A long awaited highway could cost as much as $16.5 billion to build through Texas, the state Department of Transportation told regional leaders at a meeting Friday.(caller. com (Corpus Christi); 10/8/10)
Construction of Interstate 69 in South Texas could begin as soon as five years from now, and the road from the Rio Grande Valley through the Coastal Bend to Texarkana is at least 20 years from completion, said John Barton, the assistant executive director for engineering operations for the transportation department.
The department expects to have about $4 billion to $5 billion to begin construction on the interstate in Texas...
$4 billion seems like a decent amount of money to get things going ...
I see from the last half of that article that the exact routing has not exactly been narrowed down for the southern end of I-69,
$4 billion seems like a decent amount of money to get things going ...
Or more alarmingly expensive. They may as well make I-69 a toll road for that price.
And....if I had to choose which corridor to South Texas out of 77 and 281 I'd upgrade first, I'd prefer 77.
Anthony
id give 77 the nod, after they upgrade 59, of course
ROBSTOWN — An overpass under construction will move U.S. Highway 77 between Corpus Christi and Brownsville one step closer to interstate highway standards.(www.caller.com; Corpus Christi, 10/14/10)
The $11.7 million project will raise the four lanes of U.S. 77 to allow traffic on Farm-to-Market Road 892 to travel underneath. The overpass is expected to open within the next three months, according to the Texas Department of Transportation.
The project will help improve traffic through an increasingly congested area, said Transportation Planning and Development Director Paula Sales Evans. It also brings the freeway closer to interstate standards by removing cross traffic from the intersection.
At a ribbon cutting Thursday, officials stood near a sign noting that U.S. 77 is the future Interstate 69 corridor...
Texas is a big state with a lot of taxpayers. Tolls build most of the urban stuff, so I guess most of the general tax money goes towards maintenance and building of rural roads. That doesn't explain how they are able to keep all the FMs up, though...
JEFFERSON, Texas—Studies estimate U.S. Highway 59 between Texarkana and Lufkin can become Interstate 69 for $4.5 billion.
The preliminary numbers were revealed Wednesday during a planning meeting for the interstate corridor’s Segment 1."
The article also discusses alternative methods of financing Segment 1:
"But with no pot of gold in sight for transportation, local committee member Bill Cork asked what new funding options are available.
Barton said a tool legislators are supporting is more public/private partnerships, which are frequently assumed to be toll roads. A builder constructs a road and charges a fee to drive on it, recouping its investment.
“But there are other options,” Barton said. “Private companies come in and build the asset and the way they generate the revenue is through a retail opportunity.”
An investor could build a convenience store along the corridor and make its profit back on a service provided rather than use of the system.
Tax increment districts can also help pay for transportation expansion. Both Texarkanas have taxing districts established that capture revenues as property values increase and put that money into expenses in specific areas.
Other options include increases in state and/or federal gas taxes, directing more of the shared tax revenues to Texas roadways and increased costs of vehicle registration.
Upgrading an existing road could turn out more expensive because you either need to build frontage roads for local traffic, or build a lot more interchanges to serve all the minor roads US 59 serves today. If you have greenfield construction, you can greatly reduce the amount of nonsense interchanges to backwater roads.
A slight tweak to language included in the 1995 law that designated U.S. 77 and U.S. 281 as future segments of the interstate highway system could be a step toward securing the long-awaited blue shield for the two Rio Grande Valley highways.
U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-Mercedes, plans to add legislative language that could accelerate the designation of the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69 by the end of this year ...
Although the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 stipulated that the two north-south highways leaving the Valley would be included as part of the I-69 corridor, it also said that they must be up to interstate system design standards and connect to an existing interstate system.
Portions of U.S. 281 and U.S. 77 and nearly all of Expressway 83 —the major route that connects them — are up to interstate design standards in the Valley. But billions in construction dollars still separate the highway’s rural portions from being up to standard before they connect with Interstate 37 outside Corpus Christi.
Hinojosa’s language would stipulate that the interstate-quality segments at the highway’s southern terminus be given the I-69 designation even though they don’t connect with I-37 ...
But the Valley’s portions of the highways — such as U.S. 281 to just outside of Edinburg and U.S. 77 to Raymondville — qualify for the interstate designation, Hinojosa said. By adding language to the federal code that allows those sections because they connect to the border, the Valley could already reap the economic benefits of an interstate ...
A Texas representative is attempting to amend federal I-69 legislation to allow designation of portions of defined corridor that are currently up to interstate standards to be signed as I-69, even though those portions do not currently connect to another interstate: http://www.themonitor.com/articles/interstate-44356-designation-valley.htmlTxDOT's website now has pdfs of Nov. 2010 Interim Reports from the five I-69 Segment Committees: http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm
"A slight tweak to language included in the 1995 law that designated U.S. 77 and U.S. 281 as future segments of the interstate highway system could be a step toward securing the long-awaited blue shield for the two Rio Grande Valley highways ... Although the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 stipulated that the two north-south highways leaving the Valley would be included as part of the I-69 corridor, it also said that they must be up to interstate system design standards and connect to an existing interstate system ... By adding language to the federal code that allows those sections because they connect to the border, the Valley could already reap the economic benefits of an interstate ..."
Looks like he will attempt to amend the law to make a border terminus the equivalent of a connection to another interstate.
A Texas representative is attempting to amend federal I-69 legislation to allow designation of portions of defined corridor that are currently up to interstate standards to be signed as I-69, even though those portions do not currently connect to another interstate: http://www.themonitor.com/articles/interstate-44356-designation-valley.htmlApparently, Hinojosa has not gotten very far with his effort; however, it appears that another Texas representative, Blake Farenthold, is about to introduce another bill to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69:
U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-Mercedes, plans to add legislative language that could accelerate the designation of the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69 by the end of this year ...
Hinojosa’s language would stipulate that the interstate-quality segments at the highway’s southern terminus be given the I-69 designation even though they don’t connect with I-37 ...
... Farenthold could file his second bill as early as today [April 14] that would designate a portion of the planned Interstate 69 corridor in the Rio Grande Valley as highway ready, making it eligible for federal funding, Farenthold spokeswoman Margarita Valdez said.
Valdez said the bill has the support of the majority of the Texas delegation ...
it appears that another Texas representative, Blake Farenthold, is about to introduce another bill to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69 ... Farenthold could file his second bill as early as today [April 14] that would designate a portion of the planned Interstate 69 corridor in the Rio Grande Valley as highway ready, making it eligible for federal fundingIn addition to trying to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as I-69, Farenthold is making it a priority to upgrade US 77 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen as I-69:
One of my highest priorities in the 112th Congress will be to upgrade US 77 to Interstate 69 in order to better serve the mobility needs of South Texans. Historically, the Lower Rio Grande Valley ... is ... the largest metropolitan area in the nation not served by the Interstate Highway System which has caused limited economic opportunities and growth. The Interstate 69 project is expected to create more than 40,000 new jobs by 2025, resulting in $12.8 billion in additional wages and $24 billion in added value. Completion of US 77 upgrades will mean that Kleberg, Kennedy, Willacy and Cameron counties are all finally on an interstate highway.
Interstate 69 in Texas is an ongoing upgrade of existing highways to interstate standards. Currently, interstate designation is being pursued for several completed sections in South Texas. The Texas Department of Transportation is also nearing completion of a successful Environmental Assessment (EA) on upgrading the US 77 sections from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi to US 83 in Harlingen. Completion of US 77 upgrades between Corpus Christi and Harlingen will serve as a model for how the rest of I-69 in Texas will become a reality.
The initiative to upgrade US 77 between Corpus Christi and Harlingen may serve as a model for how much of the rest of I-69 in Texas will become a reality.[page 5/10 of the pdf].
One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
Which makes perfectly good sense.One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
From what I have heard, the Laredo branch would be the mainline I-69, with the US 77 branch from Corpus Christi to Brownsville and the US 281 branch being x69 spurs.Seeing that US 77 and US 281 are pretty close together, they'd be better off upgrading one to Interstate standards and leaving the other as is. As for the actual designations, I could see I-37 go further down US 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville, with the rest of the US 77 corridor into Victoria being a southern I-39 or I-41. They already have two I-76s, two I-84s, two I-86s, and two I-88s, so why not two odd-numbered routes? (I'll discuss this further in the Fictional Highways section at an undetermined time.)
Personally, here's what I would do to avoid the issue of suffixing:
Laredo-Houston branch of US 59 = I-69
SH 44 between Freer and Corpus Christi + US 77 through Corpus Christi to US 59 junction = I-469
US 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville = extended I-37
Existing I-37 from US 77 to downtown Corpus Christi = I-x37
I'd keep US 281 as is, really no need to make it an Interstate route..but if you insist, try an I-x69.
Anthony
it appears that another Texas representative, Blake Farenthold, is about to introduce another bill to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69 ... Farenthold could file his second bill as early as today [April 14] that would designate a portion of the planned Interstate 69 corridor in the Rio Grande Valley as highway ready, making it eligible for federal funding
... U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi, whose district also includes a portion of Cameron County, introduced H.R. 1535, Interstate Designation for Portions of the I-69 Route, with the full support of the entire Texas delegation.
H.R. 1535 would allow portions of I-69 (US 59, 77, and 281) to be desig-nated as an interstate once segments are constructed to interstate standard, Farenthold said. If enacted, the bill would facilitate interstate signage on the multi-state I-69 corridor stretching from Port Huron, Mich., to the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas.
He said significant investments have been made and are continuing to be made in Texas using local, state and federal funding to build I-69.
“Close proximity to an interstate is arguably one of the greatest factors to encourage economic development and job creation,” said Farenthold. “Along with my colleagues in Congress, I have been working with the Alli-ance for I-69 to ensure that work on the interstate is completed in a timely manner.”
“I am also very pleased that Senators Hutchinson and Cornyn are intro-ducing a companion bill in the Senate this week. This is an example of the great work and collaborative efforts made by both members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate,” Farenthold said.
Which makes perfectly good sense.One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
The proposed bill does two interesting things. First, it increases the mileage of the I-69 corridor by adding US 83 between US 281 and US 77 to the corridor. Then, it proposes to specifically exclude I-69 from the requirement that a new segment of interstate may not be signed unless it connects to another segment of the interstate system. I had thought the amendment would consider a connection to a national border as being equivalent to a connection to the existing interstate system; instead, it appears that this introduced legislation would allow any segment of I-69 in Texas to be immediately signed after an upgrade to interstate standards, regardless of the distance from the existing interstate system.it appears that another Texas representative, Blake Farenthold, is about to introduce another bill to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69Farenthold has filed his bill
From what I have heard, the Laredo branch would be the mainline I-69, with the US 77 branch from Corpus Christi to Brownsville and the US 281 branch being x69 spurs.
Anthony
...A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central ...(https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/nhslegis.html)
"...A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central ..." (https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/nhslegis.html)This appears to require the posting of I-69 signs on I-94 from Chicago to Detroit :)
The proposed bill does two interesting things. First, it increases the mileage of the I-69 corridor by adding US 83 between US 281 and US 77 to the corridor. Then, it proposes to specifically exclude I-69 from the requirement that a new segment of interstate may not be signed unless it connects to another segment of the interstate system.
Piecing together the so-called NAFTA superhighway stretching 1,800 miles from Mexico to Canada will get a boost if the House adopts legislation submitted by Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi ... The freshman lawmaker –- and 30 bipartisan members of Texas’ congressional delegation –- are asking the GOP-led chamber to designate three segments of Texas’ long-distance highways as part of Interstate-69 ... Currently, there are 230 miles of Texas highways built to freeway standard – nearly 25 percent of the Interstate-69 route in Texas, Farenthold said ... The measure would enable portions of US 59, US 77, and US 281 in Texas to be designated part of the interstate once those segments are constructed to interstate standard.
The proposed bill ...increases the mileage of the I-69 corridor by adding US 83 between US 281 and US 77 to the corridor .... My understanding is that "nearly all of" US 83 is interstate-grade and signage-ready if legislation passes (http://www.themonitor.com/articles/interstate-44356-designation-valley.html). Any guesses as to its designation?
One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
The state will spend $9.2 million to clear another obstacle along U.S. 281 and continue upgrades to the route to make it Interstate-quality.
The Hidalgo County Regional Mobility Authority received $9.2 million in state funding to construct an overpass in Brooks County on U.S. 281 at Farm-to-Market Road 755, which stretches from Encino to Rio Grande City. Other than a relief route around Premont and a connection to Interstate 37 from George West, the intersection at FM 755 is one of the last major impediments before U.S. 281 is at expressway standards, a key step toward getting the Interstate 69 designation that economic development officials say is critical to attracting companies to the county.
“If we’re ever going to be able to make 281 part of I-69, we’ve got to start paying attention to those improvements along 281,” said mobility authority chairman Dennis Burleson. “This is one more obstacle off of 281 to make it look more like an Interstate.” ...
As far as I can tell, federal legislation (Section 1105(e)(5)(c)(i) of ISTEA) currently mandates that US 59 from Laredo to Houston will be I-69 and the US 77 (I-69 East) and US 281 (I-69 Central) routes will be suffixed:
"...A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central ..." (https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/nhslegis.html)
Farenthold's bill does not attempt to amend this portion of the legislation dealing with the identification of the routes.
The Alliance For I-69 Texas has worked closely with the Texas delegation on the two bills. I recently emailed and asked if they planned to go with either the current I-69+suffix designations or I-x69 designations.One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
Thanks for your inquiry. The priority for the Alliance and the communities along the corridor is to get the interstate designation and shield. As such, we are not as concerned at this point with the numbering (ie, I-169,I-369, etc.). As for US 83, we are attempting to add that to the I-69 Corridor designation as it serves as a vital connector between US 281 and US 77 and it is currently at interstate standards.
Jennifer Shepard
Executive Director
Alliance for I-69 Texas
... The Nueces County Commissioners Court recently supported Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority's project to enhance Highway 77, through a court resolution. We were pleased to learn that such support may have been a contributing factor to their ability to leverage $25 million of pass-through financing from the State of Texas. Texans now could soon see Interstate 69 signs on a 75-mile portion of U.S. 59 in the Houston region and a 10-mile piece of U.S. 77 in Nueces County, both of which connect to existing interstate highways ...
I'd keep US 281 as is, really no need to make it an Interstate route..but if you insist, try an I-x69.
Anthony
I-238 would fit better.
I'd keep US 281 as is, really no need to make it an Interstate route..but if you insist, try an I-x69.Some interstates already have 2 separate segments, so how about I-99?
Anthony
question is, will we ever see a state-named Texas I-69?I just finished a phone call with the public information director for the Corpus Christi district. He gave a little bit of clarity to the situation.
I did not know AASHO was approving suffixed routes still. I thought they were put on the ban list in the early 1980s, with strong pressure to remove all but the pair of 35E/W splits.I seriously doubt that they will. The only reason I included that as a possibility is that the federal legislation authorizing the I-69 Corridor speaks in terms of suffixes. It may be possible that AASHTO would feel compelled to comply with the legislation (although I doubt it). I'm primarily interested in which route will be the "main" I-69: US 59, 77, or 281.
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.The Laredo routing makes more sense though. It's a bigger city that you're connecting to.
The Laredo routing makes more sense though. It's a bigger city that you're connecting to.Not by much, and US 77 wins slightly when you add Harlingen. (Also note that, despite US 281 being another designated leg of I-69, US 77 easily serves McAllen etc.)
NJ Turnpike might consider applying for I-95W and I-95E for the Western and Eastern Spurs, though it's more to keep exit numbers aligned on both roadways versus restarting one at 0. (The Eastern Spur would likely become an x95, though the even ones are all taken in the area...)Why would they have to do that? I-276's exit numbers are measured from the state line on I-76.
I-276 is technically in violation, though. I don't know if PTC is going to fix that or be made to fix that now... I don't think they use Fed money so I have my doubts. (Same doubts I have about NJ Turnpike being forced to comply, but we'll find out)NJ Turnpike might consider applying for I-95W and I-95E for the Western and Eastern Spurs, though it's more to keep exit numbers aligned on both roadways versus restarting one at 0. (The Eastern Spur would likely become an x95, though the even ones are all taken in the area...)Why would they have to do that? I-276's exit numbers are measured from the state line on I-76.
Really, sometimes you just have to ignore the rules. However, I read 2009 MUTCD Section 2E.31 and I don't see anything requiring mileage to begin at 0, only that "interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route". I-276 follows this, beginning with 326 where it leaves I-76.
Niiiiiice - it's should, not shall. "Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State." Arizona would have been screwed otherwise.Interesting. I wonder if they had a hand in it?
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.
... County Administrator Pete Sepulveda said that, of the 123-mile section of road between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, about 24 miles are up to interstate standards, though work is under way to bring the remainder up to snuff.
A 1.8-mile section of U.S. Expressway 77 at Robstown, part of the greater Corpus Christi metro area, has been upgraded and in-cludes an overpass at FM 892. The project cost $20 million. The Texas Department of Transportation recently began soliciting bids for construction of a 3.3-mile section of U.S. Expressway 77 between Lyford and Sebastian. The cost of the project, which will also include a new overpass, is estimated at $30.4 million.
TxDOT in early 2012 will open bids for improvements to U.S. Expressway 77 in the Kingsville area. Initial plans called for up-grades, including overpasses, at Driscoll and Riviera to be paid for with private money, which would make it necessary for tolls to be charged along those sections. Sepulveda hopes federal and/or state funding can be found to make private money — and tolls — unnecessary. Ground has not yet been broken on those projects.
Sepulveda, who’s also coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority, said local officials have been meeting with political leaders in counties north of Cameron County, and working with the TxDOT district engineer in Corpus Christi, to identify funding sources to finish upgrading the remaining miles. Sepulveda said the Corpus Christi-to-Brownsville stretch is about $160 million away from being completely upgraded to interstate quality. Being so close money-wise makes it much easier to get taken seriously in Austin and Washington, he said, when it comes to asking for funding. Upgrading all 123 miles will end up costing somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000,000 Sepulveda said, adding that “it’s very doable” to secure all the necessary funding within two years. The various projects are being funded with a combination of local, state and federal dollars.
Of all the Valley’s transportation needs, being connected to interstate-quality road is the most important factor in terms of eco-nomic development, growing the tax base and industrial base, and creating jobs, he said.
“At the end of day our goal is to create jobs,” Sepulveda said.
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.Draft agenda for Aug. 25 meeting of Texas Transportation Commission indicates that they will petition AASHTO to designate the above-mentioned section of US 77 as Interstate 69 [page 5/9 of pdf]:
10. Highway Designation
Nueces County – Authorize submission of an application to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 77
from I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as Interstate 69 (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this
minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 6.2-mile segment of US 77 from
I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69. A technical
report prepared by the department, which evaluated the existing design features and operational
conditions of the route, found that in addition to being part of the High Priority Corridor 18 System, this
segment of US 77 also meets current interstate system design standards and connects to an existing
interstate system segment via a fully directional interchange with 1-37, thus establishing its eligibility for
the designation.
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.Draft agenda for Aug. 25 meeting of Texas Transportation Commission indicates that they will petition AASHTO to designate the above-mentioned section of US 77 as Interstate 69 [page 5/9 of pdf]:
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/agendas/aug25.pdf
"10. Highway Designation
Nueces County – Authorize submission of an application to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 77
from I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as Interstate 69 (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this
minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 6.2-mile segment of US 77 from
I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69. A technical
report prepared by the department, which evaluated the existing design features and operational
conditions of the route, found that in addition to being part of the High Priority Corridor 18 System, this
segment of US 77 also meets current interstate system design standards and connects to an existing
interstate system segment via a fully directional interchange with 1-37, thus establishing its eligibility for
the designation."
isn't the Laredo to Houston segment of US 59 scheduled to be designated as the main route of I-69 upon completion of the upgrade to Interstate standards??The ISTEA legisalation does indicate that Laredo to Houston is mainline I-69, but it looks like a combination of US 77 being a faster upgrade and overall population growth in Rio Grande Valley may have changed some minds. OTOH it is anticipated that there will be I-69 signs going through Houston by next summer: http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update8.12.11.html
Anthony
US 59 IN HOUSTON AREA
TxDOT is also in the process of requesting that the Federal Highway Administration approve adding completed sections of US 59 in the Houston metropolitan area to the Interstate Highway System as I-69.
The Eastex Freeway (US 59) is at interstate highway standard with full controlled access from downtown Houston to near Splendora in Montgomery County, a total of 38 miles. The Southwest Freeway (US 59) is at interstate standard from downtown Houston to Rosenberg, a total of 35 miles. These I-69 route sections connect to the existing Interstate System at I-10, I-45 and I-610.
Barton said the section north of Loop 610 has already been submitted to FHWA for review and that the highway through Houston and south to Rosenberg should be ready ready in the next two months. TxDOT has been coordinating the effort with FHWA and he expects quick action. These sections are likely to go to the AASHTO route numbering committee for approval at their semi-annual meeting next May. He expects signs to be up by next summer.
He said that getting the first sections added to the Interstate System and signed is an important milestone that marks the beginning of an era when Texas will focus on filling in the I-69 gaps rather than talking about a large corridor that is yet to be started.
Population growth is one thing, but Laredo transfers the bulk of international truck traffic between Texas and Mexico. It would make more sense for the Mexico to eastern U.S. points is best served by one continuous route.I asked I-69 Alliance about the "mainline" issue, and reply indicates that there will be some uncertainty for a while:
US 77 will still carry the I-69 name. East and Central were added to eliminate driver confusion about different roadways to the border being labeled I-69. The fact that US 77 will be signed first does not indicate a decision about the "mainline", but rather a reflection of the fact that upgrades to bring a portion of US 77 to interstate standards have been completed faster than work on US 59 to Laredo. We do expect FHWA to approve signing of US 59 through the Houston as I-69 early next year.
Thank you for your interest.
Jennifer Shepard
Executive Director
Alliance for I-69 Texas
Phone/Fax 703-580-4416
Jennifer@jgshepard.com
Here is a link to the Transcript of the August 25 meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission in which they authorized submission of an application to AASHTO for approval of the I-69 designation for the US 77 segment:Population growth is one thing, but Laredo transfers the bulk of international truck traffic between Texas and Mexico. It would make more sense for the Mexico to eastern U.S. points is best served by one continuous route.I asked I-69 Alliance about the "mainline" issue, and reply indicates that there will be some uncertainty for a while:
"US 77 will still carry the I-69 name. East and Central were added to eliminate driver confusion about different roadways to the border being labeled I-69. The fact that US 77 will be signed first does not indicate a decision about the "mainline", but rather a reflection of the fact that upgrades to bring a portion of US 77 to interstate standards have been completed faster than work on US 59 to Laredo. We do expect FHWA to approve signing of US 59 through the Houston as I-69 early next year.
Alliance for I-69 Texas
The I-69 corridor, a proposed national interstate highway extending from Michigan through Lufkin and East Texas to the Mexican border, will take a visible step toward reality this week.
The Federal Highway Administration recently granted approval for the Texas Department of Transportation to erect 14 “Future I-69 Corridor” signs along U.S. 59 in TxDOT’s Lufkin District, which includes Angelina, Nacogdoches, Polk, San Jacinto and Shelby counties.
According to a TxDOT-issued statement, the signs are intended to inform the traveling public that U.S. 59 in Texas is federally designated to become a future part of I-69 when it meets Interstate design standards.
Lufkin Mayor Jack Gorden, who serves as a member on the executive committee of the Alliance for I-69 Texas, said that the project has made some significant steps in the last two years.
“It doesn’t mean it’s going to be built tomorrow, but good things have happened,” Gorden said. “This signage issue is something that we came up a couple of years ago.”
TxDOT has previously erected “Future I-69 Corridor” signs along other segments of U.S 59, U.S. 77, and U.S. 281, which are also federally designated to become part of the future national I-69 system, according to the statement, and with this approval, TxDOT can move forward to install future Interstate signs along U.S. 59 in these five counties. The signs are expected to be installed by Friday ...
What is the plan to connect the portions of I-69 in Texas to the already signed portions of I-69 (specifically the segment south of Memphis in Mississippi, which I've seen signed)? Will 69 follow 59 all the way to Texarkana, have a concurrent segment with 30 and 40 in Arkansas and then split off and connect to the I-69/MS 304 segment in Mississippi?For Texas, go to this link http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm and the Interim Update Reports for the 5 Segment Committees all have maps. In Segment 1, the portion of the I-69 Corridor from Tenaha to Texarkana is commonly referred to as an "I-69 Spur" and may eventually link to Future I-49 in Texas to the northwest of Texarkana.
This link will lead you to maps of the SIUs in Tennessee:
North of that, I guess US 51 through Tennessee and Purchase Pkwy in Kentucky? I'm just trying to determine a rout off Google maps.
Thank you Grzrd!You are welcome OCGuy81!
On October 15, the AASHTO Highways Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering reported its approval of the I-69 designation for the above-referenced segment in Texas [page 8/8 of pdf]:Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.Draft agenda for Aug. 25 meeting of Texas Transportation Commission indicates that they will petition AASHTO to designate the above-mentioned section of US 77 as Interstate 69 [page 5/9 of pdf]:
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/agendas/aug25.pdf
"10. Highway Designation
Nueces County – Authorize submission of an application to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 77
from I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as Interstate 69 (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this
minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 6.2-mile segment of US 77 from
I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69. A technical
report prepared by the department, which evaluated the existing design features and operational
conditions of the route, found that in addition to being part of the High Priority Corridor 18 System, this
segment of US 77 also meets current interstate system design standards and connects to an existing
interstate system segment via a fully directional interchange with 1-37, thus establishing its eligibility for
the designation."
The Texas Transportation Commission took action today to add Interstate 69 to the state highway system, allowing Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) officials to label the first Texas stretch of the nearly 1000-mile interstate since I-69 received federal high-priority route designation more than a decade ago.
Today’s decision enables TxDOT to add the concurrent designation of I-69 to a 6.2-mile section of US 77 between I-37 and SH 44 in Nueces County. This concurrent designation is possible without additional funding, right of way or construction because the existing highway already meets interstate standards .... The first I-69 sign will go up in early December at the intersection of I-69/US 77 and SH 44 in Robstown .... TxDOT is also asking the FHWA for approval to add completed sections of US 59 in the Houston metropolitan area to the Interstate Highway System as I-69.
Yes! The shields will have Texas on them. This is something we encouraged TxDOT to do.
I emailed the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance and asked her if "Texas" will be on the I-69 shields. I was mildly surprised by her response:
"Yes! The shields will have Texas on them. This is something we encouraged TxDOT to do."
I emailed the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance and asked her if "Texas" will be on the I-69 shields. I was mildly surprised by her response:
"Yes! The shields will have Texas on them. This is something we encouraged TxDOT to do."
FYI. Thanks for your assistance on this matter. The Alliance leadership
strongly supports including the state name on the interstate shields.
<snip>
I wanted to let you know that we are planning to hold an event in the Corpus
Christi area at 2 p.m. on Dec. 5th to mark the posting of the first
interstate signs on a section of US 77 that will be designated as I-69.
TxDOT is preparing the invitation and I will forward it to you once it is
released. I have confirmed with TxDOT that the interstate shield will
include "Texas". Many thanks for your efforts on this!
We have gotten a commitment from Chairman Mica that he plans to include the signage legislation in his proposed reauthorization bill. The signage legislation has been introduced as stand alone bills in both the House and Senate, but we expect that it will be rolled into the reauthorization bill. However, as you have observed, timing is quite uncertain on the reauthorization bill. The Senate EPW Committee is scheduled to mark-up a two-year reauthorization bill on Nov. 9th. We will see what the House does.
I recently received an email update from the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance on the current status of the proposed bill that would allow I-69 signage on US 281, US 83, and US 77 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Basically, it is anticipated that the bill, although introduced as a stand alone bill, will be rolled into the next reauthorization bill (if and when that ever occurs... :no:). Part of her response:
"We have gotten a commitment from Chairman Mica that he plans to include the signage legislation in his proposed reauthorization bill. The signage legislation has been introduced as stand alone bills in both the House and Senate, but we expect that it will be rolled into the reauthorization bill. However, as you have observed, timing is quite uncertain on the reauthorization bill. The Senate EPW Committee is scheduled to mark-up a two-year reauthorization bill on Nov. 9th. We will see what the House does."
If the bill does pass in the relatively near future, and with US 77 definitely being signed as I-69, it will be interesting to see what interstate designations US 83 and US 281 will receive.
The map at this link shows the portions of US 281, US 83 and US 77 near the Mexican border that are currently at freeway (and presumably interstate) standard and would be eligible for I-69 signage under the proposed bill:
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/i69.html
The Rio Grande Valley came 6.2 miles closer to losing its distinction as the largest metro area in the nation without direct access to an interstate Monday with the first stretch of Interstate 69, a trade corridor promised to someday link the Valley's Mexican border cities to inland America and Canada.
The segment already met interstate standards and required no new construction, making Monday's ceremony largely symbolic. But the 10 “I-69” signs make those miles the first new interstate in Texas since 1992 ...
Only personally know of two.
I-279 (http://g.co/maps/ewjp9)
I-16 (http://g.co/maps/4tjzd)
Also, this article indicates that ten I-69 signs were installed on the section (EDIT - this link was updated after my post to include a still photo of the unveiling of a BGS with I-69 shield):
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Coastal-Bend-Valley-unveil-first-stretch-of-2346709.php
Also, this article indicates that ten I-69 signs were installed on the section (EDIT - this link was updated after my post to include a still photo of the unveiling of a BGS with I-69 shield):
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Coastal-Bend-Valley-unveil-first-stretch-of-2346709.php
it mentioned that this was the first new interstate in Texas since 1992, was that the new I-20 in SE Dallas?
On BGS? I know of none in many states, though I wouldn't say most.
Only personally know of two.
I-279 (http://g.co/maps/ewjp9)
I-16 (http://g.co/maps/4tjzd)
there are lots and lots out there. I can think of at least one in nearly every state, including some generally hard-to-find states like Massachusetts.
a quick survey of the shield gallery reveals, offhand, only ID, KY, MO, ND, OH, OR, SD, TN, WV with no state-named shields on green signs in photos taken at any time, including some examples from only the 60s (RI), but most with examples surviving into the early 2000s at least. ID, OH, OR, SD and TN are likely the results of insufficient data, as they got rid of state-named shields quite a while back. MO, ND and WV are very scrupulous in their standards compliance, and KY is a little bit of both, I think.
by BGS, do you also include side-mounted (as opposed to overhead-mounted) green signs?
for example, is this a BGS? it's B, and it's G, and it's certainly an S, but it might be a borderline example given its purpose.
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NH/NH19610934i1.jpg)
LGS. The difference between L and B, at least to me, is the makeup of the sign panel. A single sheet of aluminum is L, even if it's overhead. Extruded strips, several panels, etc. with backing reinforcement is B, even if it's side-mounted.
P.S. I'm jealous. I have a crappy photo of that sign,
and it disappeared by the time I made it back.
LGS. The difference between L and B, at least to me, is the makeup of the sign panel. A single sheet of aluminum is L, even if it's overhead. Extruded strips, several panels, etc. with backing reinforcement is B, even if it's side-mounted.
fair enough. I tend to note the distinction as "would the sign have mixed case in a jurisdiction where smaller signs have all-caps?" for example, Texas until recently had all-caps Series D on LGSes and mixed case Series E or EM on BGSes.
this NH example is indeed quite borderline, as there are no letters apart from the shield itself.
so your LGS/BGS distinction might indeed lose a few states. Washington comes to mind offhand as LGS-only.
The only place I've been without BGS is Prince Edward Island. Washington certainly has BGS, I just checked my site to make sure.
You will find an interstate shield without 'Ohio' on it
[old photo]
(ODOT's archives date this as 1959, FWIW)
Roger Beall answered that the request to add U.S. 59 through Houston to the interstate system was tentatively scheduled to be sent to FHWA in January. If the request is approved, the Texas Transportation Commission will consider submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Special Committee on Route Numbering to use the I-69 route number. The next AASHTO meeting will occur in May 2012. The committee member then asked for a letter from TxDOT regarding the redesignation and requesting local support. He explained that he would forward this letter to communities along U.S. 59 with a sample resolution and a document describing the benefits of redesignation. TxDOT agreed to send the resolution request letter. The committee member also noted that in October of 2010, the HGAC Transportation Policy Council passed a resolution of support for I-69 and the Segment Committees. He suggested that the level of support by the communities along U.S. 59 needs to be ascertained.
• Extend the U.S. 59 relief options box (as depicted on the map) further south on U.S. 59 to south of Brazoria
• Extend the U.S. 59 relief options box (as depicted on the map) further north (in Segment Two) up to Cleveland
• Include the Port of Freeport in the U.S. 59 relief options box
• Perform a study U.S. 59 relief options for Houston. It was noted that the U.S. 59 relief options for Houston might not be just a relief route and could include improvements such as widenings and interchanges.
The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) of upgrading US 77 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen is complete and five public hearings were scheduled for early February.
The Preferred Alternative recommended in the document is to upgrade the existing highway, adding to the right-of-way width where necessary. Two short highway sections would be relocated to create relief routes around Driscoll in Nueces County and Riviera in Kleberg County ....
After the review of public comments is complete later this year the Federal Highway Administration is expected to issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) which will allow individual upgrade projects on the route to move forward once they are designed and funded ....
The US 77 Upgrade Project will provide additional capacity and significantly improve safety along the 122 miles of highway covered by the assessment. Currently there are dozens of at-grade crossings and cross-overs along the route.
The EA found that the estimated cost of completing Interstate 69 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen is approximately $1 billion ....
I find it fascinating how they use off ramps to handle the many ranch "gate crossings" along the route, as well as the strategic cattle crossings they would have. In Louisiana, they probably would have used frontage roads with intermediate interchanges and grade-seperated "crossunders" for that purpose.
I did not know AASHO was approving suffixed routes still. I thought they were put on the ban list in the early 1980s, with strong pressure to remove all but the pair of 35E/W splits.I seriously doubt that they will. The only reason I included that as a possibility is that the federal legislation authorizing the I-69 Corridor speaks in terms of suffixes. It may be possible that AASHTO would feel compelled to comply with the legislation (although I doubt it). I'm primarily interested in which route will be the "main" I-69: US 59, 77, or 281.
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.
The Laredo routing makes more sense though. It's a bigger city that you're connecting to.Not by much, and US 77 wins slightly when you add Harlingen. (Also note that, despite US 281 being another designated leg of I-69, US 77 easily serves McAllen etc.)
As for travel into the interior of Mexico, US 59 to Laredo does look like a better route; Houston to Monterrey is about 50 miles shorter via Laredo than via McAllen.
... regarding the recent addition of US 77 as I-69. Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of ISTEA amended, designates future Interstate routes along High Priority Corridor (HPC) #20 as “I-69”, HPC # (c)(18)(D)(i) as “I-69 East”, and HPC # (c)(18)(D)(ii) as “I-69 Central”. These three future I-69 corridors correspond to US 59, US 77, and US 281 respectively. Since there are no other approved additions along the “I-69” or “I-69 Central” Texas corridors, the US 77 segment was added as I-69 to avoid To avoid driver confusion. Once segments are added along the other two corridors the State will need to sign the routes accordingly.
TxDOT's website now has pdfs of Nov. 2010 Interim Reports from the five I-69 Segment Committees: http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm
The Committees also recommend immediately signing the following freeway sections as I-69 ... Committee 4: ... US 281 from Mexican border to north of McAllen; US 77 from Mexican border to south of Lyford ... Apparently, the final two would be dependent upon the proposed legislation that would make a terminus at the Mexican border equivalent to an interstate junction.
TxDOT's website now has pdfs of Nov. 2010 Interim Reports from the five I-69 Segment Committees: http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm
The Committees also recommend immediately signing the following freeway sections as I-69 ... Committee 4: ... US 281 from Mexican border to north of McAllen; US 77 from Mexican border to south of Lyford ... Apparently, the final two would be dependent upon the proposed legislation that would make a terminus at the Mexican border equivalent to an interstate junction.
I-69
Construction of the proposed Interstate 69, the so-called NAFTA Superhighway from the Texas-Mexico border north into the American heartland, would move forward under MAP-21. The bill allows for segments to be deemed “Interstate” if they meet federal, access-controlled standards. This provision will allow for development along unfinished corridors.
Longer answer: Both highways can easily be converted to Interstate grade without much difficulty, and both already have Interstate freeway-grade sections. So, why pick and choose?But why does either need to be freeway in the first place? Are there problems with the occasional at-grade that currently exists?
Why did they build the parallel highways (281 and 77) in the first place? They could have upgraded one and built spurs to the towns that were on the 2 lane route.
I think a lot of freeways would have been built differently with more foresight. I would have sent I-20 west from Fort Worth, north of Midland/Odessa straight west to El Paso, to avoid all that extra mileage.
I think a lot of freeways would have been built differently with more foresight. I would have sent I-20 west from Fort Worth, north of Midland/Odessa straight west to El Paso, to avoid all that extra mileage.This would have added at least 60 miles of Interstate, with two parallel routes into El Paso from the east (like the two parallel routes of I-69). All to save at most about 25 miles of driving.
I think a lot of freeways would have been built differently with more foresight. I would have sent I-20 west from Fort Worth, north of Midland/Odessa straight west to El Paso, to avoid all that extra mileage.This would have added at least 60 miles of Interstate, with two parallel routes into El Paso from the east (like the two parallel routes of I-69). All to save at most about 25 miles of driving.
I-20 meeting I-10 in West Texas makes a lot more sense than paralleling it all the way to El Paso. At least there's a fork in the road that gives you a choice of a nonstop trip to Dallas or San Antonio.
I think a lot of freeways would have been built differently with more foresight. I would have sent I-20 west from Fort Worth, north of Midland/Odessa straight west to El Paso, to avoid all that extra mileage.
I disagree on this, because when you take into consideration that the I-10 segment west of the 10/20 split had to be built only once, you're saving mileage.
as the traffic quantity isn't anywhere near so heavy as to need more than four lanes, you may as well bring 20 into 10. it adds actual miles per user, but saved a lot of miles to be built.
as the traffic quantity isn't anywhere near so heavy as to need more than four lanes, you may as well bring 20 into 10. it adds actual miles per user, but saved a lot of miles to be built.
Minor little update type thing I thought was cool (to me at least). I recently recieved the official state map from TXDot and it has the short section of IH 69 near Corpus Christi marked. Hopefully soon we will see some new signage here in Houston.AASHTO SCOH's Special Committee on US Route Numbering (USRN) has posted its agenda for its Spring Meeting next week online at: http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf) Page 14 includes an application from TxDOT for signing I-69 along 35 miles of US 59 from I-610 north to just north of the Liberty County line. (The proposal document links are not active as of yet). There are also applications involving US 377.
There is also a proposal to designate part of US 59 near Texarkana as part of I-69. It appears in today's Texarkana Gazette (behind a paywall).
Here is the article:You beat me to the punch. I posted this a few minutes ago but typed the whole article from the newspaper itself since I don't subscribe to the Gazette and didn't allow me access to the entire article.
MPO to mull I-69 designation
By: Brandy S. Chewning - Texarkana Gazette
The Metropolitan Planning Organization is considering whether to support designating a small section of U.S. Highway 59 as Interstate 69.
U.S. 59 bypass (originally known as Loop 151), connecting U.S. 59 and Interstate 30, is already built to interstate standards, and the local committee for planning I-69 in Texas has requested that MPO support designating it I-69.
Jerry Sparks, chairman of the Segment 1 corridor committee, said part of the southern portion of the route, around Houston, has already been designated I-69.
“We’re going to show people that Texas has it tagged at the top and bottom; all we have to do is connect the dots,” Sparks said.
To get a legitimate designation as I-69, not just as a future corridor, will likely take 18 months, Sparks said.
“It is an awareness that I-69 is moving forward,” he said. “It’s a very small piece, more for recognition value than anything else. It is my understanding that the recognition of the north and the south ends of I-69 being built to interstate standards is a positive factor in helping secure more federal funds.”
The proposed resolution says all that will be designated is the short section of the bypass (Loop 151) and calls for continued study of a relief route west of Texarkana. Various routes have been considered, and all have met with public opposition.
In other action at an upcoming meeting, the MPO technical committee is expected to recommend a project for spending $2.2 million received from the Texas Transportation Commission.
Though it sounds like a lot of money for most pocketbooks, MPO Director Brad McCaleb told MPO members last month that $2.2 million is minimal in the transportation world.
Two billion dollars is being divvied out to MPOs in Texas, but qualifying projects will have strict criteria and tight timelines. McCaleb said there has been discussion of allowing MPOs to loan their funds if they do not have qualifying projects themselves.
“You have one MPO and they don’t have any projects that they can get ready to meet this timeline, but you have another MPO, they have a project, it’s ready to go out the door but they’re short on funding,” McCaleb explained. “The first MPO would transfer their allocation to the second MPO ... part of the agreement being that that second MPO then, at a particular point in time in the future, would send a portion of their allocated funds back to the first MPO.
“Basically, you’re buying yourself time to develop that project that you don’t currently have ready,” he said.
Texarkana’s portion of the state funding will likely be used to rebuild the intersection of U.S. 59 and Kings Highway.
The MPO technical committee meets at 10 a.m. Thursday and the policy board will take final action at 10 a.m. May 17. Both meetings will be at the Texas Municipal Building, 220 Texas Blvd.
Published: 05/09/2012
Odd part is that they want to sign US59 north of I-610 as I-69, yet the freeway is built south halfway to Victoria. You would think they would make the whole city of Houston one number instead of doing a Dallas split like I-45.
TxDOT has broken the I-69 route into 3 segments through the Houston region stretching from the Liberty County line on the north to just south of Rosenberg due to some of the complexities in getting approval for a large stretch. As you indicated, the northern section is on AASHTO's spring agenda. TxDOT is finalizing the documentation to submit to FHWA in June for the southern segment which stretches from I-610 on the south side of Houston to just south of Rosenberg. They will then proceed with the documentation necessary for the middle section which could be more complicated since it is an older section.
I hope this clarifies things.
Problem is that Grand Parkway seems to be a tollway and US59 is non tolled. It would be faster, smarter, and cheaper resigning US59 than to build another highway that is WAY outside the city of Houston. It would be smarter than to use Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway than to wait on the Grand Parkway which might only be 2 lanes anyways.
Only other option from what they are labeling as I-69 would be part of I-610. Which would be worst than US59 as way too much traffic is on that road. Especially south and west of downtown.
The governing board of the Texas Department of Transportation on Thursday approved the department's plan to request cost quotes for improving a 12-mile stretch of U.S. 77 between Driscoll and Kingsville as part of the Interstate 69 corridor expansion .... during the next few months, the department will receive, analyze and select a list of quotes for use in developing a formal request for pricing ... the project will cost about $50 million but, until proposals are received, a more accurate cost estimate is not yet available.
The department's goal is to have financing for the project secured by the end of the year, he said, and for work to be under way sometime in 2013.
This article (http://www.caller.com/news/2012/may/31/state-gives-go-ahead-for-i-69-work-near-driscoll/) indicates that the 12-mile US 77 to I-69 upgrade is planned to be between Driscoll and Kingsville
other Nueces County projects south of I-37 are funded ... a $35 million project to upgrade 6.5 miles of US 77 to interstate standard between Robstown and Driscoll .... planned to go to bid in 2013
I'm not so happy with the proposed toll bypasses for Driscoll and Rivera, but I'm guessing that because they will be short, the toll won't be so bad...and there will be TxTollTag available for the locals to avoid mail sticker shock.
Anthony
The environmental assessment for the overall US 77 Upgrade calls for new relief routes at Driscoll and Riviera. The Driscoll route would connect on the north with the $35 million project planned to go to bid in 2013 and on the south with the 10-mile design-build project.
Cameron County Commissioner David Garza urged the transportation commissioners to allocate an additional $15 million for engineering and right of way for the two relief routes in order to get them ready for future construction. He pledged that Cameron County and the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority will assist TxDOT with planning and design necessary to move these two projects forward.
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-037_sb_exit_014_01.jpg)Ugh... In this case, I actually prefer neutered shields. The numerals are so huge within the shield that it just makes the state name look really cramped and an afterthought. The only good state name shields are the original '57 specs.
The results are out. (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Report%20to%20SCOHSM2012%205-19-2012.pdf) All applications where approved, with the three Interstate applications receiving conditional approval pending final approval by FHWA (who has final approval authority for all Interstate route numbering changes).(above quote from AASHTO Meeting May 18, 2012 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6658.msg150401#msg150401) thread)
A request to dually designate US 59 as I-69/US 59 northeast of Houston has been sent to FHWA. Because AASHTO meets twice a year to consider interstate numbering, AASHTO conditionally numbered this section of highway as I-69 dependant on FHWA adding it to the interstate system. Once FHWA approval is acquired, the Texas Transportation Commission will also have to approve the dual designation of this section of highway as I-69/US 59 before interstate signs are posted. TxDOT is hoping to receive FHWA approval later this summer.(bold emphasis added by me)
In addition to the northeast portion of US 59 in the Houston area, US 59 southwest of Houston and through Houston are also under review for interstate standards. It is anticipated that a request to add the southwest section to the interstate system will be done later this year and the section through Houston will be done in 2013.
Toronto Transit Commission? Trident Technical College? The Tetris Company?reading the post.
Or maybe this thing Wikipedia call the Trans-Texas Corridor?
Note: those three are all real organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TTC).
Toronto Transit Commission? Trident Technical College? The Tetris Company?
Or maybe this thing Wikipedia call the Trans-Texas Corridor?
I want to see the "sex lane" area. TxDOT may have struck gold and a new way to raise funds :sombrero:(above quote from I-10 From Houston to Louisiana (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4309.msg94673#msg94673) thread)
(US 59) Liberty County line to south of Cleveland freeway upgrade - $6 million
(US 281) Premont relief route - $41 million
(US 77) Design-build Driscoll to Kingsville - $60 million
(US 59) Priority project development services - Corrigan - $5 million
(US 59) Priority project development services - Lufkin - $6 million
(US 59) Priority project development services - Nacogdoches - $6 million
(US 59) Ramps, frontage roads, remove cross overs from north of SL 463 to south of US 87 - $11.62 million
(US 59) Priority project development services - Fort Bend and Wharton counties - $6 million
Farenthold has filed his bill, and the two US Senators from Texas are apparently filing a companion bill in the Senate:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/immigration-126797-country-portion.htmlQuote... U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi, whose district also includes a portion of Cameron County, introduced H.R. 1535, Interstate Designation for Portions of the I-69 Route, with the full support of the entire Texas delegation.
H.R. 1535 would allow portions of I-69 (US 59, 77, and 281) to be desig-nated as an interstate once segments are constructed to interstate standard, Farenthold said. If enacted, the bill would facilitate interstate signage on the multi-state I-69 corridor stretching from Port Huron, Mich., to the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas.
Today, the House of Representatives voted on a two year agreement to fund our transportation systems. Included in the H.R. 4348 Conference Report, is language, proposed by Congressman Blake Farenthold (TX-27), allowing highways that meet interstate standards and approved by the Secretary of Transportation, to be signed as an interstate. Many South Texas communities along US 59, 77 and 281 will soon have access to an interstate ....
A link to H.R. 4348 can be found here (http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/CRPT-112hrpt-HR4348.pdf).
The language referenced in this release is on page 23 - (b) Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate system(1)(B) [in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘that the segment’ and all that follows through the period and inserting ‘‘that the segment meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code, and is planned to connect to an existing Interstate System segment…]
The Alliance For I-69 Texas has worked closely with the Texas delegation on the two bills. I recently emailedQuoteThanks for your inquiry. The priority for the Alliance and the communities along the corridor is to get the interstate designation and shield ... As for US 83, we are attempting to add that to the I-69 Corridor designation as it serves as a vital connector between US 281 and US 77 and it is currently at interstate standards.
Jennifer Shepard
Executive Director
Alliance for I-69 Texas
‘‘(4) INTERSTATE SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS.—
‘‘(A) ADDITIONS.—If the Secretary determines that a highway on the National Highway System meets all standards of a highway on the Interstate System and that the highway is a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, the Secretary may, upon the affirmative recommendation of the State or States in which the highway is located, designate the highway as a route on the Interstate System.
I recently received an email response from FHWA's National Systems and Economic Team to a question about I-69 signage in Texas. If I read the response correctly, it looks like, in the absence of an amendment to current I-69 legislation, in the future not only will the current US 77/I-69 corridor have to be re-signed, but also the US 77 and US 281 corridors will have some interesting shields indeed:Quote... regarding the recent addition of US 77 as I-69. Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of ISTEA amended, designates future Interstate routes along High Priority Corridor (HPC) #20 as “I-69”, HPC # (c)(18)(D)(i) as “I-69 East”, and HPC # (c)(18)(D)(ii) as “I-69 Central”. These three future I-69 corridors correspond to US 59, US 77, and US 281 respectively. Since there are no other approved additions along the “I-69” or “I-69 Central” Texas corridors, the US 77 segment was added as I-69 to avoid To avoid driver confusion. Once segments are added along the other two corridors the State will need to sign the routes accordingly.It is conceivable that the "I-69 terminus at the Mexican border" provision could be included in the extension. Doing so would raise two immediate related questions: (1) what interstate designation do you give the US 281 border segment (will FHWA really mandate "I-69 Central"?), and (2) would the current US 77/I-69 segment have to be re-signed as "I-69 East" because of the interstate signage of the US 281 section?
A third question would be whether the Texas delegation would have the foresight to include language that would do away with the mandatory designations.
Rep. Farenthold's office has issued a press release (http://farenthold.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1350:rep-farenthold-encouraged-i-69-language-included-in-two-year-transportation-bill&catid=126:press-releases) in which he expresses his pleasure that more I-69 signage can soon take place now that the bill has been passed (and will become law as soon as Obama signs it):QuoteMany South Texas communities along US 59, 77 and 281 will soon have access to an interstate ....
Rep. Farenthold's office has issued a press release (http://farenthold.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1350:rep-farenthold-encouraged-i-69-language-included-in-two-year-transportation-bill&catid=126:press-releases) in which he expresses his pleasure that more I-69 signage can soon take place now that the bill has been passed (and will become law as soon as Obama signs it)
In a major victory for Texans, language sought by the Alliance for I-69 Texas is included as part of the two-year $140 million MAP-21 highway funding bill approved by Congress this week.
The language changes existing law by removing the requirement that completed highway segments must be connected to an existing interstate highway before they can be added to the Interstate Highway System.
Now the law allows sections of the I-69 routes that are at interstate standard but are not connected to an existing interstate to be designated as part of the Interstate Highway System and signed.
This change in federal law will facilitate the designation and signing of about 100 miles of I-69 routes that are already at or near interstate highway standard. Completed sections of US 59, US 77 and US 281 that could be considered are in Cameron, Hidalgo, Willacy, Kleberg, Brooks, San Patricio, Jackson, Wharton, Fort Bend, Liberty, San Jacinto, Polk, Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties. The longest of these sections is more than 40 miles of existing US 77 freeway through Brownsville and Harlingen. There is a 16 mile long completed section of US 281 in the McAllen-Edinburg area.
FUTURE SIGNAGE
When other upgrade projects are completed in the future it will be possible under the new law to routinely add them to the Interstate System. This approach to signing disconnected completed sections was common when the original Interstate System was being built in the 1960 and 1970s ....
Several I-69 projects are included in TxDOT's Projects Selected for $2 Billion Allocation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf) list:Quote...It looks like the most immediate progress will be on the US 281 Premont relief route and the US 77 Driscoll-Kingsville design-build projects.
(US 281) Premont relief route - $41 million
...
Some of the Coastal Bend's highest priority transportation projects have been funded, including a controversial plan to reroute U.S. Highway 281 in Premont ....
The state also approved $41 million for ... Upgrading the stretch of U.S. Highway 281 that runs through the center of Premont.
The route has yet to be decided. The state has narrowed the options to two: One calls for an overpass over town with access roads on both sides that could displace highway restaurants and gas stations while the other calls for rerouting the highway around the town's eastern edge. City Council has approved a resolution supporting the eastern route.
Although some in town hoped the state wouldn't proceed with the project, doing nothing is not an option, especially now the project is funded, City Councilman Matthew Pérez said. He said the town now must come to terms with which is the best option, the eastern relief route or the through-town option.
A committee member reported that there is a large ready mix concrete plant in Rosenberg, Fort Bend County, which depends upon U.S. 59 for transportation. A representative from the plant notified the committee member that the plant’s transport fleet of vehicles is permitted to use U.S. routes but have restictions on interstates. It was further explained that the plant would need to modify its entire fleet in order to utilize the interstate with an advanced lead time of up to 18 to 24 months to complete the installation process. In response, Marc Williams indicated that the committee could call attention to this issue in their report. Another committee member suggested that TxDOT explore possible courses of actions that could be taken to potentially resolve this issue. This information could also be included in the report. The concrete plant representative further explained that an interstate restriction along the currently designated U.S. 59 route would affect several concrete companies in the Houston region. To utilize the interstate, the concrete companies would need to reduce their loads by 40 percent which would not be economical. Consequently, the only other options would be to find alternative routes or to modify their entire fleets by adding an extra axle. It would cost approximately $20,000 per vehicle to retrofit it with the extra axle. It was further emphasized that the concrete industry in the region would need enough lead time to either work with federal and state legislators to modify the current regulatory restrictions and/or to modify the their fleets.
James Carlow, who represents the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce for the I-69 project .... said he expects funding for the I-69 project to partially come from a dedicated 20 percent fee directed from freight revenue transferred from the Port of Houston to Texarkana.
After sending out an email with some questions about the I-69 Spur, I eventually was referred to and had a very interesting conversation with an individual who serves on both the I-69 for Texas Alliance and the TxDOT I-69 Segment 1 Committee ... The thought is to pursue the notion of TexAmericas Center becoming an inland port ... The idea is to lease the air space over the I-69 Corridor from Texarkana to an as yet undetermined Texas Gulf port. A private group of investors would then build an elevated Freight Shuttle (http://freightshuttleinternational.com/) track within the ground-level ROW of I-69 between Texarkana and the Gulf port. The money from the air rights would be used to at least partially fund I-69 construction along the route of the track. Also, the hope is that TexAmericas Center would also be the location of a manufacturing plant for the shuttle cars. The cost per mile for freight using the Shuttle is estimated to be 30 cents per mile and the cost per mile by truck is estimated to be $2.30 per mile. Apparently, this idea is being studied very seriously.
This article (http://www.news-journal.com/panola/news/carthage-loop-designated-as-part-of-future-i/article_0fb0095d-1389-56d7-9e8b-707440038030.html) indicates an interesting form of alternative financing for I-69, a dedicated freight fee:Wow! Very interesting.QuoteJames Carlow, who represents the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce for the I-69 project .... said he expects funding for the I-69 project to partially come from a dedicated 20 percent fee directed from freight revenue transferred from the Port of Houston to Texarkana.
I have spoken with Judge Carlow, and I believe that, in his comments from the above article, he was probably speaking about the Frieght Shuttle as indicated in this post from the "Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)" thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg134152#msg134152):After sending out an email with some questions about the I-69 Spur, I eventually was referred to and had a very interesting conversation with an individual who serves on both the I-69 for Texas Alliance and the TxDOT I-69 Segment 1 Committee ... The thought is to pursue the notion of TexAmericas Center becoming an inland port ... The idea is to lease the air space over the I-69 Corridor from Texarkana to an as yet undetermined Texas Gulf port. A private group of investors would then build an elevated Freight Shuttle (http://freightshuttleinternational.com/) track within the ground-level ROW of I-69 between Texarkana and the Gulf port. The money from the air rights would be used to at least partially fund I-69 construction along the route of the track. Also, the hope is that TexAmericas Center would also be the location of a manufacturing plant for the shuttle cars. The cost per mile for freight using the Shuttle is estimated to be 30 cents per mile and the cost per mile by truck is estimated to be $2.30 per mile. Apparently, this idea is being studied very seriously.
TxDOT also has a US 77 Upgrade (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/) page with pdfs of the Draft Environmental Assessment.
Officials said they have received environmental clearance to upgrade a portion of U.S. 77 between Corpus Christi and Brownsville to interstate standards.
The Federal Highway Administration on July 10 issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” for the improvements to the segment, officials said.
This is huge for South Texas,” said David E. Allex, chairman of the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority ....
The environmental approvals just announced are for a list of upgrades to Expressway 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville, Allex said. Those projects include improvements to overpasses, underpasses and the frontage road to eventually turn Expressway 77 into a limited-access highway that will become part of I-69, which is planned to connect South Texas to the Midwest and Canada, he said.
I find it fascinating how they use off ramps to handle the many ranch "gate crossings" along the route, as well as the strategic cattle crossings they would have.
An interesting element of the schematic plans included in the EA is the way ranch access is to be accomplished in the 42-mile passage through Kenedy County where there are no public roads crossing US 77. This highway passes through sections of the King Ranch, the Kenedy Ranch and the Armstrong Ranch, all of which span the highway and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad. Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction. Below is a simplified drawing of a ranch gate access point. This arrangement will avoid the need to build long stretches of dual frontage roads that have little transportation value.
The EA found that the estimated cost of completing Interstate 69 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen is approximately $1 billion. Several upgrade projects are in various stages of completion and are already being advanced under separate environmental documents.
(above quote from I-69 in TN (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3841.msg161600#msg161600) thread)Is there a real need for US 77 to be a freeway? Isn't it a 4 lane divided road from Victoria to Harlingen except for a few short stretches? From the looks on the map, there are long stretches of nothing. Isn't that good enough? What is the speed limit (I'm guessing 70.) If there are small towns it still goes through, then by all means bypass them but building a new interstate next to a perfectly good 4 lane highway seems wasteful to me.I believe the road in between the small towns will be upgraded to interstate standards, but bypasses will be built around the towns.
Pete Sepulveda, county administrator and coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority, said the roughly 130 miles between Corpus Christi and Harlingen is some $175 million away from being ready for the I-69 moniker.
That cost breaks down to around $10 million for engineering and design, $15 million for right-of-way acquisition and $150 million for construction, he said.
The remaining construction projects, mostly concentrated in a 30-mile stretch of U.S. 77, include bypasses at Driscoll and Riviera and overpasses at Kingsville and Sarita, Sepulveda said ....
Also, the Texas Transportation Commission recently approved ... $60 million ... for designing and building interstate-quality freeway on U.S. 77 between Driscoll and the north side of Kingsville.
As for obtaining permission from the government to erect I-69 signs sooner than would have been possible otherwise and why it’s important, county officials say it’s largely about marketing.
“A lot of times when you’re trying to lure a business or industry to your community one of the first questions that’s asked is what is the interstate that goes into your community,” Sepulveda said.
“Well, we don’t have one. That’s a major turn-off for companies that require good access to deliver their products. It’s huge ....
“Having an interstate that goes directly into our international bridges will be a major accomplishment. It’s a priority for us and we’re going to try to have all the improvements funded and completed within the next three to five years,”
This article also indicates that the Corpus Christi to Brownsville stretch of US 77 is only $160 million away from being completely upgraded to interstate quality:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/interstate-129742-closer-push.htmlQuoteSepulveda said the Corpus Christi-to-Brownsville stretch is about $160 million away from being completely upgraded to interstate quality.
The Alliance article also estimates the total cost of the upgrades to be in the neighborhood of $1 billion:QuoteThe EA found that the estimated cost of completing Interstate 69 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen is approximately $1 billion. Several upgrade projects are in various stages of completion and are already being advanced under separate environmental documents.
TxDOT also has a US 77 Upgrade (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/) page with pdfs of the Draft Environmental Assessment.
The estimated cost for the US 77 Upgrade Project proposed improvements is $1.06 Billion,
which includes:
• construction including: excavation, embankment, pavement, retaining walls, structures, drainage
• construction engineering
• miscellaneous costs (including supplemental work, cost escalation, bond options, contingencies)
• signing, striping, barricades, signs, and traffic handling
• environmental mitigation
• environmental analysis
• ROW acquisition
• mitigation of hazardous materials sites
• design including preliminary engineering
• utility relocations.
....
TxDOT is in the process of developing a project development plan to complete the US 77 upgrade program. This plan will identify the construction phasing, project costs, and reasonably anticipated funding for the next 25 years (2037).
AASHTO SCOH's Special Committee on US Route Numbering (USRN) has posted its agenda for its Spring Meeting next week online at: http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf) Page 14 includes an application from TxDOT for signing I-69 along 35 miles of US 59 from I-610 north to just north of the Liberty County line.
I recently received an email update from TxDOT regarding their efforts to receive FHWA approval for adding the section northeast of Houston to the interstate system; TxDOT hopes for FHWA approval later this summer and approval from the Texas Transportation Commission will still be necessary after FHWA approval in order for the dual I-69/ US 59 signage to occur
Don't forget Houston. I-69 will turn it from a cow town into an oil town.(above quote from Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg163916#msg163916) thread)
... In December, I-69 signs went up on a 6.2-mile section of U.S. 77 in Robstown.
"It's not an accident that the first sign was put up there," Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin said, saying South Texans are ahead of other areas of the state in terms of local leaders working together with state and federal officials to agree on project specifics and move them forward.
Thursday, the commission, holding a rare meeting outside Austin in Corpus Christi, authorized naming a 35-mile section of U.S. Highway 59 north of Houston as I-69. A key provision of the I-69 plan is to minimize new construction through the use of existing highways, many of which already are close to interstate highway standards. The roads may have interchanges and overpasses but lack on/off ramps, or vice versa.
It's now possible to start on I-69 in Robstown, pick it up again outside Houston, drive all the way to Mississippi without seeing it again, pick it up briefly there, briefly again in Kentucky, and then hit it again in Indianapolis, where it continues on to Canada.
The Texas Transportation Commission has checked the final box to add 35 more miles of I-69 to the Interstate Highway System.
The new interstate segment starts at Interstate 610 North in Houston and extends north past Bush Intercontinental Airport and through Humble, Kingwood, Porter, New Caney and Splendora. The north end is just beyond the Montgomery-Liberty County Line ....
Designation of this new section as Interstate 69 was previously approved by the Houston-Galveston Area Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The highway will be known concurrently as I-69 and US 59. ....
Two additional sections of US 59 in the Houston area that have long been at interstate highway standard are currently under review. The next to be added to the Interstate System is likely to be the Southwest Freeway from the I-610 Loop South down through Sugar Land and on to Rosenberg. The final Houston section is expected to be the part of US 59 inside Loop 610. Each designation requires an extensive submittal by the TxDOT and an exhaustive review by the federal FHWA to see that standards are being met.
As far as I can tell, it looks like the "US 83 as part of I-69 Corridor" provision did not survive the final bill. However, I think that, because US 83 is currently at interstate standards, the following provision from the bill ... may allow designation of US 83 as an interstate in the near future:Quote‘‘(4) INTERSTATE SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS.—TxDOT would have to convince FHWA that US 83 would be a "logical addition or connection" to the interstate system, but that should be relatively easy to do once the border sections of US 77 and/or US 281 are signed as interstates.
‘‘(A) ADDITIONS.—If the Secretary determines that a highway on the National Highway System meets all standards of a highway on the Interstate System and that the highway is a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, the Secretary may, upon the affirmative recommendation of the State or States in which the highway is located, designate the highway as a route on the Interstate System.
Dually Designate US 83 as Interstate in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties – The committee members advocated the need to seek interstate designation for US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley noting its role in serving major metropolitan population centers and border traffic. It was recommended that designating US 83 as an interstate would include consideration of US 83 from its interchange with US 77 in Cameron County to west of Mission in Hidalgo County.
will routes 281 (from McAllen area) and 77 (from Brownsville) be dual parts of I-69, functioning like I-35W and I-35E in the Dallas/Fort Worth area? It's understood that the lower Rio Grande valley is quite populous now, but I'm kind of confused at what the TxDOT is trying to do.
Seeing that US 77 and US 281 are pretty close together, they'd be better off upgrading one to Interstate standards and leaving the other as is.
Why are they building 2 parallel interstates in south Texas? They're just a few miles apart. Wouldn't a 4 lane expressway with bypasses be enough for one of the two roads?
why does either need to be freeway in the first place? Are there problems with the occasional at-grade that currently exists?
I recently received an email response from FHWA's National Systems and Economic Team to a question about I-69 signage in Texas. If I read the response correctly, it looks like, in the absence of an amendment to current I-69 legislation, in the future not only will the current US 77/I-69 corridor have to be re-signed, but also the US 77 and US 281 corridors will have some interesting shields indeed:Quote... regarding the recent addition of US 77 as I-69. Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of ISTEA amended, designates future Interstate routes along High Priority Corridor (HPC) #20 as “I-69”, HPC # (c)(18)(D)(i) as “I-69 East”, and HPC # (c)(18)(D)(ii) as “I-69 Central”. These three future I-69 corridors correspond to US 59, US 77, and US 281 respectively. Since there are no other approved additions along the “I-69” or “I-69 Central” Texas corridors, the US 77 segment was added as I-69 to avoid To avoid driver confusion. Once segments are added along the other two corridors the State will need to sign the routes accordingly.
the original I-69 is supposed to use the US 59 corridor from Laredo to Houston..and that is nowhere near even 4-lane, never mind Interstate compatible.
US 59 from Mexico Border to East of Laredo – Due to limited right-of-way and congestion along existing US 59 in Laredo, committee members recommended that future I-69 planning in Laredo consider an eastern relief route that could potentially utilize existing Loop 20, provide an interchange with I-35 and connect to the World Trade Bridge border crossing with Mexico.
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.
SH 44 Relief Route at Alice – A relief route for SH 44 at Alice that includes an interchange with US 281 was identified as a priority section by the committee due to limited right-of-way and congestion along SH 44 in Alice. As noted above, the planning for the relief routes of Alice and San Diego should be a coordinated effort.
TxDOT has updated its I-69 Segment Committees page (http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm) by adding notes from November, 2011 meetings of the five committees .... Regarding Houston relief options ... Committee 3 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg3/notes_110411.pdf)discussed that an Early Implementation Opportunity would be to study relief options and not just potential relief routes [page 4/30 of pdf]:Quote• Perform a study U.S. 59 relief options for Houston. It was noted that the U.S. 59 relief options for Houston might not be just a relief route and could include improvements such as widenings and interchanges.Committee 2 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg2/notes_111511.pdf) also views the study of relief options for Houston as a Recommended Priority [page 4/32 of pdf].
QuoteThe Texas Transportation Commission has checked the final box to add 35 more miles of I-69 to the Interstate Highway System.
The new interstate segment starts at Interstate 610 North in Houston and extends north past Bush Intercontinental Airport and through Humble, Kingwood, Porter, New Caney and Splendora. The north end is just beyond the Montgomery-Liberty County Line .... The highway will be known concurrently as I-69 and US 59.
Relief Options in Houston – In the first few months of meeting, the committee discussed highways they recommend serving as I-69, highways to be part of the I-69 program and important connections to the I-69 system. In developing recommendations for the Houston area, committee members from that area met to discuss their recommended highway to serve as I-69 and also discussed the importance of providing connectivity to the Port of Houston and other ports along the Texas gulf coast. This discussion concluded with the committee recommending that US 59 through Houston serve as I-69 and that relief options within and around the Houston area be studied and considered to provide convenient, vital access to the sea ports along the coast, as well as additional options for through travelers to bypass Houston instead of having to use US 59 or other routes to travel through Houston. Such a study should include financial and technical participation from TxDOT.
Will there be enough 'I-x69' numbers available in Texas to give all of those 'I-69' routes numbers? The US 281 part for example, IMHO, would do better as an 'I-x37'.
Mike
Will there be enough 'I-x69' numbers available in Texas to give all of those 'I-69' routes numbers? The US 281 part for example, IMHO, would do better as an 'I-x37'.How about this:
How about this:
I-69 Shreveport-Houston-Corpus Christi-Laredo
I-169 Texarkana spur
I-269 reserved for Houston belt
I-469 Freer-Victoria
I-37 San Antonio-Corpus Christi-Brownsville
I-237 George West-McAllen-Harlingen
I-337 rump I-37 in Corpus Christi
I-537 spur at McAllen (US83)
I-737 spur at McAllen (to border)
I-937 spur at Brownsville
Which beltway would be the Houston loop? We have one done and one being worked on, outside of 610. And better idea, Sam Houston turns into 869 or 845 since it is always known as Beltway 8.
I have a hard time seeing the Harris County Toll Road Authority wanting to give up their cash cow. (Unless they were still able to toll it and keep it.)I-185 in South Carolina.
I did not know AASHO was approving suffixed routes still. I thought they were put on the ban list in the early 1980s, with strong pressure to remove all but the pair of 35E/W splits.
will routes 281 (from McAllen area) and 77 (from Brownsville) be dual parts of I-69, functioning like I-35W and I-35E in the Dallas/Fort Worth area?
Thank you for your interest in I-69 Texas. In June 2012, Congress amended the law that established High Priority Corridors 18 and 20, including US 59 throughout the state and US 77 and US 281 in South Texas, as future Interstate 69.
The new legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) states that these routes can be designated as part of the I-69 system if the route or a segment of the route meets current Interstate design standards and connects to, or is planned to connect to, an existing Interstate within 25 years.
By allowing segments that are planned to connect to the Interstate to be designated I-69, the legislation permits the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to move forward with the designation process on segments of roadway that were not previously eligible because they did not directly connect to an Interstate. This recent legislation changed nothing else in the Interstate designation process.
The Interstate Designation Process
Currently, about 50 miles of US 59 in the greater Houston area and five miles in Texarkana are under review for Interstate designation. A section in the greater Houston area was approved to be added to the state highway system by the Texas Transportation Commission July 26, 2012. The process has three basic steps:
Like the previously designated section of US 77 in Robstown, new sections must undergo an extensive engineering review to confirm that the highway meets Interstate standards. TxDOT must submit this review and a request for Interstate designation to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) before any route segment can be added to the Interstate system.
TxDOT and FHWA then coordinate with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official’s (AASHTO) Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering to identify an Interstate number for the highway.
Finally, the Texas Transportation Commission adds this newly numbered Interstate to the state highway system.
Designating Interstates in South Texas
In South Texas, US 77 and US 281 are part of the Congressionally Designated I-69 System. US 83 is not part of this Congressionally designated route, but TxDOT can still request that it be designated as an Interstate highway under different criteria.
The number of requests for Interstate designation will depend on the number and types of design issues that deviate from Interstate standards for each individual highway. If there are few design issues for all highway segments combined, it is likely one group of requests for Interstate designation will be submitted at the same time for all three highways - US 77, 83 and 281. If there are numerous design issues on one of the three highways, individual requests for Interstate designation will be sent to FHWA separately so Interstate designation of the other highways is not delayed. The number of design issues, if any, will be known later this year once the engineering review is complete.
How will these roads be numbered as Interstate?
Ultimately, the Interstate numbering scheme will be decided by AASHTO’s Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering. Later this year, a segment of US 59 near Houston will be "signed" as I-69/US 59 along with the current section of I-69/US 77 near Robstown. Once highway segments in different corridors of the I-69 system have been granted Interstate designation, it is likely TxDOT will work with AASHTO to renumber the segments concurrent with US 77 as I-69 East, and those concurrent with US 281 as I-69 Central. US 83 Interstate route numbering will also be decided jointly by FHWA, TxDOT, and AASHTO and may be numbered as a spur of I-69, or designated a completely new Interstate, giving the Rio Grande Valley multiple Interstate highways. Because the primary national I-69 route extends into Louisiana south of Texarkana, US 59 north of US 84 will be on the I-69 system but its specific numbering will be determined in consultation with FHWA, AASHTO and TxDOT. US 59 from Texarkana to Tenaha may be designated in a manner that is consistent with an interstate spur, e.g. I-369.
What is the timeline for Interstate designation?
US 77, 83 and 281 in South Texas are currently undergoing an extensive engineering review to confirm that these highways meet Interstate design standards. This review is anticipated to be completed in fall 2012. Depending on the type and number of design issues identified during the reviews, one or multiple requests for Interstate designation will be submitted to FHWA by the end of the year. Approval for adding highways to the Interstate system will depend on FHWA’s timeline and the number of design issues that need to be addressed. This process has typically taken approximately six months.
TxDOT plans to submit Interstate route number applications to AASHTO for consideration at their November 2012 meeting. Earlier this year, AASHTO conditionally numbered US 59 north of Houston as I-69, dependent upon FHWA’s official designation of US 59 as I-69. TxDOT anticipates seeking a similar conditional approval for the three highways in South Texas.
What highways are being considered for Interstate designation?
Highways currently under consideration for Interstate designation are:
US 59 in Texarkana,
US 59 from I-610 on the north side of Houston to near Rosenberg,
US 77 in South Texas,
US 83 in South Texas and
US 281 in South Texas
These highways are under consideration because they likely already meet Interstate standards and they are included in a corridor development plan that meets the legislative requirement of connecting to the Interstate system within 25 years. The Houston and Texarkana segments already connect to an existing Interstate. US 77 has a 25-year program development plan to upgrade to Interstate standards and connect to existing I-69 in Robstown. A feasibility study has started on US 281 to develop a program of upgrade projects in the coming months.
Adding additional segments of I-69 to the Interstate system will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as careful consideration must be given to satisfying the federal requirement that all proposed segments connect to the Interstate system within 25 years.
Please let me know if you have additional questions or need further details. Thanks.
No mention of TX44 there.
I-69 should run on what was originally intended: US 59 from Laredo to Carthage/Tenaha, then US 84 to Louisiana.The original I-69, as defined by TEA-21, included all three branches: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ178/html/PLAW-105publ178.htm
I-69 should run on what was originally intended: US 59 from Laredo to Carthage/Tenaha, then US 84 to Louisiana.The original I-69, as defined by TEA-21, included all three branches: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ178/html/PLAW-105publ178.htm
No mention of TX44 there.I have already sent a followup email regarding TX 44 and will post info if and when I receive a reply.
SH 44 does not have a 25 year plan and is not part of the Congressionally Designated I-69 route. SH 44, like US 83, potentially could be added to the interstate highway system, once it's at interstate standards. Its numbering would be decided jointly by FHWA, TxDOT and AASHTO. Currently, because SH 44 is not a controlled access facility and does not have a 25 year plan, it is not under consideration for interstate designation.
So, sorry, but this is MADNESS.
in my view, very, very wrong.
Suffixed interstates are just plain wrong. As far as I'm concerned, I-35E and I-35W are abominations of the system as bad as I-99 and I-238 that should be removed. There's no need for more.
Speaking of Laredo, it is interesting (and practical) that, in the combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf), the Segment 5 Committee recommends that (among their top five priorities), because of ROW and congestion problems along US 59 in Laredo, instead of having I-69 end at the current southern terminus of US 59 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.530803,-99.502975&spn=0.003587,0.004823&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=18), perhaps I-69 could be routed along Loop 20 from the Mexican border to the current Loop 20/ US 59 interchange (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.562461,-99.488754&spn=0.114743,0.154324&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=13) (page 46/165 of pdf; page 40 of document):QuoteUS 59 from Mexico Border to East of Laredo – Due to limited right-of-way and congestion along existing US 59 in Laredo, committee members recommended that future I-69 planning in Laredo consider an eastern relief route that could potentially utilize existing Loop 20, provide an interchange with I-35 and connect to the World Trade Bridge border crossing with Mexico.
It would also be similar to the southern terminus of I-49 (I-10 interchange in New Orleans) in that one would need to make a significant drive south in order to drive north. :-P
Grzrd,
I keep wanting to commend you on the information dig up or come across in research, etc. You and Bob Malme are great researchers.
My guess though is that ... ( ... Freer-Victoria doesn't get built at all - my sense from my time in Laredo is nobody really cares that much about a slightly-shorter Houston route, while Corpus is a major priority).
Don't most in the hobby like oddities and peculiarities ... ?
I am against ... the idea of simply dropping Interstate shields on roads that aren't even completed.
I certainly do; that's why I am entertained by the Congressional legislation regarding I-69 in Texas. It has designated and/or produced the following:Also: the requirement to post I-69 shields along I-94 between Chicago and Detroit.
Thankfully Michigan has its own I-69 segment, reducing the length of the pointless multiplex to a few miles.I certainly do; that's why I am entertained by the Congressional legislation regarding I-69 in Texas. It has designated and/or produced the following:Also: the requirement to post I-69 shields along I-94 between Chicago and Detroit.
(Don't most in the hobby like oddities and peculiarities - i mean after all a lot of people wish the color us route shields were still around).Oddities, yes. Disorder and trashing the interstate numbering system (I had hoped the interstates would never become like US routes, but it seems that is happening), no.
Thankfully Michigan has its own I-69 segment, reducing the length of the pointless multiplex to a few miles.Actually the law requires them to post I-69 shields on any segment of Corridor 18 or 20 that is connected to the Interstate system ("A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas."). Corridor 18 includes "from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to Chicago, Illinois."
(Don't most in the hobby like oddities and peculiarities - i mean after all a lot of people wish the color us route shields were still around).Oddities, yes. Disorder and trashing the interstate numbering system (I had hoped the interstates would never become like US routes, but it seems that is happening), no.
Is it possible that they renumber the spur to Laredo as I-6, and the central spur as something like I-906 (to keep the reference to I-69 intact)? Then you could have the Freer-Alice connector as I-269 (i.e. "to I-69")?
As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route .... The language regarding Houston relief options in the two Committee reports is identical:QuoteRelief Options in Houston – In the first few months of meeting, the committee discussed ... the importance of providing connectivity to the Port of Houston and other ports along the Texas gulf coast. This discussion concluded with the committee recommending that ... relief options within and around the Houston area be studied and considered to provide convenient, vital access to the sea ports along the coast, as well as additional options for through travelers to bypass Houston instead of having to use US 59 or other routes to travel through Houston ...
I figured the Grand Parkway would be the I-x69 loop (I-669?) since it'll eventually roll near the refineries in Baytown, Pasadena, La Porte, and Texas City in its southeast quadrant while those wanting to bypass Houston can hit its northwest quadrant
Regional Highways – Committee members recognized that their segment is served by a number of important regional highways where future connections and interchanges with I-69 will be important planning objectives. Interstate highways I 10 and I-45 in the Houston area and I-37 just southwest of the segment provide important regional connections for future I-69 planning. In the Houston area, the future development of the Grand Parkway/SH 99 was considered to be an important connection for I-69 by members of the committee, as it would provide a link to the Port of Houston as well as provide connections to I-10, I-45, US 290 and SH 288.
*As a rule, most American railroad traffic goes between east and west. Don't know that same rule applies to highway traffic as well. KCS also has a key corridor between Dallas/Fort Worth into Birmingham (and therefore Atlanta) so they've got a good chunk of that sector. If, may God forbid, the New Madrid fault blows and affects St.Louis and/or Memphis (and somehow leaves the KCS/I-20 Vicksburg/Tallulah bridge standing) that railroad will get even more critical.
KCS "Meridian Speedway" actually runs from Shreveport, LA to Meridian, MS. West of Shreveport it transitions to UP, and in Meridian it transitions to NS.Nope - a KCS predecessor got the old MKT from Shreveport to DFW in 1923: http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/eql08 You're right about the east end though - KCS did have a (since spun off) branch into Birmingham, but it wasn't the main line.
As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief routeMy guess is that the Grand Parkway is already a de facto relief route (although it may be a looooong time before it, too, is finished), and that the Committees are considering options beyond a through route/relief route analysis.
Which beltway would be the Houston loop? We have one done and one being worked on, outside of 610. And better idea, Sam Houston turns into 869 or 845 since it is always known as Beltway 8.
Regional Highways – ... In the Houston area, the future development of the Grand Parkway/SH 99 was considered to be an important connection for I-69 by members of the committee, as it would provide a link to the Port of Houston, the Fred Hartman ship channel bridge, SH 146 and SH 225 to the south. To the west, the proposed Grand Parkway/SH 99 would provide connections to I-10, I-45, US 290 and SH 249. Currently, committee members noted that the Beltway 8/ Sam Houston Tollway provides similar connections for traffic in the Houston area.
*As a rule, most American railroad traffic goes between east and west. Don't know that same rule applies to highway traffic as well. KCS also has a key corridor between Dallas/Fort Worth into Birmingham (and therefore Atlanta) so they've got a good chunk of that sector. If, may God forbid, the New Madrid fault blows and affects St.Louis and/or Memphis (and somehow leaves the KCS/I-20 Vicksburg/Tallulah bridge standing) that railroad will get even more critical.
KCS "Meridian Speedway" actually runs from Shreveport, LA to Meridian, MS. West of Shreveport it transitions to UP, and in Meridian it transitions to NS.
As regards relief options in Houston ... I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf)the Segment Two Committee ...incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
To quote an aphorism, measure twice, cut once. And by cut, we mean construct a massive highway along the outer edges of greater Houston.
As U.S. 59 becomes part of Interstate 69 ... projections show traffic in some areas growing by up to 150 percent over the next 20 years ....
a grass-roots committee appointed by the Texas Transportation Commission has mentioned a bypass on the city's east side.
This bypass would divert I-69 traffic away from Houston's city center while also improving necessary transportation access to our booming port areas.
But it seems like we've already got something along those lines underway with the Grand Parkway. While there's still a lot of construction remaining on the planned 180-mile third loop around Houston, some parkway segments have been completed, including one in Baytown.
Because plans are not yet set in pavement, we still have some flexibility to construct the Grand Parkway in a manner that can best serve some of the needs of I-69, particularly the influx of long-haul trucking and port commerce that is a near-inevitable part of Houston's future.
And even if we cannot build the parkway as close to the ports as would be optimal, additional investment in service roads could help this third loop both bypass and provide port access.
Doing it right once, instead of building it twice, can save taxpayer dollars and help ensure that this increased traffic will drive Houston's growth rather than hold it back. After all, the increased traffic is going to come from the people, ports and businesses that power Houston's economy, not to mention the long-haul trucks that are part of healthy international trade ....
So as the Legislature starts up next session, we hope that our representatives won't starve the goose that lays the golden egg. We need to fund Houston's transportation infrastructure.
I have been trying to get a better grip on the recommendations regarding relief "options" for Houston.
And even if we cannot build the parkway as close to the ports as would be optimal, additional investment in service roads could help this third loop both bypass and provide port access.
Interstate 69 signs have now popped up in Houston. These photo locations are along eastbound Beltway 8.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8439/7974641373_921fdb3ccb.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974641373/)
Distance to IH 69 & US 59 on Beltway 8 Eastbound - 1.5 Miles (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974641373/) by FreewayDan (http://www.flickr.com/people/22306412@N07/), on Flickr
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8447/7974642645_ac6daf6250.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974642645/)
Distance to IH 69 & US 59 on Beltway 8 Eastbound - 1 Mile (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974642645/) by FreewayDan (http://www.flickr.com/people/22306412@N07/), on Flickr
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8462/7974646356_1f09ff40c4.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974646356/)
Approach to IH 69 & US 59 along eastbound Beltway 8 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974646356/) by FreewayDan (http://www.flickr.com/people/22306412@N07/), on Flickr
The individual is correct about the KCS from SHV to D/FW (was the old "Louisiana and Arkansas" railroad and I think there was an acquisition that got KCS to the Alliance yard near Fort Worth) and according to the KCS web site todayConcerning the KCS railroad stuff, the aquesition that got them to the Alliance yard was the former "Santa Fe Connection" (now the KCS Alliance Sub); which runs fron Dallas to Metro JCT north of Krum.
The agenda for TTC's meeting next week includes this item: Highway Designations
(1) Bowie County - Authorize the submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 59 in Texarkana as ... I-369. The proposed route will act as a spur within the developing Interstate Highway 69 System.
The Texarkana spur may be designated as I-369.
Cameron, Hidalgo and Starr Counties - Authorize the submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate one or more segments of US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as an Interstate Highway (MO) In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and AASHTO, this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include segments of US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as part of the Interstate Highway System. FHWA's designation is contingent upon a finding that the segments meet current Interstate design standards and approval to add the segments to the Interstate System.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.26.12%20houston.html) also has a map and an article about the addition:Quote(http://i.imgur.com/29c4e.jpg)
... Two additional sections of US 59 in the Houston area that have long been at interstate highway standard are currently under review. The next to be added to the Interstate System is likely to be the Southwest Freeway from the I-610 Loop South down through Sugar Land and on to Rosenberg. The final Houston section is expected to be the part of US 59 inside Loop 610. Each designation requires an extensive submittal by the TxDOT and an exhaustive review by the federal FHWA to see that standards are being met.
The Texas Transportation Commission, in its revision of the 2012 Unified Transportation Program (UTP) gave approval for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to move forward with additional funding identified earlier this year. Several I-69 projects are included in TxDOT's Projects Selected for $2 Billion Allocation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf) list:Quote(US 59) Liberty County line to south of Cleveland freeway upgrade - $6 million ...
A portion of Hwy. 59 in Liberty County is expected to soon become I-69 according to state officials.
Cory Taylor, TxDot Liberty Area Engineer and Tucker Ferguson, district engineer for Beaumont TxDOT, addressed the Cleveland City Council on Oct. 9 to discuss upcoming projects for the area.
Ferguson discussed Hwy. 59 through Liberty County and the roadway eventually turning into I-69. The first designation was made last year in the Corpus Christi area. The next area to be developed in the Houston area is on Hwy. 59 from the border of Liberty County to the 105 Loop.
Ferguson explained that once a designer was in place, they can begin doing the preliminary engineering and environmental studies, followed by right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation. Once these items a re completed, TxDoT can then put together a bid package for the construction to bring Hwy. 59 up to interstate status.
As regards relief options in Houston... the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf)... the Segment Two Committee. Below is a map included in their report ... (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area that will involve extensive construction (the two remaining I-69 signage applications for US 59 southwest of Houston and through Houston will only involve minimal construction, if any) will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC) (Bing Maps)
Important interchanges with other highways include ... SH 105 through Montgomery and Liberty counties. In the Houston area, the future development of the Grand Parkway/SH 99 was considered to be an important connection for I-69 by members of the committee ....
Local Relief Routes – Committee members identified potential future long-term consideration of options for Cleveland ...
Jeff Royston photographed this assembly today from just north of Interstate 610.
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX19700691i1.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=TX19700691)
The Texas Transportation Commission, in its revision of the 2012 Unified Transportation Program (UTP) gave approval for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to move forward with additional funding identified earlier this year. Several I-69 projects are included in TxDOT's Projects Selected for $2 Billion Allocation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf) list:This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area ... will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC)Quote(US 59) Liberty County line to south of Cleveland freeway upgrade - $6 million ...
(US 59) Ramps, frontage roads, remove cross overs from north of SL 463 to south of US 87 - $11.62 million
Texas Department of Transportation will have an open house Tuesday to allow residents to learn more about plans to build four miles of one-way frontage roads along U.S. Highway 59 ....
Stretched from U.S. Highway 87 to Loop 463, the project includes removing median cross-overs and connecting existing driveways to the new frontage roads.
The U.S. 59 overpass at U.S. 87 will also be replaced with a new structure. Construction is scheduled to begin in August 2013.
The proposed work would take place within existing right-of-way. No additional right-of-way would be required for this project ....
I think what he is getting at, that it wouldn't make sense to make SH99 I-69 due to how outside of Houston(which is saying something) that parkway will be. Its cheaper to overlay it over US59 in greater Houston since it is already an highway to interstate standards for a large stretch. I don't think Grand Parkway will be X69 as I don't even think the whole thing will be built.
Speaking of Laredo, it is interesting (and practical) that, in the combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf), the Segment 5 Committee recommends that (among their top five priorities), because of ROW and congestion problems along US 59 in Laredo, instead of having I-69 end at the current southern terminus of US 59 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.530803,-99.502975&spn=0.003587,0.004823&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=18), perhaps I-69 could be routed along Loop 20 from the Mexican border to the current Loop 20/ US 59 interchange (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.562461,-99.488754&spn=0.114743,0.154324&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=13) (page 46/165 of pdf; page 40 of document)
Definitely more practical; there are already substantial plans to "freewayize" Loop 20 with minimal relocations.
2012-R-093 Expressing the City of Laredo’s intent and commitment to work jointly with Webb County to create a Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) or zones along Loop 20 from its intersection with I-35 to its intersection with U.S. Highway 59 and U.S. 59 from its intersection with Loop 20 east to its intersection with the Webb County line which said sections are being considered for I-69 status once they meet U.S. Interstate Highway standards.
Discussion and possible action to approve a Resolution expressing Webb County’s intent and commitment to work jointly with the City of Laredo to create a Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) or Zones along Loop 20 from its intersection with IH-35 to its intersection with U.S. Highway 59 and from U.S. Highway 59 from its intersection with Loop 20 East to its intersection with the Webb County line which said sections are being considered for I-69 status once they meet U.S. interstate highway standards.
Here are the other I-69 projects marked for funding by the Commission:
> WEBB COUNTY - $9 million to construct an overpass on Loop 20 at McPherson Road on the north side of Laredo, a location one mile east of Interstate 35. Loop 20 is the final leg of I-69 connecting to Interstate 35 and Webb County international border crossings.
From the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering Annual Meeting (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/SCOH%20Report%2011-16-2012.pdf), it looks like I-69 has gotten conditional approval for... (conditional on FHWA approval) ... Raymondville to Brownsville
Also an I-69C has gotten conditional approval between McAllen and Edinburg.
I just noticed that a a June 28, 2012 article on the Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update6.28.12.html) expresses in certain terms that Loop 20 will be the final leg of I-69:QuoteHere are the other I-69 projects marked for funding by the Commission:
> WEBB COUNTY - $9 million to construct an overpass on Loop 20 at McPherson Road on the north side of Laredo, a location one mile east of Interstate 35. Loop 20 is the final leg of I-69 connecting to Interstate 35 and Webb County international border crossings.
[T]he Texas Transportation Commission will also consider an interstate designation application for US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley (http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2012_meetings/documents/agendas/sept27.pdf), but a specific numerical request will apparently not be considered: (page 6/14 of pdf)
Establishment of Interstate Route (#TBD)
Route will begin at 0.5 mile west of the U.S. 83/Showers Road junction in Palmview, TX. Route will extend 46.8 miles to the east. Existing facility is a four-lane to six-lane divided, controlled access route. Route will travel west to east. Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Harlingen are four focal point cities. Route will extend 46.8 miles. Route will end at the junction of U.S. 77 in Harlingen, TX.
Disapproved
Application incomplete without an interstate number and Texas needs to provide a map showing that interstate routes are interconnected.
AASHTO has officially gone crazy. And the interstate numbering system is now dead.
AASHTO has officially gone crazy. And the interstate numbering system is now dead.In that case, I want I-287 to be renumbered I-0, just so I live next to the coolest Interstate ever.
AASHTO has officially gone crazy. And the interstate numbering system is now dead.In that case, I want I-287 to be renumbered I-0, just so I live next to the coolest Interstate ever.
Wouldn't that have to be a motorway?AASHTO has officially gone crazy. And the interstate numbering system is now dead.In that case, I want I-287 to be renumbered I-0, just so I live next to the coolest Interstate ever.
Nah, the coolest Interstate number would be I-007. ;)
I want an imaginary interstate...I-i.You got it, cap'n.
I just noticed that a a June 28, 2012 article on the Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update6.28.12.html) expresses in certain terms that Loop 20 will be the final leg of I-69:QuoteHere are the other I-69 projects marked for funding by the Commission:
> WEBB COUNTY - $9 million to construct an overpass on Loop 20 at McPherson Road on the north side of Laredo, a location one mile east of Interstate 35. Loop 20 is the final leg of I-69 connecting to Interstate 35 and Webb County international border crossings.
The ultimate goal is to build all major State Loop 20 intersections in Laredo to interstate highway standards. In fact, on October 31, 2012, the Texas Department of Transportation Laredo District hosted an I-69 Laredo briefing to continue their quest to bring Loop 20 from US 59 to I-35, and US 59 (I-69) to interstate highway standards. Webb County Judge Danny Valdez and City of Laredo City Manger Carlos Villarreal each stated their entities support for the project.
As decided in cooperation between TxDOT, the City of Laredo and Webb County, Loop 20 from US 59 to west of IH 35 is under consideration to become a portion of the IH 69 corridor. The only portion of this corridor that has construction funding is the Loop 20 overpass at McPherson (which will be constructed to interstate standards). In addition, Webb County has initiated environmental and schematic studies and project design for Loop 20 interchanges at the IH 35/U-P railroad and the International Blvd. crossings. Also, Webb County is in the consultant selection process to hire a consultant engineering company to begin work on the schematic, environmental and preliminary project design for Loop 20 from east of International Blvd. to US 59. It is TxDOT's, the City's and County's intention that all of the design for the Loop 20 upgrades from US 59 to west of IH 35 will be to interstate standards so that this section can be included as a future portion of the IH 69 corridor without any substantial changes or improvements to the roadway itself.
Also, the City of Laredo and Webb County are cooperating in an effort to develop tax reinvestment zones (TRIZs) along some of the major highway corridors within the Laredo city limits in order to develop local sources of funding that can help to leverage additional state and/or federal monies to advance the major highway projects within Laredo (including but not necessarily limited to the Loop 20 efforts). We don't know a firm timeline when funding will be available for the Loop 20 upgrades, the finalization of the TRIZs except for the McPherson interchange that goes to bidding this December 2012.
Or they could pull an I-10 in west Texas and keep the at-grades. Why were those allowed to be grandfathered there but not here?
The Advisory and Segment Committee members recommend designating existing sections of highway as I-69 when they meet Interstate standards. Committee members also encourage TxDOT to work with FHWA to gain exceptions to some Interstate standards required for portions of highways recommended for I-69 in South Texas, such as highway sections within ranch areas, where Interstate standards today may not be warranted but Interstate designation is still needed.
TxDOT officials are seeking feedback on two possible routes through Angelina and Nacogdoches counties. One route would involve upgrading U.S. 59 to interstate standards with continuous access roads. The upgrade would include a six-lane highway in the current footprint of U.S. 59 through Lufkin and a four-lane highway in the current footprint of U.S. 59 through Nacogdoches. The other option, dubbed “new location” by TxDOT officials, would involve construction of a interstate-standard relief route east of Diboll and Lufkin and west of Nacogdoches, meeting with U.S. 59 just north of Appleby.
“The commitment from TxDOT is that in the development of I-69, we will look at development of existing corridors or the existing footprint before we start looking at anything that deviates from that,” Cooley said. “We went through the process with the segment committees — the Segment Committee Two and the Segment Committee One have this area — and both recommended that we go on the new location. Now that we have funding, we can start the process. We’re taking the information that the segment committees recommended, and we’re starting to drill down by working with this stakeholder group to do an outreach to the public, more so than what we’ve done in the past, to be sure that as we go forward, we’re going the direction that the communities want.”
When might we expect to see those I-369 shields?
(above quote from Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg190337#msg190337) thread)QuoteThis is a very rough timeline that’s dependent on several entities but we hope to have I-369 signs up sometime before the end of 2013.
The US 59 section southwest of Houston, and the US 77 and US 281 sections are on the same timetable as the Texarkana section; we hope to have those also designated as Interstate by the end of 2013. For US 83, TxDOT has not yet decided on the number to request for its Interstate numbering. This should be decided in the next few months though.
I-2 or I-x69 could both work. I-2 might work as well since I don't see ANY interstate being built SOUTH of that one. Or best answer, US83 since it is called that.
^ I wouldn't say this (https://maps.google.com/?ll=27.527698,-99.445431&spn=0.004086,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=27.527698,-99.445431&panoid=4pYrJxLPGhj8vvNt9tidBQ&cbp=12,6.17,,0,5.32) is quite up to interstate standards.
New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001): I-69E (US 77), I-69C (US 281), I-169 (US 83). In all cases TxDOT is using three-digit shields even for the routes (I-69E and I-69C) which are notionally two-digit with suffix.
New shields coming to the Pharr District ... I-169 (US 83).
why can't Louisiana sign the freeway from Raceland to Morgan City as I-49? State preference?
why can't Louisiana sign the freeway from Raceland to Morgan City as I-49? State preference?
Assuming it is interstate-grade freeway, under FHWA's current interpretation of the MAP-21 legislation enacted this past summer, Louisiana could do so if it would commit to FHWA that it will connect that section to the currently existing interstate network within twenty-five years. MAP-21 has similar, yet separate, provisions regarding I-69 and I-11 that are being followed regarding I-69 in Texas.
The legislation is of such recent vintage that Louisiana may not even be aware that it can do so.
QuoteToday’s decision enables TxDOT to add the concurrent designation of I-69 to a 6.2-mile section of US 77 between I-37 and SH 44 in Nueces County.
my sense from my time in Laredo is nobody really cares that much about a slightly-shorter Houston route, while Corpus is a major priority
New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001): I-69E (US 77), I-69C (US 281), I-169 (US 83).
There is plenty of precedent for two suffixed branches (I-35W and I-35E in both DFW and the Twin Cities), and a mainline with one suffixed branch (I-80 and I-80N out west, I-35 and I-35W in Kansas). Is there any precedent for a splitting of routes with one route suffixed "C" and no unsuffixed route?
Is there any precedent for a splitting of routes with one route suffixed "C" and no unsuffixed route?
US 59 from Victoria to Laredo is still statutorily designated as the continuation of the unsuffixed I-69. I find it interesting that there is currently scheduled to be: the unsuffixed I-69 prong, an I-69E prong, and an I-69C prong, but no I-69W prong. Our Congressional representatives in action!And TX DOT won't upgrade Freer - Victoria for quite some time, preferring to upgrade the TX44 route to Freer.
when will the good people in the TXDOT engineering department rise above their political oppressors and number the routes something logical?Surely Texans would revolt over EU-style bureaucracy/technocracy, symbolised by the FHWA/TXDOT, ignoring the wishes of a representative democracy?
There is plenty of precedent for two suffixed branches (I-35W and I-35E in both DFW and the Twin Cities), and a mainline with one suffixed branch (I-80 and I-80N out west, I-35 and I-35W in Kansas). Is there any precedent for a splitting of routes with one route suffixed "C" and no unsuffixed route?
I have never heard of a C suffix. closest I can think of is the Portland, OR area having US-99, 99E, and 99W all at the same time.
76C is for Connector, actually, not Camden. (Not only is it not within the City of Camden, but it feeds traffic in from points south and east largely.)There is plenty of precedent for two suffixed branches (I-35W and I-35E in both DFW and the Twin Cities), and a mainline with one suffixed branch (I-80 and I-80N out west, I-35 and I-35W in Kansas). Is there any precedent for a splitting of routes with one route suffixed "C" and no unsuffixed route?
I have never heard of a C suffix. closest I can think of is the Portland, OR area having US-99, 99E, and 99W all at the same time.
Isn't there a "NJ 76C" spur of I-76 in Camden? Not that that really counts.
Tennessee presently has US 70, US 70S, AND US 70N, with US 70S concurrent with US 70 in Nashville.
I think the focus right now is on I-49 North instead of South. I wouldn't be surprised if a bypass of Logansport and a highway connecting I-49 in Shreveport to I-20 in the form of a loop through the port and around Barksdale are completed before I-49 South gets shields. Once Arkansas starts construction of I-69 near the Louisiana line, I think our state will jump on the ball for it.why can't Louisiana sign the freeway from Raceland to Morgan City as I-49? State preference?
Assuming it is interstate-grade freeway, under FHWA's current interpretation of the MAP-21 legislation enacted this past summer, Louisiana could do so if it would commit to FHWA that it will connect that section to the currently existing interstate network within twenty-five years. MAP-21 has similar, yet separate, provisions regarding I-69 and I-11 that are being followed regarding I-69 in Texas.
The legislation is of such recent vintage that Louisiana may not even be aware that it can do so.
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?US 83.
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?US 83.
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?US 83.
What interstate number will it be labled?
I think the focus right now is on I-49 North instead of South. I wouldn't be surprised if a bypass of Logansport and a highway connecting I-49 in Shreveport to I-20 in the form of a loop through the port and around Barksdale are completed before I-49 South gets shields. Once Arkansas starts construction of I-69 near the Louisiana line, I think our state will jump on the ball for it.why can't Louisiana sign the freeway from Raceland to Morgan City as I-49? State preference?
Assuming it is interstate-grade freeway, under FHWA's current interpretation of the MAP-21 legislation enacted this past summer, Louisiana could do so if it would commit to FHWA that it will connect that section to the currently existing interstate network within twenty-five years. MAP-21 has similar, yet separate, provisions regarding I-69 and I-11 that are being followed regarding I-69 in Texas.
The legislation is of such recent vintage that Louisiana may not even be aware that it can do so.
I, for one, cannot wait to start seeing work done on a Logansport Bypass.
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?US 83.
What interstate number will it be labled?
I-169 signs were ordered for it; mentioned here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg191601#msg191601) earlier in the thread.
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?US 83.
What interstate number will it be labled?
I-169 signs were ordered for it; mentioned here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg191601#msg191601) earlier in the thread.
Would it be easier to just have one seamless number for US 83 (McAllen to Brownsville) and US 281 (McAllen to I--69 or I-37) instead of having two different Interstates (I-169 and I-69C)?
US 59 from Victoria to Laredo is still statutorily designated as the continuation of the unsuffixed I-69. I find it interesting that there is currently scheduled to be: the unsuffixed I-69 prong, an I-69E prong, and an I-69C prong, but no I-69W prong. Our Congressional representatives in action!when will the good people in the TXDOT engineering department rise above their political oppressors and number the routes something logical?Surely Texans would revolt over EU-style bureaucracy/technocracy, symbolised by the FHWA/TXDOT, ignoring the wishes of a representative democracy?
The Hidalgo County Commissioner’s Court heard a report from members of the I-69 Texas Department of Transportation Advisory Committee in their Tuesday, Jan. 15, meeting of the court.
Spokesperson for the three members of the I-69 Advisory Committee was Cameron County Commissioner David Garza ....
Nearly half of the length of the corridor is in Texas. In South Texas, I-69 is to have three branches. I-69-E is to run along US 77 to Harlingen. I -69-C is to run along US 281 into McAllen. I-69-W will move west to Laredo.
The Texas Department of Transportation also announced that the newest 28-mile segment of I-69, along U.S. 59 from the 610 Loop to south of Rosenberg, recently received federal approval.
An ambitious, multibillion-dollar effort to push forward the state-spanning Interstate 69 was highlighted at the Texas Capitol Wednesday even as lawmakers struggle with transportation funding needs.
The Texas leg of the 1,600-mile interstate would stretch from the Lower Rio Grande Valley to Texarkana, tracking U.S. 77 and U.S. 281 in South Texas and U.S. 59 in the Houston area north.
State officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.
The majority of the freeway will follow existing federal highways.
TxDOT's Williams said most of the work involved in constructing I-69 is taking those highways and bringing them to federal standards with divided lanes, separation from local streets and other safety upgrades.
Those efforts require engineering and construction, which TxDOT will handle as funding becomes available. Essentially, the one interstate is dozens of widening, redesign and rebuilding jobs across Texas. About 200 miles of the highways already are up to federal freeway standards, or close to it.
My idea:
US 59 stays US 59
US 77 stays US 77
US 281 stays US 281
And, I suppose, they all stay 2- to 4-lane highways, right??
My idea ...And, I suppose, they all stay 2- to 4-lane highways, right??
US 281 stays US 281
no, they get upgraded as necessary, but not given silly numbers.
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards, with the eventual goal of designating and signing these highways as part of the I-69 system .... A draft of the plan will be completed in the summer of 2013 with the final report complete in late 2013.
regarding the redesignation of US 59 as I-69 through Houston, Committee 3 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg3/notes_110411.pdf) is aiming for AASHTO approval by AASHTO's May 2012 meeting [page 2/30 of pdf]:QuoteRoger Beall answered that the request to add U.S. 59 through Houston to the interstate system was tentatively scheduled to be sent to FHWA in January. If the request is approved, the Texas Transportation Commission will consider submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Special Committee on Route Numbering to use the I-69 route number. The next AASHTO meeting will occur in May 2012.
when do you think the section of US 59 inside 610 will receive approval?
State officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.
QuoteState officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.
Whoa, 1,000 miles? That must include the spurs in the south, otherwise that'll be the longest one-state segment in the nation. How about a 4-digit exit number?
QuoteState officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.
Whoa, 1,000 miles? That must include the spurs in the south, otherwise that'll be the longest one-state segment in the nation. How about a 4-digit exit number?
The entire length of US 59 in TX is 612 miles, US 77 from Victoria to Brownsville is 231 miles, and US 281 from George West to Pharr is is 151 miles. That all adds up to 994 miles. Not to mention the bypasses that when built will add extra miles. Also, that number also doesn't include US 83, US 84, of TX 44, which will all add up past 1000 miles. I think 1000 miles refers to all the spurs in addition to the main route, which adds up past 1000. There won't be a 4 digit exit number, though.
QuoteState officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.
Whoa, 1,000 miles? That must include the spurs in the south, otherwise that'll be the longest one-state segment in the nation. How about a 4-digit exit number?
The entire length of US 59 in TX is 612 miles, US 77 from Victoria to Brownsville is 231 miles, and US 281 from George West to Pharr is is 151 miles. That all adds up to 994 miles. Not to mention the bypasses that when built will add extra miles. Also, that number also doesn't include US 83, US 84, of TX 44, which will all add up past 1000 miles. I think 1000 miles refers to all the spurs in addition to the main route, which adds up past 1000. There won't be a 4 digit exit number, though.
Crap. I'd love to see a guide sign with a four digit exit number. That would actually be interesting.
Crap. I'd love to see a guide sign with a four digit exit number. That would actually be interesting.
Actually, do you mind letter digits? We have a few in NY, such as exit 130A on NY 17.
I drove some of proposed I-69's in South Texas today as part of a larger road trip. From Corpus, south down current 69/77 to Kingsville, West on SR 141, then north on 281.
-the 77 corridor certainly had the traffic counts and the truck traffic in a heavily industrialized area to warrant a freeway, which only extends to Robstown. Otherwise, its a typical rural Texas divided highway: high speed limits and bypasses around towns. There is a stoplight in Driscoll at FM665 which I'm guessing is the last one on the way to Brownsville. If you're going to run an interstate down to the fast-growing Brownsville/McAllen/Harlingen area so it can be linked to the Interstate System, that is the route I would choose.
-traffic drops off precipitously to the west, and despite being 20 miles to the west, 281 has a small fraction of the traffic all the way up to George West. ROW is quite narrow and there is plenty of private access onto 281 currently.
I drove some of proposed I-69's in South Texas today as part of a larger road trip. From Corpus, south down current 69/77 to Kingsville, West on SR 141, then north on 281.
-the 77 corridor certainly had the traffic counts and the truck traffic in a heavily industrialized area to warrant a freeway, which only extends to Robstown. Otherwise, its a typical rural Texas divided highway: high speed limits and bypasses around towns. There is a stoplight in Driscoll at FM665 which I'm guessing is the last one on the way to Brownsville. If you're going to run an interstate down to the fast-growing Brownsville/McAllen/Harlingen area so it can be linked to the Interstate System, that is the route I would choose.
-traffic drops off precipitously to the west, and despite being 20 miles to the west, 281 has a small fraction of the traffic all the way up to George West. ROW is quite narrow and there is plenty of private access onto 281 currently.
One thing to bear in mind is that 281 serves substantially different traffic flows than 77; 281 is the route you'd take from McAllen/Edinburg/Mission/Freer etc to San Antonio and Austin, while 77 serves Brownsville and Harlingen to Corpus and Houston and other points north. The McAllen etc traffic headed to Corpus & Houston typically cuts over to 77 either taking 83 or one of the parallel routes further north, while Brownsville etc traffic headed to SA/Austin wouldn't bother with 281 at all.
281's usage may also go up a bit once the Falfurrias toll bypass is open (if it isn't already; it was well along two years ago last time I trekked down that way), which would leave George West as the only real slowdown from US 83 to I-37.
None of that means 281 needs to be a full freeway, let alone an interstate.
FHWA has approved the 28 mile US 59 section from 610 to south of Rosenberg (looks like they haven't approved the concurrent section on 610 yet). The TxDOT press release says it's already been designated I-69 (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-room/news/statewide/006-2013.html).
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Interstate-69-coming-piece-by-piece-4257896.php
Harris and Fort Bend Counties - Designate a segment of US 59 from I-610 West in Houston to north of Spur 529 in Rosenberg as I-69 (MO)
The commission will consider the designation of a segment of the state highway system as I-69, concurrent with US 59 from I-610 West in Houston to the US 59 access control approximately 0.2 mile north of SS 529 in Rosenberg, a total distance of approximately 28.4 miles. The Houston-Galveston Area Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.
Several I-69 projects are included in TxDOT's Projects Selected for $2 Billion Allocation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf) list:Quote...
(US 77) Design-build Driscoll to Kingsville - $60 million
...
Design-Build Contract Award
Nueces and Kleberg Counties - Approve the selection of the developer who submitted the best value proposal to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade from Kingsville to Driscoll Project, upgrading US 77 to interstate standards from north of Kingsville in Kleberg County to south of Driscoll in Nueces County and authorize the executive director of the department to execute a Design-Build Contract and Capital Maintenance Agreement with the selected proposer (MO) (Presentation)
On September 5, 2012, the department issued a request for proposals to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade in Nueces and Kleberg Counties. The department has completed its review and evaluation of proposals, and is presenting its best value recommendation to the commission.
I drove some of proposed I-69's in South Texas today as part of a larger road trip .... There is a stoplight in Driscoll at FM665 which I'm guessing is the last one on the way to Brownsville.
TxDOT's Public Hearing Notice (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/notice.pdf) notes that the Driscoll and Riviera relief routes may be tolled
At Driscoll and Riviera, relief routes are proposed to the east of each community. These relief routes may be tolled and would require approximately 400 feet of new right of way.
This (behind paywall) article (http://www.lufkindailynews.com/news/local/article_27eb9798-4412-11e2-b3c0-001a4bcf887a.html?success=1?success=2) reports on a recent meeting of a committee of representatives from Angelina and Nacodoches counties to review I-69 options in their area:QuoteTxDOT officials are seeking feedback on two possible routes through Angelina and Nacogdoches counties.
The study includes two broad options for consideration:
Upgrade the existing US 59 roadway and expand it to meet present and future needs.
Build relief routes around Nacogdoches and Lufkin and Diboll.
The final recommendation may be one option or the other or a combination of the two.
After the Texas Department of Transportation launched an online survey to gauge Nacogdoches and Angelina County residents’ interest in the development of I-69, the majority of participants favor improvements to U.S. 59 over construction of a new corridor.
the US 83 application was rejected because no number had been requested:QuoteEstablishment of Interstate Route (#TBD)
Disapproved
Application incomplete without an interstate number and Texas needs to provide a map showing that interstate routes are interconnected.
New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001) ... I-169 (US 83)
The applications have been posted (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx).(bottom quote from AASHTO Committee on Route Numbering (Nov. 2012) Actions (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8157.msg206045#msg206045) thread)
in accordance with the referenced FHWA regulations and criteria, TxDOT is making the request that this 46.8 mile segment of U.S. 83 be recognized as part of the Interstate System, the Interstate route number to be assigned by AASHTO.
Although it will be a ways off, when I-69 is connected from Corpus to Shreveport, are the control cities on the Southwest and Eastex freeways in Houston going to still stay Victoria (South) and Cleveland (North), or will they change them to the "correct" control cities of Shreveport (North) and Corpus Christi (South)? I hope they say Corpus and Shreveport.
Although it will be a ways off, when I-69 is connected from Corpus to Shreveport, are the control cities on the Southwest and Eastex freeways in Houston going to still stay Victoria (South) and Cleveland (North), or will they change them to the "correct" control cities of Shreveport (North) and Corpus Christi (South)? I hope they say Corpus and Shreveport.
Victoria is a perfectly reasonable control city.
^ I wouldn't say this (https://maps.google.com/?ll=27.527698,-99.445431&spn=0.004086,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=27.527698,-99.445431&panoid=4pYrJxLPGhj8vvNt9tidBQ&cbp=12,6.17,,0,5.32) is quite up to interstate standards.That's the overpass over US 59 and probably wouldn't be part of I-69 .... the McPherson overpass is desperately needed; trucks frequently stack up almost all the way down to I-35 trying to turn north on McPherson there or to make a U-Turn. With more residential and commercial development occurring in that area, things are becoming a bit of a mess.
On Friday, representatives from the Texas Department of Transportation Laredo District, the City of Laredo, Webb County and I-69 dignitaries broke ground marking the official start construction the Loop 20-McPherson Rd. Overpass Project.
The McPherson Interchange project is part of a larger effort between the TxDOT – Laredo District, the City of Laredo and Webb County to upgrade the northern section of Loop 20 from US 59 to the World Trade Bridge IV to Interstate standards.
This portion of Loop 20, when upgraded, would then be designated as part of the IH 69 system .... Loop 20 is major arterial and is currently designated as a Truck Route for the city of Laredo providing north / south connectivity through the city. As a result of this signalized intersection at Loop 20 and McPherson Blvd., traffic including EMS, fire and police, regularly experience delays in getting past the backed up line of vehicles at this intersection .... The project will consist of the construction of an overpass and associated improvements at the Loop 20-McPherson Rd. intersection, which is currently an at-grade intersection with a traffic signal .... Project completion is anticipated in December 2013, weather permitting.
City, county and Alliance for I-69 Texas representatives broke ground this week to start construction of a diamond interchange overpass facility on Loop 20 at McPherson Avenue in the north side of Laredo.
Loop 20 is designated as the future route of Interstate 69 in Laredo. The Loop 20 freeway has already been completed from the World Trade Bridge to an interchange with Interstate 35.
281's usage may also go up a bit once the Falfurrias toll bypass is open (if it isn't already; it was well along two years ago last time I trekked down that way), which would leave George West as the only real slowdown from US 83 to I-37.
Agenda item 9c would remove the toll designation from a segment of US 281 in South Texas from south of FM 3066 northward through the City of Falfurrias to the Brooks County line. The main lanes of this 5.9-mile segment were originally designated as a toll project on the state highway system in 2007 in order to support the segment's improvement from an undivided four-lane road to a freeway.
In 2009, previously unanticipated federal funding became available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and this was used to help expedite and support construction of the freeway project in Falfurrias. In October 2011, a study concluded that the cost to install and maintain an electronic toll collection system on this segment is higher than forecasted toll revenues. Staff, therefore, recommends that the toll designation be removed from the mainlanes of US 281 from 0.9 miles south of FM 3066 northward to the Brooks County line, and that the segment operate as a non-tolled freeway on the state highway system.
Amazing -- a non-neutered Houston interstate shield, and a Houston interstate *with* a signed US route overlap.
QuoteAmazing -- a non-neutered Houston interstate shield, and a Houston interstate *with* a signed US route overlap.
Excellent point. Always bugged me how US-90 disappeared in Houston.
Is I-69 signed on the BGS for any interchanges that I-69/US-59 encounter in the Houston area yet?
Is I-69 signed on the BGS for any interchanges that I-69/US-59 encounter in the Houston area yet?
Amazing -- a non-neutered Houston interstate shield, and a Houston interstate *with* a signed US route overlap.
The February 28 Agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/022813.pdf) indicates that on that date the TTC will provide the final agency approval needed for the I-69 designation of US 59's I-610 to Rosenberg section (page 10/16 of pdf)
The Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of an additional 28.4 miles of US 59 as part of Interstate 69.
The existing section of US 59 from the south side of Rosenberg in Fort Bend County north to Loop 610 in southwest Houston is now part of the Interstate Highway System and will soon be signed as both I-69 and US 59. This entire section is known locally as the Southwest Freeway, much of which is now 16 lanes wide including frontage roads and HOV lanes.
The southern 10 miles of this section has only two travel lanes in each direction and in some areas does not have frontage roads. Environmental clearance work has been underway for several years to expand this section in the future to match to urban section that exists through Sugar Land .... There were five design issues identified and exceptions were approved by FHWA.
What is the issue preventing I-69 from being signed inside the I-610 loop?
The February 28 Agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/022813.pdf) ....
The Feb. 28 TTC Agenda also indicates that the TTC will decide whether to approve TxDOT's recommendation for the developer of the Driscoll-to-Kingsville project (page 2/16 of pdf):QuoteDesign-Build Contract Award
Nueces and Kleberg Counties - Approve the selection of the developer who submitted the best value proposal to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade from Kingsville to Driscoll Project, upgrading US 77 to interstate standards from north of Kingsville in Kleberg County to south of Driscoll in Nueces County and authorize the executive director of the department to execute a Design-Build Contract and Capital Maintenance Agreement with the selected proposer (MO) (Presentation)
On September 5, 2012, the department issued a request for proposals to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade in Nueces and Kleberg Counties. The department has completed its review and evaluation of proposals, and is presenting its best value recommendation to the commission.
U.S. Highway 77 in the Kingsville area is getting upgrades as part of the Interstate 69 development, Texas Department of Transportation officials said.
Texas Transportation Commission selected Austin Bay, JV to design and reconstruct eight miles of the highway between Driscoll and Kingsville. Austin Bay is a collaboration between Austin Bridge & Road, L.P. and Bay Limited.
The work includes bridge replacements, eliminating crossroad traffic on main lanes and expanding the roadway as part of about 122 miles of project upgrades between Corpus Christi and Harlingen.
Nearly 70 miles of the new interstate work has been approved in areas near Robstown and Houston.
Also, following traffic studies, the 65 mph speed limit on southbound U.S. 77 will be extending to the southern Kingsville city limits, where it has been 75. The change goes into effect when new speed limit signs are installed in about a week.
A new contractor to finish “I-69” projects on Expressway 77 in Willacy County should be on the job by the end of March, a state transportation official said Thursday.
The new contractor will finish projects that were 60 percent complete when Ballenger Construction Co. filed for bankruptcy and stopped work in December, Texas Department of Transportation District Engineer Mario Jorge said ....
Juan Bosquez Jr., the TxDOT area engineer based in San Benito, said the projects include an underpass at Lily Road/County Road 1500 and an overpass at Spur 56, which is near Rodriguez Ford just south of Raymondville. Also, a bridge was being constructed over a drainage canal between the overpass and underpass, he said.
Also a section of roadway in the same area near Lyford is being built to carry high speed traffic between the existing lanes of the expressway, he said.
The existing lanes in the Lyford area will become the frontage road, Bosquez said.
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) ....
This Feb. 26 article (behind paywall) (http://dailysentinel.com/news/article_a8c1ff2c-8096-11e2-b98f-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that the majority of local respondents to the online survey favor upgrading US 59 over building relief routes
“As we cross the Angelina River, it’s obvious we should stay on the 59 footprint,” said Nacogdoches City Manager Jim Jeffers, a member of the committee. “It’s difficult to compare (the two designs) because we don’t have cost estimates. The longer we stay on the 59 footprint, the quicker the project will be built.”
... as Nacogdoches City Manager Jim Jeffers, a member of the local I-69 committee, put it, “The longer we stay on the 59 footprint, the quicker the project will be built.”
Either way, the project is going to be expensive, but it appears now that the funding is the only huge obstacle standing in the way of I-69 passing through our two counties. According to a scoping study fact sheet put together by the Texas Department of Transportation, the four steps of the construction process — planning and environmental, engineering and design, obtaining right-of-way and moving utilities, and construction — could all be done within six to 15 years if the money is there at the beginning of each step.
Dumb question, but is that 498 seen on the reassurance shields mileage? Is that a milepost for US 59?
Texas is bringing back the state name. all new shields should be state named within a few months; any new installs which are not state named are just them using up the older stock.
TxDOT's Public Hearing Notice (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/notice.pdf) notes that the Driscoll and Riviera relief routes may be tolled.
The February 28 Agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/022813.pdf) ....
The Feb. 28 TTC Agenda also indicates that the TTC will decide whether to approve TxDOT's recommendation for the developer of the Driscoll-to-Kingsville project (page 2/16 of pdf):QuoteDesign-Build Contract AwardThis article (http://www.caller.com/news/2013/mar/02/us-highway-77-construction-speed-limit-change-in/) reports that the TTC chose a developer for the project at its Feb. 28 meeting
Nueces and Kleberg Counties - Approve the selection of the developer who submitted the best value proposal to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade from Kingsville to Driscoll Project, upgrading US 77 to interstate standards from north of Kingsville in Kleberg County to south of Driscoll in Nueces County
... the next project that we hope to have before you sometime in the not to distant future would take the construction from north of Bishop and around Driscoll, and with that project and this project, that will be a significant increase of Interstate 69, basically from I-37 to south of Kingsville.
MR. AUSTIN: Ed, I have a question. I'm going to back to your map, it shows on 77, when it comes into Kingsville, I remember we drove this when we had our commission meeting down in Corpus, there's a couple of bridges coming through Kingsville. Is that section going through town, is that up to interstate standards as well?
MR. PENSOCK: The section from Farm to MarketRoad 70 south -- I'm sorry -- the section from Farm to Market Road 1898 south is currently up to interstate standards. That ties back into 77 south of Kingsville. So we have a short piece that is up to interstate standards that gets us to the northern part of Kingsville, what's shown on the map as Farm to Market Road 1898
MR. AUSTIN: So when we make the application to dual designate it as I-69, we'll include that section as well?
MR. PENSOCK: With the construction of this project, in combination with that southern piece coming out of Kingsville, it would be eligible to be designated as I-69. Yes, sir.
Drove through downtown Houston last night, that part is not yet 69.
By this summer, I-69 signs south of 610 and AAHTO approval for the inner loop section. Hopefully by Fall, all of it is signed in Houston, and US59 signs coming down within the Houston area to make it simpler on directions.
Curious how 69 will be signed for thru traffic on US 59, as I-69 is built. Will traffic on say SB 59 see JCT I-69 reassurance shields at the start of each segment? Makes me think of traffic in central Wisconsin. SB 51 suddenly has a JCT I-39 shield pop up...
By this summer, I-69 signs south of 610 and AAHTO approval for the inner loop section. Hopefully by Fall, all of it is signed in Houston, and US59 signs coming down within the Houston area to make it simpler on directions.
The US 59 signs won't be coming down.
There is a possibility that TxDOT will do the necessary sign revisions for I-69 in Houston by maintenance contract, as it did with the three I-69 branches in the Rio Grande Valley and SH 130 as an IH 35 alternate. I have been monitoring TxDOT's maintenance lettings but so far nothing has surfaced--I will post again if something does.
There is a possibility that TxDOT will do the necessary sign revisions for I-69 in Houston by maintenance contract, as it did with the three I-69 branches in the Rio Grande Valley and SH 130 as an IH 35 alternate. I have been monitoring TxDOT's maintenance lettings but so far nothing has surfaced--I will post again if something does.
So you're saying 59 through Houston may not be signed as I-69 mainline?
Do you by chance have copies of the maintenance contracts from the Rio Grande Valley I-69 designations? The only I was able to find was from Cameron County for all the BGS.
So you're saying 59 through Houston may not be signed as I-69 mainline?
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.28.13.html) reports that the TTC made the I-69 designation official today:QuoteThe Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of an additional 28.4 miles of US 59 as part of Interstate 69.
The existing section of US 59 from the south side of Rosenberg in Fort Bend County north to Loop 610 in southwest Houston is now part of the Interstate Highway System and will soon be signed as both I-69 and US 59. This entire section is known locally as the Southwest Freeway
Workers from the Texas Department of Transportation are installing blue Interstate 69 signs on the Southwest Freeway.
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) page
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area ... will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC)
The Texas Department of Transportation – Beaumont District (TxDOT) will conduct a public meeting on Tuesday, May 14, 2013, to discuss proposed roadway improvements along 4.281 miles of the existing alignment of US 59 extending from Fostoria Road in Montgomery County, Texas, to State Highway 105 South Cleveland Bypass in Liberty County, Texas .... This section of US 59 is proposed as a portion of I-69. Preliminary study indicates that additional right-of-way would be needed. The proposed US 59 as I-69 would be converted from a four-lane divided highway to a six-lane divided, access controlled freeway, with one-way frontage roads.
The purpose of the meeting is for the public to express their views and concerns, become informed about the proposed project and development process, and ask questions of project representatives. Project exhibits will be displayed and TxDOT staff will be available to answer questions.
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) page:QuoteThe study includes two broad options for consideration:
Upgrade the existing US 59 roadway and expand it to meet present and future needs.
Build relief routes around Nacogdoches and Lufkin and Diboll.
The final recommendation may be one option or the other or a combination of the two.
TxDOT recently posted the Materials from the March 25 and March 26 Open Houses (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59_meetings.htm).
Tuesday representatives from Nacogdoches and Angelina counties met to decide the next phase of development for the I-69 region.
TxDOT presented two options that included an upgrade of the existing U.S. 59 and adding capacity, or a new location that would include building relief routes around Lufkin and Nacogdoches ....
The counties could also choose a combination both options.
Each county is expected to make recommendations on their preferred option on the route before moving the project into the next phase which is the environmental process.
List of applications:(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread)
....
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001) ... I-169 (US 83) ...
I now have an OT question: if any I-169 "Texas" shields have already been manufactured, would one be a valuable addition to a collection? Sort of a rough coin collecting analogy: "minted, but not released"?
Sorry, but this is a stupid decision.Oh for gosh sake, where else is I-2 going to go where I-6 wouldn't work better?
An I-2 that has less mileage than even I-12?? And...a suffixed route???
Better to make US 77 from Robstown southward an extension of I-37, and keep US 83 as is..Also, make TX 44 and the eastern corridor of US 77 from Robstown/Corpus Chirsti to Victoria I-269, and keep I-69 for the Laredo/George West/Victoria/Houston US 59 corridor, as originally intended.
Save I-2 for another day.
If you are going to do that, might as well renumber I-12 as "I-10N" and bring back the other original suffixed Interstates, too.
Sorry, but this is a stupid decision.
An I-2 that has less mileage than even I-12?? And...a suffixed route???
Better to make US 77 from Robstown southward an extension of I-37, and keep US 83 as is..Also, make TX 44 and the eastern corridor of US 77 from Robstown/Corpus Chirsti to Victoria I-269, and keep I-69 for the Laredo/George West/Victoria/Houston US 59 corridor, as originally intended.
Save I-2 for another day.
If you are going to do that, might as well renumber I-12 as "I-10N" and bring back the other original suffixed Interstates, too.
Totally agree!!!Sorry, but this is a stupid decision.
An I-2 that has less mileage than even I-12?? And...a suffixed route???
Better to make US 77 from Robstown southward an extension of I-37, and keep US 83 as is..Also, make TX 44 and the eastern corridor of US 77 from Robstown/Corpus Chirsti to Victoria I-269, and keep I-69 for the Laredo/George West/Victoria/Houston US 59 corridor, as originally intended.
Save I-2 for another day.
If you are going to do that, might as well renumber I-12 as "I-10N" and bring back the other original suffixed Interstates, too.
Amen
Better to make US 77 from Robstown southward an extension of I-37, and keep US 83 as is..Also, make TX 44 and the eastern corridor of US 77 from Robstown/Corpus Chirsti to Victoria I-269, and keep I-69 for the Laredo/George West/Victoria/Houston US 59 corridor, as originally intended.Yes, save that I'd route I-69 via Corpus Christi and TX44, with the US59 corridor that is bypassed being I-269. And give US83 a 3di (as well as US287), because they form a useful route and will be up to standards.
Interstate 2 had a "brief existence" along the Glendale Freeway in Los Angeles:
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/161/348581082_5b28a43eb1.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atwatervillage/348581082/)
This is not the correct sign for highway 2, Glendale Freeway, since there is no such thing as Interstate 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atwatervillage/348581082/) by Atwater Village Newbie (http://www.flickr.com/people/atwatervillage/), on Flickr :-D
This was from 2007 and it has since been corrected. My comments on the page were, "I would rather see "Interstate 2" in Texas along the U.S. 83 corridor and connecting McAlllen, Bronwsville and other Rio Grande Valley cities."
I-2 would be a good number for the U.S. 83 corridor to link Laredo with the Rio Grande Valley. But the proposed I-2 right now from Harlingen to Mission is about 47 miles. That's longer that I-97 in Maryland (17.62 miles)
This is Texas. Instead of suffixed routes, they should just pull out I-33 and I-31. After all, they got I-27 and I-37 as in-state Interstates, and now I-2 as well.
^ There's always the possibility some decades later a new freeway might come about along the US 57 corridor or along US 90 from San Antonio to Del Rio.
I should have said I-4 for Victoria-Laredo (since the current I-4 in Florida won't be getting extended anywhere) so I-6 is kept in reserve.
I'm going to enjoy driving on the new Interstates since they're within a day's drive from me.
Y'all can let your OCD keep you riveted to your chairs with rage.
Y'all can let your OCD keep you riveted to your chairs with rage.
I was kind of curious what a C-suffixed Interstate Shield would look like, what with Texas opting for letters under the numerals on their state highway signs.
Yeah, that was kind of what I imagined.
I bet it's the small letter underneath.
I hope it's that way.I bet it's the small letter underneath.
The signage plans from TxDOT that have been previously posted suggest it will be a I-35E/W style suffix, not the "tiny letter" design used for business routes.
I bet it's the small letter underneath.
The signage plans from TxDOT that have been previously posted suggest it will be a I-35E/W style suffix, not the "tiny letter" design used for business routes.
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220302#msg220302) thread)They provided the authority for TxDOT to submit the application. Now that it has been approved, they need to rubberstamp AASHTO's decision. It seems like an inefficient way to do things. They have followed this procedure with prior I-69 Corridor designations.The final formality needs to be approval by the Texas Transportation Commission.I would assume that they're the ones who requested it, no?
8. Transportation Planning
Various Counties - Designate various Interstate Highways concurrent with existing US Highways (MO)
The commission will consider the designation of new Interstates on the state highway system concurrent with existing US Highways. Once designated, these highways will operate as part of the Interstate System in Texas. Action is subject to approval of these designations by the Federal Highway Administration.
Has there ever been an explanation on why they feel it is better to use the I-69C & 69E instead of another interstate number?
Has there ever been an explanation on why they feel it is better to use the I-69C & 69E instead of another interstate number?
As I mentioned up thread, it's Rio Grande Valley politics, essentially the same reason why Dallas & Fort Worth and Minneapolis & St. Paul split I-35 between them ~60 years ago. Or why I-81 goes between Kingsport and Johnson City, rather than going through either.
Case in point: Texas is going to build a new medical school in the Valley (assuming Gov. Perry doesn't veto the bill). Rather than McAllen get it or Brownsville get it, instead each will get half of the med school. This, I expect, may only work out slightly better than splitting the baby would've.
So Harlingen gets the whole thing?
More big news came in the form of a surprise announcement by Victor Mendez, administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, invited to the event by U.S. Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville, as part of a tour of his district’s transportation projects.
Mendez said that the FHWA has authorized redesignating U.S. 77 from University Boulevard in Brownsville all the way to Raymondville to Interstate 69 East.
“That’s the full 53 miles,” he said. “The importance of that from an economic development standpoint is just having an interstate shield on a highway is really important, positive thing in terms of future development.”
It’ll also mean a much safer road in light of the FHWA’s strict standards, Mendez said.
The redesignation puts the Lower Rio Grande Valley a major stride closer to being connected to the rest of the nation by an interstate route.
U.S. 57 should stay as is even in the event of a freeway upgrade. The entire logic of it having an out of place number is because it connects to MEX-57. An unsigned interstate I wouldn't mind.
U.S. 57 should stay as is even in the event of a freeway upgrade. The entire logic of it having an out of place number is because it connects to MEX-57. An unsigned interstate I wouldn't mind.
Now there's a road that should be a state highway
FHWA has approved designating US 77 as I-69E from Raymondville to Brownsville.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.htmlQuoteMore big news came in the form of a surprise announcement by Victor Mendez, administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, invited to the event by U.S. Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville, as part of a tour of his district’s transportation projects.
Mendez said that the FHWA has authorized redesignating U.S. 77 from University Boulevard in Brownsville all the way to Raymondville to Interstate 69 East.
“That’s the full 53 miles,” he said. “The importance of that from an economic development standpoint is just having an interstate shield on a highway is really important, positive thing in terms of future development.”
It’ll also mean a much safer road in light of the FHWA’s strict standards, Mendez said.
The redesignation puts the Lower Rio Grande Valley a major stride closer to being connected to the rest of the nation by an interstate route.
List of applications:(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
....
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
Approved by AASHTO
So does that mean a change is needed for the I-69/US 77 section in Chorpus? Or does that mean 69 will cut over on TX 44 vs. a split in Victoria?
List of applications:(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
....
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
Approved by AASHTOSo does that mean a change is needed for the I-69/US 77 section in Chorpus? Or does that mean 69 will cut over on TX 44 vs. a split in Victoria?
AASHTO has already approved the change to I-69E for the section near Corpus (FHWA already approved it as interstate grade for the initial I-69 signage) and the Texas Transportation Commission probably approved the change at its meeting earlier today (the transcript should be posted in a couple of days).
Since SH 44 is not part of the statutorily defined I-69 Corridor, I'm guessing it may eventually be designated as I-6, and that the I-69/I-69 E split will remain in Victoria.
AASHTO has already approved the change to I-69E for the section near Corpus (FHWA already approved it as interstate grade for the initial I-69 signage) and the Texas Transportation Commission probably approved the change at its meeting earlier today (the transcript should be posted in a couple of days).
Since SH 44 is not part of the statutorily defined I-69 Corridor, I'm guessing it may eventually be designated as I-6, and that the I-69/I-69 E split will remain in Victoria.
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") May 30, 2013 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/053013.pdf) suggests that the TTC may slightly alter their past practice and grant approval to several interstate designations that will be contingent upon later FHWA approval
Jeff emailed us the commission notes (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/I-69.pdf), which includes the redesignation of I-69 in Corpus Christi as I-69E. The notes also involve I-2, I-69C and I-369:
As of May 24, 2013, AASHTO and the FHWA Administrator have issued the required approvals.
I know it would be a pain, but could someone do up a simple map of whats going on down there.
The combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf) has .... A map showing the proposed border designations is below (page 45/165 of pdf; page 39 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/94Tt6.png)
List of applications:(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
....
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
Notable by its absence is an application for US 59 to be signed as I-69 "inside" I-610.
The 11-mile section of US 59 through downtown Houston is under engineering review by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. It is anticipated it will be added to I-69 within the coming year.
I know it would be a pain, but could someone do up a simple map of whats going on down there.In the below map, the Nov. 2011 Robstown I-69 designation is now I-69E, the US 83 designation is I-2, the US 281 designation is I-69C, and the US 77 designation is I-69E (the eventual designation is actually a bit longer; it extends from north of Raymondville southward instead of from south of Lyford southward):The combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf) has .... A map showing the proposed border designations is below (page 45/165 of pdf; page 39 of document):
This article (http://www.alicetx.com/news/article_463f00d1-4572-5d83-80b3-d6fbeddf84d8.html) provides an update on the "inside I-610" section through Houston:QuoteThe 11-mile section of US 59 through downtown Houston is under engineering review by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. It is anticipated it will be added to I-69 within the coming year.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
1. Still mildly amusing that Texarkana's getting I-69 (sort of) before Shreveport does.
2. Looking at Kenedy County on maps.google.com, it's still interesting to contemplate what will have to be done, and what won't have to be done in a 1,900+ square mile county with under 500 residents, to get that County's section of highway up to I-69 standards. I wonder how long it will take.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas also has an article about the issuance of the FONSI (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html) and it discusses the method of ranch access:QuoteAn interesting element of the schematic plans included in the EA is the way ranch access is to be accomplished in the 42-mile passage through Kenedy County where there are no public roads crossing US 77. This highway passes through sections of the King Ranch, the Kenedy Ranch and the Armstrong Ranch, all of which span the highway and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad. Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction. Below is a simplified drawing of a ranch gate access point. This arrangement will avoid the need to build long stretches of dual frontage roads that have little transportation value.
(http://i.imgur.com/nATsg.jpg)
In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too lateI'm still annoyed over US 66 not being 60 west of Springfield.
I wonder what part the total of those items are going to cost out of the $1 billion between Harlingen and CC?
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too late
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too late
If we all start a letter writing campaign, they might get 100 letters!!!!
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too late
If we all start a letter writing campaign, they might get 100 letters!!!!
Think of the difference we can make!
Grzrd,
1. Well, Arkansas-side Texarkanans are always complaining that the Texas side gets everything first. :sombrero:
2. Thanks for the Kenedy County info. I wonder what part the total of those items are going to cost out of the $1 billion between Harlingen and CC? (EDIT: What's also interesting is that the Interstate is now going to currently be signed to above Raymondville, Kleberg's County seat. I think the old King ranch was in Kenedy and Kleberg Counties (both are King Ranch names). Don't know how many public roads cross between the Kenedy border and the new Interstate access point above Raymondville, but once the Sarita-Raymondville section is finished that will be nearly one 12th of the Texas section of I-69 right there!)
Grzrd,
1. Well, Arkansas-side Texarkanans are always complaining that the Texas side gets everything first. :sombrero:
2. Thanks for the Kenedy County info. I wonder what part the total of those items are going to cost out of the $1 billion between Harlingen and CC? (EDIT: What's also interesting is that the Interstate is now going to currently be signed to above Raymondville, Kleberg's County seat. I think the old King ranch was in Kenedy and Kleberg Counties (both are King Ranch names). Don't know how many public roads cross between the Kenedy border and the new Interstate access point above Raymondville, but once the Sarita-Raymondville section is finished that will be nearly one 12th of the Texas section of I-69 right there!)
Kenedy Ranch is apparently an offshoot of the original King Ranch. Historic details on Wiki are unfortunately pretty spare.
The county seat, Sarita, was named for the matriarch of the Kenedy family.
The county seat, Sarita, was named for the matriarch of the Kenedy family.I keep reading this as Santa.
1. Still mildly amusing that Texarkana's getting I-69 (sort of) before Shreveport does.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an article about the recent designations (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update5.30.13RGV1.html), which includes a more straightforward map showing Interstates 2, 69C and 69E in the Lower Rio Grande Valley:
(http://i.imgur.com/Lrnc2yg.png)
Interstate 69 is here and it's a first for the Rio Grande Valley.
The 111 mile stretch of interstate highway is being touted as the gateway to economic growth in the region.
Once completed, the I-69 system will run from border to border... Canada to Mexico.
Designated parts of 77, 281 and 83 will be re-named to reflect the interstate ....
Officials tell NewsCenter 23 the interstate signs will be up in 30 to 60 days.
List of applications:(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
....
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
Notable by its absence is an application for US 59 to be signed as I-69 "inside" I-610.
This article (http://www.alicetx.com/news/article_463f00d1-4572-5d83-80b3-d6fbeddf84d8.html) provides an update on the "inside I-610" section through Houston:QuoteThe 11-mile section of US 59 through downtown Houston is under engineering review by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. It is anticipated it will be added to I-69 within the coming year.
FHWA has approved designating US 77 as I-69E from Raymondville to Brownsville.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html
18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada ....
to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69] ....
D. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall- ....
iii. include ... FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
The Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority (CCRMA) has opened the first leg of the SH 550 Toll Road leading from US 77 to the Port of Brownsville. This connector is identified in federal law as part of the I-69 corridor.
Wednesday’s ribbon-cutting ceremony for State Highway 550 couldn't have been windier if it had taken place in a wind tunnel.
But organizers persevered and local luminaries took turns at the podium, buffeted by gale-force winds, praising the completion of the second phase of a project touted as creating a more efficient and safer link for commercial trucks between U.S. 77/83 and the Port of Brownsville.
The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year, according to David Garcia, deputy county administrator and assistant coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority.
I know there's the little county seat (Sarita) but what all needs to be done there again?
I took a look at the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_vol1.pdf) and ran across the following cost estimates (pages 13-14/271 of pdf): ....
(http://i.imgur.com/lC433TD.jpg)
Engineering work is underway on a new overpass on US 77 at Sarita. It would allow Sarita School Road to pass under the freeway lanes. No funding has been identified for this safety project.
I'm guessing that, somewhere along the historical way, the SH 550 corridor replaced the FM 511 corridor as satisfying the statutory I-69 mandate. Any historical insight into that transition would be appreciated.SH 550 is (mostly) toll lanes in the middle of FM 511.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html... ongoing SH 550 work from I-69E/US 77 to the Port of Brownsville (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Port+of+Brownsville,+Capt+Donald+L+Foust+Road,+Brownsville,+TX&hl=en&ll=25.987521,-97.464695&spn=0.119277,0.153637&sll=25.987366,-97.474308&sspn=0.119278,0.153637&oq=ort+of+Brownsville,+TX&t=h&hq=Port+of+Brownsville,+Capt+Donald+L+Foust+Road,+Brownsville,+TX&z=13) .... the SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:Quoteorganizers persevered and local luminaries took turns at the podium, buffeted by gale-force winds, praising the completion of the second phase of a project touted as creating a more efficient and safer link for commercial trucks between U.S. 77/83 and the Port of Brownsville.
The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year.
I'm guessing that, somewhere along the historical way, the SH 550 corridor replaced the FM 511 corridor as satisfying the statutory I-69 mandate. Any historical insight into that transition would be appreciated.SH 550 is (mostly) toll lanes in the middle of FM 511.
State Highway 550 (SH 550) is an under construction highway that, when complete, will be a limited access toll route around the northern and eastern edges of Brownsville, Texas, partly replacing and expanding Farm to Market Road 511 (FM 511). It is to provide a new entry point for truck traffic to the Port of Brownsville ....
SH 550 is being constructed on the same routing as FM 511 from its connection with US 77 and US 83 southeastward to Farm to Market Road 3248. Separated travel lanes, intended to be the frontage roads, are the first stage of construction from US 77/83 to Farm to Market Road 3248. Flyover bridges have been constructed at Farm to Market Road 1847 and at two rail crossings. The second stage of construction will build a new divided limited-access highway, which will split from FM 511 at FM 3248 and travel southeast to a new entry point for the Port of Brownsville, and a new crossover bridge at Old Port Isabel Road. The third stage will complete the mainlanes on the Stage one portion, and construct exit ramps directly to and from US 77 and 83 at Olmito. The route is a toll route, but the second and third stages of the route are being funded with $36 million of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ...
As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route... the Segment Two Committee. Below is a map included in their report in which they incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
According to the Texas Department of Transportation, I-69 will enter the Houston area from the southwest on the current U.S. 59 (Southwest Freeway). It will also leave the area on U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway).
In the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
• Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
• Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
• Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...
QuoteIn the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
• Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
• Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
• Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...
I assume the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway study includes the routing suggested by the Segment Two Committee.
As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route... the Segment Two Committee. Below is a map included in their report in which they incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/tomball/news/cornyn-lauds-continued-work-along-i--corridor/article_42ea779e-cbb2-11e2-b612-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that five alternatives are being considered for Houston's I-69 relief route:QuoteAccording to the Texas Department of Transportation, I-69 will enter the Houston area from the southwest on the current U.S. 59 (Southwest Freeway). It will also leave the area on U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway).
In the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
• Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
• Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
• Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...
I assume the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway study includes the routing suggested by the Segment Two Committee.
Seeing how slow they are at building the grand parkway(over 30 years), I could see I-69 using US59 between 610, but if they want to use a relief route, use the Beltway. Which could end up being a Federal, State, and County road all in one.
I think they should go around the cities. Why push the major traffic into town?
But with the hub and spoke style of Houston highways, what is a bypass of Houston traffic when the city limits could be a full hours drive straight through it.
As you well know, there is NO bypass of Houston traffic. It exists on all Houston freeways (and even the Sam Houston in places).I-69 along US 77 and US 79!
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) page:
The page also includes a map of the study area:
(http://i.imgur.com/hgia44h.jpg)
This Feb. 26 article (behind paywall) (http://dailysentinel.com/news/article_a8c1ff2c-8096-11e2-b98f-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that the majority of local respondents to the online survey favor upgrading US 59 over building relief routesAn interesting observation from the above article:Quote“As we cross the Angelina River, it’s obvious we should stay on the 59 footprint,” said Nacogdoches City Manager Jim Jeffers, a member of the committee. “It’s difficult to compare (the two designs) because we don’t have cost estimates.The longer we stay on the 59 footprint, the quicker the project will be built.”
^ Probably has to do with not having to do as much environmental work for upgrading an existing facility versus building an entirely new one.
I think they should go around the cities. Why push the major traffic into town?It makes sense to me to have the major highways go through the major cities
I took a look at the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_vol1.pdf) and ran across the following cost estimates (pages 13-14/271 of pdf)
I took a look at the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_vol1.pdf) and ran across the following cost estimates (pages 13-14/271 of pdf)
This I-69 Funding Program map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf) shows which I-69 projects are funded as of January 24, 2013, including I-69E/US 77 projects in Kenedy County.
The Grand Parkway will become I-69F. Guess what the F is for.
:eyebrow:
The Grand Parkway will become I-69F. Guess what the F is for.
:eyebrow:
Or I-69P.
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.
or I-69NWO
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.
or I-69NWO
I-69SOL.
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.
or I-69NWO
AHTD has posted the Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf).
Texas and Kentucky (except for the Ohio River Bridge) were excluded from the analysis:(above two quotes from the Multi-State I-69 Innovative Financing Study (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9001.msg217602#msg217602) thread)QuoteNo tolled traffic and toll revenue forecasts were developed for Texas SIUs as TxDOT is not considering the use of tolling as a funding mechanism for any currently planned portion of the I‐69 route in Texas.
the FHWA High Priority Corridors page (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm) provides the relevant part of the statutory I-69 definition:Quote18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada ....
to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69] ....
D. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall- ....
iii. include ... FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
I'm guessing that, somewhere along the historical way, the SH 550 corridor replaced the FM 511 corridor as satisfying the statutory I-69 mandate. Any historical insight into that transition would be appreciated.SH 550 is (mostly) toll lanes in the middle of FM 511.
I think Cameron County RMA runs SH 550. I have not found and read the agreement between them and TxDOT so as to see how that works ... I have not only an interest in roads, but also in law, so these arrangements are of double interest to me.(above quote from US route on a toll road? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9587.msg225704#msg225704) thread)
wxfree - If you can find the SH 550 tolling agreement, then it would be interesting to look at it with an eye as to whether it is consistent with the MAP-21 Tolling Provisons (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidetoll.cfm) for interstates. If it is, then I have a strong suspicion that local officials might see appeal in having an I-2 dual designation with SH 550 (along with an I-69E overlap) that would give the Port of Brownsville an I-2 E-W designation to serve as a complement to the I-69E N-S designation. Since SH 550 is already tolled, and only road enthusiasts would care/notice that it is part of the Texas I-69 "system", then I don't think doing so would trigger alarms that the Trans-Texas Corridor is returning. Good luck in finding it!
This is the minute order that designates the Interstate Highway System, of which SH 550 is a part.
And why were they designating an Interstate Highway System in 1945?http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/archstories/late_roads/interstate_system.asp
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 included three important steps leading to the development of an interstate highway network.
In 1945 the Wisconsin State Highway Engineer submitted tentative route designations for approval and inclusion in the interstate system.
And why were they designating an Interstate Highway System in 1945?http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/archstories/late_roads/interstate_system.aspQuoteThe Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 included three important steps leading to the development of an interstate highway network.
In 1945 the Wisconsin State Highway Engineer submitted tentative route designations for approval and inclusion in the interstate system.
Thus, it was proposed that steps be taken to plan and develop a system of highways so constituted as to be national in scope, but so located as to render the maximum local service possible. The whole would be built as a modern express highway system, including portions to and through urban areas, embodying features of design and construction to provide, insofar as feasible, facilities capable of serving safely and efficiently a mixed traffic of automobiles, buses and trucks in the volumes, weights and speeds to be expected 20 years from the date of construction.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 includes provisions for the designation of "A National System of Interstate Highways" and for the expansion of the Federal-aid highway system to include the whole of such a system. (The character and extent of the system to be designated agree identically with the recommendations of the Report on Interregional Highways; so that change in description from "Interregional" to "Interstate" is without significance.) With the passage of this Act in December 1944 the way has been cleared for the designation and beginning of work on the system. Other sections of the Act authorize substantial amounts for planning and post-war construction of highway projects on the Federal-aid system, in both rural and urban areas, as found necessary in the several States.
TxDOT is in the process of conducting an interstate development plan for US 281 (and a small piece of US 59) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/281/fact_sheet.pdf), with a final report anticipated to be completed in late 2013:QuoteThe purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards, with the eventual goal of designating and signing these highways as part of the I-69 system .... A draft of the plan will be completed in the summer of 2013 with the final report complete in late 2013.
The Texas Department of Transportation is conducting a study to determine what upgrade improvements will be necessary to bring US 281 up to interstate highway standards along the Interstate 69 Central route.
The study area begins at the intersection of US 59 and Interstate 37 in Live Oak County. It extends west on US 59 to George West and then south on US 281 to the intersection with Interstate 2/US 83 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley as shown on the adjacent illustration.
A draft Interstate Development Plan will be compiled in the coming months and a final Feasibility Study Report is scheduled for completion by the end of the year.
Projects to upgrade sections of US 281 to freeway standard are currently underway at Alice, Rachal and at the north edge of Edinburg. The Alice project includes an overpass at FM 1554, now approximately 50% complete. Work on an overpass at FM 755 in Rachal began earlier this year. The $20 million Edinburg project will deliver 2.4 miles of new freeway near the Edinburg Airport.
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=919619
Signs are officially going up on the 15th on the new I-69E & I-69C segments, according to this link.
The I-69C and E and I-2 signs will be installed beginning Monday in the Rio Grande Valley. The major overhead signs at intersections will be the first to be installed and those major directional signs will be installed by the fall. The route marker signs along the road are anticipated to be completely installed by the end of the year. There are a big number of those signs, along a long stretch of road, so it will take a few months to complete that installation. The I-369 signs near Texarkana will probably beginning being installed in the fall. I'm checking in with our local office in Corpus to see when they plan to make the transition from I-69 to I-69E and will send you that information once I receive it.
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=919619
Signs are officially going up on the 15th on the new I-69E & I-69C segments, according to this link.
Are they planning to bypass it around Premont or take the existing ROW through the town?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/972032_10151746194800874_1437003302_n.jpg)
New I-69 signs unveiled today in Harlingen symbolize more than just the first interstate in south Texas - they mean enhanced connectivity, better commerce and more economic development for our great state!!
I take it there isn't enough old alignment to justify a relocation instead of a truncation?
I think that Interstate 69 will have to be completed in Texas before decomissioning will happen. First you will have to have the "getting used to" period in which residents will start associating the new route numbers with the old route numbers. So it may take a while, but those US highways will be decommissioned. I think US 281 will be truncated in George West, US 77 in Victoria and US 59 in Texarkana.
I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C
If that's the case, US 59 will be truncated in Page, OK.US 59 was supposed to use US 259 anyway. (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0059.htm)
Why not George West?
TxDOT is in the process of conducting an interstate development plan for US 281 (and a small piece of US 59) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/281/fact_sheet.pdf)The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.4.13%20study281.html)QuoteThe purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards ...QuoteThe Texas Department of Transportation is conducting a study to determine what upgrade improvements will be necessary to bring US 281 up to interstate highway standards along the Interstate 69 Central route.
The study area begins at the intersection of US 59 and Interstate 37 in Live Oak County. It extends west on US 59 to George West and then south on US 281 to the intersection with Interstate 2/US 83 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
Will 281 end in San Antonio or Pleasanton?
Why not George West?
I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C
By seeing how the I-69 Aliance has never considered the section of US 281 from its break from I-37 near Three Rivers to George West for interstate upgrade, I am guessing that section of US 281 will stay.
TxDOT is in the process of conducting an interstate development plan for US 281 (and a small piece of US 59) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/281/fact_sheet.pdf)The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.4.13%20study281.html)QuoteThe purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards ...QuoteThe Texas Department of Transportation is conducting a study to determine what upgrade improvements will be necessary to bring US 281 up to interstate highway standards along the Interstate 69 Central route.
The study area begins at the intersection of US 59 and Interstate 37 in Live Oak County. It extends west on US 59 to George West and then south on US 281 to the intersection with Interstate 2/US 83 in the Lower Rio Grande ValleyWill 281 end in San Antonio or Pleasanton?Why not George West?I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69CBy seeing how the I-69 Aliance has never considered the section of US 281 from its break from I-37 near Three Rivers to George West for interstate upgrade, I am guessing that section of US 281 will stay.
It's interesting to note that the Alliance for I-69 Texas slightly misreported the US 281 upgrade to I-69C study area by incorrectly indicating that the US 59 to I-37 segment of US 281 is not included in the study area. Here's a snip of the map of the actual TxDOT study area (from the TxDOT link in the top quote):
(http://i.imgur.com/uFhaqtZ.jpg)
Assuming the entire TxDOT US 281 study area is upgraded to I-69C, I'm guessing Pleasanton. I also assume that a major question to be addressed by the study is whether an upgrade to the George West to Three Rivers section of US 281 would even be necessary in light of the comparatively short US 59 "I-69" section included in the study. If it is deemed not necessary, then George West.
I think that Interstate 69 will have to be completed in Texas before decomissioning will happen. First you will have to have the "getting used to" period in which residents will start associating the new route numbers with the old route numbers. So it may take a while, but those US highways will be decommissioned. I think US 281 will be truncated in George West, US 77 in Victoria and US 59 in Texarkana.
If that's the case, US 59 will be truncated in Page, OK. From that point to Texarkana it's all concurrencies with US 270 and 71, and AHTD does not officially recognize the existence of US 59.
That makes more sense for through traffic, but interestingly enough, it would make for a weird numbering situation. I-69C would actually become a spur of I-37.US 25E is a spur of I-75, so why not?
I think that Interstate 69 will have to be completed in Texas before decomissioning will happen. First you will have to have the "getting used to" period in which residents will start associating the new route numbers with the old route numbers. So it may take a while, but those US highways will be decommissioned. I think US 281 will be truncated in George West, US 77 in Victoria and US 59 in Texarkana.
If that's the case, US 59 will be truncated in Page, OK. From that point to Texarkana it's all concurrencies with US 270 and 71, and AHTD does not officially recognize the existence of US 59.
Don't you mean Heavener, OK?
Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).
I'm curious to find out what they do with US-59 from Victoria to George West once that eventually gets upgraded. I'm guessing it will end up being I-69W and I-69C will split off of that at George West, but they could make it mainline I-69 or co-sign the whole road as I-69W & I-69C.
The more than $700 million project will eventually consist of three I-69 legs; East, West and Central as well as US 83 converting to I-2.
Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).
That's correct - though even if they were regular I- numbers, 76, 84, 86, 88 are all duplicated, so I don't think even that would have in theory precluded an I-1, I-2, or I-3 on the mainland.
The federal legislation that numerically designates I-69 indicates that Victoria to George West will be I-69. However, this July 15 TV video report (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=921845#.UeVeub7D-M8) reports that it may be I-69W...
It seems clear to me that the original law gave a general corridor and the states were to build I-69 in some path within that corridor - not build up every nook and cranny in the corridor as Texas is doing. I would have just picked whatever would give the most bang for my buck and told the other communities "screw you".You're right about the original law (ISTEA, 1991), but it was amended by TEA-21 (1998):
(D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
(i) include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via U.S. Route 77;
(ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; and
(iii) include the Corpus Christi Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
You're right about the original law (ISTEA, 1991), but it was amended by TEA-21 (1998):Quote(D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
(ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards
First, does Google Maps incorrectly show a TX 241/US 281 overlap into Hidalgo, and then presumably to the Rio Grande?
Then, have TxDOT et al abandoned efforts to include US 281 "from the Rio Grande River" to US 83/I-2 as part of I-69C?
Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan, southwesterly along Interstate Route 69 through Indianapolis, Indiana, through Evansville, Indiana, Memphis, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Shreveport / Bossier Louisiana, to Houston, Texas, and to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69]Right, that makes sense. Sarnia - Port Huron - Indianapolis - Evansville - Memphis - MS - AR - Shreveport / Bossier - Houston - Lower Rio Grande Valley (unspecific where in that valley) is I-69 and I-69 is the corridor. The bit through AR is a defined future bit of the corridor, but not currently part of the corridor as it isn't I-69.
A. In Michigan, the corridor shall be from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, southwesterly along Interstate Route 94 to the Ambassador Bridge interchange in Detroit, Michigan.So I-94 is the route of I-69 between Sarnia and Indianapolis? Chicago wasn't mentioned in the summary above. Nor Windsor...
B. In Michigan and Illinois, the corridor shall be from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to Chicago, Illinois.
C. In Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the Corridor shall--Fine, though does that mean that the I-530 extension is part of I-69?
i. follow the alignment generally identified in the Corridor 18 Special Issues Study Final Report; and
ii. include a connection between the Corridor east of Wilmar, Arkansas, and west of Monticello, Arkansas, to Pine Bluff, Arkansas
In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall-I-69 E defined in law from Victoria to the border.
i. include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 77; [I-69 East]
ii. include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central]wait a minute. I-69C is legally defined to Victoria, and includes a three-way junction with itself at George West (or does it then, on arriving at I-37 north of Three Rivers take I-37 to US 59?)
andWhere's Laredo? Laredo isn't explicitly defined as part of the I-69 corridor 18, and can therefore have whatever number TX DOT, AASHTO and the FHWA choose to give it. Ditto the Texarkana spur, US 83 and TX 44. However, the North-side Highway is part of I-69 (with no legally defined suffix).
iii. include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
The federal legislation that numerically designates I-69 indicates that Victoria to George West will be I-69. However, this July 15 TV video report (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=921845#.UeVeub7D-M8) reports that it may be I-69W...Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18)
Unlike with I-69E and I-69C, there is no legal authority requiring, or even allowing, AASHTO or FHWA to designate an "I-69 West" or any variant thereof. It seems to me that legally mainline I-69 would have to go to Laredo, unless ISTEA is modified to designate an "I-69W."
20.United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]
QuoteIn the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall-wait a minute. I-69C is legally defined to Victoria, and includes a three-way junction with itself at George West (or does it then, on arriving at I-37 north of Three Rivers take I-37 to US 59?)
ii. include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central]
Really poor writing.
Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18)
I could see that happening too! As CA 1 is an iconic number, I-3 would be a better fit, seeing that the out-of-place highway in GA will most likely never be built.Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).
That's correct - though even if they were regular I- numbers, 76, 84, 86, 88 are all duplicated, so I don't think even that would have in theory precluded an I-1, I-2, or I-3 on the mainland.
There's also the fact that I-2 is a spur; I can't imagine a scenario where a hypothetical I-1 or I-3 don't at least start out as spurs.
Wouldn't a corridor and a finished route be different things though? I'm aware of other states (I'm looking at you, WV) that have explicitly refused to build similar interstates mandated by legislation, and they don't seem to have trouble.It seems clear to me that the original law gave a general corridor and the states were to build I-69 in some path within that corridor - not build up every nook and cranny in the corridor as Texas is doing. I would have just picked whatever would give the most bang for my buck and told the other communities "screw you".You're right about the original law (ISTEA, 1991), but it was amended by TEA-21 (1998):Quote(D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
(i) include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via U.S. Route 77;
(ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; and
(iii) include the Corpus Christi Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
I still don't understand why Texas is building three I-69s in the valley.
I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
35e is the "implied main route" though thru traffic would more likely go through Fort WorthThe funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
To be fair, 35E was built later with three different routing possibilities at the time 35W was finished, so they may have had to choose one route to carry on the miles and stick with it.No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
Whoops! My mistake.
I do not know why they do not leave I-69C as mainline I-69 and the other two as suffixed routes. Then again, why can't the I-69W be I-6 or an x69 and I-37 be an I-37 extension either, this is a precident for sure.
No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
In a nutshell, yes, but when all the work at the 35W-62 ramps was taking place, your best bet was to take 35E. Has there ever been a situation like this in Texas?No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
But you drive 35W because 35E is the practice freeway with a 45 MPH speed limit in saint paul
In a nutshell, yes, but when all the work at the 35W-62 ramps was taking place, your best bet was to take 35E. Has there ever been a situation like this in Texas?No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers. I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme. Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own. Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
But you drive 35W because 35E is the practice freeway with a 45 MPH speed limit in saint paul
QuoteThen, have TxDOT et al abandoned efforts to include US 281 "from the Rio Grande River" to US 83/I-2 as part of I-69C?Well, technically US 281 starts in Brownsville near the Rio Grande River. You could make the argument that I-69E to I-2 fulfills that requirement even if it's not signed as I-69C along there.
This minute order authorizes the department to petition the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering to recognize one or more segments of US 83 as logical additions to the Interstate System, with the condition that FHWA finds that each segment meets the criteria contained in Appendix A to Subpart A of 23 CFR Part 470 and approves the addition to the Interstate System. It is further recognized that it is the purview of the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering to assign an Interstate route number to the designated highway in coordination with FHWA.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the Texas Transportation Commission (commission) that the department is authorized to submit an application to the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering requesting the recognition of one or more segments of US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as logical additions to the Interstate System.
IT IS UNDERSTOOD that following approval by the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering and FHWA, the commission will designate the segments with the assigned Interstate route number by minute order.
Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18)
Unlike with I-69E and I-69C, there is no legal authority requiring, or even allowing, AASHTO or FHWA to designate an "I-69 West" or any variant thereof. It seems to me that legally mainline I-69 would have to go to Laredo, unless ISTEA is modified to designate an "I-69W."
english si's observation strengthens the case for an I-69W designation.QuoteIn the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall-wait a minute. I-69C is legally defined to Victoria, and includes a three-way junction with itself at George West (or does it then, on arriving at I-37 north of Three Rivers take I-37 to US 59?)
ii. include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central]
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.
But the current law does not allow for I-369.
But if TxDOT chooses I-69C for Victoria to George West ..................... :bigass:... for someone from 1,500 miles away - does that mean there would be a gap in 69?
does that mean there would be a gap in 69?
Quote18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan ....
D.In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall ....
iii. include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181
(above quotes from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg231246#msg231246) thread)I'm not sure what the reference to the "Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor" means.The red road here, I think: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.8373&lon=-97.4984&zoom=13&layers=M
This is a proposed Interstate 69 connector for the existing “Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor” that connects at US 181 on the east end and I-37 on the west end at Carbon Plant Road. I-37 then proceeds northwest and connects to US 77 (proposed I-69 E).
A dream of Port of Corpus Christi commissioners more than 15 years ago will become an achievement Friday when the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor opens to the public .... The 11.8-mile road and rail project has cost the port more than $51 million and adds an alternate route for vehicles and rail lines wanting access to the north side of the Inner Harbor, where 1,000 acres of previously inaccessible land await development.
Prior to the corridor, vehicles relied on the Harbor Bridge and the Tule Lake Lift Bridge, which also was used by railcars. Neither gave access to that 1,000 acres .... The corridor runs from U.S. Highway 181 along the north side of the Inner Harbor to Carbon Plant Road, where it connects to Interstate Highway 37.
The TxDOT I-69 Driven By Texans website has posted a May 7, 2013 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/050713_materials.pdf) for the US 59 Scoping Study. A comparison of the direct route vs. the relief routes sets up an interesting choice of lower cost/longer environmental review for the relief routes vs. higher cost/shorter environmental review for the direct US 59 route (page 43/43 of pdf)
Sounds to me like the Upgrade US 59 option would be the most warranted, but with retaining the Dibold bypass.
The number one priority of Angelina County Committee members is advancing the development of the Diboll Relief Route. TxDOT completed the environmental process and had approved schematic design plans in 1999 for this project, but because of the elapsed time, an environmental reevaluation will be required. TxDOT is proceeding forward with preparing a reevaluation of the environmental assessment and with ROW mapping updates.
The TxDOT I-69 Driven By Texans website has posted a August 19 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/081913_materials.pdf) for the US 59 Scoping Study in which it appears that the two committees have both selected the US 59 upgrade option with "option refinements"
The committees recommended the following priority projects:
NACOGDOCHES COUNTY
1. Improvements at the south interchange of US 59 and Loop 224 is the top priority regardless of which route option is carried forward in the environmental process.
2. From SH 21 to just north of the US 259/US 59interchange.
3. From the Angelina County line to SH 7
4. From SH 7 to SH 21
5. From north of US 259 to Appleby
ANGELINA COUNTY
1. Diboll relief route
2. Upgrade US 59/Loop 287 from US 69 to north of SH 103
3. Section from Burke to near Lufkin High School
4. Sections of US 59 north of Loop 287 to the Angelina River
Will I-69E in Kenedy County have interchanges being that there are no major crossroads in the entire county? I know that on other Texas interstates they have named interchanges with the two frontage roads with an underpass between the ramps to allow U turns and such, will they do that here?
I noticed that Kenedy County seems more like a private residence as its lack of towns roads and the fact it has a very low population. Most of all its lack of businesses along the current US 77 that is the county's only through route and highway.
Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction.
One thing that amazes me about the county is NO GAS. It even states it on signs along US 77 entering the county that there are NO SERVICES for 50 plus miles. You would figure for the benefit of the few that live there that they would at least have one!
It must be awkward for them to have to drive to either Kingsville or Raymondville to gas up and buy groceries.
I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.
To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.
Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.
]I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.
To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.
Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.
It does seem wasteful to spend all that money, especially when the ranchers will probably drive over the median anyway. The speed limit there, except through Sarita, is 75, which is as high as it would be after the upgrade. Spending all that money on ramps and overpasses, and then spending more money on cable barriers to prevent illegal turns, and accomplishing nothing but making life a little harder for ranchers, seems silly to me.
A few Interstates have grade crossings due to isolation, light traffic, and the inordinate cost of providing grade separations for so small a benefit. This road could be left as it is, other than one overpass at Sarita. It could be another exception while in no way degrading service, and improved some day when conditions warrant.
I disagree...an Interstate designated highway with at-grade crossings (other than I-180) is a disaster waiting to happen.I-10 and I-40 in west Texas have had them since they were built.
]I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.
To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.
Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.
It does seem wasteful to spend all that money, especially when the ranchers will probably drive over the median anyway. The speed limit there, except through Sarita, is 75, which is as high as it would be after the upgrade. Spending all that money on ramps and overpasses, and then spending more money on cable barriers to prevent illegal turns, and accomplishing nothing but making life a little harder for ranchers, seems silly to me.
A few Interstates have grade crossings due to isolation, light traffic, and the inordinate cost of providing grade separations for so small a benefit. This road could be left as it is, other than one overpass at Sarita. It could be another exception while in no way degrading service, and improved some day when conditions warrant.
I disagree...an Interstate designated highway with at-grade crossings (other than I-180) is a disaster waiting to happen. If that is the case, then it would be better to leave it as US 77 and run I-69 along US 59 to Laredo as originally planned.
Actually, if there is that much of a concern about illegal turns, the solution is to provide continuous one-way frontage roads on both sides of US 77, with intermittent grade-seperated "crossunders" to connect them and allow for cross traffic movements. I'd rather that than either the current setup of ramps or allowing at-grade crossings.
Recently (back in July) went to South Padre Island for a summer break and encountered highway signs showing part of I-69E? & I-69C? on the highway down there :hmmm::
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/
I rode US 77 from Robstown all the way to the Border and there is hardly any traffic that really warrants upgrades at intersections.
Very nice photos, Ethan! Is there some contextual thing I'm missing with the I-369 LED sign in the back of the truck? That's sort of a mystery because it seems to be in the middle of nowhere.
Very nice photos, Ethan! Is there some contextual thing I'm missing with the I-369 LED sign in the back of the truck? That's sort of a mystery because it seems to be in the middle of nowhere.
Very nice photos, Ethan! Is there some contextual thing I'm missing with the I-369 LED sign in the back of the truck? That's sort of a mystery because it seems to be in the middle of nowhere.
Very nice photos, Ethan!
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 ...:Quote....
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.
High Priority Corridor 20 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l20) requires:(bottom quote from Interstate 22 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=724.msg250185#msg250185) thread)Quote20.United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]If I interpret Google Maps correctly, the current US 59/Loop 20 interchange is within Laredo's city limits, which would comply with the statute (at the other end, an interchange with I-30 near the TexAmericas Center (located in New Boston, west of the Texarkana city limits) may have already been contemplated as reflected by the language "to the vicinity of Texarkana"). OTOH it looks like a new connector from Loop 20 to US 59 outside of the city limits would make sense, and by a common-sense standard would be an exception that would comply with the "United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo" requirement.
Am I nitpicking? Probably. However, FHWA might nitpick, too.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.28.13.html) reports that the TTC made the I-69 designation official today:QuoteThe Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of an additional 28.4 miles of US 59 as part of Interstate 69.
The existing section of US 59 from the south side of Rosenberg in Fort Bend County north to Loop 610 in southwest Houston is now part of the Interstate Highway System and will soon be signed as both I-69 and US 59. This entire section is known locally as the Southwest Freeway ... There were five design issues identified and exceptions were approved by FHWA.
Notable by its absence is an application for US 59 to be signed as I-69 "inside" I-610. I assume it will eventually be signed.
I-69 "inside" I-610 was also absent from AASHTO's recent posting of its route numbering decisions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20USRN%20AM2013%20Oct18.pdf). I suspect FHWA has not to date granted as many design exceptions as TxDOT needs for an immediate I-69 designation of this section of US 59. Maybe it will all be resolved in time for next Spring's AASHTO meeting......
TxDOT is continuing to study the existing US 59 to determine if it meets Interstate quality and also continuing the development of the Interstate designation request. These processes include discussions with FHWA. Although we had anticipated a Fall 2013 submittal, we are now looking at Spring 2014.
Will it be co-signed I-69/US-59? If so, will the US59 eventually be dropped?
Will it be co-signed I-69/US-59? If so, will the US59 eventually be dropped?
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that I-69 is designated on the state highway system concurrent with US 59 from I-610 West in Houston to north of Spur 529 in Rosenberg
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg231217#msg231217) thread)Is there a good map yet showing the entire proposed length of I-69, including the three splits in Texas? I've not been able to find any yetNot quite sure how well this January 2013 map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) will work for you. (pp. 7-8/122 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/wSGwd7B.jpg)
... It's difficult to see on my snip of the map, but the tiny, easternmost "fourth prong", SIU 32, is SH 550 from the Port of Brownsville to I-69E/US 77, and can be more easily seen at the linked version of the map.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.htmlthe SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:QuoteThe third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year
With the State Highway 550 Connector project taking shape, officials say portions of the east and westbound lanes of the expressway will close to help construction.
Cameron County Administrator Pete Sepulveda Jr. said the east and westbound lanes nearest to the frontage roads on Interstate 69 East, formerly Expressway 77/83, will close Wednesday for approximately 10 months or until the completion of the connectors ....
SH 550, formerly known as FM 511, will connect to Interstate 69 East once done and facilitate traffic flow to and from the Port of Brownsville ....
Brownsville Economic Development Council .... Executive Vice President Gilberto Salinas said his office envisions an industrial corridor in the area that his office is marketing as the North Brownsville Industrial Corridor ....
Port of Brownsville Deputy Director Donna Eymard said the creation of SH 550 is tremendous for the port and its construction gave the facility access to land that it didn’t have access to before the transportation upgrades ....
Laredo-Freer-Alice-Corpus is a much greater priority for traffic relief and connectivity than Laredo-Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria, given the finite pot of money available.
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted an I-69 in South Texas Initiatives Presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/3a-presentation.pdf) that was presented at its September 26 meeting in McAllen. It provides updates of ongoing I-69C, I-69E, and I-2 projects. One slide that caught my eye included an "I-69 Implementation Plan" based on stakeholder priorities, in particular the planned south-to-north progression for I-69C/US 281 (page 12/12 of pdf)
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 just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 ... allows TxDOT to choose between I-69C and I-69 for the Victoria to George West segment of US 59:QuoteUS 59 from Victoria to George West can be I-69 or I-69C, which ever Texas Department of Transportation requests.
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?
Laredo-Freer-Alice-Corpus is a much greater priority for traffic relief and connectivity than Laredo-Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria, given the finite pot of money available.
.... around Loop 463 and then follow U.S. Highway 77
I don't believe the portion inside of the 610 loop are ready to be designated yet, is it?
TxDOT completed its US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) in October (it should be posted on the TxDOT website in the relatively near future).
TxDOT completed its US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) in October (it should be posted on the TxDOT website in the relatively near future).
TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/us281-us59-district.pdf).
I'm pleasantly surprised that TxDOT no longer calls their Interstates as IH (ie. IH-37, IH-69C, IH-2, etc.)They've always been inconsistent about it: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atxdot.gov+%22IH+69%22
I guess because people would get confused between IH-2 with the I-H2 in Hawaii.Yeah, that's it. And they might think SH is a command to be quiet.
The Texas Transportation Commission February 28, 2013 Minutes (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minutes/feb28.pdf) show that the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") ordered that I-69 and US 59 have a concurrent designation along the Southwest Freeway (page 45/48 of pdf; page 105 of document):QuoteIT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that I-69 is designated on the state highway system concurrent with US 59 from I-610 West in Houston to north of Spur 529 in Rosenberg
The Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf) has been updated to show I-2, I-69C, and I-69E:
I-369 in Texarkana is also shown on the map.
Yay I-blank.
Any local knowledge regarding Loop 463 is welcome, particularly if US 59 on the east side is considered part of the Loop.
I-blankblank7 is even better!where do you see that?
I-blankblank7 is even better!where do you see that?
A few interesting comments:(above quote from Draft Highway Primary Freight Network (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11125.msg265037#msg265037) thread)
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FHWA-2013-0050-0003QuoteWe at ALDOT have noticed the omission of I-22 Memphis to Birmingham from the proposed network miles, and attribute this to the uncompleted section and the interchange where it ties into I-65. If there are additional sections or miles added to the network, we want to make sure I-22 is included. This could be a high volume corridor (Memphis I-22 Birmingham I-20 Atlanta) with completion of the interchange.
Russell Zapalac, TxDOT's Chief Planning and Projects Officer, recently made a presentation to the Texas Transportation Commission (http://txdot.swagit.com/play/09262013-617). At about the 7:55 mark of the "Item 3 - Discussion Items" video (as of this post, the Transcript of the presentation has not been posted on the website), he comments that he is "working with the Laredo folks to develop I-69W" and that "within the next year or so" TxDOT intends to "sign Loop 20 to the World Trade Bridge as a portion of I-69".
c. Regional Priority Projects
Staff will outline state and local plans for the development of Interstate 69 through upgrades to State Loop 20.
Russell Zapalac, TxDOT's Chief Planning and Projects Officer, recently made a presentation to the Texas Transportation Commission (http://txdot.swagit.com/play/09262013-617) .... he comments that "within the next year or so" .... TxDOT intends to "sign Loop 20 to the World Trade Bridge as a portion of I-69" ....
Congress did not specifically include Loop 20 in HPC 20; will FHWA require an interim I-x35 designation?
The Texas Transportation Commission's February 26, 2014 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0226/agenda.pdf) reflects that the meeting will be held in Laredo and a presentation will be made about Loop 20/I-69
Webb County - In the city of Laredo, redesignate a segment of State Loop 20 as US 59 and redesignate a segment of US 59 as Business US 59-Z (MO)
This minute order redesignates a segment of State Loop 20 as US 59 from the World Trade Bridge to the junction of State Loop 20 and US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 10.9 miles and redesignates a segment of US 59 as BU 59-Z from the junction of State Loop 20 and US 59 to the southern terminus of US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 3.6 miles. This begins the process of designating US 59 concurrent with the I-69 system in Laredo.
the FHWA High Priority Corridors page (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm) provides the relevant part of the statutory I-69 definition:Quote18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada ....
to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69] ....
D. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall- ....
iii. include ... FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_2d6a45cc-4112-11e3-81d6-001a4bcf6878.html) reports that work is beginning on the ramps that will connect SH 550 to I-69E ....
Another I-69 Corridor Section of Independent Utility ("SIU") nearing completion ...... :bigass:
Tractor-trailer rigs were expected to start rolling in at 6 a.m. today through the Port of Brownsville’s new primary entrance: the State Highway 550 connector entry ....
SH 550, formerly known as FM 511, is an alternate route between the Port of Brownsville and Interstate 69 ....
Truckers coming from the ports of Houston or Corpus Christi can now reach the Brownsville port without ever having to leave I-69, he said.
“We do hope and anticipate increased direct access by truck traffic to the Port of Brownsville,” he said ....
The remaining SH 550 connector could wrap up at the end of the year and would be 10 miles with four tolled, general purpose main lanes — two in each direction — and direct connectors at I-69.
“It’s my understanding that it would probably be toward the end of the year,” Campirano said of the final piece of the project. “And when that happens, it will be a really nice connection.”
Webb County - In the city of Laredo, redesignate a segment of State Loop 20 as US 59 and redesignate a segment of US 59 as Business US 59-Z (MO)This means that unless US59Bus is extended past US59's current terminus (say, via I-35, and FM1472 (or not)), it'll only connect to its parent at one end. Not unprecedented for TXDOT, but what would AASHTO have to say?
This minute order redesignates a segment of State Loop 20 as US 59 from the World Trade Bridge to the junction of State Loop 20 and US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 10.9 miles and redesignates a segment of US 59 as BU 59-Z from the junction of State Loop 20 and US 59 to the southern terminus of US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 3.6 miles. This begins the process of designating US 59 concurrent with the I-69 system in Laredo.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.23.13%20Laredo.html) also has an article about the project:QuoteCity, county and Alliance for I-69 Texas representatives broke ground this week to start construction of a diamond interchange overpass facility on Loop 20 at McPherson Avenue in the north side of Laredo.(http://i.imgur.com/O5yPtQR.jpg)
Loop 20 is designated as the future route of Interstate 69 in Laredo. The Loop 20 freeway has already been completed from the World Trade Bridge to an interchange with Interstate 35.
The Texas Transportation Commission's February 26, 2014 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0226/agenda.pdf) reflects that the meeting will be held in Laredo and a presentation will be made about Loop 20/I-69:Quotec. Regional Priority Projects
Staff will outline state and local plans for the development of Interstate 69 through upgrades to State Loop 20.
The $14.5 million overpass at Loop 20 and McPherson opened Friday to the traveling public.
A ribbon-cutting ceremony was held in the afternoon by local and state officials to celebrate the opening of the overpass, which will improve mobility and reduce traffic congestion.
Melissa Monteamyor, district manager for the Texas Department of Transportation in Laredo, said the project was an effort by Webb County and the City of Laredo, which worked with TxDOT to get more state and federal funding for the project. The project is part of a larger one that includes improving the northern section of Loop 20, from U.S. 59 to the World Trade Bridge.
The project began one year ago. It can be designated as part of the Interstate 69 system.
I don't understand, a "south" highway is heading north ... Are you sure it won't head north of Lake Casa Blanca? That would make much more sense.
More than likely I-69 will have to run a little to the north of existing US 59 to avoid some residential areas near Loop 20, either between Lake Casa Blanca and US 59 or north of Lake Casa Blanca. Personally I'd swing it away from US 59 WNW around here (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=27.560463133519903,-99.395), and connect to Loop 20 about 1/2 mile south of Del Mar. It's far more direct, and there's nothing much but scrubland out there, so there's plenty of room for a fully directional interchange at Loop 20. Plus it would reduce the concurrency of through trucks to Corpus & Houston with local commuter traffic from south Laredo to the airport, arena, and university.
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC"), in its February 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0227/agenda.pdf)*, indicates that it will redesignate Loop 20 as US 59 over the "I-69" portion of US 59 (thereby complying with the HPC 20 statutory "US 59" language)(page 2/13 of pdf)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that:
1. A segment of SL 20 is redesignated on the state highway system as US 59 from the entrance to the World Trade Bridge (approximately 0.6 miles west of FM 1472) to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 10.9 miles, as shown in Exhibit A.
2. A segment of US 59 is redesignated on the state highway system as BU 59-Z from the junction of SL 20 and US 59 to the southern terminus of US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 3.6 miles, as shown in Exhibit A.
This means that unless US59Bus is extended past US59's current terminus (say, via I-35, and FM1472 (or not)), it'll only connect to its parent at one end. Not unprecedented for TXDOT, but what would AASHTO have to say?
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the department shall forward this minute order, along with all other pertinent information, to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Special Committee on US Route Numbering for consideration.
Wait a second. Isn't that bridge trucks-only?
[/url]#Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin III speaks at the unveiling of Loop 20 as “Future I-69†in #Laredo: pic.twitter.com/s9QRFhQapt
— TxDOT Laredo (@TxDOTLaredo) February 24, 2014
[/url]Future I-69 sign unveiled in Laredo. pic.twitter.com/8UXob7XG3Q
— TxDOT Laredo (@TxDOTLaredo) February 24, 2014
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC"), in its February 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0227/agenda.pdf) ... indicates that it will redesignate Loop 20 as US 59 over the "I-69" portion of US 59 (thereby complying with the HPC 20 statutory "US 59" language)(page 2/13 of pdf)The TTC has posted the proposed Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0227/5b.pdf) regarding the redesignations
If Loop 20 is given an interstate number, it will probably be I-69W.
I-35A?
A couple of tweets with pictures of sign pr0n:
437989092484067328[/tweet]][/url]#Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin III speaks at the unveiling of Loop 20 as “Future I-69†in #Laredo: pic.twitter.com/s9QRFhQapt
— TxDOT Laredo (@TxDOTLaredo) February 24, 2014
437984484395200512[/tweet]] (http://[tweet)[/url]Future I-69 sign unveiled in Laredo. pic.twitter.com/8UXob7XG3Q
— TxDOT Laredo (@TxDOTLaredo) February 24, 2014
What I can't understand is where they stuck the sign; it appears to be in the median of the future main lanes west of I-35, which probably is a good place for a photo op but you'd never see it from the road.
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_fb1273f2-99e4-11e3-b98c-001a4bcf6878.html) reports that the SH 550 entrance to the Port of Brownsville recently opened and that the entire SH 550 project should be completed by the end of the year
Officials say a direct connector that will link Interstate 69 and State Highway 550 is 55 percent completed.
The direct connector, formally known as the SH 550 Connector Project, will make it easier for motorists driving on the expressway to connect with SH 550 because the new connection will eliminate having to get off the expressway, drive underneath the expressway and then having to get onto SH 550, officials said.
“It’s coming along very well and within budget,” Cameron County Administrator Pete Sepulveda Jr. said. “Hopefully, come September, it will be complete." ....
The project calls for 199 beams and the project is only 25 beams away from completion, Sepulveda said, adding that the remaining beams will stretch over I-69, formerly known as Expressway 77/83, and the highway will close for that part of the project.
“That will happen at night,” Sepulveda said, adding that he is not sure when that part of the project is scheduled ....
A little more than a week ago, the Port of Brownsville officially opened its new entrance which links up with SH 550. When the connector wraps up at the end of the year, it will be 10 miles long with four tolled, general purpose main lanes — two in each direction — with direct connectors at I-69.
The TTC has posted the video from its February 27 meeting (http://txdot.swagit.com/play/02272014-711) and in Item 5 (approximately five minutes in length), it is explained that the redesignation of Loop 20 as US 59 was "necessary" for Loop 20/US 59 to ultimately be designated as part of "the I-69 system". The speaker appears to take great pains to use the phrase "I-69 system", which might portend a temporary interstate designation before it is ultimately signed as I-69 (simply my guess). The proposed Minute Order for the redesignation, not surprisingly, was approved. On to AASHTO .......
The 2-mile section of Loop 20/US 59 from I-35 to the border crossing was built to interstate highway standard and is now being evaluated by TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration for addition to the Interstate Highway System as Interstate 69.
I-69 "inside" I-610 was also absent from AASHTO's recent posting of its route numbering decisions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20USRN%20AM2013%20Oct18.pdf). I suspect FHWA has not to date granted as many design exceptions as TxDOT needs for an immediate I-69 designation of this section of US 59. Maybe it will all be resolved in time for next Spring's AASHTO meeting......TxDOT is now aiming for Spring 2014; here is an email update I just received:QuoteTxDOT is continuing to study the existing US 59 to determine if it meets Interstate quality and also continuing the development of the Interstate designation request. These processes include discussions with FHWA. Although we had anticipated a Fall 2013 submittal, we are now looking at Spring 2014.The good news is that it seems like they are working closely with FHWA in order to develop a successful submittal.
Transportation Planning
Various Counties - Authorize the submission of applications to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to establish segments of I-69 (MO)
In accordance with the procedures established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include various route segments in Texas as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69.
I-69 "inside" I-610 was also absent from AASHTO's recent posting of its route numbering decisions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20USRN%20AM2013%20Oct18.pdf). I suspect FHWA has not to date granted as many design exceptions as TxDOT needs for an immediate I-69 designation of this section of US 59. Maybe it will all be resolved in time for next Spring's AASHTO meeting......TxDOT is now aiming for Spring 2014; here is an email update I just received:QuoteTxDOT is continuing to study the existing US 59 to determine if it meets Interstate quality and also continuing the development of the Interstate designation request. These processes include discussions with FHWA. Although we had anticipated a Fall 2013 submittal, we are now looking at Spring 2014.The good news is that it seems like they are working closely with FHWA in order to develop a successful submittal.
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") has posted its March 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/agenda.pdf). It is anticipated that the TTC will authorize TxDOT to submit applications (yes, plural) for segments to receive respective I-69 designations (page 6/14 of pdf; page 6 of document):QuoteTransportation Planning
Various Counties - Authorize the submission of applications to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to establish segments of I-69 (MO)
In accordance with the procedures established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include various route segments in Texas as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69.
I anticipate "inside I-610" in Houston will be one of the applications; any guesses regarding other applications?
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") has posted its March 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/agenda.pdf). It is anticipated that the TTC will authorize TxDOT to submit applications (yes, plural) for segments to receive respective I-69 designations (page 6/14 of pdf; page 6 of document)
Texas routes currently identified as part of the future I-69 alignment include segments of US 59, US 77, US 84 and US 281.
AASHTO applications will be submitted as route segments are determined to meet current interstate design standards, connect to an existing segment of the interstate system, and be of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public. Since the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering meets only twice a year, the department is seeking approval from the commission to submit applications for those segments already identified as part of the I-69 corridor as they become eligible for inclusion on the interstate system, rather than request commission action each time an individual segment becomes eligible. This will allow the department to proceed in the most efficient manner possible and avoid delays in adding future I-69 segments to the interstate system ....
The Texas Department of Transportation (department) proposes to designate several segments of highways in Texas as INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 69 (I-69) in the next six years.
This minute order authorizes the department to petition the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering to recognize those designated segments as I-69 that comply with federal regulations and are of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that the department is authorized to submit applications to the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering requesting the recognition of I-69 along various existing routes through Texas as those route segments become eligible for inclusion on the interstate system.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that following approval of the applications by the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering, the commission will designate such route segments as I-69 by minute order.
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") has posted its March 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/agenda.pdf). It is anticipated that the TTC will authorize TxDOT to submit applications (yes, plural) for segments to receive respective I-69 designations (page 6/14 of pdf; page 6 of document)
The TTC has posted the proposed Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/15c.pdf) and it does not specify specific segments for TxDOT to petition AASHTO for designations; instead, it appears to give TxDOT standing permission to petition AASHTO as segments become interstate-grade:QuoteTexas routes currently identified as part of the future I-69 alignment include segments of US 59, US 77, US 84 and US 281.
AASHTO applications will be submitted as route segments are determined to meet current interstate design standards, connect to an existing segment of the interstate system, and be of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public. Since the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering meets only twice a year, the department is seeking approval from the commission to submit applications for those segments already identified as part of the I-69 corridor as they become eligible for inclusion on the interstate system, rather than request commission action each time an individual segment becomes eligible. This will allow the department to proceed in the most efficient manner possible and avoid delays in adding future I-69 segments to the interstate system ....
The Texas Department of Transportation (department) proposes to designate several segments of highways in Texas as INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 69 (I-69) in the next six years.
This minute order authorizes the department to petition the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering to recognize those designated segments as I-69 that comply with federal regulations and are of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that the department is authorized to submit applications to the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering requesting the recognition of I-69 along various existing routes through Texas as those route segments become eligible for inclusion on the interstate system.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that following approval of the applications by the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering, the commission will designate such route segments as I-69 by minute order.
I-369 in Texarkana may be the current shortest segment to meet the "be of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public" standard.
I suppose that it is still possible that specific applications (US 59 in Houston?) will be submitted in time for AASHTO's May meeting.
281's usage may also go up a bit once the Falfurrias toll bypass is open (if it isn't already; it was well along two years ago last time I trekked down that way), which would leave George West as the only real slowdown from US 83 to I-37.
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2012_meetings/documents/transcripts/mar29.pdfQuoteAgenda item 9c would remove the toll designation from a segment of US 281 in South Texas from south of FM 3066 northward through the City of Falfurrias to the Brooks County line. The main lanes of this 5.9-mile segment were originally designated as a toll project on the state highway system in 2007 in order to support the segment's improvement from an undivided four-lane road to a freeway.
In 2009, previously unanticipated federal funding became available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and this was used to help expedite and support construction of the freeway project in Falfurrias. In October 2011, a study concluded that the cost to install and maintain an electronic toll collection system on this segment is higher than forecasted toll revenues. Staff, therefore, recommends that the toll designation be removed from the mainlanes of US 281 from 0.9 miles south of FM 3066 northward to the Brooks County line, and that the segment operate as a non-tolled freeway on the state highway system.
I anticipate "inside I-610" in Houston will be one of the applications; any guesses regarding other applications?My guesses would be US 281 in Falfurious I-69C
The US 281 Falfurrias project is scheduled to be complete next month. It will be constructed to Interstate standards and will not be tolled.
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.Methinks they'll wait until the other upgrades from Houston south are complete.
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.There's some evidence of an upgrade at the US 59/69 split north of town:
Has anybody gotten photographs proving that the first I-69 segment in Robstown, TX has been converted to I-69E?When was this supposed to have happened? It was I-69 at the end of last October. Kind of on the same topic, have reassurance markers for 69E and I-2 been posted? Only major interchange guide signs had the shields when we were there last fall.
Thank you Yakra and Henry.Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.There's some evidence of an upgrade at the US 59/69 split north of town:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/31.36981/-94.70953
http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.37064,-94.708951&t=k&z=16
No idea whether it will be part of I-69 though.
Has anybody gotten photographs proving that the first I-69 segment in Robstown, TX has been converted to I-69E?When was this supposed to have happened? It was I-69 at the end of last October. Kind of on the same topic, have reassurance markers for 69E and I-2 been posted? Only major interchange guide signs had the shields when we were there last fall.
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.There's some evidence of an upgrade at the US 59/69 split north of town:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/31.36981/-94.70953
http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.37064,-94.708951&t=k&z=16
No idea whether it will be part of I-69 though.
TxDOT is proposing adding frontage roads along US 59 through El Campo. The proposed project would construct frontage roads and convert the existing US 59 lanes into a controlled access road that meets interstate standards.
TxDOT proposes improving US 59 in Wharton County to interstate standards. The project would include frontage roads and divided highway with two main lanes in each direction.
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.There's some evidence of an upgrade at the US 59/69 split north of town:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/31.36981/-94.70953
http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.37064,-94.708951&t=k&z=16
No idea whether it will be part of I-69 though.
Has anybody gotten photographs proving that the first I-69 segment in Robstown, TX has been converted to I-69E?When was this supposed to have happened? It was I-69 at the end of last October. Kind of on the same topic, have reassurance markers for 69E and I-2 been posted? Only major interchange guide signs had the shields when we were there last fall.
From The TxDOT Facebook page:
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1071480_10151746298405874_1936754542_o.jpg)
(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1072293_10151746298375874_1384879324_o.jpg)
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1071480_10151746298405874_1936754542_o.jpg)That's funny, it looks more like a scene from southern FL (with the palm trees and all), which triggers an old memory of my younger self imagining I-2 being signed on the Alligator Alley, long before that road was made into an extension of I-75.
Also noticed overhead I-69 N/S cosigned with US59 on the BW8 southbound to 69/59 interchange. I don't recall seeing that about a week ago. Glad to see the interstate shields finally showing up. Hopefully they will paint the blue shields on the roadway next.
Nexus 5
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/tomball/news/cornyn-lauds-continued-work-along-i--corridor/article_42ea779e-cbb2-11e2-b612-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that five alternatives are being considered for Houston's I-69 relief route:As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route... the Segment Two Committee. Below is a map included in their report in which they incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)QuoteAccording to the Texas Department of Transportation, I-69 will enter the Houston area from the southwest on the current U.S. 59 (Southwest Freeway). It will also leave the area on U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway).
In the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
• Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
• Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
• Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett addressed the importance of Interstate 69.
"It's pretty much agreed now that we need to have a bypass around the Houston area," he said. "It needs to go south and east instead of west, so it can support the port."
An honest question. Are the I-69W and C necessary. It's almost as short just to take I-35 and I-10 via San Antonio. I 69 C is also pretty close to the E. The E route is the only necessary routing of I-69 in Texas.
I suppose that it is still possible that specific applications (US 59 in Houston?) will be submitted in time for AASHTO's May meeting.I heard from a contact in the I-69 Alliance that there are two submitted sections of US 59. First is the section between the 610s in Houston and the other is Loop 20 in Laredo.
there's a good chance no "I-69W" ever gets built per se. Laredo-Freer-Alice-Corpus is a much greater priority for traffic relief and connectivity than Laredo-Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria, given the finite pot of money available.
South Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold has introduced legislation has been that would add 73 more miles to the Interstate 69 system of routes in Texas and ultimately provide an interstate connection between Laredo and Corpus Christi ....
Congressman Farenthold’s bill applies to the section of State Highway 44 between US 59 in Freer and the SH 358 Freeway in Corpus Christi.
If enacted the legislation would designate this section of SH 44 as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System and designate it as a Future Interstate. The Alliance for I-69 Texas and the statewide I-69 Advisory Committee have been instrumental in moving the legislation forward ....
SH 44 is already at interstate highway standard in Corpus Christi and is a four-lane divided highway westward to the city of San Diego. The 23 miles from San Diego to Freer is a two-lane section passing through sparsely populated ranch land. Upgrades recommended by the committees include relief routes around Alice, San Diego and Freer plus a new link at Robstown.
The legislation, H.R. 4523, is being referred to as the “44 to 69 Act of 2014.”
South Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold has introduced legislation has been that would add 73 more miles to the Interstate 69 system of routes in Texas and ultimately provide an interstate connection between Laredo and Corpus Christi ....
Congressman Farenthold’s bill applies to the section of State Highway 44 between US 59 in Freer and the SH 358 Freeway in Corpus Christi.
Unless they just really want I-69F or something.
Article from the Victoria Advocate yesterday about small business owners in Victoria (my daughter's name :colorful: ) who are less than enthralled by what the future I-69 will do for their retail traffic...feel for them. I didn't know I-69 construction was so full-bore there. There is a significant petrochemical presence in that city, too, enough that a large barge canal has been dug some time back...I'm sure there will be some happy I-69 shippers there eventually:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2014/may/03/frontage_road_mc_050414_238470/?business
An honest question. Are the I-69W and C necessary. It's almost as short just to take I-35 and I-10 via San Antonio. I 69 C is also pretty close to the E. The E route is the only necessary routing of I-69 in Texas.Laredo is not only a boomtown (from <70,000 in 1970 to pushing 250,000 today -- just the city proper, not counting suburbs, Mexico, etc.), but it's also the busiest inland port of entry in the U.S.; it needs I-69W just to relieve current I-35 truck traffic. Maybe I-69C is overkill, but Laredo needs I-69W just as much as the Valley needs I-69E.
This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%204.30.14%20sh44bill.html) reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:
This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%204.30.14%20sh44bill.html) reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:
Oh no, not again.
I-6 would make sense, especially with I-2 now in the Valley.This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%204.30.14%20sh44bill.html) reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:
Oh no, not again.
I-69Uhoh
Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes
Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes
NC is the worst. I'm glad all states aren't doing that. If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di. The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road. US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644. The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.
I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.Well, given that I-74 has a missing link to Cincinnati, the current route of I-73 is entirely east of I-77 (and I-75, for that matter), and I-69 may not be built back to Indianapolis in most of our lifetimes, I will agree that all these routes are really not necessary. Sure, having a new Interstate is nice, but there is such a thing as overdoing it. Then again, this was attempted in many large cities and ended up becoming a major failure for the most part, thanks to community and/or environmental opposition.
I recently emailed TxDOT to ask about progress on the Falfurrias Expressway Project (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update1.html) and it should be open to traffic in approximately a month:QuoteThe US 281 Falfurrias project is scheduled to be complete next month. It will be constructed to Interstate standards and will not be tolled
Q: I just wanted to check and see if the US 281 Falfurrias project is now open to traffic. I have not been able to find any information about it on the internet.
A: Yes, the project is now open to traffic. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/us281-us59-district.pdf).
I never said they don't overdo it. I said the eventual routes make sense in the overall system (in TX and NC, that is). And I-73 isn't too bad in the grid as it is. Not everything has to be 100% perfect.Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes
NC is the worst. I'm glad all states aren't doing that. If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di. The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road. US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644. The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.Well, given that I-74 has a missing link to Cincinnati, the current route of I-73 is entirely east of I-77 (and I-75, for that matter), and I-69 may not be built back to Indianapolis in most of our lifetimes, I will agree that all these routes are really not necessary. Sure, having a new Interstate is nice, but there is such a thing as overdoing it. Then again, this was attempted in many large cities and ended up becoming a major failure for the most part, thanks to community and/or environmental opposition.
Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes
NC is the worst. I'm glad all states aren't doing that. If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di. The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road. US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644. The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.
I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.
Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes
NC is the worst. I'm glad all states aren't doing that. If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di. The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road. US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644. The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.Well, given that I-74 has a missing link to Cincinnati, the current route of I-73 is entirely east of I-77 (and I-75, for that matter), and I-69 may not be built back to Indianapolis in most of our lifetimes, I will agree that all these routes are really not necessary. Sure, having a new Interstate is nice, but there is such a thing as overdoing it. Then again, this was attempted in many large cities and ended up becoming a major failure for the most part, thanks to community and/or environmental opposition.
What exactly is the point of I-2?Not this again. This is about the only corridor that makes any sense for an I-2 to follow within the next century...
What exactly is the point of I-2?Not this again. This is about the only corridor that makes any sense for an I-2 to follow within the next century...
What exactly is the point of I-2?Not this again. This is about the only corridor that makes any sense for an I-2 to follow within the next century...
I agree with that. But what's the real point? I don't believe it will serve an economic purpose. The roadway was already limited access. So what's the point? Because 2 isn't used yet? That's my point. There doesn't have to be a 2. We don't need to put a blue and red sign on every highway.
iPhone
if y'all were around when they formed the interstate system you'd be complaining about how no one is driving out west and why would we every build I-25 & I-15?
This project, from Kingsville to Driscoll, is approximately eight miles in length and spans from E. Corral Avenue / Farm-to-Market Road 1898 in the northern portion of Kingsville in Kleburg County north to County Road 12/FM 3354, just south of the City of Driscoll in Nueces County. The project will consist of:
Reconstruction of and improvements to the existing road to include
Two main lanes in each direction
Discontinuous frontage roads
Construction and overlay of main lanes and frontage roads
Construction and widening of bridges, which will eliminate crossroad traffic on main lanes of travel
Construction of at-grade ramps and intersection improvements
The improvements will also include wider road shoulders and increase safety for disabled vehicles and motorists needing to pull over to the shoulders.
Construction for the project is anticipated to run April 2014 - August 2016 with a projected opening date of October 2016.
The estimated total project cost is approximately $79 million.
In May, TxDOT will hold public meetings about their plans to upgrade US 59 to I-69 in El Campo and Wharton County (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=El+Campo,+TX&hl=en&ll=29.196527,-96.269073&spn=0.974624,1.234589&sll=29.351357,-96.134491&sspn=0.24329,0.308647&oq=el+campo,+TX&t=h&hnear=El+Campo,+Wharton+County,+Texas&z=10).
El Campo (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/el-campo-050614.html)
Wharton County (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/wharton-050614.html)
I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time. I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls. It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.
I was thinking the same thing too! Except it would be an extension of I-12. (And the existing I-12 does a pretty good job of helping motorists avoid New Orleans altogether.)I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time. I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls. It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.
I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap! No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate. I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW). Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise. Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."
I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time. I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls. It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.
I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap! No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate. I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW). Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise. Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."
I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time. I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls. It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.
I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap! No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate. I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW). Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise. Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."
finally most of us agree on something.
If the "there has to be significant traffic to upgrade to an interstate" argument was used in 1957 when they laid out the interstate highway system, Interstate 10 would not have been built between Kerrville and Junction (or Lordsburg, NM and Benson, AZ for that fact) because here wasn't a single car driving on that guy's ranch out there.
I have no problem with the separate I-69C and I-69E Interstate highway corridors other than perhaps the numbering choices (pushing a number like I-69 that far West is just plain strange, but it is what it is). Population growth in the far South end of Texas is as rapid as anywhere else in the Lone Star State. There is a lot of people and traffic down there. Further, I can certainly see the validity in building I-2 and even extending it North up to Laredo. Going farther than that, I think I-27 and its Ports to Plains Corridor needs to be upgraded to Interstate level standards at some point, either in terms of a freeway or some kind of turnpike. Same goes for extending I-44 South into Texas, at least down to San Angelo and an extended I-27 corridor or down to the border at Del Rio. Just sayin'.
Of course this infrastructure building would work better with some improved trade dealing with Mexico and Canada and not having quite so much manufacturing production exporting to far away continents.
The problem with this logic (which I agreed with until I lived in South Texas and saw it for myself) is that the 69C/281 and 69E/77 corridors serve fundamentally different traffic flows. 69C serves the Hidalgo County to/from San Antonio + (with TX 44) Corpus Christi + (with US 59) Houston flows, 69E serves the Cameron County to/from San Antonio + Corpus Christi + Houston flows. If you only had 69C or 69E, a lot of those flows would require backtracking 40+ miles in the wrong direction, and people just aren't going to go that far out of their way unless the non-freeway corridor is gridlocked. So you're still going to have more or less the same traffic on both corridors, even if one is upgraded and the other isn't.
(To put it another way, 69C and 69E are only really redundant for SW to NE or NW to SE movements, because of I-2/US 83 and I-37. They are not redundant for NW to SW and NE to SE. Nobody would take I-37 to I-69E to I-2 to get from San Antonio to McAllen or vice versa. They'd take US 281. Hence why US 281 needs to be upgraded through Falfurrias, Alice, George West, etc.)
By similar logic, you could argue that I-35 should have gone through Fort Worth, and there should be no I-35E or I-x35 through Dallas, since if you wanted to access Dallas, you could use I-20 or I-30 from Fort Worth to get there. The folks who'd be in Waxahatchie and Desoto sitting in US 77 traffic in that scenario would likely disagree.
All that leaves aside the RGV politics which dictate that Hidalgo can't have anything Cameron doesn't already have, and vice versa.
The problem with the theory of "build it and they will come" boils down to money and logic. It cost a lot of money to upgrade these state and US highways to interstate grade. State and Federal level have a lot of people complaining about money being spent. Less money is going into road funds, why build what isn't needed when you can't be sure that the money for needed projects is there?
If you are building 1 to the RGV, why build a second so close? Why build a highway to bypass traffic that isn't there on the western half of San Antonio/Austin? Why build an interstate all the way to Texarkana from Houston when traffic would not go that route, plus 49 would not be that far away north of the 69 diverge into LA?
If I am not mistaken from the years I lived in Texas, most traffic flows within the NBA triangle. Only one interstate is really needed beyond East and West. Only one is really needed South.
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.
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.
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!
With an interstate designation, those poor design flaws will be eliminated.
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.
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.
People will go out of their way to stay on interstates because the roads are faster and better.
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?
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?QuotePeople 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 (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.
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.