News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

I-69 in TX

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

Previous topic - Next topic

texaskdog

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 10:28:41 AM


To the argument that a divided highway with just a few bypasses is good enough argument: apparently you haven't traveled US 281 between Alice and George West lately. Yea it is a divided highway with 2 lanes in each direction with a 75 mile per hour speed limit, but it is full of rolling blind hills and you are lucky to have an inside shoulder for most of the trip.  I am not talking about big hills in some cases, just small quick hills with blind driveways and rough sub standard pavement. If I drove a truck between the valley and San Antonio daly, I would want a gun to shoot myself because the road is very rough even for a car, much less a fully loaded 18 wheeler. Again, the interstate shield means something.  In Texas, the thinking is make a road as cheaply as possible.  If it is not an interstate, then we will not build it to the standards.  That's why 281 has all the bumps and hills.  With an interstate designation, those poor design flaws will be eliminated. 

I used to work as a land surveyor for a company who's corporate office was in Florida. All we had were two wheel drive F150 pickups and we were beggin for heavy duty 4 wheel drive pick ups, or at least just 4 wheel drive trucks, and corporate said no.  They said we didn't need them because Austin wasn't like Florida so they deemed spending the money for a place they concidered to be dry (because I swear the whole world thinks it never rains in Texas and the whole state is one big flat rock) was a waste, even though it does rain here.   Because of that, I do get offended when people who don't live in an area tell the people of that area "you don't need that ".  In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently. 

What I meant was that if its already a divided highway, putting in exits is much cheaper than a whole new build.


ethanhopkin14

Quote from: texaskdog on May 14, 2014, 11:56:09 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 10:28:41 AM


To the argument that a divided highway with just a few bypasses is good enough argument: apparently you haven't traveled US 281 between Alice and George West lately. Yea it is a divided highway with 2 lanes in each direction with a 75 mile per hour speed limit, but it is full of rolling blind hills and you are lucky to have an inside shoulder for most of the trip.  I am not talking about big hills in some cases, just small quick hills with blind driveways and rough sub standard pavement. If I drove a truck between the valley and San Antonio daly, I would want a gun to shoot myself because the road is very rough even for a car, much less a fully loaded 18 wheeler. Again, the interstate shield means something.  In Texas, the thinking is make a road as cheaply as possible.  If it is not an interstate, then we will not build it to the standards.  That's why 281 has all the bumps and hills.  With an interstate designation, those poor design flaws will be eliminated. 

I used to work as a land surveyor for a company who's corporate office was in Florida. All we had were two wheel drive F150 pickups and we were beggin for heavy duty 4 wheel drive pick ups, or at least just 4 wheel drive trucks, and corporate said no.  They said we didn't need them because Austin wasn't like Florida so they deemed spending the money for a place they concidered to be dry (because I swear the whole world thinks it never rains in Texas and the whole state is one big flat rock) was a waste, even though it does rain here.   Because of that, I do get offended when people who don't live in an area tell the people of that area "you don't need that ".  In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently. 

What I meant was that if its already a divided highway, putting in exits is much cheaper than a whole new build.

Yes it would be cheaper.  But I always like the job done right , not cheaply.

bugo

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 08:36:16 AM
Everyone seems to think that the "build it and they will come"  idea is a pipe dream.   Like they are building roads and praying people will use it.  No, it is more like the second this is finished it will be one of the most heavily traveled roads in America.  I hear you that you think I-69e and I-69C are redundant and on a map they sure look redundant, but their existence is quite needed.  I-69E serves two purposes: for traffic going from Corpus Christi to Houston and traffic going from Corpus Christi to the valley, no more than that.  It serves a link between 3 metro areas.  I-69C would be better if it were numbered an I-X37, because it is more of a branch of I-37.  Ask any truck driver who drives the route between San Antonio (or Austin, or Waco, or Dallas/Ft. Worth) and the valley day in and day out which way he goes to the valley from I-37: US 77 or US 281.  I bet you 10 out of 10 drivers will tell you US 281.  So if you said you were going to upgrade one of them to and interstate, they would emphatically ask for US 281, because it is straighter and more direct.  So, since I-69E is vital for the Corpus Christi connection, with truck traffic that is related to the Valley/Corpus/Houston/Shreveport  corridor, then I-69C is just as vital for the Dallas/Ft. Worth/Waco/Austin/San Antonio/Valley corridor.  I think they are much needed, and as for money, that I can't tell you about!

A related question: Should the US 69 freeway in eastern Kansas be extended to I-44 in northeastern Oklahoma?  This highway appears to be redundant to the US 71/I-49 corridor in Missouri, but should it be extended as an alternative?

kkt

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
With an interstate designation, those poor design flaws will be eliminated.

In Texas, maybe.  Ever driven I-880 in California through Oakland?

oscar

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently. 

Now it's more "zoom past" than "pounce upon".  US 281 through Falfurrias is now a freeway, and it wouldn't surprise me if it soon becomes another I-69C segment. 

I lucked into the opening when I was in south Texas in early March.  The new freeway was open in one direction when I drove it, with the other direction scheduled to open the next day.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

bugo

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
The other thing about the " build it and they will come" idea is how many people will use it now that a better road is in place.  Let's take all the hundreds of thousands of trucks that come from Tamulipas (Cuidad Victoria or Monterey) that are bound for DFW or even Houston that cross the border at Nuevo Laredo because they can get on the interstates earlier, and avoid the valley because they don't want to drive the US 77 to US 59 corridor to get to Houston. We are talking. 300 plus miles of lights, intersections, driveways and blind hills.  Like it or not, the red white and blue shield means something. 

It doesn't mean anything that a good US highway or state highway freeway doesn't.  Would, say, OK 51 suddenly become a better road if it were designated as I-144?

Quote
People will go out of their way to stay on interstates because the roads are faster and better.

That's because they are stupid.  A good freeway is a good freeway no matter what type of highway it is: a city freeway, county freeway, state or US highway freeway, or an interstate.  And interstates aren't necessarily better than non-interstate freeways.  For example: the aforementioned US 69 freeway in Kansas is a far better road than I-44 in Missouri, which is just awful.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: bugo on May 14, 2014, 12:02:35 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 08:36:16 AM
Everyone seems to think that the "build it and they will come"  idea is a pipe dream.   Like they are building roads and praying people will use it.  No, it is more like the second this is finished it will be one of the most heavily traveled roads in America.  I hear you that you think I-69e and I-69C are redundant and on a map they sure look redundant, but their existence is quite needed.  I-69E serves two purposes: for traffic going from Corpus Christi to Houston and traffic going from Corpus Christi to the valley, no more than that.  It serves a link between 3 metro areas.  I-69C would be better if it were numbered an I-X37, because it is more of a branch of I-37.  Ask any truck driver who drives the route between San Antonio (or Austin, or Waco, or Dallas/Ft. Worth) and the valley day in and day out which way he goes to the valley from I-37: US 77 or US 281.  I bet you 10 out of 10 drivers will tell you US 281.  So if you said you were going to upgrade one of them to and interstate, they would emphatically ask for US 281, because it is straighter and more direct.  So, since I-69E is vital for the Corpus Christi connection, with truck traffic that is related to the Valley/Corpus/Houston/Shreveport  corridor, then I-69C is just as vital for the Dallas/Ft. Worth/Waco/Austin/San Antonio/Valley corridor.  I think they are much needed, and as for money, that I can't tell you about!

A related question: Should the US 69 freeway in eastern Kansas be extended to I-44 in northeastern Oklahoma?  This highway appears to be redundant to the US 71/I-49 corridor in Missouri, but should it be extended as an alternative?

I have always thought I-45 needs extending from Dallas, even though I am a Texan and love the fact we have the only intrastate main interstate in the system!   But seriously, I don't think it would be redundant, seeing how it opens up a direct route from Dallas to Tulsa and possibly Kansas City.  It will keep the trucks off I-35 and/or I-44 for the same purpose.

bugo

I'm not talking about the US 69 clusterfuck from Big Cabin to Colbert (except for the section between just south of Muskogee to just north of McAlester, which is a freeway but is in very bad condition), I'm talking about north of I-44.  The US 69 highway from Big Cabin to Muskogee and from McAlester to Colbert is just awful.  I don't see a reason to extend I-45 at this time.  US 69 could be I-47 if you must assign an interstate number to it, which is something I wouldn't do.  The US 69 designation works just fine for it.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: bugo on May 14, 2014, 12:07:12 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
The other thing about the " build it and they will come" idea is how many people will use it now that a better road is in place.  Let's take all the hundreds of thousands of trucks that come from Tamulipas (Cuidad Victoria or Monterey) that are bound for DFW or even Houston that cross the border at Nuevo Laredo because they can get on the interstates earlier, and avoid the valley because they don't want to drive the US 77 to US 59 corridor to get to Houston. We are talking. 300 plus miles of lights, intersections, driveways and blind hills.  Like it or not, the red white and blue shield means something. 

It doesn't mean anything that a good US highway or state highway freeway doesn't.  Would, say, OK 51 suddenly become a better road if it were designated as I-144?

Quote
People will go out of their way to stay on interstates because the roads are faster and better.

That's because they are stupid.  A good freeway is a good freeway no matter what type of highway it is: a city freeway, county freeway, state or US highway freeway, or an interstate.  And interstates aren't necessarily better than non-interstate freeways.  For example: the aforementioned US 69 freeway in Kansas is a far better road than I-44 in Missouri, which is just awful.

I understand what you mean, but to the out of state driver (or out of country ) a US highway can be anything from a freeway to a curvy two lane road with no shoulders. The US or state highway shields can't really be trusted. At least with an interstate highway, you know at the absolute least you are garunteed a freeway. Maybe it isn't the absolute best road in the world (Bronx-Queens Expressway) but you are garunteed not to have a traffic light in every powdunk community you drive through. 

bugo

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 12:15:11 PM
I understand what you mean, but to the out of state driver (or out of country ) a US highway can be anything from a freeway to a curvy two lane road with no shoulders. The US or state highway shields can't really be trusted. At least with an interstate highway, you know at the absolute least you are garunteed (sic) a freeway. Maybe it isn't the absolute best road in the world (Bronx-Queens Expressway) but you are garunteed (sic) not to have a traffic light in every powdunk (sic) community you drive through. 

First, a red-white-blue shield does not guarantee a freeway.  I-180 and I-78 say hi.  Second, a good map has the same colored line for an interstate as it does for a non-interstate freeway.  If you can't look at a map and tell that a blue line means a freeway then maybe you shouldn't be driving.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: bugo on May 14, 2014, 12:20:39 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 12:15:11 PM
I understand what you mean, but to the out of state driver (or out of country ) a US highway can be anything from a freeway to a curvy two lane road with no shoulders. The US or state highway shields can't really be trusted. At least with an interstate highway, you know at the absolute least you are garunteed (sic) a freeway. Maybe it isn't the absolute best road in the world (Bronx-Queens Expressway) but you are garunteed (sic) not to have a traffic light in every powdunk (sic) community you drive through. 

First, a red-white-blue shield does not guarantee a freeway.  I-180 and I-78 say hi.  Second, a good map has the same colored line for an interstate as it does for a non-interstate freeway.  If you can't look at a map and tell that a blue line means a freeway then maybe you shouldn't be driving.

So you have given me two examples of non freeway interstates. With Interstate 180 being 1.24 miles long and the approach to the Holland Tunnel being a few blocks long, we are talking a total of maybe 2 miles out of 47,714. I don't think people really stress the fact that those little sections are not freeway so that means all interstates might break into having traffic lights and driveways right up to the main lanes. And we didn't even mention the approach to the Ben Franklin Bridge on I-676 or I-70 in Breezewood. With that added, there might be 5 miles of non freeway interstates. Again out of 47,714 miles, I say you are guaranteed a freeway when you see the shield.

I have know of many map publications where interstates are represented with two red lines with blue in the middle and US highways are represented with two red lines with yellow in the middle regardless if they are a freeway or not. So acording to those maps, US 75 from Dallas to Sherman looks the same as US 290 in downtown Fredricksburg with stopłights everywhere and a 30 MPH speed limit.

My point is not my ability to know a freeway or not, it is making the long distance traveler comfortable. US 1 north from Boston through Saugus shows up on Google Maps as a freeway when speaking from experience it is full of sharp curves, blind hills and is signed like any other Massachusetts state highway, which is inconsistent to the national standard to interstates. Sorry, but it is far from an interstate alternative. Texas is bad about having that same thing.  They have several non interstate freeways that couldn't pass the interstate standards test if it tried.  I hate to be like that, but I like the standards because there are no surprises because a state wanted to save a few bucks here or there and made that hill blind and that curve way too tight. Just because a road is a freeway doesn't make it "just as good as an interstate". 

Perfxion

Well, what happens when you have highways like US59 north of I-10 being better cleaner freeways than I-45 north of I-10. Both will get you to the beltway, but 59 will not take so much thread off your tires.

I am not saying don't build anything. I am saying build smartly when you are crying broke. Right now both C and E aren't needed. Could be handled with just one of them, done correctly. Right now 369 isn't needed. Its really currently just a X49 or X30. Save the money and use it wisely else on the network.
5/10/20/30/15/35/37/40/44/45/70/76/78/80/85/87/95/
(CA)405,(NJ)195/295(NY)295/495/278/678(CT)395(MD/VA)195/495/695/895

Arkansastravelguy


Quote from: bugo on May 14, 2014, 12:02:35 PM


A related question: Should the US 69 freeway in eastern Kansas be extended to I-44 in northeastern Oklahoma?  This highway appears to be redundant to the US 71/I-49 corridor in Missouri, but should it be extended as an alternative?

Yes, I think so


iPhone

Arkansastravelguy


Quote from: bugo on May 14, 2014, 12:20:39 PM

First, a red-white-blue shield does not guarantee a freeway.  I-180 and I-78 say hi.  Second, a good map has the same colored line for an interstate as it does for a non-interstate freeway.  If you can't look at a map and tell that a blue line means a freeway then maybe you shouldn't be driving.

Don't forget I-70 in Pennsylvania


iPhone

MaxConcrete

This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.



www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

txstateends

Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 22, 2014, 06:37:09 PM
This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.




Will this designation just affect the Southwest Freeway, or any regional/statewide section of I-69 in TX?
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

O Tamandua

Quote from: txstateends on May 22, 2014, 08:18:24 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 22, 2014, 06:37:09 PM
This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.




Will this designation just affect the Southwest Freeway, or any regional/statewide section of I-69 in TX?

Wiki says U.S. 59 in Texas has the distinction of carrying the late senator's name.  Surprised it's not the highway that goes to Mission, which I thought was his hometown.

Arkansastravelguy


Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 22, 2014, 06:37:09 PM
This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.



A sign you would never see in Arkansas.


iPhone

agentsteel53

Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on May 22, 2014, 08:53:03 PM

A sign you would never see in Arkansas.

or in Indianapolis
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

US71

Arkansas gets this guy:

Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

wxfree

#695
Quote from: txstateends on May 22, 2014, 08:18:24 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 22, 2014, 06:37:09 PM
This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.




Will this designation just affect the Southwest Freeway, or any regional/statewide section of I-69 in TX?

Texas Transportation Code:
Sec. 225.025.  SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN HIGHWAY.  (a)  The part of U.S. Highway 59 from its intersection with Interstate Highway 45 to its intersection with Interstate Highway 35 is the Senator Lloyd Bentsen Highway.

Edit: That whole chapter of the code is interesting.  http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.225.htm
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

kkt

Quote from: US71 on May 22, 2014, 09:12:11 PM
Arkansas gets this guy:

(John Paul Hammerschmidt)

There ought to be a law that you can't name a public highway, building, etc., after someone until they've been dead a few years.

Arkansastravelguy


Quote from: US71 on May 22, 2014, 09:12:11 PM
Arkansas gets this guy:


Too bad he isn't around for the Bella Vista Bypass and Arkansas River Bridge


iPhone

bugo

Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on May 23, 2014, 12:55:20 AM

Quote from: US71 on May 22, 2014, 09:12:11 PM
Arkansas gets this guy:


Too bad he isn't around for the Bella Vista Bypass and Arkansas River Bridge

He was born in 1922.  I was born in 1973.  I won't live to see either of those roads completed, much less somebody 50 years older than me.

Grzrd

#699
Quote from: Grzrd on July 17, 2013, 08:06:10 AM
english si's observation strengthens the case for an I-69W designation.  An argument might go as follows: Since US 59 from Victoria to George West (approximately 80 miles) is statutorily defined as I-69C in HPC 18, and Victoria is also where I-69E begins its US 77 route to Brownsville, then Congress must have intended that "mainline" I-69 end in Victoria where the Central and East prongs branch off. With that in mind, Congress surely did not intend an eighty-mile I-69/I-69C overlap and must have intended that a US 59 western spur would branch off of I-69C at the George West US 59/US 281 junction where I-69C begins its US 281 southward route toward the border.  A natural designation for the US 59 western spur would be "I-69W".
Quote from: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 05:02:38 PM
I just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 shoots down an I-69W notion in flames, and it allows TxDOT to choose between I-69C and I-69 for the Victoria to George West segment of US 59:
Quote
US 59 from Victoria to George West can be I-69 or I-69C, which ever Texas Department of Transportation requests.
US 59 from George West to Laredo can be I-69, but not I-69W or I-X69 (spur).  This is based on the current law.
Quote from: english si on May 30, 2014, 10:56:54 AM
Documents now up http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx
Approved if not otherwise stated, details via the document ....
TX I-69 extension (inside I-610) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69C extension (Edinburg) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69E extension (Robstown) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69W extension (Laredo) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX US59 relocation (Laredo) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX US59 Business recognition (Laredo)
(bottom quote from AASHTO Numbering Committee Spring '14 Meeting thread)

It's good to see approval for the third Houston segment, but I find it really interesting that TxDOT sought, and received, FHWA approval to depart from the "I-69" statutory designation in favor of an "I-69W" designation for the Laredo section (pages 3-5/10 of Texas I-69W pdf):

From the TxDOT application:
Quote
...TxDOT is currently coordinating with FHWA to process a request to add this segment of U.S. 59 to the IH 69 system in Texas and to designate it as Interstate Highway 69 West (IH 69-W). The IH 69-W designation is being requested based on the following rationale:
 This segment of U.S. 59 is part of National IH 69 Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 30, U.S. 59 Laredo Connector, as established within the IH-69 (Corridor 18) Special Environmental Study - Sections of Independent Utility (1999). SIU 30 is the southernmost segment of High Priority Corridor 20, extending from Laredo to the junction of U.S. 59 and U.S. 281 in George West, Texas and is intended to function as a connecting route (e.g.,spur) to the IH 69 Corridor.
 According to the IH 69 system naming convention established in Section 1211 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) Restoration Act (PL 105-178), which amended Sections 1105(c) and 1105(e)(5) of ISTEA, the section of U.S. 281 extending south of George West and the section of U.S. 59 extending north of George West to U.S. 77 in Victoria (SIUs 24, 25, and 26) are to be designated as IH 69-C at such time it is determined that a segment of SIUs 24, 25, and 26 meets the above-referenced legislative criteria and FHWA regulations. Likewise, U.S. 77 south of Victoria (SIUs 21, 22, and 23) is to be designated as IH 69-E.
 As such, this segment of U.S. 59 would be part of the third and most western leg of the IH 69 system, along with IH 69-C and IH 69-E, that is intended to serve the major population centers and international border crossings in South Texas. Consequently, the designation of this segment of U.S. 59 as IH 69-W would maintain continuity in the naming convention already established for the IH 69 system in South Texas with the 2013 designations of IH 69-E and IH 69-C. Also, such a designation would be intuitive thereby meeting a driver's expectation and the already expressed expectations of the population centers in South Texas.
With the 2013 designation of a segment of U.S. 59 as IH 369 in Texarkana, it has been demonstrated that there is latitude in interpreting the intended naming convention protocols of Section 1105(e)(5) of ISTEA, as amended, when establishing a route number on the IH 69 system. The application of such latitude in designating this segment of U.S. 59 as IH 69-W would be reasonable, intuitive, and consistent with the intent of Section 1105(e)(5) of ISTEA, as amended.
TxDOT has coordinated with FHWA on its concurrence for the IH 69-W route number to be consistent with the existing two legs of the IH 69 System in South Texas (i.e., IH 69-E and IH 69-C). It is therefore proposed that this 1.4-mile segment of U.S. 59 in Laredo be recognized as IH 69-W.

From FHWA to TxDOT email:
Quote
Upon further review and discussion with Chief Counsel, FHWA is willing and able to approve a request by TxDOT for the designation of U.S. 59 as I-69 West between George West and Laredo. Thanks.

In reading the tea leaves, it seems like FHWA initially pushed back against an I-69W designation, but TxDOT eventually persuaded them to change their interpretation of the law. It does make intuitive sense that FHWA now views this section as being a "spur" that warrants the "I-69W" designation.



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.