are talking about Texas. I honestly don't see it being 15 unless we have 8 additional years of pure progressive (inner-city) political control.

  I would agree if we are discussing Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee.

[Thegeet]

What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for?  Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula.  Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects.  That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.

Earmarks are back:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/

And, in reality, they have been for some time -- but not overtly.  Since there's no chargeability issues with which to contend, projects, including improvements to freeways, can and have been "back-doored" as local efficiency and safety measures (interchanges serving outlying housing developments have been doing this for years), taking advantage of multiple federal pools besides the annual USDOT outlays.  Before long, a divided highway has a handful of interchanges along its length, so when a comprehensive upgrade is slated, it's already partially completed. 

But some states seem to be more adept at directing "off-book" funds to their projects than others who take a more passive approach, letting the yearly "pool" revenues dictate the limitations and timeframes of their backlog of work.  Congresspersons who are able to "call dibs" and direct alternate revenue sources to their projects have been invaluable to those states they represent -- they're simply doing their job providing for their districts.  But now that some sanity has been restored (along with actual earmarks) in a long-impecunious legislative environment, things may actually pick up in terms of project horizons, including the I-69 "family" of facilities.  If TX' delegation is competent, that corridor could actually be completed in 20-25 years (unless more branches and spurs are added!)

I actually think 20-25 years is a very long view if we are talking about Texas. I honestly don't see it being 15 unless we have 8 additional years of pure progressive (inner-city) political control.

  I would agree if we are discussing Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee.

How long would you think the I-69 system would finish in its entirety?

[Echostatic]

The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.

[Thegeet]

The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.

As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.

[sparker]

The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.

As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.

The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana.  Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59).  Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44.  69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston.  But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon.  But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado.  Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.

[Thegeet]

The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.

As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.

The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana.  Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59).  Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44.  69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston.  But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon.  But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado.  Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.

I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.

[sparker]

The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.

As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.

The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana.  Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59).  Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44.  69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston.  But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon.  But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado.  Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.

I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.

Because of the local-service aspects of the proposed I-69 loop road around the south and east side of metro Shreveport, it's likely that I-69 will be constructed at least as far north as I-20 before much of the rural segment northeast of there including the remaining LA mileage and most of AR's pathway is completed or even underway.  With the persistent lack of available funding within MS, I'd expect the Dean bridge and its eastern approach to US 61 to be the very last corridor portion developed.   

[bwana39]

The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.

As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.

The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana.  Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59).  Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44.  69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston.  But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon.  But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado.  Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.

I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.

Because of the local-service aspects of the proposed I-69 loop road around the south and east side of metro Shreveport, it's likely that I-69 will be constructed at least as far north as I-20 before much of the rural segment northeast of there including the remaining LA mileage and most of AR's pathway is completed or even underway.  With the persistent lack of available funding within MS, I'd expect the Dean bridge and its eastern approach to US 61 to be the very last corridor portion developed.

As much as Shreveport / Bossier would like the I-69 portion from the State Line to I-20 finished, they are struggling getting the Jimmie Davis Bridge replacement done, much less the Interstate 69 port crossing done. The part from I-49 to I-20 might get done within 15 years.

The portion from Panola  or Shelby County in Texas through Desoto Parish LA, is seemingly as far off as is the portion north of I-20. I-49 from Lafayette to NOLA , widening I-10 and perhaps I-12 across LA, and The Baton Rouge Loop (which would include at least one Mississippi River bridge) all will likely get done before Baton Rouge even starts a real priority list.

I see I-369 farther along than you do. I see it to Texarkana before I-49 is finished through western Arkansas. 15 years is a good timetable. I really don't know why the Marshall bypass was put off, but my guess is when they did the repair to the segment between SH-43 and US-59 the existent microengineering data was insufficient so the engineering costs are going to be far higher than originally thought.

I am unsure of the RGV branches, I have little or no knowledge of what is going on down there.

[abqtraveler]

The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.

As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.

The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana.  Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59).  Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44.  69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston.  But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon.  But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado.  Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.

I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.

I think Mississippi will be the last state to finish their portion of I-69, if ever.

[bwana39]

The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.

As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.

The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana.  Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59).  Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44.  69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston.  But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon.  But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado.  Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.

I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.

I think Mississippi will be the last state to finish their portion of I-69, if ever.

"If ever" is a good synopsis. I think they have little if any appetite or even need for it. The bridge from a Mississippi aspect is redundant. The road would not be a significant distance from I-55 and would be redundant as well.  There is no real value for the people of west central Mississippi for the road or the Dean bridge.

As far as that goes, Arkansas is not invested very much.  I agree that there is zero investment in Louisiana for ANY of it beyond local support for the parts south of I-20. I am not sure unless the Feds both earmark the funds and provide some sort of incentive for the in-kind funds that Louisiana would EVER build the part north of I-20.

[sprjus4]

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

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

Drove by the area today, managed to take a picture of the new gantry. Indeed, both I-37 and I-69E are co-signed at the northern US-77 interchange. Interestingly enough, no other I-69E shields until its southern split near Calallen, just I-37 and US-77.

[Thegeet]

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

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

Drove by the area today, managed to take a picture of the new gantry. Indeed, both I-37 and I-69E are co-signed at the northern US-77 interchange. Interestingly enough, no other I-69E shields for I-69E until it's southern split near Calallen, just I-37 and US-77.

OMG!!!!!  Thank you so much!!!! Now I don't have to spend money on Amazon fire stick to check for updated street view.

Jk, but seriously, this makes me so happy. Wonder when they will start developing the Odem bypass.

Also happened to pass by Houston. US 59 SB is shown by google to be incomplete at Exit 94/Spur 10, but it has since been completed.

[sprjus4]

^ Odem and Refugio both need to be bypassed. They are the only things standing in the way of a free-flowing 75 mph expressway between Corpus Christi and Houston. Add the under construction Driscoll Bypass and the proposed Riviera Bypass, and you have a free-flowing expressway between the Rio Grande Valley and Houston.

I'll try to get some pictures along US-77 between Robstown and Kingsville soon enough, I have yet to drive on that route since 2019 when construction had been in its earliest phases. Curious to see the latest progress. I'll probably reach Houston in a couple of weeks.

[Thegeet]

^ Odem and Refugio both need to be bypassed. They are the only things standing in the way of a free-flowing 75 mph expressway between Corpus Christi and Houston. Add the under construction Driscoll Bypass and the proposed Riviera Bypass, and you have a free-flowing expressway between the Rio Grande Valley and Houston.

I'll try to get some pictures along US-77 between Robstown and Kingsville soon enough, I have yet to drive on that route since 2019 when construction had been in its earliest phases. Curious to see the latest progress. I'll probably reach Houston in a couple of weeks.

I've been to Houston enough times so far, but I'm really looking forward to seeing US77 near Corpus Christi and Kingsville to see its progress. And I also want to see what they're doing on US59 between Splendora and Cleveland, specifically at SH 105.

[ethanhopkin14]

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

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

Drove by the area today, managed to take a picture of the new gantry. Indeed, both I-37 and I-69E are co-signed at the northern US-77 interchange. Interestingly enough, no other I-69E shields until its southern split near Calallen, just I-37 and US-77.

Thank you so much for getting the white whale.  See everyone, I wasn't lying!!  Hahaha, but seriously thanks!

[sprjus4]

^ No problem, I was honestly surprised someone else didn't manage to get pictures between when you posted last month and now. I just figured I would at this point since nothing had still been posted.

[Thegeet]

Update: after searching on Snapchat, SH 550 has not been signed as I-169 as of July 2021.

Also, I will drive by Houston to see if the Holt Rd overpass for US 59 is completed: because on maps, there are no closures reported there. I will provide a video if I get the chance to.