Did a search, only found one thread asking if I-169 was signed.
What's the status of I-169? Does it still only exist from I-69E to Old Alice Road, or does it finally extend to TX 48?
Yes, it currently still ends at Old Alice Road (according to every source I've found), and a full opening date is still unknown. Toll revenue is keeping the project back.
It's been designated for the length of the continuous freeway, and will presumably be extended as the continuous freeway is lengthened.
Other than 169 and 369, are there any other x-69 three-digit Interstate routes proposed for Texas?
As of a month ago when I was in the area, I-169 didn't get any mention from mainline I-69E in either direction.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2017, 06:19:03 PM
Other than 169 and 369, are there any other x-69 three-digit Interstate routes proposed for Texas?
Nope.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on December 08, 2017, 12:31:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2017, 06:19:03 PM
Other than 169 and 369, are there any other x-69 three-digit Interstate routes proposed for Texas?
Nope.
Several years ago when the path of I-69 through Houston metro hadn't been finalized, it was thought that the number I-669 would be applied to whatever alignment (at that time the choices were Loop 99 and the existing US 59 through-town route) was
not selected (at least according for the
Alliance for I-69 Texas, the Houston-based group spearheading the I-69 effort down there); but since US 59 was eventually selected, any impetus for an Interstate-signed bypass seems to have dissipated. However, if the downtown realignment effort involving both I-69 and I-45 is indeed implemented -- with the inevitable congestion stemming from its construction -- there might be a reactive "push" to sign a bypass route (I would hardly think that anyone would think of adding any more load to I-610 as an interim solution!) as a through-traffic alternative; this might revive the "I-669" concept for at least the west and north quadrants of that loop system.
There is a one large I-69 bypass corridor being planned for Houston, which does incorporate the South and East quadrants of the Grand Parkway. If this bypass is ever built (presumably sometime near or after the Grand Parkway is completed) there is not much guarantee the bypass would be signed as a 3-digit Interstate route. With states now having to come up with more of the funding for highways that makes it less of a priority to put Interstate shields on the finished route. The same goes with toll roads. Chances are strong this large bypass would be signed as a Texas toll route. The Grand Parkway and Loop 8 both aren't going to carry Interstate designations any time soon. This one probably won't either.
Regarding other I-x69 possibilities, I thought TX-44 from Corpus Chrisi to Robstown, Alice & Freer might have been a 3 digit I-69 route. But that could end up being I-6 as well. Some of the freeways in Corpus Chrisi could carry Interstate designations. I could see the "I-6" thing being signed on TX-358 through Corpus Christi onto the North end of Padre Island. The loop highway around Victoria could end up being an I-x69 route. Same goes for Nacogdoches and Carthage.
When the Loop 20 project is completed (current estimate about eight years (p. 6/18 of pdf) (http://www.laredompo.org/files/presentations/Loop20I69fundingplan.pdf)), there may be some rumblings to make Loop 20 from Saunders Street to SH 359 an I-x69. The rumblings will be even louder if construction is started on the fifth international bridge, which Laredo officials showcased the site (http://www.lmtonline.com/local/politics/article/Laredo-Nuevo-Laredo-in-the-running-to-becoming-12052571.php) as recently as August:
Quote
Two members of the association's board of directors visited Nuevo Laredo on Monday and Laredo on Tuesday, Saenz said. At the World Trade Centers Association board meeting in September, the two men will present Laredo and Nuevo Laredo as one region. One city would have a main office and the other city would have a satellite office, Saenz said.
In Laredo, the city took the two board members on a helicopter ride around town, touring from above the bridges, industrial parks, warehousing, and the site in south Laredo where a potential fifth international bridge could go, Saenz said.
The bridge would presumably tie in to the southern end of the Cuatro Vientos Road section of Loop 20 and perhaps jumpstart the long-term plans for an upgrade to Cuatro Vientos Road..
Looooong term, this could all be eventually I-2.
The TxDOT commission has an agenda item for this month's meeting to make the designation official. That took a while. It does make me wonder if TxDOT was slow because the route is tolled (and this will be the only tolled interstate in Texas). But in the end, TxDOT probably acceded to local desires to have the interstate designation.
Google maps is identifying it as I-169.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0326/agenda.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0326/agenda.pdf)
QuoteCameron County- In Brownsville, consider designating a segment of the state highway system as I-169, concurrent with SH 550
(MO) This minute order designates a segment of the state highway system as I-169, concurrent with SH 550 from Old Alice Road to approximately 0.4 mile east of FM 1847 in Brownsville, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles. The Brownsville Metropolitan Planning Organization, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.
If they do sign it as I-169 only the first couple or so miles of the route would be eligible for signing as an Interstate. It's Interstate quality 4-lane divided from the I-69E interchange to the FM-1847 exit. After that it turns into a pair of frontage roads with a blank median. The toll road that follows is just a 2 lane road with a Jersey Barrier on the center line. They have a lot of work to do to bring the rest of that up to Interstate standards.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 23, 2020, 10:50:05 AM
If they do sign it as I-169 only the first couple or so miles of the route would be eligible for signing as an Interstate. It's Interstate quality 4-lane divided from the I-69E interchange to the FM-1847 exit. After that it turns into a pair of frontage roads with a blank median. The toll road that follows is just a 2 lane road with a Jersey Barrier on the center line. They have a lot of work to do to bring the rest of that up to Interstate standards.
I apologize for Bumping. However, google maps has updated street view. SH 550 is also signed SH 169, no interstate shield.
https://goo.gl/maps/ZqYpumn1mFgRJ6CQ7
Once again. I apologize for bumping.
Edit: 9/11/2021 10:47CDT, there is also a few I-169 shields (interstate shield design) on the ground level intersection of I-69E/US 77 with SH 550/I-169/FM 511.
Quote from: Thegeet on September 11, 2021, 11:44:17 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 23, 2020, 10:50:05 AM
If they do sign it as I-169 only the first couple or so miles of the route would be eligible for signing as an Interstate. It's Interstate quality 4-lane divided from the I-69E interchange to the FM-1847 exit. After that it turns into a pair of frontage roads with a blank median. The toll road that follows is just a 2 lane road with a Jersey Barrier on the center line. They have a lot of work to do to bring the rest of that up to Interstate standards.
I apologize for Bumping. However, google maps has updated street view. SH 550 is also signed SH 169, no interstate shield.
https://goo.gl/maps/ZqYpumn1mFgRJ6CQ7
Once again. I apologize for bumping.
Edit: 9/11/2021 10:47CDT, there is also a few I-169 shields (interstate shield design) on the ground level intersection of I-69E/US 77 with SH 550/I-169/FM 511.
This is consistent with the current practice throughout Texas. To make it an interstate is not consistent with the current Texas practice.
On a side note, additional construction is set to start for SH 550 next year. Currently, the road is a super 2 lanes. I kinda feel bad that they would need to take down some relatively young bridge structures if they were to simply widen the road by paving new lanes on the edge of the current lanes.
Quote from: Thegeet on September 13, 2021, 02:04:22 AM
On a side note, additional construction is set to start for SH 550 next year. Currently, the road is a super 2 lanes. I kinda feel bad that they would need to take down some relatively young bridge structures if they were to simply widen the road by paving new lanes on the edge of the current lanes.
Texas has a fairly large history of widening girder/ stringer deck bridges. A couple of decades ago, there was extensive widening from 30' to 38' or 40' on most of the rural 2x 2 interstates throughout Texas. The bridges can be widened. It WOULD be a pity if they are unable to be widened for whatever reason.
Even if they are widening by pasting a lane on each side (so to speak), they can and have split them off at the bridge sites and adding a separate bridge, then merging the tracks back together .
Quote from: bwana39 on September 13, 2021, 05:50:46 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on September 13, 2021, 02:04:22 AM
On a side note, additional construction is set to start for SH 550 next year. Currently, the road is a super 2 lanes. I kinda feel bad that they would need to take down some relatively young bridge structures if they were to simply widen the road by paving new lanes on the edge of the current lanes.
Texas has a fairly large history of widening girder/ stringer deck bridges. A couple of decades ago, there was extensive widening from 30' to 38' or 40' on most of the rural 2x 2 interstates throughout Texas. The bridges can be widened. It WOULD be a pity if they are unable to be widened for whatever reason.
Even if they are widening by pasting a lane on each side (so to speak), they can and have split them off at the bridge sites and adding a separate bridge, then merging the tracks back together .
I knew they could create a second bridge, but I didn't know it was possible to widen an existing super 2 bridge. I assume that would involve more beams, drilling shafts, and relocation of concrete guards.
On a side note, I found that the SH 550 SE of the existing I-169 has a bridge for FM 511 that goes over SH 550. Would they need to remove the drilled shafts supporting the bridge? Because last time I checked, they are configured in a way that two lanes won't fit between any gap. Please excuse me if I missed something from your previous reply. Here's the bridge at FM 511. https://goo.gl/maps/BCcKc2qZSFP7pmCF9
Quote from: Thegeet on September 13, 2021, 07:14:18 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on September 13, 2021, 05:50:46 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on September 13, 2021, 02:04:22 AM
On a side note, additional construction is set to start for SH 550 next year. Currently, the road is a super 2 lanes. I kinda feel bad that they would need to take down some relatively young bridge structures if they were to simply widen the road by paving new lanes on the edge of the current lanes.
Texas has a fairly large history of widening girder/ stringer deck bridges. A couple of decades ago, there was extensive widening from 30' to 38' or 40' on most of the rural 2x 2 interstates throughout Texas. The bridges can be widened. It WOULD be a pity if they are unable to be widened for whatever reason.
Even if they are widening by pasting a lane on each side (so to speak), they can and have split them off at the bridge sites and adding a separate bridge, then merging the tracks back together .
I knew they could create a second bridge, but I didn't know it was possible to widen an existing super 2 bridge. I assume that would involve more beams, drilling shafts, and relocation of concrete guards.
On a side note, I found that the SH 550 SE of the existing I-169 has a bridge for FM 511 that goes over SH 550. Would they need to remove the drilled shafts supporting the bridge? Because last time I checked, they are configured in a way that two lanes won't fit between any gap. Please excuse me if I missed something from your previous reply. Here's the bridge at FM 511. https://goo.gl/maps/BCcKc2qZSFP7pmCF9
The overpasses are a totally different problem. As to widening the two lane bridges to four, you have it generally right.
49Toll in Tyler (TX) built 2-lane overpasses over the tollway that clearly will not handle 4 lanes. Made no sense to me, but obviously they did cost less to build.
Quote from: bwana39 on September 17, 2021, 10:24:04 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on September 13, 2021, 07:14:18 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on September 13, 2021, 05:50:46 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on September 13, 2021, 02:04:22 AM
On a side note, additional construction is set to start for SH 550 next year. Currently, the road is a super 2 lanes. I kinda feel bad that they would need to take down some relatively young bridge structures if they were to simply widen the road by paving new lanes on the edge of the current lanes.
Texas has a fairly large history of widening girder/ stringer deck bridges. A couple of decades ago, there was extensive widening from 30' to 38' or 40' on most of the rural 2x 2 interstates throughout Texas. The bridges can be widened. It WOULD be a pity if they are unable to be widened for whatever reason.
Even if they are widening by pasting a lane on each side (so to speak), they can and have split them off at the bridge sites and adding a separate bridge, then merging the tracks back together .
I knew they could create a second bridge, but I didn't know it was possible to widen an existing super 2 bridge. I assume that would involve more beams, drilling shafts, and relocation of concrete guards.
On a side note, I found that the SH 550 SE of the existing I-169 has a bridge for FM 511 that goes over SH 550. Would they need to remove the drilled shafts supporting the bridge? Because last time I checked, they are configured in a way that two lanes won't fit between any gap. Please excuse me if I missed something from your previous reply. Here's the bridge at FM 511. https://goo.gl/maps/BCcKc2qZSFP7pmCF9
The overpasses are a totally different problem. As to widening the two lane bridges to four, you have it generally right.
49Toll in Tyler (TX) built 2-lane overpasses over the tollway that clearly will not handle 4 lanes. Made no sense to me, but obviously they did cost less to build.
It will be interesting to see how the rest is handled. Also, I don't know why there aren't direct connectors from I-69E NB to I-169, and I-169 to I-69E SB.
Still, I see the official signing of I-169 as a win. Thanks Google maps for finally updating the Texas street view.
PS: They've also updated I-69W/US 59/Loop 20, US 77 (from FM 665 to I-37), and US 281. They've also added updated captures of US 59 in Victoria, South of Cleveland, and at Loop 224 in Nacogdoches.
Sorry to bump, but I did not see any other more recent threads devoted to I-169. As I'm browsing Google Maps and street view, I've never seen the phenomenon where the interstate shield is signed on the frontage road as with I-169. Usually it's TX Toll on the mainlines and SR __ on the frontage roads. Street view shows TX Toll 550 and sometimes TX Toll 169 both on entrance ramps and I-169 with FM 511 on the frontage roads for a good distance leaving I-69E.
Is that how it will signed once it's completed?
I-169 is a work in progress. For now it's only signed as I-169 at exits for Old Alice Road and Paredes Line Road. East of that point the road drops below Interstate quality. I don't think the road is going to be fully signed as I-169 until it is properly upgraded down to the TX-48 intersection, maybe even with a directional Y interchange built there.
Quote from: bassoon1986 on February 23, 2025, 07:06:27 PMSorry to bump, but I did not see any other more recent threads devoted to I-169. As I'm browsing Google Maps and street view, I've never seen the phenomenon where the interstate shield is signed on the frontage road as with I-169. Usually it's TX Toll on the mainlines and SR __ on the frontage roads. Street view shows TX Toll 550 and sometimes TX Toll 169 both on entrance ramps and I-169 with FM 511 on the frontage roads for a good distance leaving I-69E.
Is that how it will signed once it's completed?
Per Texas SOB, the toll road main lanes are NEVER designated as the hwy number Interstate or otherwise. This road SHOULD either be an interstate or a toll road. I guess if the frontages are controlled access, that would work if not, this should not even be considered as an Interstate.
Does anyone know if Interstate 169's/TX 550's exits will eventually be numbered?
Quote from: sparker on December 09, 2017, 04:07:41 PMQuote from: Interstate 69 Fan on December 08, 2017, 12:31:46 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2017, 06:19:03 PMOther than 169 and 369, are there any other x-69 three-digit Interstate routes proposed for Texas?
Nope.
Several years ago when the path of I-69 through Houston metro hadn't been finalized, it was thought that the number I-669 would be applied to whatever alignment (at that time the choices were Loop 99 and the existing US 59 through-town route) was not selected (at least according for the Alliance for I-69 Texas, the Houston-based group spearheading the I-69 effort down there); but since US 59 was eventually selected, any impetus for an Interstate-signed bypass seems to have dissipated. However, if the downtown realignment effort involving both I-69 and I-45 is indeed implemented -- with the inevitable congestion stemming from its construction -- there might be a reactive "push" to sign a bypass route (I would hardly think that anyone would think of adding any more load to I-610 as an interim solution!) as a through-traffic alternative; this might revive the "I-669" concept for at least the west and north quadrants of that loop system.
Whether it is numbered as Interstate 669 or I-4W, or Toll-99 or a name like Warren Moon Toll Road, it will still be there. Mapping software will still consider it. Currently as a miss downtown route, it is about 15 miles farther and 10 minutes longer to use loop 99 ( at faster speeds). Not that terrible, but it does add significant tolls.
using I-610 is only 3 or four miles longer than only using the through downtown I-69 route and has no tolls. Depending on the time of day, It can be faster. This route does not have tolls either.
Using Beltway 8 is almost exact time and mileage added using I-610. It adds tolls.
Back to LP-99Toll. The only advantage as a downtown bypass is that at least now, there are rarely any traffic jams regardless of the time of day on LP-99. BW-8 and I-610 can have as much traffic and significant gridlock especially between US-59 (on the northeast side) to I-10 as going through downtown on I-69.
You guys wanting everything to be an interstate....
I can't recall ever seeing anything suggested that the Grand Parkway would be dubbed "I-669." If Texas toll road authorities (and their partners) are largely paying for a toll road's construction they appear extremely hesitant to apply an Interstate number to the finished product. Houston, DFW and Austin have numerous toll roads that could have been signed as Interstate highways long ago, but that has never happened. Unless there is some major philosophical change in the Texas state government I wouldn't expect Interstate signs to appear on the Grand Parkway any time soon, if ever.
The only potential possibility I see for the Grand Parkway getting any Interstate signage is if US-290 between Austin and Houston was fully developed into an Interstate corridor, such as a second I-12. That could be carried over the North portion of the Grand Parkway and then even on to Beaumont. Given Texas' history it might be just as likely the corridor would get upgraded to Interstate quality but with current designations, such as US-290, staying put.
The Grand Parkway doesn't need an Interstate designation. Leave it TX 99.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 25, 2025, 11:53:19 AMThe Grand Parkway doesn't need an Interstate designation. Leave it TX 99.
Nothing
needs an Interstate designation.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 25, 2025, 04:04:06 PMNothing needs an Interstate designation.
Interstates do.
Or do they? :hmmm:
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2025, 04:05:30 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 25, 2025, 04:04:06 PMNothing needs an Interstate designation.
Interstates do.
Or do they? :hmmm:
Some people get downright militant about calling I-11 "the 95".
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 25, 2025, 11:53:19 AMThe Grand Parkway doesn't need an Interstate designation. Leave it TX 99.
The Ghostbuster doesn't need to make this post for every single Interstate proposal. Leave it unsaid.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 25, 2025, 10:36:55 AMI can't recall ever seeing anything suggested that the Grand Parkway would be dubbed "I-669." If Texas toll road authorities (and their partners) are largely paying for a toll road's construction they appear extremely hesitant to apply an Interstate number to the finished product. Houston, DFW and Austin have numerous toll roads that could have been signed as Interstate highways long ago, but that has never happened. Unless there is some major philosophical change in the Texas state government I wouldn't expect Interstate signs to appear on the Grand Parkway any time soon, if ever.
The only potential possibility I see for the Grand Parkway getting any Interstate signage is if US-290 between Austin and Houston was fully developed into an Interstate corridor, such as a second I-12. That could be carried over the North portion of the Grand Parkway and then even on to Beaumont. Given Texas' history it might be just as likely the corridor would get upgraded to Interstate quality but with current designations, such as US-290, staying put.
I would expect it to branch off of I-610, like US 290 does. Maybe they get lazy and just duplex it with I-10 just like I-20/59 in MS/AL.
I'm wondering what the interstate number will be on the east-west road that is officially confirmed (emphasis needed) to be a part of the I-69 system connecting 69W to 69E, generally following SH 44. :awesomeface:
If the TX-44 corridor (from I-69W in Freer, thru Alice & Robstown to Corpus Christi) is to get an Interstate designation there's no telling what it could end up being. I-2 is technically part of the I-69 system, but it has its own number.
The distance from Freer to the TX-358 freeway in Corpus Christi is only about 74 miles. I'm not sure that's long enough to justify using up "I-6." But then again, we have that dinky I-97 stub of a route over in Maryland. I don't think there is any place else in the 48 contiguous US states where I-6 could be used other than something like a Laredo-Corpus Christi concept. I-49 is planned on the route from Lafayette to the NOLA West Bank.
It's probably just as likely that a Interstate designation applied over TX-44 would end up being a 3 digit I-x69 route.
If a 1di is chosen for the TX 44 corridor, it should be Interstate 6. If it becomes a 3di of Interstate 69, it should be numbered Interstate 269.
I'd feel alright about them using up the I-6 designation if there was at least some long term possibility the route could be extended farther East, like over the new Harbor Bridge currently under construction and then along the TX-35 corridor.
What is this $%^*?
Quote from: Rothman on February 26, 2025, 11:05:33 PMWhat is this $%^*?
It's the favorite pastime of the Mid-South board.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2025, 02:15:09 PMIf the TX-44 corridor (from I-69W in Freer, thru Alice & Robstown to Corpus Christi) is to get an Interstate designation there's no telling what it could end up being.
I-69F!
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2025, 02:15:09 PMIf the TX-44 corridor (from I-69W in Freer, thru Alice & Robstown to Corpus Christi) is to get an Interstate designation there's no telling what it could end up being. I-2 is technically part of the I-69 system, but it has its own number.
The distance from Freer to the TX-358 freeway in Corpus Christi is only about 74 miles. I'm not sure that's long enough to justify using up "I-6." But then again, we have that dinky I-97 stub of a route over in Maryland. I don't think there is any place else in the 48 contiguous US states where I-6 could be used other than something like a Laredo-Corpus Christi concept. I-49 is planned on the route from Lafayette to the NOLA West Bank.
It's probably just as likely that a Interstate designation applied over TX-44 would end up being a 3 digit I-x69 route.
I'd go bold and say they invent a 4di of I-1069.
But it'll probably be I-6 or some kind of lame niumber..
Watch this be a duplicate I-4... :spin:
Quote from: ThegeetI'd go bold and say they invent a 4di of I-1069.
I-69 in Texas still has several other 3-digit route numbers to spare. So far, I-169 and I-369 are the only ones used.
Quote from: ThegeetBut it'll probably be I-6 or some kind of lame number.
Given the existence of I-2 farther South, I think there would be a good chance this route could end up being called I-6. Such a route wouldn't be as lame if it ran a farther distance.
I think a good case could be made for extending this Interstate over the new Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi and then Eastward near/over the TX-35 corridor into the Houston region. Why? Hurricane evacuation for one thing. A lateral high speed route might make it easier for evacuating traffic to find alternate routes. Certain towns along the way, such as Port Lavaca and Point Comfort are significant in size and have some major industrial operations, like big oil refineries. Some portions of TX-35 are in a freeway-friendly upgrade-able state. That's the case in Aransas Pass-Rockport, Port Lavaca-Point Comfort and Old Ocean.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2025, 02:15:09 PMThe distance from Freer to the TX-358 freeway in Corpus Christi is only about 74 miles. I'm not sure that's long enough to justify using up "I-6." But then again, we have that dinky I-97 stub of a route over in Maryland. I don't think there is any place else in the 48 contiguous US states where I-6 could be used other than something like a Laredo-Corpus Christi concept. I-49 is planned on the route from Lafayette to the NOLA West Bank.
Drifting fictional, there are multiple possibilities for an I-6 in Florida. There's also the chance of future developments along US 90 west of San Antonio (though https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/statewide/us90-tx-corridor-study.html (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/statewide/us90-tx-corridor-study.html) doesn't seem to indicate any major upgrades occurring for US 90 in the near term) or US 57.
I wouldn't mind seeing TX-44 upgraded to Interstate standards, but I'd be happy with keeping it a regular four-lane divided continuously from here to Freer. Just need to upgrade the 25-mile segment between San Diego and Freer, and bypasses around the towns of Robstown, Agua Dulce, Alice, and San Diego. As it is (depending on traffic) driving on TX-44 to Laredo and back, it has taken me as long as a quarter-hour to drive through Robstown (eight traffic lights) and almost a half-hour through Alice (15 traffic lights), plus other towns combine for several more lights. A continuous four-lane or Interstate could as shave nearly an hour off the travel time between Corpus Christi and Freer. The Alice/San Diego bypass could be a single one around both towns; eastern end could logically start somewhere around (or at) the intersection with TX-359 Northbound and western end past San Diego.
Quote from: Revive 755There's also the chance of future developments along US 90 west of San Antonio (though https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/statewide/us90-tx-corridor-study.html doesn't seem to indicate any major upgrades occurring for US 90 in the near term) or US 57.
I think it would be a tough sell to upgrade US-90 to Interstate standards from Del Rio to San Antonio. Most of the cross border commerce passing thru San Antonio is coming up from Laredo with most of the remainder coming up from the Rio Grande Valley. US-90 drops from being a divided 4-lane highway to being undivided about 35 miles West of Loop 1604.
Farther South, Laredo and Corpus Christi are both fairly big cities with no direct Interstate link between them. The combination of I-69W and whatever gets built from Freer to Corpus Christi would create that Interstate quality connection. I would just as soon say I-6 should be signed from Laredo to Corpus Christi, but there is already I-69W signage in Laredo. Any new Interstate going West out of Corpus Christi would end up terminating at Freer.
Regarding Florida, considering its residential real estate market is turning into a disaster, I'd expect the state to start shedding residents.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 06:38:16 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2025, 02:15:09 PMIf the TX-44 corridor (from I-69W in Freer, thru Alice & Robstown to Corpus Christi) is to get an Interstate designation there's no telling what it could end up being.
I-69F!
Crap. What does it say about me, or about the I-69 alphabet mess that already exists, that an I-69F doesn't actually sound all that bad...
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on February 27, 2025, 09:30:16 PMWatch this be a duplicate I-4...
Or this.
Would it have been possible to construct the Interstate 69E/Interstate 169/TX 550 Toll interchange as a full interchange instead of a half-interchange?
The current I-69E/TX-550 interchange could be an interim configuration. However, adding a second pair of ramps to complete the "Y" interchange would almost certainly require buying/removing a few existing properties near the interchange. The La Nueva Frontera Mexican Grill would be a likely casualty. So would the US Post Office and Plains Capital Bank building on the opposite side of the interchange. The View Tower Business Center building and even the Stripes convenience store in the corner of the interchange could be in the construction path.
The rest of the TX-550 toll road (future I-169) probably needs to be completed first, maybe including a full Y interchange with TX-48 at the South terminus of the road, before they can consider completing the Y interchange with I-69E.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 27, 2025, 10:50:37 PMQuote from: ThegeetI'd go bold and say they invent a 4di of I-1069.
I-69 in Texas still has several other 3-digit route numbers to spare. So far, I-169 and I-369 are the only ones used.
Quote from: ThegeetBut it'll probably be I-6 or some kind of lame number.
Given the existence of I-2 farther South, I think there would be a good chance this route could end up being called I-6. Such a route wouldn't be as lame if it ran a farther distance.
I think a good case could be made for extending this Interstate over the new Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi and then Eastward near/over the TX-35 corridor into the Houston region. Why? Hurricane evacuation for one thing. A lateral high speed route might make it easier for evacuating traffic to find alternate routes. Certain towns along the way, such as Port Lavaca and Point Comfort are significant in size and have some major industrial operations, like big oil refineries. Some portions of TX-35 are in a freeway-friendly upgrade-able state. That's the case in Aransas Pass-Rockport, Port Lavaca-Point Comfort and Old Ocean.
Would it require the construction of a bypass around Port Lavaca? (which is where I live, btw) I think at this stage, it supports two superlanes or whatever they are called (two lane freeway), and I don't know if it has enough room to support a whole 4 lanes and frontage roads at it sits.
Quote from: ThegeetWould it require the construction of a bypass around Port Lavaca? (which is where I live, btw) I think at this stage, it supports two superlanes or whatever they are called (two lane freeway), and I don't know if it has enough room to support a whole 4 lanes and frontage roads at it sits.
The existing TX-35 highway in Port Lavaca has enough ROW in place for a narrow urban freeway design. The median in between the EB and WB lanes is about 120' wide, which is plenty for a 2x2 freeway (including shoulders). The overall ROW is about 250'. It's not the optimal 300'-400' foot print used by some freeways in Texas. But there is enough room to squeeze freeway main lanes in there. Slip ramps would need to be built in a longer, more narrow design though.