I-69 in TX

[ethanhopkin14]

Any word on when I-69E mile markers will be installed?

[ethanhopkin14]

And where will the 0 mile post be?  At E. University Blvd.?  Or if eventual plans are to make that a controlled access intersection then in the middle of the bridge into Matamoros?

[NE2]

Probably at University or 0.1 mi north where I-69E actually begins. Otherwise 6th Street couldn't be exit 1C.

[Grzrd]

This article (behind paywall) reports on an I-69 project from SH 99 to Spur 10, scheduled to begin in about four months.  It will extend I-69 from "north of Spur 529" to Spur 10 (Hartledge Road) and upgrade the section from SH 99 to "north of Spur 529"

TxDOT has issued a Notice of Public Hearing for a 10.5 mile US 59 to I-69 upgrade from Spur 10 to CR 227:

TxDOT proposes to improve an approximately 10.5-mile-long, four-lane section of US 59 from County Road (CR) 227 (Tom Taylor Road) to Spur 10 (Patton Road/State Highway (SH) 36 Bypass). The entire facility would be upgraded to interstate highway standards, and an additional main lane would be added in each direction. The facility would have 12-foot wide main lanes and frontage lanes, with 12-foot wide shoulders on the main lanes and 6-foot wide inside and 6- to 10-foot wide outside shoulders on the frontage lanes. Crossover intersections would be eliminated at Darst Road, Grunwald Road and Daily Road. Existing two-way frontage roads would be converted to one-way operation, and frontage roads would be extended where access is permitted. Grade separations within the project limits have already been constructed at Farm-to-Market (FM) 2919/Lum Road, FM 360, Isleib Road, and Spur 10. The proposed project would provide a continuous roadway between intersections, transitioning back to a four-lane facility at the east side of the San Bernard River Bridge.

Here is a snip of the Project Location Map:

[ethanhopkin14]

This article (behind paywall) reports on an I-69 project from SH 99 to Spur 10, scheduled to begin in about four months.  It will extend I-69 from "north of Spur 529" to Spur 10 (Hartledge Road) and upgrade the section from SH 99 to "north of Spur 529"

TxDOT has issued a Notice of Public Hearing for a 10.5 mile US 59 to I-69 upgrade from Spur 10 to CR 227:

TxDOT proposes to improve an approximately 10.5-mile-long, four-lane section of US 59 from County Road (CR) 227 (Tom Taylor Road) to Spur 10 (Patton Road/State Highway (SH) 36 Bypass). The entire facility would be upgraded to interstate highway standards, and an additional main lane would be added in each direction. The facility would have 12-foot wide main lanes and frontage lanes, with 12-foot wide shoulders on the main lanes and 6-foot wide inside and 6- to 10-foot wide outside shoulders on the frontage lanes. Crossover intersections would be eliminated at Darst Road, Grunwald Road and Daily Road. Existing two-way frontage roads would be converted to one-way operation, and frontage roads would be extended where access is permitted. Grade separations within the project limits have already been constructed at Farm-to-Market (FM) 2919/Lum Road, FM 360, Isleib Road, and Spur 10. The proposed project would provide a continuous roadway between intersections, transitioning back to a four-lane facility at the east side of the San Bernard River Bridge.

Here is a snip of the Project Location Map:

Bad form on TxDOT's part for that "Interstate 59" shield! Hahahaha

[Grzrd]

this Victoria Advocate editorial

As previous reports have shown, Victoria has a need for more high-paying, skilled labor jobs. The city is focusing on bringing in more companies, and some future developments will help in our hometown's efforts. The proposal for I-69, which would run down U.S. Highway 59, around Loop 463 and then follow U.S. Highway 77, would attract even more companies because of the proximity to the interstate.

Wouldn't that put the split at the current south end of US 59 Biz? It does make more sense to have the split at the south end of US 77 Biz and eschew Loop 463 altogether, as http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/i69%20Progress%20Report%205.14.13.pdf shows. Maybe the entire loop is known locally as Loop 463?

I suppose they could route I-69C/W/mainline around the north/west side of Victoria and I-69E around the south/east side, although the US 77/Loop 463 combo is rather seriously substandard by Interstate rules, seeming to conform with TxDOT's "urban expressway" standard (also used on much of Loop 20 in Laredo) with not much of a median and some at-grade crossings rather than the "urban freeway" standard.  The south/east US 59 roadway (except the 77 concurrency) OTOH seems up to TxDOT rural freeway standards.

I recently received an email clarification from TxDOT:

This is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system ....
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77

Going by the November, 2013 editorial I quoted, I think this is a post about mainline I-69 that will have the distinction of being a US 77 upgrade.  I have stumbled across two similar TxDOT Notices for a March 4 public meeting about a US 77/ Loop 463 freeway upgrade in Victoria.  This Notice identifies the upgrade to be between FM 236 west of Victoria to just north of US 59 Business (Houston Highway) on the city's east side:

Upon completion of this project, scheduled for 2018, the Zac Lentz Parkway (US 77/Loop 463) will be a continuous four-lane divided freeway between FM 236 west of Victoria to just north of US 59 Business (Houston Highway) on the city's east side.

The second Notice describes the project as being between US 87 and FM 1685 (which is contained within the FM 236 to just north of US 59 Biz section in the other Notice) and focuses on the construction of bridges over the Guadalupe River and its flood plain:

TxDOT is proposing adding additional lanes to US 77 between US 87 and FM 1685. The proposed project includes:
Constructing another bridge over the Guadalupe River
Constructing six additional bridges over low-lying flood-prone areas
Adding inside shoulders to existing lanes
Widening outside shoulders on existing lanes
The new bridges and road in between the bridges includes two 12-foot lanes, four-foot inside shoulders and 10-foot outside shoulders. The proposed project will enhance safety and improve mobility by reducing bottlenecks and congestion caused from the road narrowing to two lanes.[/b]
The environmental review, consultation and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated Dec. 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT.

Above all said, neither Notice mentions either I-69 or interstate-grade construction.  Is this a post about Future I-69?

[Anthony_JK]

Based on that Goog map, Grzz, I'd upgrade the entire loop containing US 77/Loop 463/US 59 to full Interstate freeway standards, make the northern portion of the loop (77 north/463) I-69W, and the US 59 bypass portion I-69E.

I can already see one issue right off the bat, though: the connection on the west side between US 59 and US 77 is a folded diamond interchange due to the paralleling UP railroad line next to US 59. You would need a directional interchange if you plan on converting 59 west of there to I-standards, or even a new alignment. That would also go if you wanted to shift I-69W south along current US 59 down to where 59 and 77 meet in order to make that the separation point for I-69/I-69W/I-69E (NE2's and apparently TXDOT's desired solution). And, what would you then designate the northern portion (77 North bypass/463)...I-x69??

[Grzrd]

This article reports that TxDOT will not allow two-way frontage roads as a temporary solution for the local businesses:

Texas Department of Transportation put the brakes on a proposed change to the future Interstate 69 corridor in Victoria.
Area business owners were rooting for TxDOT to change the flow of traffic on frontage roads, which are currently under construction, to two-way. Without two-way traffic or an overpass, customers could end up traveling an almost eight-mile loop to access some businesses along U.S. Highway 59.
However, TxDOT officials point to the state roadway design manual: any frontage road constructed as part of the state highway system will be designed and constructed for one-way traffic ....

Based on that Goog map, Grzz, I'd upgrade the entire loop containing US 77/Loop 463/US 59 to full Interstate freeway standards, make the northern portion of the loop (77 north/463) I-69W, and the US 59 bypass portion I-69E.
I can already see one issue right off the bat, though: the connection on the west side between US 59 and US 77 is a folded diamond interchange due to the paralleling UP railroad line next to US 59. You would need a directional interchange if you plan on converting 59 west of there to I-standards, or even a new alignment. That would also go if you wanted to shift I-69W south along current US 59 down to where 59 and 77 meet in order to make that the separation point for I-69/I-69W/I-69E (NE2's and apparently TXDOT's desired solution). And, what would you then designate the northern portion (77 North bypass/463)...I-x69??

Anthony, I'm close to concluding that the Victoria Advocate editorial board was confused when it wrote that I-69 would follow US 77/ Loop 463 and concluding that it may one day be possible for US 77/ Loop 463 to be an I-x69 relief route, but there do not seem to be long-term plans to do so.  A July, 2012 map of the I-69 Segment Three Committee's Priorities & Recommendations shows the upgrade of US 59 along the east side of Victoria as a priority, but it gives no indication of a possible US 77/ Loop 463 relief route (even though it shows potential relief routes for Beeville, Berclair, Goliad and Refugio) (page37/157 of pdf; page 31 of document):



edit

Interestingly, this Nov. 2, 2014 Victoria Advocate article reports on how the proposed overpass for US 59/ Future I-69 was in competition with the US 77 Guadalupe River bridge four-laning project for the Prop 1 funding that was eventually awarded to the US 77 project:

Proposition 1 is estimated to add $1.7 billion to the state highway fund in 2015, a portion of which would be spent in the Crossroads.
Members of Victoria Metropolitan Planning Organization are already building a priority list in hopes that voters pass the issue.
Business owners along the future Interstate 69 corridor said they should be at the top for an overpass, but several projects brought up by fatal accidents and safety concerns could trump them.
Victoria City Councilman Tom Halepaska, who is also the chairman of the Metropolitan Planning Organization's policy advisory committee, said the organization has tried to work with those business owners to come up with a solution to access their businesses.
"The chances of them getting that overpass soon are not good, but they're not terrible either," Halepaska said. "If they're determined enough, they can make it happen. My opinion is I don't think so. But never underestimate someone who is really committed."
Along with the Hanselman Road overpass, transportation planners are also considering a dozen other projects, including three brought on by fatal wrecks: an overpass at U.S. Highway 87 and Farm-to-Market Road 477, an overpass at state Highway 185 and Farm-to-Market Road 1432, and a four-lane divided highway at U.S. 77 and the Guadalupe River bridges ....
A year into construction, the one-way frontage road project, which brings U.S. Highway 59 up to interstate standards, is more than halfway complete.
"The bad thing is while we keep waiting, the road moves ever closer to being completed," Kyrish said. "The sooner the road is completed, the sooner we have to deal with the realities of lost revenue."
Initially, the project included an overpass, but when funding came in short, the overpass was nixed.
The 3.4-mile construction project is estimated to cost $15.75 million, funded as part of the $2.9 billion in Proposition 14 bonds issued in 2008 ....

second edit

The Draft Victoria 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan has the Victoria MPO's prioritization of four US 59/ Future I-69 projects, one US 77/ Future I-69E project, four US 77/ Loop 463 projects, and five other projects (p. 193/234 of pdf; p. 10-19 of document):

TxDOT will probably lose interest once I-69C connects to I-37, there's a continuous I-69/I-69E, and the Laredo-to-Corpus corridor is upgraded as I-6 or whatever. At most I'd hope for a decent Beeville bypass on "I-69W."

No US 59/ Future I-69W projects are included in the Victoria MPO's 2040 plan.

[Anthony_JK]

From what that graphic shows, Grzz, it looks like they solve the problem of US 59 meeting US 77 by realigning US 59 on new alignment to connect with US 77 just west of Victoria. That would solve the problem of using existing US 77.


I still think they should upgrade the rest of the 59/77/463 loop as an I-x69 relief route...but that can wait for later.

[Grzrd]

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article  .... discusses the long-range plan for upgrading former Loop 20/US 59/Future I-69W:

The TxDOT Laredo District has developed a plan for upgrading Loop 20/US 59 to interstate standard from I-35 to the connection with the rural section of US 59. Phase 1 will included completion of the interchange at I-35 and development of expressway main lanes east to International Blvd., a section which includes the recently completed overpass bridges at McPherson Road.  Phase 2 will include main lanes and interchanges at Shiloh Road, Del Mar Blvd, University Blvd., Jacaman Blvd. and Airport Drive.  None of these projects are currently funded.

This Feb. 18, 2015 article reports on recent approval for several projects, which represents substantial progress on Phase 1:

City Councilmembers vote to move forward with several projects that aim to alleviate traffic times for Laredoans.
TxDot will begin construction of the Loop 20 / Clark overpass starting this August. The project will take 30 months to complete.
Also, Loop 20 flyovers at Highway I-35 and the overpass at International Blvd. have been funded.
This means you will be able to go from World Trade Bridge to Shiloh without stopping, and vice-versa.

Also, this Feb. 16, 2015 TV video reports on the Loop 20 Clark Boulevard overpass project; although the Clark Boulevard overpass is not part of the I-69W section of Loop 20 (I guess it could one day be part of an I-x69 or an I-x02), the report does briefly mention several future projects that will be part of the I-69W section.

in the combined Segments Four and Five report .... (page 46/165 of pdf; page 40 of document):

US 59/SH 44 Relief Route at Freer — An interchange with US 59 and SH 44 and a relief route for Freer was recommended by the committee members to be incorporated into future planning. The members noted that limited right-of way along existing US 59 through Freer required consideration of a relief route around the community.

I recently noticed that the Freer website home page (WARNING to bugo - the home page has photograph "sliders" at the top; one of the photos is of a woman enjoying the companionship of a huge rattlesnake) includes an August 31, 2012 request from the City Council to contact TxDOT and let them know that I-69 should go through Freer and not around it (map of Freer):



Doing so might be problematic for the US 59/ SH 44 interchange.

[lordsutch]

If I-69W were to go through Freer along the US 59 alignment, there'd basically be little of Freer left.

The logical alignment is to run south of Freer, which would leave plenty of room for a Y for US 59/I-69W north to George West and SH 44/I-x69 east to Corpus.

[Zeffy]

If I-69W were to go through Freer along the US 59 alignment, there'd basically be little of Freer left.

The logical alignment is to run south of Freer, which would leave plenty of room for a Y for US 59/I-69W north to George West and SH 44/I-x69 east to Corpus.

Usually people are opposed to having Interstates run through their town. I would think the residents of such a small town like Freer would oppose it, but apparently the city council loves the idea.

[lordsutch]

Usually people are opposed to having Interstates run through their town. I would think the residents of such a small town like Freer would oppose it, but apparently the city council loves the idea.

Most of the business, such as they are, are along US 59, so running I-69W along there would make sense... if they weren't all going to be plowed under by building I-69W.

It could run about 3 blocks north of US 59 and not really hit anything, although it would make the Laredo-Corpus route (probably the dominant traffic flow) 2-3 miles longer than it could be by running south of town.

[ethanhopkin14]

Probably at University or 0.1 mi north where I-69E actually begins. Otherwise 6th Street couldn't be exit 1C.

According to Wikipedia:

Interstate 69E (I-69E) is a south—north freeway running through South Texas. Once complete the freeway will begin at Veterans International Bridge in Brownsville and head northward before terminating near Victoria as both I-69W and I-69E intersect into Interstate 69 towards Houston. For its entire length, I-69E shares its alignment with US 77.

[NE2]

According to Wikipedia:

Interstate 69E (I-69E) is a south—north freeway running through South Texas. Once complete the freeway will begin in Brownsville and head northward before terminating near Victoria as both I-69W and I-69E intersect into Interstate 69 towards Houston. For its entire length, I-69E shares its alignment with US 77.

[Scott5114]

Funny how that works, innit?

2015-02-24T15:51:05‎ NE2 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (15,440 bytes) (-201)‎ . . (no source for it beginning at the Rio Grande)

[ethanhopkin14]

Funny how that works, innit?

2015-02-24T15:51:05‎ NE2 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (15,440 bytes) (-201)‎ . . (no source for it beginning at the Rio Grande)

True data, but I didn't edit mine.  Wikipedia is Wikipedia, but I just thought that was interesting.

[Grzrd]

TxDOT has issued a Notice of Public Hearing for a 10.5 mile US 59 to I-69 upgrade from Spur 10 to CR 227 ....
Here is a snip of the Project Location Map:

Remarkably, this article reports that the Spur 10 to Darst Road section of this project could begin (I assume this means actual construction) this year:

The Houston-Galveston Area Council is making stops in various communities to share information on road projects that will begin this year as a result of the adoption of Proposition 1 in November.
Officials with the H-GAC hosted an open house at the Rosenberg Civic Center recently to share information on three key mobility projects that will impact portions of Fort Bend County.
Those projects include a two-mile stretch of U.S. 90A between the Grand Parkway and Texas 6; a four-mile segment of FM 2234 between FM 521 and the Fort Bend Parkway, and Interstate 69 between Spur 10 and Darst Road.
Alan Clark, H-GAC director of transportation and planning, said many of the projects have been on the regional transportation wish list for many years, and many of them were also a long way from being considered ....
The Interstate 69 project is among those considered high-impact, and comes with an estimated price tag of $93 million.
According to the project details, the plans call for widening I-69 from four to six lanes between Spur 10 and Darst Road as well as adding auxiliary lanes and two-lane frontage roads along that same 7.5-mile segment.
The improvements would upgrade I-69 to full interstate standards, and improve safety and mobility, Clark said.
"This was in our regional plan for 2035, so we are speeding this up 20 years," Clark said ....

Amazing what a little bit of Prop 1 money can do.

[Grzrd]

The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an updated I-69 System Funding Program as of September 1, 2014 map

The above-linked September 1, 2014 map shows a great deal of ongoing work on SL 20/Future I-69W in Laredo

The Draft Victoria 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan .... No US 59/ Future I-69W projects are included in the Victoria MPO's 2040 plan.

So, no planned investments through 2040 for I-69W at the "northern" end of I-69W, but, at the "southern" end of I-69W, the Draft 2015-40 Laredo MTP schedules an additional $392 million for the conversion of Loop 20 to I-69W by 2020 (page 295/360 of pdf; p. 12-15 of document):



Also, for good measure, the Draft Laredo MTP notes that "[e]fforts have been made to push the progress" for an unfunded $156 million project to convert US-59 to I-69W from Loop 20 to the Laredo MPO boundary (p. 315/360 of pdf: p. 12-35 of document):

[Grzrd]

This article reports that SH 550's direct connection with I-69E should be completed in January, 2015; after that, work will begin on a new section to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road, the completion of which will be necessary for an I-169 designation

This TV video has footage of the finishing touches on construction for SH 550's direct connection to I-69E, reports that weather issues have slowed down the construction, and also reports that late March is the latest estimated completion date for the I-69E direct connection.

edit

Consistent with the anticipated I-169 designation for SH 550 (as well as its designation as I-69 SIU 32), the Alliance for I-69 Texas has included SH 550 as part of the I-69 System in its September 1, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program Map (SH 550 had not been included in the March 27, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program Map):

[ethanhopkin14]

This article reports that SH 550's direct connection with I-69E should be completed in January, 2015; after that, work will begin on a new section to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road, the completion of which will be necessary for an I-169 designation

This TV video has footage of the finishing touches on construction for SH 550's direct connection to I-69E, reports that weather issues have slowed down the construction, and also reports that late March is the latest estimated completion date for the I-69E direct connection.


Consistent with the anticipated I-169 designation for SH 550 (as well as its designation as I-69 SIU 32), the Alliance for I-69 Texas has included SH 550 as part of the I-69 System in its September 1, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program Map (SH 550 had not been included in the March 27, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program Map):

So, with a possible I-169 designation, does that mean we can still keep up the hope that one day I-2 can extend to South Padre Island, given that I-169 pulls a Northwest Arkansas like I-540 became I-49?

[Bobby5280]

It's pretty unlikely TX-550 (or "I-169" or "I-2") could extend all the way into South Padre Island. It wouldn't be very practical to get the superhighway looped around or pushed through Port Isabel. And then the South Padre Island bridge itself is not up to Interstate highway standards. At best that superhighway spur will probably only go as far as the intersection of TX-48 and TX-100 on the West side of Port Isabel.

[NE2]

You're thinking too small. South Padre-Merida-Cancun-Sandino-Havana-Key West-Miami.

[Grzrd]

So, with a possible I-169 designation, does that mean we can still keep up the hope that one day I-2 can extend to South Padre Island

The Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority ("CCRMA") appears to have plans for a South Padre Island 2nd Access, and the CCRMA provides a description and possible timeline as follows:

The second access will consist of three major components; the mainland roadway, the Laguna Madre crossing bridge, and the island roadway. The route under consideration includes a four-lane road crossing across Laguna Madre with about 8 miles of tolled lanes. The total length of the second access will be about 17.6 miles. At the moment, the final environmental clearance is estimated to be approved by Fall of 2015 by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Upon approval of the environmental clearance, construction can be expected to commence in 2017 or 2018.

.

I have not read anything about a potential I-x69 designation, although I guess it is possible that they want to do so. In this post from another thread, I quoted an article which reported that a closely related project, the Outer Parkway Project, should tie in to I-69E "just north" of Harlingen.  A possible designation as an extension of I-2 seems unlikely because it would be an awkward routing.

It appears that the CCRMA has recently revamped its website.  In this post from another thread, I posted a snip of a map (I cannot find it on the new website) which shows the Outer Parkway Project and the SPI 2nd Access Project crossing alternatives:



The map also shows the relationship of SH 550 to the SPI 2nd Access Project.  As far as I know, there are no long term plans to make SH 550 part of an upgraded access to the Queen Isabella Memorial Bridge near Port Isabel.

[rte66man]

You're thinking too small. South Padre-Merida-Cancun-Sandino-Havana-Key West-Miami.

As a tunnel of course (to protect against the hurricanes).