How do you feel about the I-69 extension from Indy southward? I for one look forward to its completion. It's amazing this project is going forward inspite of a lot of opposition.
Some sections will be useful, especially in Texas.
just what we need, 69 ending west of 35.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 03:25:03 PM
just what we need, 69 ending west of 35.
I didn't say I liked the number! But thats what we do nowadays, extend existing numbers rather than come up with new ones. Interstate 22 is the only exception.
Extend I-26
Extend I-74
Extend I-69
Extend I-57
Extend I-30
Extend I-49
You get the idea. :banghead:
goodness, don't get me started on I-74. Why do we need an I-74 in NC again? *and* an I-73???
then again, a lot of US routes got extended in the 1930s and 40s well past their original intents, like US-82 made it all the way to New Mexico, ending up well north of US-80. And US-64 and US-84 somehow ended up intersecting in NM as well.
there's also always US-62, because we all know we need a single route to connect Buffalo to El Paso!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 03:34:54 PM
goodness, don't get me started on I-74. Why do we need an I-74 in NC again? *and* an I-73???
then again, a lot of US routes got extended in the 1930s and 40s well past their original intents, like US-82 made it all the way to New Mexico, ending up well north of US-80. And US-64 and US-84 somehow ended up intersecting in NM as well.
there's also always US-62, because we all know we need a single route to connect Buffalo to El Paso!
I thought U.S. 62 was a consolitation prize to Kentucky over U.S. 60 originally? Something like that anyway...
Yeah the I-69 numbering is dumb, but some of it makes sense, like the parts in Indiana and some in Texas.
The only section that make sense is the Rio Grande Valley-Houston-Shreveport section. Instead of having three forks at the south end, though, complete only the east fork (to Brownsville) via US 77 and make the US 83 freeway to McAllen an Interstate spur. Houston and Laredo already have an Interstate connection in I-10 and I-35. And number the whole thing I-47, too. I-69 conflicts with US 69 in east Texas.
I might be convinced into embracing the Memphis to Indianapolis section if the numbers make sense. Far as I can tell, Memphis and Indianapolis are already connected reasonably well by Interstate mileage. It would seem that there are already adequate four lane corridors feeding Evansville from the north and south. I see no purpose in blowing scarce capital on a transcontinental freeway just to serve Evansville, Indiana.
For the Shreveport-Memphis segment, the I-49 extension that will tie into I-30 at Texarkana, along with existing I-30, I-440, and I-40, will provide a decent link between the two cities. Just can't see how a city the size of Greenville deserves an Interstate when it already has or will have all dual carriageway connections in at least three directions. Sorry, Mississippi, but that spur you built through the cotton fields of Desoto County will have to be contented with serving the suckers who travel to Tunica to get lucky.
I still can't believe that MS was given permission to sign that road as "I-69". Need to make a trip and see it for myself...
How many normal people come across this and snigger at the number of an "I-69"?
"Normal", as in people who can actually find relationships? :-P
fudge, I'm normal now?
and every time I see "I-69" I grimace at the horrible violation of numbering.
I remember traveling in Texas and I saw a sign saying "Future I-69 Corridor", I was amazed at it, at first I though it was a joke. Later that day I looked it up on the Internet, and there it was, the extension all the way through Texas! :-o
Personally, I think I-69 should be extended to Memphis and that's it. Most of the route, barring the urban areas, is largely underdeveloped and not in any real need of a highway like this. It would be a waste of the government's money to extend it through those areas in AR, MS, and LA. But that route in TX does sound appealing for I-47.
Overall, I like the idea of I-69, and think it would make sense through Texas, even though the numbering may need to be revised. I think I-69 would alleviate a lot of NAFTA traffic that clogs I-35 so horribly, especially through Austin. (They may have improved this, last time I was in Austin was 2004, and I recall seeing construction on 35) What about making the section from Houston to the southwest an extension of I-45? It'd give the overall route sort of a "J" shape to it, but why not? The existing US 59 north of Houston could be the proposed I-47 I saw mentioned on here.
The existing I-45 from Houston to Galveston could be I-310, I-145, etc.
I-45 COULD also be extended north to Oklahoma along US 75, IMO.
Nick
Portland, OR
I-57 is being extended?? Why not extend I-39 due south to I-57?
Does anyone here have photos of any I-69 signage where the freeway is being built?
Linking I-57 with I-39? It could duplex with I-74 to I-57. Take it a step further and extend I-39 northeasterly to Marquette, MI.
Wait, perhaps I am mistaken, but isn't this the highway in question?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg89.imageshack.us%2Fimg89%2F5435%2Fclipboard01jpgnl8.jpg&hash=7c33c5d5c9960b2886e5719e0e3231e8410b3f91)
I-69 heads from Indianapolis to Port Huron, and then directly becomes Highway 402 in Canada as it heads from Sarina to London, Ontario.
If so, how is it going to head to Texas? Is there a route planned? Even Wikipedia doesn't say much!
Best,
-Haljackey
Yup...planned to be extended southwest of Indianapolis to Memphis via Evansville and some parkways in Kentucky. And then southwest of there to Shreveport, LA via Mississippi and Arkansas. And then southwest of there to Houston and then to Mexico probably via Brownsville...
Overall, I agree with the project. Might be nice to be able to avoid the mess of Nashville to get from Indianapolis to Memphis...(seriously, the traffic in Nashville is horrible...)
I've got a Future I-69 Corridor sign on US-82 in Arkansas that I'll get to soon ... for now, here's a photo from Mississippi.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fw54914.jpg&hash=aa866ce0f3426b8cc7e545a817b669d3b539976f)
note state-named shields. In Mississippi, these were very rare for several years, but now it looks like they are bringing them back. Most of the shields on I-69 have the state name, and new shields have popped up on the 55/69 multiplex, and also on some new green guide signs on I-59. Since there are some old I-20 signs left, the only two-digit interstate with no state-named shields known is I-10. Here's hoping they fix that soon!
Edited to fix img tag error
Yeah, it's not only planned, but more than likely a cinch (just awaiting funding) from Texas to Indiana. The proposed corridors, from north to south:
-- IN 37 from Indianapolis to Bloomington
-- "new terrain" alignment from Bloomington to I-64, then overlay I-164 through Evansville
-- new bridge across Ohio River into Kentucky, then new bypass through Hendersonville
-- existing Breathitt (formerly Pennyrile) Parkway S of Hendersonville to Wendell Ford (W. Kentucky) Parkway near Eddyville
-- Wendell Ford Parkway to I-24, then brief multiplex w/ I-24 to Julian H. Carroll (Purchase) Parkway
-- JHC Parkway to Fulton, then overlay existing US 51 freeway to Dyersburg
-- brief overlay of I- 255 freeway at Dyersburg, then new route W of US 51 to just N of Memphis
-- Overlay TN 300 connector to I-40, then multiplex with I-40, I-240, and I-55 through central/south Memphis, into
Mississippi
(Also, Memphis Outer Loop using portions of TN 385, MS 304 and proposed I-22 will be built as compliment
to I-69 through route)
-- Leave I-55 multiplex near Hernando (@ existing MS 304/Future I-22/I-269 junction), then overlay new MS 304
freeway to DeSoto/Tunica counties (Robinsonville)
-- New alignment along US 61 corridor through Clarksville to around Shaw, then new alignment SW'ard to cross
Mississippi River at Eutaw Landing into Arkansas (Connection with I-530 extension just W of Monticello)
-- New alignment through Southern AR generally crossing Monticello, Warren, and El Dorado, before crossing into
Louisiana north of Haynesville in NCent'l LA
-- Diagonal alignment across LA just SE of the Shereveport/Bossier City metro area, crossing I-20 near Haughton and
I-49 just east of Stonewall
-- Generally follows US 84 corridor to Carthage, TX, where it would meet proposed US 59 freeway (with proposed
extension to Texarkana
-- Generally upgrades US 59 through Lufkin/Nacagoches area, then direct overlay/upgrade of US 59 to Houston
-- Three alternatives still under study through Houston:
1) Use existing US 59 (Eastex Freeway/Allen Viaduct/Southwest Freeway) through downtown, then upgrade US 59
south through Wharton
2) Use Sam Houston Tollway/Beltway 8, then upgrade US 59 southwest of there
3) Build Grand Parkway (TX 99) and use that as I-69 routing (or possible I-x69 bypass if Option 1) is selected)
-- Upgrade and overlay US 59 to Laredo (for main route)
-- Upgrade US 77 to freeway standards from Corpus Christi/George West area south to Brownsville
-- Upgrade US 281 to freeway standards from George West to McAllen
-- Build a connector to US 181 in Corpus Christi to connect proposed I-69 with that port city
I have some thoughts about some portions of that corridor not being as needed or neccessary. but overall, I do support the main idea of the proposal.
Anthony
I generally agree with extending I-69 south to Texas. I usually like for an interstate number to have half of its mileage fit into the grid, obviously in this case, most of I-69 will be out of place. I think I-69 should go to Brownsville. Also, there should be an interstate spur from I-69 to McAllen. I would not construct a freeway from I-69 to Laredo; there is already access from Houston to Laredo via I-10 & i-35.
By the way, do you think it is better to have I-69 routed through Indianapolis or on existing I-465? If I-69 is routed on I-465, should I-465 be eliminated where it is multiplexed with I-69 and I-74?
Quote from: geoking111 on February 09, 2009, 09:06:27 PM
By the way, do you think it is better to have I-69 routed through Indianapolis or on existing I-465? If I-69 is routed on I-465, should I-465 be eliminated where it is multiplexed with I-69 and I-74?
I'm just throwing in my $0.02 here. I think that I-465 should remain on the entire beltway, just like I-495 around Washington, D.C. although half of it is duplexed with its parent I-95. In another thread, someone said that in DC area, it was less confusion to have 495 there. Similarly, while it might be cleaner to eliminate 465 on those sections, leaving it there would be less confusion to people especially those using the beltway as a local highway and not a through route.
I live very close to TX-99 (Grand Parkway) near the Katy/Cinco Ranch area. I can say for a fact that routing I-69 along the TX-99 corridor would not come without enormous controversy. Especially here in the Cinco area. For those of you who don't know, Cinco Ranch is what's called a "master planned community" or in laymen's terms: a neighborhood so big it might as well be considered its own town. Other examples of a master planned community would be The Woodlands, Kingwood, or First Colony. There are at least 10,000 homes inside Cinco Ranch and they are still building. Currently, TX-99 divides Cinco Ranch in half; into an older east section and a newer west section. The portion of 99 that goes through Cinco Ranch was the first portion to be built with limited access (there are no Frontage Roads unlike other portions of the Grand).
That said, knowing how Cinco Ranch is and how 'prestigious' they try to act, they would definitely put up a fight. Cinco will write you a nasty letter if you have grass growing in the concrete joins of your sidewalk. I just don't see them being okay with the decision to route I-69 along the Grand.
Needless to say, I'm against routing on TX-99, but not necessarily because of the aforementioned reason. I just don't really see the point to routing it around Houston. To cut down on traffic I understand, but I don't see the average Joe being smart enough to take the effort of exiting and partially looping the city when he could just go straight through. It just seems more confusing that way to me. Memphis is setup the same way and I absolutely hate how I-40 doesn't go straight through the city. You have to make several exits (through old outdated interchanges) just to go through Memphis and to be able to stay on 40. Same thing on 40 through downtown Nashville and I-10 in downtown San Antonio. For me, I just hate having to 'exit' to stay on the road I'm traveling on. Seems like it causes unnecessary confusion and traffic problems.
Just my take.
Is TX-99 being built to Interstate standards? I hear it's planned to be the 3rd loop around Houston, but wasn't sure if it's Interstate standard or not. I think if they do want to bypass Houston, the Sam Houston Tollway would be a more viable option. Just my opinion.
Quote from: DrZoidberg on February 10, 2009, 10:27:53 AM
Is TX-99 being built to Interstate standards? I hear it's planned to be the 3rd loop around Houston, but wasn't sure if it's Interstate standard or not. I think if they do want to bypass Houston, the Sam Houston Tollway would be a more viable option. Just my opinion.
From everything I've heard from TxDOT, the Grand Parkway will be ultimately Interstate-grade limited access. The original construction was at-grade only as a stopgap internim measure.
The Sam Houston could be a viable alternative....but they have to complete the northeast segment between US 90 and US 59 and add some direct connectors to the US 59, Hardy Toll Road, and proposed US 90 freeway interchanges.
Anthony
QuoteThe Sam Houston could be a viable alternative....but they have to complete the northeast segment between US 90 and US 59 and add some direct connectors to the US 59, Hardy Toll Road, and proposed US 90 freeway interchanges.
Unless they went west from the US 59/ BW 8 interchange, and took the western alignment of the Sam Houston Tollway, jutting off at the SW US 59 interchange near Sugar Land.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 10, 2009, 12:51:08 PM
Quote from: DrZoidberg on February 10, 2009, 10:27:53 AM
Is TX-99 being built to Interstate standards? I hear it's planned to be the 3rd loop around Houston, but wasn't sure if it's Interstate standard or not. I think if they do want to bypass Houston, the Sam Houston Tollway would be a more viable option. Just my opinion.
From everything I've heard from TxDOT, the Grand Parkway will be ultimately Interstate-grade limited access. The original construction was at-grade only as a stopgap internim measure.
Grand Parkway is interstate-grade from Westpark Tollway all the way north to I-10. Originally, it was only interstate-grade only from Westpark Tollway northward to Highland Knolls (without frontage roads), but they extended the freeway (with frontage roads) from Highland Knolls northward to I-10 three or four years ago. However, the rest of the Grand to the south is not to freeway standards.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 27, 2009, 12:55:58 AM...Since there are some old I-20 signs left, the only two-digit interstate with no state-named shields known is I-10. Here's hoping they fix that soon!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg18.imageshack.us%2Fimg18%2F4321%2Fmsstatenameuy9.jpg&hash=617e5c7fc5b315781d92255e2dd285bae15ac40e)
Taken from US 90 in Gulfport on the 30th of January. State-named shield (sort of) for I-10.
Yeah, it was added as part of the roadwork going on there. There's new signage all the way up and down the thing.
Anyway. As for I-69, I'm torn on it. On the one hand, it'd make a nice connection from the Southwest to the Northeast. On the other hand... it's a grid-buster, that's for sure. :banghead: :banghead:
Quote from: Darkangel on February 12, 2009, 03:37:27 PM
Yeah, it was added as part of the roadwork going on there. There's new signage all the way up and down the thing.
Anyway. As for I-69, I'm torn on it. On the one hand, it'd make a nice connection from the Southwest to the Northeast. On the other hand... it's a grid-buster, that's for sure. :banghead: :banghead:
True, but the beloved US-66 was a grid buster, too.
I guess it will be nice when finished, but I wish they'd finish I-49 and the I-30 extension (US 67) first. As somebody noted, the I-40-440-30-Future I-49/AR 549/US 71 routing will be fine between Shreveport and Memphis once 49 is finished into Louisiana.
I also wonder if the US 82 El Dorado bypass will ever be extended to I-69.
I think I-37 should be extended down to Brownsville and not I-69...
QuoteI think I-37 should be extended down to Brownsville and not I-69...
That's not a bad idea. You could route I-37 down along US 77 to Brownsville, and make the remaining stretch of I-37 to Corpus Christi something like I-137.
Exactly what I was thinking. :colorful:
Yeah......re-routing I-37 along US 77 south to Brownsville would be an excellent idea...and would take care of one of the "I-69 spurs".
Which brings me to the way that I would handle the I-69 extension a bit differently from the proposed route.
Basically, I'd split the extension into three portions:
1) The Memphis to Indianapolis section would remain as planned, including the Memphis Outer Loop.
2) The middle section, though, would not connect directly with US 59 in Texas, but would use the US 165 and US 425 corridors in Louisiana and Arkansas, mostly bisecting Louisiana from I-10 east of Lake Charles through Alexandria and Monroe and Bastrop to Monticello, where it would turn eastward and use the proposed I-69 corridor through Eutaw Landing and Clarksburg and Tunica. The southern part would be part of my proposed "I-51" freeway from Lake Charles to Little Rock, the section from Monticello eastward to I-55 could be renamed as "I-53".
3) The western section would include a full freeway along the US 59 corridor all the way from Laredo to Texarkana, but with a shorter connector along US 84 or US 79 to access Sherveport. Also, the above mentioned extension of I-37 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville would be included.
Just my proposal, nothing more or less.
Anthony
I'm beginning to question the need for the Memphis-Shreveport section of I-69. Evansville, IN could use better access to Bloomington and Indianapolis. Upgrading US 41 between I-64 and I-70 wouldn't provide access to Bloomington, and would further increase the amount of traffic on I-70, which already could use to be widened to six lanes. The Evansville-Henderson, KY section would improve access from I-64 to Kentucky's parkways. With the rest of I-69 in Kentucky following existing parkways and I-24, I don't have a problem with changing the signs and slowly upgrading the parkways to interstate standards. I-64 in Missouri was allowed to be signed before the existing freeway was upgraded, so I don't see why the same can't happen in Kentucky. Filling the gap between the end of Purchase Parkway and I-40 in Memphis would provide a better Indianapolis-Memphis route without having to use heavily traveled I-65 and I-40 (excluding the small part around Memphis).
I'd drop the Shreveport-Memphis and instead build up to Texarkana, with this section numbered as I-53, I-51, I-47 - or if I had more control, I-45 with existing I-45 becoming a southern I-39. This new interstate would replace I-30 between Texarkana and Little Rock, and eventually extend up US 67 to I-55 at Festus.
I don't think building a new highway just so trucks from Mexico can reach Canada is really worth it. Put the trailers on flat cars and ship them by rail to Canada.
I would second the need for a highway in general in Southwest Indiana. The other importance for the route besides Evansville and Bloomington is the Crane Naval Depot which employs a lot of people down there. As for Bloomington, I'm pretty sure most of the city actually hates the idea of 69 coming thru and have tried numerous times to get the highway not build there, though it is still many years away. The section between Bloomington and Crane about 30 miles away is the part that most enviromental folks aren't too happy about and it seems that they will fight it to the bitter end. In the meantime, construction has started just north of I-64 in Gibson County so at least something is finally being done. Finally, I commute everyday from northern Indianapolis into the city, so driving on a highway numbered 69 is quite commonplace.
Extending I-35 to Canada would work to as a replacement... ...
(I might just say that because I live not far north of the terminus if it were to be extended, although more traffic isn't needed but I guess that means we need a freeway up here)
QuoteExtending I-35 to Canada would work to as a replacement... ...
(I might just say that because I live not far north of the terminus if it were to be extended, although more traffic isn't needed but I guess that means we need a freeway up here)
I think the environmentalist would really flip if there was consideration of extended I-35 to the Canadian border. I doubt it could get extended further through Duluth either without another Big Dig type project; probably need to build a bypass.
But I like that section of I-35 with the tunnels along the lakeshore.
That is true, the area is really beautiful. But that is why I added 6 periods to the end of the sentence to show it is probably never going to happen.
Quote from: un1 on March 17, 2009, 10:08:28 PM
Extending I-35 to Canada would work to as a replacement... ...
(I might just say that because I live not far north of the terminus if it were to be extended, although more traffic isn't needed but I guess that means we need a freeway up here)
Except that I think the idea is to make a direct freeway connection to the populated regions of Canada like Toronto and Montreal, not Thunder Bay and Red Rock.
Almost all traffic on 35 near it's terminus goes to Duluth as far as I know.
Red Rock, that made me laugh. :-D
Quote from: un1 on March 29, 2009, 06:59:08 PM
Red Rock, that made me laugh. :-D
I thought you might appreciate that. :D
I think I-69 is a viable route in Texas as a Hurricane escape route, but I think the extended highway from Texas to Kentucky should be called Interstate 51; have Interstate 69 end in Kentucky at one of the parkways. I think 51 is a better fit and US 51 should be decomissioned anyways because I-55 and I-39 have pretty much took the route over.
Possibly, but I would never evacuate to the northeast as hurricanes tend to always turn northeast right before landfall. During Rita, many people evacuated to Lufkin, and Lufkin got hit more rain than Houston did.
I have officially decided NAFTA 69 absolutely does not work and it is a waste of taxpayer money. In Michigan , I-69 should take over the US 127 corridor to Grayling, Mi. and I-896 should be the route from Lansing to Port Huron. My interstates 51, 61, & 63 would cover I-69's route from Laredo to Indianapolis. I also have I-27 extended to Brownsville. For details on my routes go to my postings on Roads You would like to See on Fictional Highways and Renumerbering the Interstate grid on General Highway Talk
Looking at a couple truck flow maps, it looks like an I-69 extension would be well utilized and take some pressure off of I-30 and parts of I-40 and I-70.
Truck flow map for Brownsville, Texas border crossing:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/presentations/longdesc_na_21.htm (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/presentations/longdesc_na_21.htm)
Truck flow map for Laredo border crossing:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/presentations/longdesc_na_22.htm (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/presentations/longdesc_na_22.htm)
I'd still like to see comparison to an improved Laredo-Detroit rail corridor though.
I have an email from INDOT that admits that they illegally closed a portion of highway 57 when I 69 was built. Technically that portion of the interstate does not exist. It is an interstate corridor. It seems the Amish sued the federal government and won. The judge ruled that preventing horses and wagons from using public roads is a violation of the religious freedom clause of the United States Constitution. They also won on appeal. INDOT can not build an interstate within the right of way of highway 37. I just cycled the route. They can build an interstate corridor. I don't expect the construction to be finished within 20 years. I have informed the office of inspector general of the federal highway department That I will be bringing constitutional charges against them if they don't start reading the law. That is the road law put into place by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 13, 2017, 05:09:19 PM
I have an email from INDOT that admits that they illegally closed a portion of highway 57 when I 69 was built. Technically that portion of the interstate does not exist. It is an interstate corridor. It seems the Amish sued the federal government and won. The judge ruled that preventing horses and wagons from using public roads is a violation of the religious freedom clause of the United States Constitution. They also won on appeal. INDOT can not build an interstate within the right of way of highway 37. I just cycled the route. They can build an interstate corridor. I don't expect the construction to be finished within 20 years. I have informed the office of inspector general of the federal highway department That I will be bringing constitutional charges against them if they don't start reading the law. That is the road law put into place by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
Citations? Links?
I-69 in its original form (Indianapolis-Port Huron) worked fine as it was. And the rest of it? The jury's still out on that one. I can see it extend as far as Memphis and Shreveport, but in between is basically a roundabout way when the existing routes can already get you there (I-20, I-220 through Jackson and I-55). Maybe when there's more of it completed, then we'll just revisit it then.