AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: MaxConcrete on April 02, 2024, 09:57:36 PM

Title: US 69 (US 287) north of Beaumont freeway upgrade
Post by: MaxConcrete on April 02, 2024, 09:57:36 PM
A public meeting (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/beaumont/2024/us69-lumberton-kountze-relief-route-040224.html) today revealed the recommended alignment for the freeway upgrade for 23 miles north of Beaumont, from south of Lumberton to north of Kountze.

The main news is that the recommended alignment is not among the multiple options that were considered in the route selection phase, although parts of the recommended alignment follow the path of original options.
Per the presentation: "Based on public input received during the May 2023 public meetings, TxDOT has eliminated the previous alternatives from further study and has developed a revised recommended alternative for public review and input."
You can see all the alignments in this map (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/bmt/us69-lumberton-kountze/040224-constraints-map.pdf).

The good news is that the alignment is now very straight, since it follows a high voltage corridor. Yay!

Other observations
Title: Re: US 69 (US 287) north of Beaumont freeway upgrade
Post by: splashflash on April 02, 2024, 10:44:12 PM
US 69 or 96?
Title: Re: US 69 (US 287) north of Beaumont freeway upgrade
Post by: MaxConcrete on June 04, 2024, 09:32:28 PM
Today TxDOT had a public meeting (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/beaumont/2024/us69-woodville-colmesneil-relief-route-060424.html) for the next section of US 69 going north, a 25-mile section from Warren to Colmesneil which includes US 287 on the south half.

In October 2023 (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/beaumont/2023/us69-woodville-102423.html) TxDOT presented 4 options (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/bmt/us69-woodville/102423-alternatives.pdf) for the alignment.
A: diverts far to the west
B: Looked like the best alignment with minimal impacts
C: Looked like a good candidate
D: The most eastward alignment which generally follows an abandoned railroad alignment (which is barely visible in Google satellite view)

In today's meeting it was revealed (new map) (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/bmt/us69-woodville/060424-environmental-constraints-map.pdf)
A: Remains in consideration with a modification on the south end to move it further west. Length is 28.1 miles.
B: Eliminated. The reason is unclear - maybe impacts to the Boy Scout property was a fatal flaw.
C: Eliminated
D: Remains in consideration with modifications. The modifications are mostly beneficial from the design perspective, removing some excessive curving and avoiding floodplains. Length is 26.6 miles.

There's no obvious answer for the recommended alternative. Option D is closer to Woodville. I'm thinking that if Woodville wants the freeway nearby for convenience, D will be selected. If they don't want it nearby, A will be selected.

Other observations
Title: Re: US 69 (US 287) north of Beaumont freeway upgrade
Post by: jgb191 on June 05, 2024, 10:01:39 AM
Quote from: splashflash on April 02, 2024, 10:44:12 PMUS 69 or 96?


I believe they are both concurrent (along with US-287) from Pt. Arthur to Lumberton (running through Beaumont).  Then they split up somewhere near Lumberton.  North of there, US-69 continues to Tyler and US-96 goes to either Longview or Marshall.
Title: Re: US 69 (US 287) north of Beaumont freeway upgrade
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 05, 2024, 10:09:09 AM
I wonder if this could ultimately lead to something like a "I-114" number being assigned to the route -assuming the I-14 parent route gets built to the Louisiana border.