AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: Grzrd on October 09, 2010, 01:18:12 PM

Title: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 09, 2010, 01:18:12 PM
TxDOT estimates that it will have $4 billion to $5 billion to begin construction on I-69 in approximately 5 years:

http://www.caller.com/news/2010/oct/08/proposed-interstate-69-could-cost-165-billion-in/

Quote
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.
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...
(caller. com (Corpus Christi); 10/8/10)

$4 billion seems like a decent amount of money to get things going ...
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: The Premier on October 10, 2010, 12:04:09 PM
$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.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Revive 755 on October 10, 2010, 07:40:37 PM
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,
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 10, 2010, 11:38:50 PM
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,

Actually, it has been, to a point...all three roads (US 59 to Laredo, and US 77 and US 281 to Harlingen/Brownsville) are planned to be integrated into the I-69 system and upgraded. My guess is that US 59 will serve as the main trunk and the other roadways as branches.

Personally, I'd reserve the I-69 moniker for the US 59 corridor, and use an extension of I-37 for the US 77 upgrade. An I-x69 could be suitable for the upgrade of US 281.

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
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: bogdown on October 11, 2010, 04:56:40 PM
id give 77 the nod, after they upgrade 59, of course
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 11, 2010, 09:06:03 PM
How does TX get all this money to build roads and expand them?  It seems they are always building new stacks, expanding highways or building new ones.  How do they do it?
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Scott5114 on October 12, 2010, 09:14:15 PM
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...
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: jgb191 on October 14, 2010, 11:14:53 PM
$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.


That's because you're talking about a thousand miles of highway in Texas alone:  

-- 229 miles of US 77 from Victoria to Brownsville
-- 166 miles of US 281 from Three Rivers to McAllen
-- 612 miles of US 59 from Texarkana to Laredo

All three of those are going to be upgraded to interstates.  A few portions of those stretches are already fully completed freeways.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Grzrd on October 14, 2010, 11:18:33 PM
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

One small step for 77 ... : http://www.caller.com/news/2010/oct/14/new-overpass-near-robstown-means-i-69-is-one-to/

Quote
ROBSTOWN — An overpass under construction will move U.S. Highway 77 between Corpus Christi and Brownsville one step closer to interstate highway standards.
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...
(www.caller.com; Corpus Christi, 10/14/10)
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: J N Winkler on October 15, 2010, 03:47:35 AM
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...

Agencies responsible for state highways in Texas (which include not just TxDOT but also cities, counties, RMAs, and regional toll road agencies) issue an awful lot of debt and do a lot of work through Comprehensive Development Agreements which in effect sign away a cashflow in order to avoid paying the entire costs of construction up-front.  It is getting increasingly hard to find large projects through TxDOT lettings, not just because a lot of the high-dollar stuff has been farmed out to RMAs and regional toll agencies, but also because the gas tax has not been increased in Texas since the early 1990's and TxDOT is running out of money.  Quite a lot of the stuff TxDOT does let is minor construction and major maintenance on FM and RM roads, generally in the sub-$10 million range.

I have been following TxDOT lettings for over eight years.  The very first contract I downloaded from TxDOT and archived was a sign replacement contract for I-20 west of Fort Worth, in February 2002.  Most of the Katy Freeway contracts (well over $2 billion of work) passed through the TxDOT lettings and I got all of those contracts, over a three-year period beginning in 2003 and ending in 2006.  TxDOT has also been running construction for the Marsha Sharp Freeway in Lubbock through its lettings.  But that has been pretty much it for the big projects since 2006, with isolated exceptions like the southwestern end of the Crosby Freeway in Houston (modifying the I-10/I-610 east stack to incorporate new ramps for the US 90 connection).  At the moment I have 9,437 pattern-accurate sign design sheets from TxDOT, but the growth rate has slowed to 700 sheets annually, and the proportion of sheets I have which are from toll road agency/RMA contracts with TxDOT-assigned CCSJs has gone way up in the last three years.  At the present rate I won't break 10,000 sheets until September 2011 at earliest.  There are two stacks under construction right now in Texas that I am aware of, and I have the construction plans for both of them, but they are both administered by NTTA, not TxDOT.

I am missing construction plans for the US 271 Mount Pleasant Bypass and SL 79 down near Del Rio because those are both being administered by counties through a new TxDOT financing mechanism--Pass-Through Funding.  I would like to obtain the construction plans for them, but to my knowledge they were never put online, and I do not look forward to dealing with the counties.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Grzrd on October 21, 2010, 07:20:57 AM
Upgrade of U.S. 59 to I-69 from Lufkin to Texarkana is now projected to cost approximately $4.5 billion:

http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/localnews/2010/10/21/study-building-interstate-will-cost-texa-81.php

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Chris on October 21, 2010, 03:49:53 PM
Lufkin - Texarkana is 160 miles, so that comes down to $ 28 million per mile. I can't say that is an absurd amount of money.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: 3467 on October 21, 2010, 09:43:29 PM
It is sticker shock though for US rural contruction but it is not out of line . US 20 in Illinois reached 23 million a mile and was put on the back burner. Just 10 years ago a rural interstate freeway was about 10 million a mile . In the 1990s a 4 lane expresway construction was as low as 2.5 million a mile. Now without a lot of structures it is 6 million. I can see why Missouri shifted to passing lanes instead.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Grzrd on October 22, 2010, 08:11:29 AM
Here is a link to materials from the July 23, 2010 Segment Committee 1 meeting (click "Meetings" under Segment Committee 1 and you will find pdfs from various meetings):

http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm

On page 3/3 is a map of the constantly-evolving route.  I thought that the whole idea of upgrading U.S. 59 as opposed to choosing a new terrain route was to save money.  If an upgrade is $28 million/mile, how much would new terrain cost?
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: 3467 on October 22, 2010, 12:28:53 PM
Probably not a lot more, but it avoids taking a lot of land. To put this in perspective, Illinois is looking at 4-laning 200-300 miles statewide, and that is all expressway, not freeway. and I bet most other states are not much more (MORE WHAT???), so I-69 in Texas alone is an immense project by today's construction rates.

Punctuation is God's gift to literacy. ~S
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Chris on October 22, 2010, 04:16:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 22, 2010, 08:45:00 PM
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.

Considering Texas' liberal use of frontage roads, as well as the brohaha over the Trans-Texas Corridor's original proposals for new toll facilities bisecting farmland, I'd say that using existing roadways as much as possible with relief bypasses around urbanized areas is probably a good decision.


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: 3467 on October 22, 2010, 11:08:33 PM
TX DOT is proposing 4laning 3000 miles of trunk highway for 6.6 billion by 2035. That is only 2 million per mile which is a thenth of the 69 price and a bargain. I expected Texas to be less than Illinois but a third suprises me.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: J N Winkler on October 23, 2010, 04:08:06 AM
Remember that Texas is the home of the "poor boy" four-lane.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: 3467 on October 23, 2010, 11:52:36 AM
What is the Poor boy 4 lane. I would add Illinois 4 lanes have all paved shoulders and if the existing 2 lane is used it is reconstructed . There are left and right turn lanes at every intersection and all the bridges are rebuilt. They are also designed to be converted to freeway in most cases.I take it that isnt a poor boy so maybe the comparison isnt right.
On most passing lane or center turn lanes the road is reconstructed and there are gravel shoulders sometimes paved ones so those run about 3 million a mile.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: J N Winkler on October 23, 2010, 03:52:25 PM
The "poor boy" was basically an undivided rural four-lane arterial highway made by converting the full shoulders on a two-lane highway (which in Texas frequently have a 44' paved width consisting of two 12' lanes and two 10' shoulders) into part of the traveled way.  A typical poor-boy might have four lanes (two up and two down) of 11' each with no shoulder.  The heyday of poor-boys was the early 1980's, and I am not sure there are many examples still around--I think SH 6 near Bryan used to be a poor-boy but has since been reconstructed into a full freeway.  It was discovered that poor-boys have a marginally better safety record than two-lane highways because continuous passing opportunities are provided, but are still far inferior to four-lane expressways with full shoulders because there is no lateral separation between up and down traffic and no place to pull off in an emergency.  TxDOT practice in the recent past has been to spend more to get more, by building a full four-lane divided highway instead of a "poor boy," but I am not sure how keen they will be on holding the line with a cash crunch in progress.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: 3467 on October 23, 2010, 09:46:40 PM
Thanks I was just on a couple of Illinois roads that could be easily turned ino poor boys. I know Illinois wouldnt like that Since thye are low volume I think a few more miles of passing lanes would do the trick.

The TxDOT 2035 did claim they could 4 make the trunk system 4 lane divided for 2 million a mile but I dont know when they came out with that plan. I could see how thye could do cheaper divideds with no bypasses and no upgarde to the existing roads. I coule see 3 million since I suspect their labor rates are cheaper and Texas being warmer than Illinois might need less asphalt or concrete.

But if they have no money I think you are right the "poor boy" would be tempting. It is to me!
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Sykotyk on October 25, 2010, 01:01:08 AM
The problem with 'poor boy' highways is if it was originally a shoulder upgraded to a four-lane, the new slow lane will slope the edge, of which there is no shoulder (US77 north of I-10 is like this for a ways, it's quite annoying, actually).

I prefer the Texas style of driving where slower moving traffic moves to the shoulder to be overtaken as the need arrises. Otherwise, they stay in the wide open lane with an ample shoulder to accommodate any issue that arises.
Title: I-69 Shields Coming Soon To Rio Grande Valley?
Post by: Grzrd on November 10, 2010, 07:43:23 AM
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.html

Quote
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 ...

Looks like he will attempt to amend the law to make a border terminus the equivalent of a connection to another interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: J N Winkler on November 10, 2010, 07:46:36 AM
This would actually be a return of I-69 signs.  There were originally "future" I-69 signs along US 77 and (I think) US 83 in Willacy and Cameron counties, but these were removed when US 77 and US 83 were upgraded some years ago.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Grzrd on December 31, 2010, 02:38:20 PM
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.html

"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.
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

In these reports, the respective committees identify the interim top 5 priorities for each Segment (Segment Committee 4, in an attempt to not favor either US 77 corridor over US 281 corridor or vice versa, list top 4 separate priorities for US 77 and US 281 corridors).

The Committees also recommend immediately signing the following freeway sections as I-69:

Committee 2: US 59 in Houston from I-10 northward to Cleveland;

Committee 3: US 59 in Houston from I-10 southward to Rosenberg;

Committee 4: US 77 from I-37 to south of Robstown; US 281 from Mexican border to north of McAllen; US 77 from Mexican border to south of Lyford.

The first three recommendations are analogous to the Mississippi segment of I-69 because they tie in to current interstates.  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.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Brian556 on January 01, 2011, 03:17:15 PM
Regarding "Poor Boy" four lane highways: a short section of US 80 somewhere in east Texas is like this.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: 3467 on January 01, 2011, 07:49:55 PM
US 77 is too
I am thinking this would be a good thread for alternative improvemnets in an era of tight budgets
"Shoulder Upgrading alternatives to improve the operational charateristics of 2 lane roads"by the Texas Transportation Institute showed they were safe . Most 4 lanings are for lower volume roads like US 77 which is about 4000vpd.
 Illinois could widen three times the current milage under study yet for some reason they are very much against the idea.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 18, 2011, 10:53:15 PM
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.html

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 ...
Apparently, 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:

http://www.caller.com/news/2011/apr/14/farenthold-marks-100-days-in-office/

Quote
... 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 ...

I'm taking the leap of faith that "highway ready" is intended to mean "ready to be designated as I-69".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2011, 09:58:25 AM
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
In 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:

http://farenthold.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1120:transportation&catid=115&Itemid=100045

Quote
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.

Farenthold's use of the "serve as a model" language to describe the 110-mile US 77 upgrade is echoed in this document from the Alliance for I-69 Texas: http://www.i69texas.org/mediacenter/presentations/Alliance_Legislative.pdf

Quote
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].

The pdf is circa 2009 and includes a financing plan that would use other toll projects to finance the US 77 upgrade. (page 5/10 of the pdf).

Does anyone know if this is still the financing model that Farenthold is advocating for the US 77 upgrade?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 09, 2011, 04:05:38 PM
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)?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on May 09, 2011, 07:11:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2011, 03:02:56 PM
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.

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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 10, 2011, 03:29:04 PM
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.
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.

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

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.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 21, 2011, 11:32:51 PM
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

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.html

Quote
... 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.

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.

If this legislation passes, the politics may have to play out sooner rather than later; I wonder if Texas is ready to make that call?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 22, 2011, 03:11:41 PM
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 has filed his bill
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.

Here's the text of the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1535

The relevant prior legislation that the bill proposes to amend can be found here:

http://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/nhslegis.html

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

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:

Quote
...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 ...
(http://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.

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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on May 22, 2011, 03:47:42 PM
"...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 ..." (http://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/nhslegis.html)
This appears to require the posting of I-69 signs on I-94 from Chicago to Detroit :)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 23, 2011, 01:40:30 PM
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.

This article quotes Farenthold as asserting that 230 miles of highway in the Texas I-69 corridor, 25% of the I-69 route in Texas, is currently built to freeway standard and could be immediately signed if the legislation passes:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/05/texas-lawmakers-working-to-connect-pieces-of-nafta-superhighway-in-texas/

Quote
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?

Who knows?  With US 83 connecting US 77 and US 281 near the border, the opportunity would exist after passage of legislation to maintain parity between the US 77 and US 281 corridors: give the two corridors the same designation by creating an absurdly elongated even-digit 3di that connects with US 59 (assuming an I-37/I-x69 duplex)  :sombrero:

EDIT

Here's a link to a local TV station's video report about the legislation:

http://www.ketknbc.com/news/i-69-superhighway-running-through-east-texas

SECOND EDIT

Sens. Hutchison and Cornyn have filed their bill, too.  As far as I can tell, it is identical to the House version.  Here is a link to a page on Senator Hutchison's website that discusses the bill (this page also has a link to the Senate version of the bill): http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=579
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Sykotyk on May 25, 2011, 11:26:39 PM
The really long 3DI loop would be bad because 'take I-x69 north' would be troublesome for non-long distant driving. May also be confusing for those in the valley given directions.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: DorkOfNerky on May 26, 2011, 12:39:44 AM
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.

I kinda guessed the I-x69 designations would always be the way they would go as shown in a little illustration I did some time back:
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3022.msg81239#msg81239
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 27, 2011, 06:56:40 AM
US 281 will soon be getting an upgrade to bring it one step closer to being signed as I-69 if the legislation passes:

http://www.themonitor.com/news/state-51023-county-interstate.html

Quote
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.” ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 01, 2011, 12:15:21 PM
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 ..." (http://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.
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 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.

As Steve suggested, it appears the procedure will be:  let the national politics play out and get the bill passed, then let the Texas politics play out and figure out (probable) 3di designations:

Quote
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

Her response indicates that, regardless of the current legislation, the suffixed numbering scheme probably will not be used.  It is also interesting that Ms. Shepard maintains that US 83 is already at interstate standards (and would thus be ready for immediate signage).

EDIT

This recent opinion piece by a member of the Alliance indicates that, regardless of the fate of the legislation, some form of I-69 signage may soon be appearing on a 75-mile stretch of US 59 through Houston and a 10-mile stretch of US 77 in Nueces County:

http://www.caller.com/news/2011/jun/07/so-far-230-miles-of-interstate-69-built/

Quote
... 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 ...
Title: TxDOT Launches New I-69 Website
Post by: Grzrd on June 17, 2011, 09:19:59 PM
TxDOT has recently launched a new I-69 website as part of its citizens outreach efforts:

http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans/default.htm
Title: I-69 Now Officially in Texas
Post by: Grzrd on August 11, 2011, 12:57:31 PM
A 6.2 mile stretch of US 77 near Robstown, between I-37 and State Highway 44,  is now officially I-69 (apparently, shields have been ordered):

http://www.caller.com/news/2011/aug/09/robstown-highway-officially-becomes-first-of-69/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on August 11, 2011, 01:36:51 PM

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


Some interstates already have 2 separate segments, so how about I-99?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 11, 2011, 01:38:01 PM
I-238 would fit better.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on August 11, 2011, 01:47:40 PM
I-238 would fit better.

Hey, good idea!
Title: Re: TxDOT Launches New I-69 Website
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 11, 2011, 03:47:33 PM
question is, will we ever see a state-named Texas I-69?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 11, 2011, 05:01:41 PM
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
Some interstates already have 2 separate segments, so how about I-99?
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.
The FHWA has signed off on the above-mentioned section of US 77 being included in the I-69 Corridor.  However, AASHTO still has to approve the actual number for this segment (I-69 or I-x69 or I-69suffix).  This is expected to occur in September.  I suppose it is possible to have an I-x69 designation before an actual I-69 designation.  However, the article indicates that the shields have already been ordered ... :eyebrow:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 11, 2011, 06:42:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 11, 2011, 10:20:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 11, 2011, 10:49:46 PM
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: njroadhorse on August 12, 2011, 06:03:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2011, 06:12:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on August 12, 2011, 07:26:12 PM
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...)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 12, 2011, 07:31:09 PM
I've always figured that US 59 through Laredo would be the main route for I-69, and the other routes would be suppementary I-x69 routes.

Personally, I'd rather that they get "Future I-69" shields or BGS's before they complete all of I-69...or they simply complete construction and just keep them as US routes until everything is done.


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2011, 07:32:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on August 12, 2011, 09:41:20 PM
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)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2011, 10:25:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on August 12, 2011, 10:56:31 PM
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.

Hmm... 2H.05 has some more rules about numbering, I have much easier access at work but I know numbers have to count up from south-north and west-east (sorry, I-180 PA). Exit numbers are based on mileposts, so it's up to whether there's a rule about mileposts starting at 0...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2011, 10:59:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on August 13, 2011, 02:56:03 AM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: akotchi on August 13, 2011, 10:36:14 AM
Thankfully, it is a "should" condition -- ticket-system toll roads carrying different routes over various parts of their lengths would have trouble resolving this issue if it were "shall," mainly because of confusion of exit numbers.  Extensions within the ticket system are even more problematic, though Pa's works with I-476 mileposts because 31 - 131 on there is nowhere near 30 - 131 on the east-west (I-76) portion.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 13, 2011, 02:48:35 PM
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.

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.html

Quote
... 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 15, 2011, 09:19:19 PM
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 16, 2011, 09:54:28 PM
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."

I understand that...but again, 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??

Also...isn't there some controversy over upgrading US 77 in Refugio, where some folk have expressed opposition to a freeway upgrade there??

I'm not opposed to giving  US 77 Interstate mileage...but either an extended I-37 or an I-x37 would be more appropriate. Even a suffixed I-69E would be more appropriate while the other segments are being built. (YUCK!!! I hate suffixed routes...I-35W/E excepted.)


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 17, 2011, 12:19:39 PM
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??
Anthony
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Sykotyk on August 20, 2011, 05:13:41 AM
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.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 26, 2011, 10:04:32 AM
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:

Quote
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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Sykotyk on September 01, 2011, 12:30:08 AM
Yeah, the stretch from Laredo to Victoria will require a lot of work. ROW, four-laning, bypasses, etc. US77 just needs some overpasses, frontage or mainlines, etc and it's essentially done. I do believe a few small bypasses are needed. But nowhere near the extent of US59. Especially Beeville, Freer, etc.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on September 15, 2011, 09:31:53 AM
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
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:
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/transcripts/aug25.pdf

On pages 94/124 and 102/124 of the pdf, one of the comissioners wants to know if AASHTO's involvement is even necessary, given that the FHWA has signed off on the section meeting interstate standards and that the I-69 designation is written into the federal statute.  He really does not get a direct answer, but reading between the lines, I suspect the Commission wants AASHTO to "legitimize" the I-69 designation for the US 77 segment, even though that designation would not be in technical compliance with the statute referring to it as "I-69 East".

I wonder if AASHTO will consider the I-69 designation as possibly being temporary?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 16, 2011, 12:09:44 AM
I'd still think that AASHTO would still have a huge issue with signing segments as I-69 when they don't even connect with each other, let alone with existing I-69. At least when the sections in Indiana are complete, they would have some sembulance of connection with existing I-69.

Then again, the politicians can simply ignore AASHTO's objections and go rogue on their own, as Mississippi did with the Tunica segment of I-69. Or, as Bud Shuster did with I-99.


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 05, 2011, 05:13:19 PM
"Future I-69 Corridor" signs will soon be placed in five more counties along US 59:
http://lufkindailynews.com/news/local/article_3cd683f8-eef4-11e0-ab73-001cc4c03286.html

Quote
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 ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on October 06, 2011, 10:35:53 AM
Great post, and a lot of information to read over! Thanks.

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?

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 06, 2011, 11:54:15 AM
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.

I'm a little lazy today & cannot provide other links, but check out
Mid-South "I-69 in LA ..." thread: first paragraph of my April 27, 2011 post has links to two maps through Louisiana & my Sept. 15, 2011 post discusses current status of section from US 171 in LA to TX state line.
Mid-South "I-69 in AR" thread: my May 8, 2011 and May 15, 2011 posts have links to maps through Arkansas.
Southeastern "I-69 in MS" thread: my June 8, 2011 post has links to a map of SIU 11 through Mississippi as well as SIU 9 through and around metro Memphis.


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.
This link will lead you to maps of the SIUs in Tennessee:
http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/i69/projectsegments.htm

In the Ohio Valley "I-69 in KY" thread, my September 1, 2011 post pastes sections of an article that describes the route through Kentucky along the parkways.

EDIT

Mid-South "I-69 in AR" thread: my October 9, 2011 post has a map of the I-69 Connector from the I-530 interchange in Pine Bluff to US 278 near Wilmar.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on October 06, 2011, 12:26:15 PM
Thank you Grzrd!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 09, 2011, 04:51:19 PM
Thank you Grzrd!
You are welcome OCGuy81!

The Alliance For I-69 Texas website has recently reported that the Texas Transportation Commission has approved $89.8 million of Proposition 12 bond funding for several I-69 upgrade projects along the US 59, 77 and 281 routes (the webpage has a good map of the respective locations of the projects):
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update10.7.11.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Sykotyk on October 10, 2011, 06:46:37 AM
Yeah, I-30/I-40 in Arkansas has more than enough traffic. This future I-69 (when fully completed through southern Arkansas and northern Louisiana) will greatly alleviate a lot of the heavy truck traffic that's clogging up I-30/I-40 (aside from the split speed limit that buffers car traffic as well).

Even if Tennessee doesn't build up US51 (it's a pain right now), the easy alternative is I-55 north to I-155 to Dyersburg.

Sykotyk
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 25, 2011, 11:03:49 PM
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."
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]:
http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/USRN%20Report%20to%20SCOH%20Oct%2015%202011.pdf
Title: TTC Votes To Add I-69 to Texas State Highway System
Post by: Grzrd on October 27, 2011, 12:50:23 PM
This morning, the Texas Transportation Commission voted to add the AASHTO-approved section of US 77 to the Texas state highway system as I-69 (the first I-69 shield is supposed to go up in early December):
http://www.txdot.gov/news/045-2011.htm

Quote
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.
Title: "Texas" Will Be on I-69 Shields
Post by: Grzrd on October 28, 2011, 11:37:59 AM
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:

Quote
Yes!  The shields will have Texas on them.  This is something we encouraged TxDOT to do.
Title: Re: "Texas" Will Be on I-69 Shields
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 28, 2011, 11:44:48 AM
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."


our very own space captain JeffR had a hand in this.  I may or may not have made the mockup shield he used as a prop at the meetings.
Title: Re: "Texas" Will Be on I-69 Shields
Post by: Alex on October 28, 2011, 11:47:25 AM
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."


The efforts of Jeff Royston had something to do with the addition of the state name on I-69 shields in Texas. He shared with us some of his communications with the Executive Director of Alliance for I-69 Texas:

Quote
FYI.  Thanks for your assistance on this matter.  The Alliance leadership
strongly supports including the state name on the interstate shields.

Quote
<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!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on October 28, 2011, 07:17:37 PM
Power to the road people! Let's march on Washington and demand US cutouts!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 31, 2011, 03:43:01 PM
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:

Quote
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.

EDITED: The map at this link shows the portions of US 281, US 83 and US 77 near the Mexican border that currently combine for 91 miles of freeway standard mileage:
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/i69.html

The map at this link shows, as of June 20, 2011, the working draft recommendation of the Section 4 Committee that US 77 be signed as an interstate from the Mexican border to south of Lyford and that US 281 be signed as an interstate from US 83 to north of McAllen (not sure why there is no apparent current status/recommendation for US 83 itself) [page 4/5 of pdf]:
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/Seg%20Cmte%20Maps%20June2011.pdf

If the proposed bill passes, maybe TxDOT could follow KYTC's lead and reach an agreement with FHWA regarding the 91 miles of freeway standard mileage mentioned in second link above and immediately sign all 91 miles as interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mgk920 on October 31, 2011, 10:58:57 PM
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

Ditto US 59 to Laredo.  I could see US 59 west of Victoria becoming 'I-6' and US 281 being a rerouted I-37.  US 83?  Howabout a 'western' I-4?

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on December 05, 2011, 10:41:11 PM
Interstate 69 Texas shields are now posted along Interstate 37 for the interchange with U.S. 77. Jeff Royston snapped a couple of images with his Iphone:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-037_nb_exit_014_01.jpg)

Northbound Interstate 37


(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-037_sb_exit_014_01.jpg)

Southbound Interstate 37
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 05, 2011, 11:35:48 PM
Wow, state named shields on the BGS's!  Don't see that often anymore.

Only personally know of two.
I-279 (http://g.co/maps/ewjp9)
I-16 (http://g.co/maps/4tjzd)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 06, 2011, 07:42:54 AM
Here's a link to a TV news video report of the signage ceremony (also included on the webpage is a still photo of a "shield in the field"):
http://www.kiiitv.com/story/16194594/i-69-sign-installed-along-us-77

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

Quote
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 ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on December 06, 2011, 09:03:51 AM
^ Did anyone notice that the sign used for the ceremony used greenout panels for "Texas' First Segment" and "Robstown, TX, Dec 5, 2011"? I guess that sign will later go in the field somewhere.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 06, 2011, 12:49:16 PM

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. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 06, 2011, 01:02:19 PM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on December 06, 2011, 05:35:01 PM
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?

It would either have to be I-20 between Balch Springs and Terrell, or the last part of I-27 in the panhandle.  I'm kinda surprised that I-44 didn't get the nod to extend along the new elevated section when it opened in Wichita Falls down to US 82.  Then that might have been the most recent interstate section.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on December 06, 2011, 08:38:17 PM

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. 
On BGS? I know of none in many states, though I wouldn't say most.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 07, 2011, 11:27:53 AM
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://shields.aaroads.com/img/NH/NH19610934i1.jpg)

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.

(LA would be an example as well, but there is a brand-new state-named I-10 shield on a green sign which I have not yet posted to the gallery.)

restricting it to signs which are known to survive to the present day gives a few more negative examples, but those are directly in proportion to states in general not using state-named shields (Delaware, Utah, etc).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on December 07, 2011, 12:00:09 PM
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069_us-077.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069_us-077.jpg)

Another Jeff shot from yesterday.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on December 07, 2011, 11:14:06 PM
Thanks Alex! That's an excellent picture.  And so nice to see the state name in the shield.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 08, 2011, 01:39:47 PM
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.

Evidently ODOT was schizophrenic about their interstate shields.
For every stand alone interstate shield with 'Ohio' on it
(http://www.roadfan.com/ohio71.jpg)
You will find an interstate shield without 'Ohio' on it
(http://www.odotonline.org/photoArchive/PhotoArchiveImages/Medium/59y.jpg)
(ODOT's archives date this as 1959, FWIW)
Then theres this sign bridge from 1971 (according to ODOT again)
http://www.odotonline.org/photoArchive/PhotoArchiveImages/Large/sign71.jpg
The foreground I-70 shields don't have 'Ohio' on them. The I-70 shield in the background might. It doesn't look like it though.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on December 08, 2011, 07:56:23 PM
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://shields.aaroads.com/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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 08, 2011, 08:21:25 PM

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.

Quote
P.S. I'm jealous. I have a crappy photo of that sign,

that photo I posted is quite crappy... but I might be able to dig up a better one.

Quote
and it disappeared by the time I made it back.

well rats; here I thought it had survived.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on December 09, 2011, 05:40:37 PM

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 09, 2011, 06:20:49 PM

The only place I've been without BGS is Prince Edward Island. Washington certainly has BGS, I just checked my site to make sure.

I was unclear.  I had intended to say that Washington has state-named shields only on LGSes.  but then I found this example on the shield gallery which I had forgotten about:

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/WA/WA19610901i1.jpg)

that, by my definition is a BGS.  large font mixed case control city.  in your definition, it might be LGS.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 09, 2011, 06:30:13 PM
You will find an interstate shield without 'Ohio' on it
[old photo]
(ODOT's archives date this as 1959, FWIW)

yep, it looks like either California or Ohio invented the 1961-spec neutered shield, with the shorter crown.  California had it by 1958 for sure, and Ohio by 1959.  

I do not know what Ohio's rules were for neutered vs state-named, but California was also fairly schizophrenic in the very, very early days.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/CA/CA19584051i1.jpg)

1959 photo.  I was at one point tempted to say that independent-mount three-digit routes had no state name, while two-digit ones did, but this I-5 from 1959 exists and clearly has a pole mark on the back.  

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/CA/CA19580054i1.jpg)
yep, that is federal '61 spec neutered.  It may very well be a green-sign shield mounted on a post by error.  The two holes in upper left and right are non-conclusive: they might be for mounting to a green sign, or to add a wind brace for an independent mount.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on December 09, 2011, 08:41:37 PM
The NH sign is definitely a small guide sign ("LGS" as used on here), not just because it is a flat sheet aluminum sign, but also because its placement (close by a curb) and composition (thin border, minimally rounded corners) is characteristic of D-series signs.  (Placement is an important distinguishing criterion in states where there is little difference between small and large guide signs in terms of composition.  For example, Washington and California have both traditionally used mixed-case primary destination legend on both small and large guide signs.)

My rule for distinguishing between small guide signs ("LGS") and large guide signs ("BGS") is based on the MUTCD.  Large guide signs are covered in Chapter 2E and generally have "E" sign codes.  They are not found solely on freeway or expressway mainlines--many types of freeway approach signs are large guide signs too.  In contradistinction, small guide signs are covered in Chapter 2D and generally have "D" (hence the alternate label "D-series") or "M" codes.  ("M" is supposed to mean "marker" but some green-background signs, like the combination junction sign, are M-series signs.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US71 on December 14, 2011, 06:57:50 PM
 Celebration Marks I-69 Signs Now Up in Corpus Christi & Robstown (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update12.6.11.html/)

Even the BGS's are named shields.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2011, 07:40:50 PM
Corrected link for I-69 Texas Alliance article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update12.6.11.html)

(The last commentor forgot to take out the '/' at the end.)


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 25, 2012, 08:29:51 PM
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.

My primary interest is Houston.  First, 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]:

Quote
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.

Committee 3 also views it as a Recommended Priority that U.S. 59 through Houston should be dual designation as both I-69 and U.S. 59 [page 4/30 of pdf].

Regarding Houston relief options, Committee 3 decided to expand the area of study to the following [page 4/30 of pdf]:

Quote
• 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

Also, Committee 3 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].

It will be interesting to watch the relief options unfold over the years ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 30, 2012, 09:51:02 PM
The Alliance For I-69 Texas has recently posted an update about the Draft Environmental Assessment for a 122 mile segment of the US 77 upgrade to I-69 being completed: (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update1.28.12.html)

Quote
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 ....

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.  I wonder if this will trigger some Trans Texas Corridor fears?

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.  It looks like completion of the US 77 "southern prong"  will be a primary focus for TxDOT in trying to make headway with I-69 in Texas.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 31, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
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'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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 31, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
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.

the frontage road design is something they use in west Texas a lot.  what about the crossunders - do they have those out there?  I've never noticed.

also, in west Texas, they have the occasional at-grade crossing! 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 15, 2012, 06:53:06 PM
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.

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.

Well, I think there will be pleeeenty of time to enact an amendment ...  :-P

EDIT

On second thought, maybe there will not be much time at all.  I just remembered the following:

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.

Even if a multi-year highway reauthorization is not passed this year, at least a short-term extension of the current reauthorization will be passed sometime around March 31.  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.  :pan:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 19, 2012, 03:17:14 PM
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.

The amendment for I-69 signage on freeways at the Mexican border (http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/03/texas-is-a-big-winner-in-the-senates-bipartisan-highway-bill/) survived the final version of MAP-21 two-year reauthorization passed by the Senate:

Quote
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.

Although unlikely, a possibility does exist that the House will simply vote on the Senate bill because the House bills have encountered great resistance.  If so, some I-69 Mexican border signage (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg4_report.pdf) (page 4/4 of pdf) may spring up in the near future.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on March 19, 2012, 04:34:08 PM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 20, 2012, 11:29:21 PM
Short answer: Bcause they're Texas, and they can.   :sombrero: :sombrero: :sombrero:

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?


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on March 21, 2012, 02:43:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on March 21, 2012, 03:11:30 AM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on March 21, 2012, 06:32:28 AM
Texas loves expressways. That's why there are going to be 2 loops around Houston, with currently 9 expressways out of Houston that are not currently interstates. From what I understand, 77 is the closer to interstate of the 3 routes planned. Thus 77 to 59 getting labeled to I-69 by the end of next month is the goal that Texas wants to "speed" the process of getting I-69 signed as fast as possible. 59 from Victoria to Laredo would take more work. 281 has the lower section freeway grade, but it will take a while to get the rest to interstate standards.

Personally, I would skip adding 281 all together and leave it as such, if they want an interstate and McAllen, then almost all of 83 is a freeway standard, label that a spur of I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on March 21, 2012, 10:51:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 21, 2012, 11:01:59 AM

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on March 21, 2012, 11:05:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on April 07, 2012, 08:23:43 PM
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.

Which, at 80 MPH, is only about 19 minutes, assuming I did the math correctly.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on April 07, 2012, 09:46:01 PM

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.
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on April 07, 2012, 09:54:37 PM
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.

Good luck getting up to 80 on the stretch west of the I-10/20 merge.  Sometimes it can be done, but all too often slow trucks passing slower trucks will tie up the passing lane.  Like with I-5 through California's Central Valley, an extra lane in each direction would help.  But a parallel freeway would be overdoing it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: achilles765 on April 14, 2012, 07:32:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bob7374 on May 08, 2012, 12:41:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US71 on May 09, 2012, 12:18:00 PM
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).


Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on May 09, 2012, 01:32:59 PM
Guessing the section of the Beltway from I-30 to US 59.

But that's not going to be part of I-69!

Looking at the growth of I-69 and I-49 it's interesting - I-69 is in multiple sections - as soon as a freeway is up to standard (or not in the case of KY) and links two sections of the NHS, they go with it. I-49 is much more conservative, waiting for continuous freeway from existing I-49 before renumbering.

Then again, neither have removed the 3-digit interstates that they will abolish (I-164 and I-540).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US71 on May 09, 2012, 01:53:17 PM
Here is the 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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mcdonaat on May 09, 2012, 03:04:23 PM
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).




That's CRAZY! From what I remember, I-69 will go nowhere near Texarkana; instead, passing through El Dorado towards Haynesville, LA, then near Shreveport and into Texas well south of US 79. Maybe a SPUR I-69 or I-169, but not I-69 itself.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on May 09, 2012, 11:27:30 PM
Here is the 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

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 10, 2012, 06:32:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 16, 2012, 05:38:49 PM
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.

I recently received an email clarification from the Alliance for I-69 Texas.  Basically, the stretch through Houston has been divided into three parts as explained in the email:

Quote
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.

I wonder if the middle section will be considered "close, but not quite interstate grade" like the Kentucky parkways?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 16, 2012, 10:18:10 PM
Why would the middle section of US 59 in Houston (Eastex/Southwest Freeways) be that hard to designate an Interstate? Inadequate shoulder length or height restrictions on some underpasses??

I know that I-45 has that low-height underpass just north of the junction with I-10..and that didn't prevent it from getting an I-shield.

Perhaps H-Town's still looking to have the Grand Parkway finished and designated as I-69??


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 17, 2012, 06:32:49 AM
Grand parkway is WAY south and WAY north of I-610 to be in the picture. Plus that is many years away, if anything. Most of the freeways inside of I-610 are not to the standards outside of I-610. But, a few are to interstate standards that most older highways are. (45, US59, SH288) The only big issue I can think of is the US59 merge/split with SH288 right before they hit I-45. There is a lower than standard overpass(but trucks still can get through) along with no shoulder for like a mile stretch.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on May 17, 2012, 09:12:25 AM
If one of the goals of 69 is moving long-distance truck traffic from Mexico to points north then it makes perfect sense to route 69 well away from Houston proper.  If the completion date of the loop from I-10 to US-59 along the west and north sides of the metro area by 2015 is met, that seems reasonable.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 17, 2012, 02:18:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 17, 2012, 07:00:05 PM
Well...one of the original plans when the I-69 extension was originally thought of was to run I-69 through a completed Grand Parkway (TX 99) around its western and northern ends...and work is ongoing on completing the segments of the Grand Parkway between both ends of US 59.  Also, there was a plan to designate the GP as a spur of I-69 as well (in the same form as I-69/I-269 in Memphis).

And, there are plans to widen the completed segments of the GP to six lanes (while upgrading them to Interstate standards).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on May 17, 2012, 07:26:28 PM
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.

What's the rush to sign 69?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 17, 2012, 09:01:49 PM
I wonder if AHTD reapplied for I-49 if AASHTO would accept it from I-40 in Alma to US 62 in Bentonville/Rogers and the AR 549 portion after the new I-30 interchange and connector is built in Texarkana.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 18, 2012, 06:51:15 PM
I am in no rush to label it anything, just think is really stupid to have one highway in the same city limits have the names of EasTex freeway, Southwest freeway, US 59, and 2 stubs of I-69 on the outside of the inner loop. Hard enough telling people how to get to Minute Maid Park, lets not keep adding names and numbers to the same highway in one area.

Personally, do the whole city or none.
Title: TxDOT to take cost quotes for 12-mile US 77 to I-69 Upgrade
Post by: Grzrd on May 31, 2012, 04:51:14 PM
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 01, 2012, 08:50:20 PM
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

The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update5.31.12.html) refers to the above project as a 10-mile design-build project and indicates that another 6.5 mile US 77 upgrade to I-69 project between Robstown and Driscoll is already funded and scheduled to go to bid in 2013:

Quote
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

Local politicos are also pushing for engineering and right-of-way funding for the Driscoll and Riviera relief routes, with the Driscoll relief route connecting the above two projects:

Quote
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.

Steady progress on the US 77 leg ...

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Quillz on June 01, 2012, 09:52:07 PM
(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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: blawp on June 02, 2012, 02:03:18 PM
All caps clearview on the "MILE" notation as well. We deserve better.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 08, 2012, 12:57:49 PM
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 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6658.msg150401#msg150401) thread)

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:

Quote
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. 
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.
(bold emphasis added by me)

It's interesting that TxDOT submitted its requests to AASHTO and FHWA before having final approval from the TTC (I'm sure it's just a formality, but it is a strange procedural process that could possibly turn out to be a waste of time for both AASHTO and FHWA).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on June 08, 2012, 06:04:06 PM
Toronto Transit Commission?  Trident Technical College?  The Tetris Company?

Or maybe this thing Wikipedia call the Trans-Texas Corridor?

Note: those three are all real organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TTC).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Takumi on June 08, 2012, 06:10:13 PM
^ Nah, it's totally the French hip-hop trio TTC that has final approval on the project. :sombrero:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on June 08, 2012, 09:50:35 PM
Toronto Transit Commission?  Trident Technical College?  The Tetris Company?

Or maybe this thing Wikipedia call the Trans-Texas Corridor?

Note: those three are all real organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TTC).
reading the post.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 08, 2012, 10:55:51 PM
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 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4309.msg94673#msg94673) thread)

It's not the Texas Trysting Commission, either (but 2 out of 3 ain't bad).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 29, 2012, 11:13:30 AM
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 (http://www.txdot.gov/news/030-2012.htm). 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
(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

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.

EDIT

The Alliance for I-69 Texas also has an article, "$144 Million in New Funding Approved for I-69 Projects (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update6.28.12.html)".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 30, 2012, 11:33:43 AM
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.html
Quote
... 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.

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):

Quote
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 emailed
Quote
Thanks 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

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 (page 21/599 of pdf) may allow designation of US 83 as an interstate in the near future:

Quote
‘‘(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.

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 30, 2012, 08:09:08 PM
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):
Quote
Many South Texas communities along US 59, 77 and 281 will soon have access to an interstate ....

Well, as far as I can tell, the statutory designations for the I-69 Corridor in Texas were not amended by the new highway bill.  South Texas communities along US 59 and US 281 will "soon" have access to an interstate.  The FHWA National Systems and Economic Team has indicated that, once that happens, Texas will need to sign the routes accordingly.

Any predictions on the eventual signage designation outcome?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2012, 09:22:55 PM
Wait, so does this mean that AASHTO is cut out of the loop on Interstate designations?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 30, 2012, 10:18:27 PM
^ ^ In the case of I-69 (and several other interstates, now including I-11), the interstate designations are required by federal statute.  In the case of a sole designation as an interstate for one of these "statutory interstates", AASHTO basically receives a courtesy copy.  However, AASHTO still has a role to play in the request for a dual designation: for example, TxDOT's recent request for I-69/US 59 dual designation northeast of Houston.

edit - Here's a prior thread on AASHTO and I-69 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5862.msg128595#msg128595)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 01, 2012, 11:27:16 AM
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)

The Alliance for I-69 Texas also expresses pleasure in its I-69 Scores Victory in Passage of MAP-21 Highway Bill (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.1.12.html) article on its website.  The article identifies approximately 100 miles of roadway that might be signed in the near future:

Quote
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 ....
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 05, 2012, 08:05:16 AM
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 281) Premont relief route - $41 million
...
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.

Maybe it will take a while for the US 281 Premont project to come together. This article (http://www.caller.com/news/2012/jul/05/state-announces-funding-for-four-of-the-areas-i/) indicates that the route has yet to be decided:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 06, 2012, 09:53:56 AM
TxDOT recently posted the Segment 3 Committee's December 16, 2011 Notes (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg3/notes_121611.pdf) on its website.  In the Notes, there is an interesting summary of how the designation of US 59 as I-69 will affect concrete companies in the greater Houston area (pages 2-3/11 of pdf; pages 2-3 of document):

Quote
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.

I had not realized that there was such a large difference in weight restrictions on interstates as compared to US routes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: blawp on July 07, 2012, 09:02:50 PM
Houston businesses notoriously whine about rules, especially those imposed by the Federal Government. I think it's a red herring.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on July 08, 2012, 02:31:07 AM
So do California businesses.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: blawp on July 08, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
It seems like all of the concrete and gravel trucks near interstate 210 in Irwindale have figured out the weight limit issue...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 13, 2012, 09:20:22 PM
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:

Quote
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.

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 (http://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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on July 14, 2012, 03:47:40 AM
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:

Quote
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.

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 (http://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.

Wow! Very interesting.
Title: FONSI Issued For US 77 to I-69 Upgrade in Texas
Post by: Grzrd on July 14, 2012, 08:54:42 PM
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.

This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/upgrades-142418-agency-clears.html) reports that the the FHWA, on July 10, issued a Finding of No Significant Impact for upgrades planned for US 77 between Corpus Christi and Harlingen:

Quote
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.

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:

Quote
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.

(http://i.imgur.com/nATsg.jpg)

The Alliance article also estimates the total cost of the upgrades to be in the neighborhood of $1 billion:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: njroadhorse on July 14, 2012, 09:04:52 PM
That ranch access is a very good idea on the designer's part. Do you know if those ranch access points would be signed as exits or not, since the diagram includes ramps?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 14, 2012, 09:09:08 PM
With the U-turns it's a lot like the 'Jersey freeway' concept.

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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 17, 2012, 03:02:02 PM
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.
(above quote from I-69 in TN (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3841.msg161600#msg161600) thread)

This July 17 article (http://www.themonitor.com/news/officials-62324-say-segments.html) reports that it will cost approximately $175 million to bring the approximate 130 miles from Corpus Christi to Harlingen up to interstate-grade, and the desire for interstate signage comes from the hope that the interstate signage will improve marketing efforts aimed at getting businesses to locate/relocate along the US 77 corridor:

Quote
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 ....

$175 million for 130 miles of interstate seems like a pretty good deal.  They also seem to be aiming to have the US 77 corridor's conversion to interstate-grade facility to be funded and completed within three to five years:

Quote
“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,”

Pretty good timetable for 130 miles of interstate, too.

EDIT

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.html
Quote
Sepulveda 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:
Quote
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.

I have not seen a copy of the FONSI posted on the internet yet.  I will be interested to see how the $1 billion was calculated and see why it differs from the county administrator's cited figure of $175 million.  Since the August, 2011 article reports a $160 million figure, I'm guessing $175 million is probably the more accurate construction cost estimate.

SECOND EDIT

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.

I think I guessed wrong; the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_vol1.pdf) does provide a figure of $1.06 billion (pages 9-10/271 of pdf):

Quote
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).

I wonder how Mr. Sepulveda calculated his estimate; at any rate, it is not the bargain that I initially thought and it looks like they are planning on a 25 year construction horizon.
Title: I-69 Comes to NE Houston
Post by: Grzrd on July 26, 2012, 09:37:32 PM
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) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg163916#msg163916) thread)

This article reports (http://www.caller.com/news/2012/jul/26/officials-add-another-link-in-interstate-69s-to/) that, today, the Texas Transportation Commission authorized the signing of a 35 mile stretch of I-69 northeast of Houston:

Quote
... 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.

Does Houston now officially qualify as a tri-interstate city?

EDIT

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:

(http://i.imgur.com/29c4e.jpg)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on July 27, 2012, 01:37:25 PM
I've lost my camera but I will be in Kingwood TX next weekend, which is along US59/new I-69 NE of Houston. I'll check out and take a picture somehow if there are new signs posted or space ready for signs
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 27, 2012, 09:21:40 PM
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.—
‘‘(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.
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.

TxDOT has announced (http://www.txdot.gov/news/032-2012.htm) that the five I-69 Committees have released their respective final reports (http://txdot.gov/drivenbytexans/publications.htm). The combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf) has interesting recommendations for immediate interstate designations along the Mexican border, including an interstate designation for US 83, which includes a section of US 83 west of US 281 (page 44/165 of pdf; page 38 of document):

Quote
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.

A map showing the proposed border designations is below (page 45/165 of pdf; page 39 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/94Tt6.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on July 27, 2012, 11:43:13 PM
Question, Grzrd.

From what you see, 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.

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 28, 2012, 09:57:03 AM
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.

You are not alone.  Throughout this thread, many people question the need for the parallel US 77 and US 281 corridors:

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?

There is even a My Take on the I-69 Southern Extension (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4711.msg102664#msg102664) thread in Fictional Highways.
Above said, the I-69 Corridor has been statutorily designated by Congress, and the US 59, US 77, and US 281 corridors are all part of the "I-69 Corridor" (currently, US 83 is not part of the statutory I-69 Corridor).  TxDOT is simply trying to build and sign as much of its I-69 Corridor as it can.  Regarding signage (and your I-35E/ I-35W analogy), I am very interested in how TxDOT will sign the different corridors, particularly in light of recent communications from FHWA:

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 primary reason MAP-21 now allows signage of disconnected segments of I-69 is that the lower Rio Grande valley wants interstate signage along both the US 77 and US 281 corridors sooner rather than later. Can TxDOT avoid a federal statute? Stay tuned.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 29, 2012, 11:49:58 AM
My guess is that they all will get temporary I-69 shields for themselves, and will figure out the details later.

I still don't think it's appropriate, since 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. It's going to be quite interesting when they will be asked to pull those shields for more appropriate numbers.

I've said my peace on what the numbers should be, so I won't repeat it here.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 29, 2012, 02:33:08 PM
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.

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):

Quote
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.

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

Loop 20 is not part of the statutorily defined I-69 Corridor.  however, SH 44 is part of the statutorily defined I-69 Corridor.  Neither is SH 44; nevertheless, SH 44 interchanges with US 59 and US 281 are two of the other top five priorities from the Segment 5 Committee (page 46/165 of pdf; page 40 of document):
(edited to correct status of SH 44)

Quote
US 59/SH 44 Relief Route at FreerAn 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 AliceA 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.

Below is a map showing the Segment 5 Committee priorities (page 47/165 of pdf; page 41 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/16AUA.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mgk920 on July 30, 2012, 10:32:52 AM
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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 30, 2012, 10:36:12 AM
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].
Quote
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 .... The highway will be known concurrently as I-69 and US 59.

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 discussed three things: (1) highways they recommend serving as I-69, (2) highways to be part of  the I-69 program and (3) important connections to the I-69 system.  Three observations: (1) US 59 will definitely serve as I-69 through Houston, (2) the Committees did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route, and (3) at the risk of parsing the language too closely, by not limiting "important connections to the I-69 system" to highways, the Committees probably intend for studies to include non-highway options for freight, including the Freight Shuttle along the I-69 corridor (discussed in this thread (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6191.msg135757#msg135757)).

The language regarding Houston relief options in the two Committee reports is identical:

Quote
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.

However, it is clear that the two Committees want the relief options to provide access to Texas gulf coast ports.  I'm sure the immediate focus is on I-69 signage for the two segments through Houston and southwest of Houston before there will be much movement on studying relief options.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 30, 2012, 11:37:18 AM
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

If you really asked me, I'd say (and have said in the past) that the US 77 corridor south of Corpus Christi would be better for an I-37 extension. US 281 is probably best staying as US 281.

Or..you could make US 281 from George West to Harlingen and US 83 east of there to US 77 an even I-x37 loop, and make remainder of existing I-37 to Corpus an odd I-x-37 spur.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on July 30, 2012, 01:23:05 PM
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:
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

Of course, the lower Rio Grande want's I-69 so I-37 numbers aren't going to happen.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: DorkOfNerky on July 30, 2012, 03:06:09 PM
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

I always figured it'd be something like the following.
I-69 - Current US 59

Spurs
I-169 - Current US 281
I-369 - Current US 77
I-569 -
I-769 -
I-969 - Texarkana Spur

Loops
I-269 -
I-469 -
I-669 - Houston Loop
I-869 -

My thinking is the left-to-right numbering used for north-south highways. So I start from the left for the lower numbers and to the right for the higher numbers. Since US 59 is suppose to be mainline I-69, using my thinking, US 281/I-169 would be the first spur off of it since it intersects that route first, then US 77/I-369 would be the next. And since the Texarkana spur would very likely be the last before I-69 exits the state, it seems logical to make that spur I-969.

To keep open any possible loops around other towns between Laredo and Houston (such as possibly in Victoria), I skipped a couple of numbers (I-269 and I-469). Not to mention since there's likely to be a I-x69 loop around Houston, I matched up the number of its current loop (I-610). This then leaves open I-869 for any possible loops between Houston and the state line.

The one that really has me scratching my head would be the Interstate designation wanted for US 83. Guess you really can't call that a loop since it doesn't connect back to mainline I-69. (Otherwise I-269 would have worked nicely.) I guess it could be a spur if US 83 was at freeway standards all the way to Laredo, but then that would make US 83 I-169 since it's the first spur, meaning US 281 would have to be I-369 and US 77 would be I-569. Really unsure of this one.

Mind you, I'm not an expert in all the rules of numbering and so forth, so I'm sure I'm driving someone completely insane with my thoughts, but that's all they are. Thoughts.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on July 30, 2012, 07:31:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: DorkOfNerky on July 30, 2012, 08:10:37 PM
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 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.

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.) Not to mention the Sam Houston Tollway on its west and north side are already busy enough. Making it a bypass wouldn't seem like a good idea.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 08:24:36 PM
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.
Title: "I-69 East" and "I-69 Central" Coming Soon?
Post by: Grzrd on July 31, 2012, 09:26:43 AM
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?

I just received a comprehensive email from TxDOT that addresses a lot of I-69 issues.  Indeed, it is possible that Texas will have "I-69 East" and "I-69 Central" shields by the New Year.  At the risk of provoking boredom, I will paste the entire email (adding emphasis here and there):

Quote
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.

I'm trying to visualize the East and Central shields ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on July 31, 2012, 09:47:27 AM
No mention of TX44 there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 31, 2012, 09:57:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 31, 2012, 10:17:23 AM
So, sorry, but this is MADNESS.

If we are going to see "I-69C" and "I-69E" shields again, then I want my "I-10N" and "I-10S" shields for I-10 and I-12 in Louisiana....or just drop "I-10S" shields on Future I-49 South between Lafayette and New Orleans.

Why have FHWA and AASHTO rules for Interstate numbering designations if anyone can flout them at the tip of the hat??

I-69 should run on what was originally intended: US 59 from Laredo to Carthage/Tenaha, then US 84 to Louisiana. US 77 south of Corpus Christi should be an I-37 extension. TX 44 and the segment of US 77 from Corpus Christi to Victoria should be an even I-x69 loop. US 281 should remain US 281(though with a  freeway connection bypassing George West to I-37), and ditto with US 83 (or, make that another I-x69 spur). Screw these "Central" and "West" designations, and be gone with this "we have to drop an Interstate shield on every freeway we get" meme.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 31, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 31, 2012, 10:54:29 AM
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

Acknowledged...and still, in my view, very, very wrong.  But, it's just my view.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on July 31, 2012, 11:00:07 AM
Sure, it's madness, but AASHTO hasn't exactly stomped out to Minneapolis-St.Paul or Dallas-Fort Worth to peel off the E's and W's off the I-35 shields.  Sounds like, without some kind of change we haven't heard about yet, the Valley will have some kind of madness.  At least it won't quite be an I-99 or I-238 or, heaven forbid, another Breezewood....
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 31, 2012, 11:09:02 AM
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.

TxDOT's reply:

Quote
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.

Why not go with it and completely embrace the madness:  TX 44 as "I-69N" and US 83 as "I-69S"?  :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on July 31, 2012, 11:33:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 31, 2012, 02:47:35 PM
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.

I can actually live with dividing I-35 in DFW and Minneapolis-St. Paul, because they are temporary and because they are within the same metropolitan area. It's the suffixed spur routes that I am against...and especially the idea of simply dropping Interstate shields on roads that aren't even completed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on August 01, 2012, 11:06:59 AM
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):

Quote
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.

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

Definitely more practical; there are already substantial plans to "freewayize" Loop 20 with minimal relocations.  Really the only traffic that would be going out of its way would be local traffic from downtown Laredo and NL, particularly once the fourth bridge is built south of the urbanized area to more directly connect through traffic from Monterey.

As far as the numbering business goes, the whole business is a mess, especially with Valley politics (Brownsville can't get a 3di if McAllen gets a 2di, and vice versa) and the lack of any in-pattern number between I-35 and I-37 where all these roads go.  I can't see suffixes flying with AASHTO.  My guess though is that US 77 "keeps" I-69, US 281 gets something else out-of-pattern but non-confusing like I-41, and the Laredo-Corpus corridor gets I-6 or something (while 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).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 01, 2012, 01:02:32 PM
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.

As for complaining about the numbering, (http://www.gribblenation.com/room.jpg)

I'm with Chris in that I doubt AASHTO will allow Suffixes and even if they do allow suffixes who cares (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). And he is also exactly right about the Valley politics - which is why there are the three branches in South Texas.  Personally I have no issue if US 83 gets an I-2 or I-6 or if US 281 77 or 59 become I-33 or I-31 or an I-x69 or I-69E and I-69W.

When you add routes that were most likely not thought of (whether legislatively or not) in the original plans of this system, you are going to get numbering out of whack. If it meets the criteria for an interstate from design standards to national importance - does it really number what the number is?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 01, 2012, 03:50:48 PM
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.

Thanks for the compliment.  In turn, I always enjoy your posts and the Sure, Why Not?  (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/) blog.  Always informative.

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).

Lordsutch of i69info.com (http://www.i69info.com/), et al I presume?  I enjoyed reading i69info.com for a long time and still go to it for solid info.  Thanks for the great work and I am glad you are now posting on this forum.  Your insight into the Laredo mindset certainly explains the five priorities of the Segment 5 Committee (below).  Since it was post #1, welcome!:
(http://i.imgur.com/16AUA.png) 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 02, 2012, 10:45:18 AM
Don't most in the hobby like oddities and peculiarities ... ?

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:

- an I-69/I-69 interchange in the Carthage/Tenaha vicinity;
- a resolution from the Texarkana MPO seeking an I-69 designation for US 59 even though that part of US 59 would be part of an I-69 spur;
- a realization from TxDOT that it would be better to seek an I-x69 designation for the Texarkana I-69 Spur (and avoid the problem of the I-69/I-69 interchange), even though it would result in an I-69 "child" 100+ miles from its I-69 "parent";
- instead of having the three southern Texas legs be I-69 East, Central, and West, it was decided to have an I-69, and I-69 East and an I-69 Central;
- presumably the political reason behind I-69 East and I-69 Central was the desire for the US 77 and US 281 corridors to have "equal" 2di status, even though the respective suffixes would make them "3 character interstates". (so why not "equal" 3di designations?)
- a large part of the US 59 corridor that received the treasured 2di I-69 designation (from Freer to Victoria) appears to have been put on the backburner in favor of developing the SH 44 - US 77 corridor from Freer to Victoria, even though SH 44 is not part of the Congessionally designated I-69 corridor.

Congressional reality IS stranger than fiction ...

I am against ... the idea of simply dropping Interstate shields on roads that aren't even completed.

As an Old Guy, I respectfully disagree.  Way back, as a kid growing up in the pre-internet days of the growth of the interstate system, I would give the annual Rand McNally intensive study and figure out the "pieces of the interstate puzzle" that had been added during the year.  It was fun to watch the system grow in that manner.  As for my parents and their contemporaries?  As part of Brokaw's Greatest Generation, they bravely and successfully navigated the disconnected segments of the interstate system with ease and without complaint.  :D
 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 11:12:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on August 02, 2012, 12:41:16 PM
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.

(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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 01:12:25 PM
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."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 02, 2012, 02:33:13 PM

(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.

You're 21. Not 71.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on August 02, 2012, 04:59:18 PM
Looks like Google recently updated their maps to show the recently approved portion of I-69 in the northern part of Houston. I wonder how long it will take until we start seeing the signs being put up.

https://local.google.com/?ll=29.880541,-95.303307&spn=0.231002,0.198784&t=m&z=12
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on August 06, 2012, 01:19:17 PM
This is from todays Texarkana Gazette:
     A report concerning the local leg of the future Interstate 69 is now available. Segment committees have made the reports available, and the Texarkana and East Texas corridor is Segment One. The reports are found at txdot.gov/drivenbytexans/publications.htm  Statewide there are 5 segment committees composed of citizen volunteers. I-69 is a proposed national highway linking Michigan and Texas. It stretches about 1,600 miles and includes Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana and Michigan. Jerry Sparks chairs the I-69 Segment One Committee, and said the report will be passed to decision makers, including legislators and Texas Dept Of Transportationofficials.

      The lengthy report is the culmination of about 2 years work.Segment One runs from Texarkana south to around Lufkin, Tx and the future I-69 largely follows U.S. Hwy 59. "Everywhere along the I-69 corridor where it's feasible, it uses existing corridors. We're not trying to build a new superhighway through the middle of nowhere. We want to take advantage of existing highways that meet interstate standards", Sparks said. The report represents traffic and highway data, citizen input and resolutions of support for I-69. It states support for I-69 is not only needed to accomodate population and traffic growth, but also to provide safer travel, improve emergency evacuations and improve economic development. The cost estimate is staggering for the Texas portion. About 16.4 billion is needed statewide to reconstruct roads to be designated I-69 corridors, with 4.6 billion in improvements identified in Segment One alone.

        Sparks pointed out funding is likely to be scarce, as state and national transportation budgets have been cut. "Without adequate funding, all we have is a conceptual plan. But we have to start now and know its an uphill battle. It's not going to be fast," he said. In a TxDOT press release dated July 24, the agency says Texas Transportation Commission recently approved an additional $140 million for various projects along the route, bringing total funding to more than $600 million. The release states funded priorities include the study of relief options in the Nacogdoches/Lufkin/Corrigan area; right of way acquisition for U.S. 59 improvements in Liberty County; environmental and engineering studies in the fort Bend and Wharton County areas; upgrading a section of U.S. 59 in Victoria to interstate standards; construction of a relief route in Premont; the U>S> 77/I-69 interstate-upgrade project from Driscoll to Kingsville; and construction of an overpass in Laredo. The I-69 advisory committee and 5 segment committees were created in 2008 by TTC. The move is a grassroots effort to encourage citizen involvement in planning the Texas portion of I-69.

       In a TxDOT press release dated July 24, the agency said it is reviewing more than 200 miles of highway along U.S. 59, U.S. 77, U.S. 83 and U.S. 281 as the first step in designating these highways as I-69. Most recently 35 miles of U.S. 59 was dually designated as I-69/U.S. 59 between I-610 North in Houston and the Liberty County line. Six miles of U.S. 77 has been designated I-69 between I-37 and state highway 44 in Robstown.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Road Hog on August 06, 2012, 02:47:10 PM
Looks like there is more misunderstanding locally of what the I-69 spur will be. The main interstate is not going through Texarkana. The main I-69 will go through the Shreveport area instead and will enter Texas somewhere between Carthage and Tenaha north of the north end of Toledo Bend Lake. What will be built to Texarkana instead will be a three-digit spur.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on August 06, 2012, 04:27:09 PM
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")?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on August 06, 2012, 05:21:07 PM
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")?

Nothing definitive has come out about exact numberings, other than the references to "I-69" in the valley having 'East' and 'Central' (and one more) naming.  I haven't heard about the use of any other number than a "69" or a possible "x69" as actual numbers, which for the moment leaves out any different possibilities, like a "6" or an I-37 extension/x37 numbering.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 09, 2012, 02:09:23 PM
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:
Quote
Relief 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

I have been trying to get a better grip on the recommendations regarding relief "options" for Houston. The Segment 3 Committee characterizes the Grand Parkway as "an important connection for I-69", but does not go so far as to call it a "relief route" (page 20/157 of pdf; page 14 of document):

Quote
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.

Below is a map showing, among other things, the relationship between I-69 and the Grand Parkway (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/3aTjY.jpg)

My 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. Thoughts?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on August 09, 2012, 05:23:09 PM
Interesting that on that map at El Campo (Dr. Chuck Swindoll's hometown) is a "proposed KCS bypass"...interesting because that particular stretch of track was inactive and just languishing until the Kansas City Southern railway acquired it sometime last decade...they've made it a key part of their emerging Kansas City to Mexico mainline which through trackage or haulage rights goes north to Canada, I believe.  It's a blessing that the tracks they called "The macaroni line" (built with extensive help from Italian immigrants) were still in place, and that El Campo now has to have such a bypass on their part of the I-69 plan.

Arthur Stilwell, the KCS founder, envisioned a railroad that would be the shortest route between critical freight/cattle center Kansas City and the Gulf of Mexico, and had a railway built between KC and Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX - Lake Charles, LA.  Through acquisitions the KCS got the Louisiana and Arkansas and a railroad which runs pretty much parallel to I-49 (current, plus I-10 and future) all the way to New Orleans, and now with their still developing Mexico line they're running parallel to a future Kansas City/Mexico corridor via I-49 and I-69.  They may merge with someone some day, but Kansas City Southern is a fascinating story in that they as a medium-range* railroad have carved out a niche among the Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Canadian National/Illinois Central, the current "big boys" of American railroading that have acquired many railroads between them.

Shows me just how critical this emerging dual I-69 and I-49 corridor is as well.

*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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on August 10, 2012, 12:05:48 PM
*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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 10, 2012, 12:10:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 10, 2012, 01:11:11 PM
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
My 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.

I may have spoken too soon about the lack of a proposed relief route, at least in regard to 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)

Unfortunately, the Segment Three Committee apparently did not share the same opinion. For ease of comparison, here is the comparable Segment Three map again; the comparison shows that the Segment Three Committee does not extend the relief route suggested by the Segment Two Committee:
(http://i.imgur.com/3aTjY.jpg)

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.

Another difference between the two Committee reports is that the Segment Two Committee report expressly mentions the Sam Houston Tollway as providing a similar function to the Grand Parkway (whereas the Segment Three Committee report does not) (page 20/157 of pdf; page 14 of document):

Quote
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.

I would really like to see where the Segment Two Committee envisioned the southwestern interchange of the mainline and the relief route.  Maybe next decade ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on August 10, 2012, 03:23:43 PM
*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.

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 today (http://www.kcsouthern.com/en-us/Services/Pages/RouteMap.aspx#) the route actually goes north of Meridian (forget which railroad that once was) for a ways then heads east slightly to Columbus, where the KCS leases NS trackage to Brookwood, AL, then has trackage rights to Birmingham.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 24, 2012, 10:31:21 AM
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)

An August 23 Houston Chronicle editorial (http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-How-might-I-69-coexist-with-the-Grand-3811256.php) advocates that the Grand Parkway should be finished in a manner that meshes well with the purposes of I-69:

Quote
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.
Quote
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.

The above quote from the editorial board indicates that they are also looking beyond a Grand Parkway/ I-x69 relief route and recognize the need for additional relief options to optimize the entire Houston-area I-69 "system".  Too bad there are no near-term prospects for money to fund this vision.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: FreewayDan on September 10, 2012, 08:42:45 PM
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: formulanone on September 11, 2012, 12:57:11 AM
This was all i could find in the Rio Grande Valley, north of Harlingen on US 77 (northbound)...

(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/FutureInt69sign-US77n.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on September 11, 2012, 04:59:35 AM
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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

Well, by the looks of these pix, not all the TX I-69 shields will be the same since these are neutered.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on September 17, 2012, 04:19:50 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website also has some Houston-area photos (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update9.14.12houston2.html) and an article about the new signage.

One of the photos:
(http://i.imgur.com/WBWJU.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on September 17, 2012, 10:36:24 PM
From the website, I-69 goes right over US59 through Houston. Thus making some sense, saving some money, but still might need some upgrades inside the loop.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Brian556 on September 17, 2012, 11:46:20 PM
Quote
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 today
Concerning 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.

Here's some new info on the Louisiana and Arkansas line that ran east out of McKinney, Tx:
http://www.abandonedrails.com/McKinney_to_Farmersville (http://www.abandonedrails.com/McKinney_to_Farmersville)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on September 17, 2012, 11:47:55 PM
Are there going to be any "I-69 ends, follow US 59" signs?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on September 18, 2012, 06:16:25 AM
If its dual signed, might not be needed to say I-69 ends, since US59 signs are all over the place. Crazy thing is the current stubs of I-69 aren't even on the same road or highway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on September 18, 2012, 09:24:47 AM
There's a sign at the end of Future I-49 advising traffic on I-49 to continue north on US 71.  I would think TxDOT would post similar signs at the ends of the I-69 segments.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7267/7417260392_b1da1012d9_z.jpg)

Speaking of I-49, it is ridiculous that all of these 5 mile long stretches of I-69 are allowed to be signed, but I-49 is not signed in Arkansas because of AASHTO.  They need a blanket policy one way or the other.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on September 18, 2012, 02:25:18 PM
The problem is I-69 is written into law like I-99. I-49 goes by standard rules. Thus it seems AASHTO hands are tied with what happens with I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on September 19, 2012, 09:45:47 PM
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 an Interstate Highway (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 3.5 mile segment of US 59 from I-30 to SL 151 in Texarkana as part of the Interstate Highway System 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on September 19, 2012, 10:01:56 PM
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.

Interesting. I had thought they would go for I-969 because it would theoretically be the northernmost spur in the state.

EDIT

Also interesting - the 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):

Quote
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.

I guess it will not be an I-x69. Also, it seems like they should have sought the respective approvals for the US 77 and US 281 corridors before US 83 because those corridors have termini at the border and are planned to eventually connect to the interstate system, which in turn would provide the eventual interstate connection for the US 83 corridor.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on September 20, 2012, 06:31:09 AM
That southern tip of the Rio Grand Valley makes no sense, The way everything  seems to be going, 77 will be I-69E, 281 will be I-69C, US59 will be I-69W, and 83 will be I-69S. If they want to label all 4 highways as interstates, why not spurs of either 69, 37 or make a new number.  Odd thing is a Spur of 37 would be longer than the parent highway.

I know this a little fictional highways but:
Everything US59 south of Houston stays I-69.
US281 becomes I-169 or rather I-969 since they are screwing up Texarkana area.
US83 comes either I-269 or I-869 for the same reason.
US77 becomes either becomes I-569, I-137, or I-37
If US77 stays I-37, switch the old I-37 to I-137.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 13, 2012, 11:48:29 AM
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 ...

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):

Quote
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.

I assume the road under construction in the above Bing Maps link is the new 105 Loop.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 16, 2012, 04:41:58 PM
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)

Looking at the above Segment Two Committee map, it appears that the Segment Two Committee may have a long-range vision of a major interchange involving I-69, SH 105, and an I-x69 section that would connect with an I-x69 overlap with the Grand Parkway/SH 99. From the Segment Two Committee report (page 20/157 of pdf; page 14 of document):

Quote
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 ...

Looking at the description on the map of a "New Cleveland Relief Route Under Construction", it appears that Loop 105 may be the section of SH 105 described in the Committee's Report and may one day have an overlap with I-69 and an interchange with an I-x69. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on October 23, 2012, 04:16:46 PM
Jeff Royston photographed this assembly today from just north of Interstate 610.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/TX/TX19700691i1.jpg) (http://shields.aaroads.com/show.php?image=TX19700691)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on October 27, 2012, 05:18:52 PM
Jeff Royston photographed this assembly today from just north of Interstate 610.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/TX/TX19700691i1.jpg) (http://shields.aaroads.com/show.php?image=TX19700691)

Amazing -- a non-neutered Houston interstate shield, and a Houston interstate *with* a signed US route overlap.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 28, 2012, 10:00:42 AM
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 ...
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)

Another I-69 project from the $2 Billion Allocation List:

Quote
(US 59) Ramps, frontage roads, remove cross overs from north of SL 463 to south of US 87 - $11.62 million

This October 27 article (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2012/oct/27/mc_txdot_102812_192129/?business&local-business) reports that the above four-mile SL 463 to south of US 87 project in the Victoria area (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Victoria,+TX&hl=en&ll=28.805271,-97.003441&spn=0.21841,0.308647&sll=28.829636,-96.975632&sspn=0.218359,0.308647&oq=victoria+tx&t=h&hnear=Victoria,+Texas&z=12) should begin in August 2013 and will take place in existing right-of-way:

Quote
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 ....
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Cam4rd98 on November 11, 2012, 11:38:10 AM
I think if Interstate 69 went outside the city of Houston along the proposed grand parkway I wouldn't think that would help traffic in the inner city  because the Grand Parkway is planned to be a loop around the Greater Houston Area and that would be too far to be interstate commute from the city but it would make more sense if I-69 were to follow directly on U.S. 59 through Houston would make convenience more precise meaning that it would be at the location where it is exactly needed because if the Grand Parkway were designated as I-69 but its too late now because I-69 is now designated from Interstate 610 to Cleveland Texas along the U.S. 59 freeway, or maybe the Grand Parkway could be designated as X69 or something like I-469 that would make sense.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on November 11, 2012, 11:42:44 AM
or maybe projects don't follow numbers or maybe people don't follow numbers or maybe you need punctuation
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on November 11, 2012, 01:57:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 11, 2012, 02:08:25 PM
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.

It's a moot point anyway, since US 59 from I-610 north has already been designated as I-69. The Grand Parkway should remain as SH 99.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 12, 2012, 01:29:33 PM
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.

It looks like the City of Laredo and Webb County both want to incorporate Loop 20 into I-69.  On November 5, the Laredo City Council voted on a resolution to cooperate with Webb County in creating a Transportation Reinvestment Zone along sections of Loop 20 and US 59, both of which are referred to as being considered for I-69 status (http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/city-council/council-activities/council-agendas/2012Agendas/2012-R-20.pdf) (page 8/14 of pdf):

Quote
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.

The Webb County Commissioners Court will consider a companion resolution on Nov. 13 (http://www.webbcountytx.gov/meetings/Files/Agenda-2012-11-13-481.pdf) (page 2/12 of pdf):

Quote
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.

Meanwhile, TxDOT's Webb County Projects Tracker (http://apps.dot.state.tx.us/apps/project_tracker/projects.htm?view=cnty&dist=Laredo&cnty=Webb) confirms a lot of current and scheduled construction activity for Loop 20.  Since Loop 20 has an interchange with I-35 (connection with the current interstate system), it could conceivably receive an I-69 designation after its upgrades are completed.

EDIT

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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on November 18, 2012, 03:22:14 PM
My latest Rand McNally atlas shows the freeway of US 77 south of I-37  to TX 44 as I-69.  Nowhere else in TX on that same edition show I-69 existing even on US 59 where it is freeway through Houston.

I think that is strange considering the next I-69 segment to be established permanently is in MS.  A long way in time and mileage for the links to be attached.

 Added I just checked Wikipedia and it states that another 35 miles of US 59 has been approved (and signed) as I-69 though not shown on Rand McNally.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on November 28, 2012, 11:06:49 AM
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 the following stretches in Texas (conditional on FHWA approval):

- From Spur 529 in Rosenburg northeast to I-610 southwest of Houston
- Raymondville to Brownsville

Also an I-69C has gotten conditional approval between McAllen and Edinburg.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 28, 2012, 11:30:03 AM
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:
Quote
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.

I find it interesting that AASHTO approved the I-69 designation for US 77 from Raymondville to Brownsville, even though it is statutorily designated as I-69E.  If TxDOT makes significant progress on Loop 20 in Laredo and wants an interstate designation in the relatively near future, then it will be interesting to see how TxDOT handles the designations.

[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)

Also the US 83 application was rejected because no number had been requested:

Quote
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.

Will Texas beat Louisiana to the punch for I-6?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on November 28, 2012, 11:48:16 AM
AASHTO has officially gone crazy.  And the interstate numbering system is now dead.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 28, 2012, 01:03:17 PM
AASHTO has officially gone crazy.  And the interstate numbering system is now dead.

Will you be hosting a memorial service for the Interstate Numbering System?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on November 28, 2012, 09:12:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 28, 2012, 09:18:35 PM
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. ;)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on November 28, 2012, 09:35:21 PM
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. ;)
Wouldn't that have to be a motorway?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on November 28, 2012, 10:12:30 PM
I want an imaginary interstate...I-i.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on November 28, 2012, 10:26:35 PM
I want an imaginary interstate...I-i.
You got it, cap'n.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 29, 2012, 10:42:09 AM
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:
Quote
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.

I recently received an email update form TxDOT regarding Loop 20 which affirms a desire for Loop 20 to be part of the I-69 corridor and that current project upgrades are being built to interstate standards (emphasis in email added by me):

Quote
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.

No surprise that funding issues exist.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on November 29, 2012, 12:19:13 PM
^ 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 07, 2012, 05:16:20 PM
The I-69 Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/advisory_committee_report.pdf), combining information from the five segment committees (and current to November 5, 2012), has been posted on the TxDOT website.  It has several interesting maps included at the end of the report, including a map combining the priorities of the five committees (page 25/30 of pdf; page 19 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/zMVsj.jpg)

The text on the map identifies "US 59 from the Mexico Border to East of Laredo" as an upgrade priority, but the map itself seems to identify Loop 20 from the Mexico Border to East of Laredo as a priority.

edit

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 Report indicates that they will pursue exceptions with FHWA (page 19/30 of pdf; page 13 of document):

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on December 09, 2012, 01:03:33 PM
I don't know if this has been posted anywhere else, but I-69 shields have been posted on BGS signs for the southern leg of US-77 South at I-37 near Corpus Christi.  I can post some pics if this is news.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on December 09, 2012, 01:21:16 PM
I think there was a thread on it last year.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on December 09, 2012, 03:49:45 PM
Posted in this very thread:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg125581#msg125581
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lamsalfl on December 09, 2012, 10:16:16 PM
When might we expect to see those I-369 shields?
Title: Possible TX I-69 Routes Through/ Around Lufkin and Nacogdoches
Post by: Grzrd on December 12, 2012, 11:57:50 AM
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:

Quote
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.”

Lufkin options:                                                                Nacogdoches options:
(http://i.imgur.com/ESjmZ.jpg)                          (http://i.imgur.com/dEaxn.jpg)

edit

When might we expect to see those I-369 shields?

I recently posted a TxDOT email response to this question in another thread:
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg190337#msg190337
Title: TX; US 83 Interstate Numerical Designation and I-69 Signage Updates
Post by: Grzrd on December 13, 2012, 09:55:44 AM
Quote
This 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.
(above quote from Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg190337#msg190337) thread)

I emailed TxDOT again and asked if the other conditionally approved sections of I-69 were on the same timetable as I-369 for signage and if a numerical interstate designation had been selected for US 83. TxDOT's response:

Quote
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.

Applications for AASHTO's Spring meeting are due in mid-March.  I assume TxDOT intends to select a numerical designation for US 83 by that time.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lamsalfl on December 13, 2012, 11:01:39 AM
Not sure if I would feel with an I-2 there even though there are no other likely candidate routes for the number at this time.  I dunno, maybe. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on December 13, 2012, 07:46:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2012, 02:40:48 AM
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-2 would work for me only if they extended it north somehow to Laredo or even as far north as I-10 east of El Paso. Otherwise, an even I-x69 would suffice.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on December 17, 2012, 03:27:11 AM
^ 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.  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.

And 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.  Hopefully the missing I-35 direct connectors, particularly to and from the north, will come soon too.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on December 19, 2012, 01:16:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 19, 2012, 01:22:04 PM
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.

I think treating the suffix as a full digit has been the standard since 1961.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 19, 2012, 01:43:59 PM
New shields coming to the Pharr District ... I-169 (US 83).

The I-169 designation is interesting because that route will provide an interstate connection between I-69C and I-69E; I would have preferred I-269 or I-469.*

*An I-69S designation might have been humorous, but slightly unrealistic.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lamsalfl on December 19, 2012, 01:57:34 PM
So we will have interstate segments around the Rio Grande not connected to the main network like Hawaii?

If so, why can't Louisiana sign the freeway from Raceland to Morgan City as I-49? State preference?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 19, 2012, 02:08:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 19, 2012, 03:58:34 PM
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.

In an nutshell, Louisiana would have to commit to building the I-49 Connector through Lafayette before they could drop I-49 shields on the finished segments of US 90.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 19, 2012, 08:09:29 PM
Quote
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.
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).

Since the recently designated SH 44 to I-37 section of I-69 is north of the US 77/ I-69  and SH 44 interchange,
(http://i.imgur.com/QA4Iv.jpg)

and the sections of US 77 near the border will be signed as I-69E, I'm beginning to think that the ultimate goal is to have "mainline" I-69 connect Laredo, Corpus and Houston by including the SH 44 routing from US 77 to US 59 (statutory amendment technically needed), and the Freer to Victoria US 59 segment would be an I-x69 (sort of a Texas-sized version of I-475 in Georgia).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on December 19, 2012, 08:44:47 PM
I-69 from Corpus to Laredo will be I-69W, but yes, I think they want main I-69 to run to Robstown with US59 to be considered a 3di.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: drummer_evans_aki on December 21, 2012, 02:22:38 AM
You know, I was reading the articles about I-69's three "legs." Got me thinking.

From Laredo to Victoria, I'd sign that as Interstate 6.

From Three Rivers to Pharr, I'd re-route that as Interstate 37

And from Brownsville to Victoria, interstate 69.

From Corpus Christi to current I-37's exit 72, I'd designate that as a three digit... Interstate 137?

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on December 21, 2012, 01:34:05 PM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2012, 01:39:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 21, 2012, 02:16:13 PM
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!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2012, 02:54:10 PM
when will the good people in the TXDOT engineering department rise above their political oppressors and number the routes something logical?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on December 21, 2012, 03:26:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheStranger on December 21, 2012, 03:27:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on December 21, 2012, 04:47:11 PM
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.
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.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mcdonaat on December 23, 2012, 03:26:59 PM
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 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.

I, for one, cannot wait to start seeing work done on a Logansport Bypass.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: longhorn on December 26, 2012, 12:14:12 PM
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on December 26, 2012, 12:17:22 PM
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?
US 83.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: longhorn on December 26, 2012, 01:24:11 PM
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?
US 83.

What interstate number will it be labled?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rover_0 on December 26, 2012, 01:29:19 PM
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 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg191601#msg191601) earlier in the thread.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 26, 2012, 02:34:53 PM
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 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.

I, for one, cannot wait to start seeing work done on a Logansport Bypass.

If that happens, then all of South Louisiana will rise up in revolt, since they already are ticked off about I-49 North being built for free from the dirt up while upgrading US 90 into I-49 South will get the toll treatment. Especially those sections of US 90 already upgraded for free.

Until TX resolves what they want to do with the Carthage/Logansport section and the LA 3132 extension issues are resolved (or they decide to build the I-49 ICC, I'd much rather they complete I-49 South through Lafayette Parish on to Morgan City first. That would solve much of the problem, and even allow I-49 shields to fly temporarily.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: longhorn on December 27, 2012, 02:45:10 PM
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 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg191601#msg191601) earlier in the thread.

Did not see that...........Thanks.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: FreewayDan on January 20, 2013, 10:49:55 AM
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 (http://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)?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on January 23, 2013, 02:42:15 AM
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)?

The US 83 freeway extends well west of US 281, to the edge of Las Penitas; US 281 technically intersects US 83 in Pharr, not McAllen, although it all pretty much blends together.  And in theory "I-69C" is supposed to make it to the border proper eventually at Pharr, although that's rather implausible without bulldozing downtown Pharr on the way (I'd send it west/north on US 83 to the proposed Anzalduas Highway extension, although you could also go east/south and eventually cut down to the Donna bridge on FM 493).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 25, 2013, 04:14:49 PM
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?

Maybe TxDOT has heard the taunts from across the pond. This article (http://www.progresstimes.net/news/local-news/3347-i-69-becoming-a-reality.html) reports that the "Laredo prong" will be signed as I-69 W:

Quote
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.

Having W, C, and E prongs would be more logical looking at the total I-69 system in Texas, but replacing the statute's "I-69" designation with "I-69 W" still does not seem quite right.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on January 26, 2013, 06:37:36 AM
San Antinio to Brownsville goes as I-37 with a spur to Corpus.
Victoria to Laredo goes as I-69, thus Laredo to Houston being one highway number.

Everything else stays a US route. least confusing of this mess.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on January 26, 2013, 03:35:46 PM
I think it should be like this:

Mainline I-69 uses US 77 from Victoria to Corpus to Brownsville.
I-6: TX 44 from Corpus to Freer and US 59 from Freer to Laredo.
I-2: US 83 from Laredo to Harlingen.
I-37 stays as is.
I-169 goes from north of Raymondsville on 77 southwest to Edinburg, then south on 281 to connect with the Pharr Int'l Bridge
I-269: US 59 from Victoria to Freer
I-369: Texarkana spur
I-469: Grand Parkway all the way around Houston.

This eliminates the splits, makes Corpus and Laredo Tri-interstate cities, leaves 5 x69's in Texas open, and eliminates the need to have 2 long parallel interstates in the rural area of the valley. Of course, Laredo, Pharr, and Brownsville all want I-69 so the 1di's won't happen. And I don't think they'll build my 169, but that's just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on January 26, 2013, 04:33:59 PM
I don't see how this is confusing or a mess.  Unnecessary perhaps.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 26, 2013, 04:47:45 PM
This was my original idea for solving the I-69 mess:

US 59 from Houston to Laredo (via Victoria, George West, and Freer): I-69
US 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville: an I-37 extension; with existing I-37 from there to downtown Corpus converted to an I-x37 spur
US 281 from George West to Pharr: keep as is unless a freeway connnection is built through George West to connect w/ I-37; then I-x37
US 83 in S. TX: keep as is.
SH 44 from Freer to Robstown and US 77 through Corpus Christi to Victoria: I-469 or I-2 (Save I-6 for I-49 South in LA...heh)
US 59 from Carthage to Texarkana: I-369 (or possibly I-47)


An alternative would be to sign I-69 along US 59 to Freer, then SH 44 to Robstown, then US 77 through Corpus Christi to Victoria, and make the Freer-Victoria segment of US 59 I-269 (or leave as is until a freeway upgrade is warranted).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 26, 2013, 07:55:58 PM
My idea:

US 59 stays US 59
US 77 stays US 77
US 281 stays US 281
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on February 07, 2013, 08:43:08 AM
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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 07, 2013, 11:58:37 AM
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??
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 07, 2013, 12:29:48 PM

And, I suppose, they all stay 2- to 4-lane highways, right??

no, they get upgraded as necessary, but not given silly numbers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 07, 2013, 06:29:21 PM
My idea ...
US 281 stays US 281
And, I suppose, they all stay 2- to 4-lane highways, right??
no, they get upgraded as necessary, but not given silly numbers.

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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on February 07, 2013, 06:54:22 PM
That is great news that the Southwest freeway outside the loop has been approved. I'm glad to see this highway is moving along. I expect to see signs by May, based on the time between the previous section was approved and when it was signed. Also, when do you think the section of US 59 inside 610 will receive approval?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 07, 2013, 08:16:41 PM
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]:
Quote
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.
when do you think the section of US 59 inside 610 will receive approval?

I'm guessing they are about 1 to 1.5 years behind their above hoped-for schedule.  AASHTO's next meeting is May 3-7, and I suspect TxDOT will submit an application in time for that meeting (mid-March).  I suspect AASHTO would grant approval contingent upon FHWA's approval of the "Inside I-610" segment as satisfactorily complying with current interstate standards.  I would hope FHWA would grant its approval a few months after AASHTO's decision.  Pure speculation by me.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Road Hog on February 08, 2013, 09:12:00 AM
Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on February 08, 2013, 10:36:43 PM
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: drummer_evans_aki on February 10, 2013, 12:24:44 AM
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on February 10, 2013, 01:17:04 PM
You could always make a multi-billion dollar donation to Ontario to build ON 417 all the way to Manitoba. ;)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mgk920 on February 10, 2013, 10:07:28 PM
Quote
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.

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.

Naaahhh....

Make that donation to TxDOT so that they can repost I-10 with kms.

 :nod:

<DUCKS and RUNS!!!>

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on February 13, 2013, 01:14:48 PM
Crap. I'd love to see a guide sign with a four digit exit number. That would actually be interesting.

Here you go :)

(http://i.imgur.com/Ctkwt40.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on February 13, 2013, 02:24:55 PM
Have Catalunya given in now and switched to km-based exit numbers?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on February 14, 2013, 01:13:22 PM
Actually, do you mind letter digits?  We have a few in NY, such as exit 130A on NY 17.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on February 14, 2013, 06:43:55 PM
Actually, do you mind letter digits?  We have a few in NY, such as exit 130A on NY 17.

If letters count as digits, then there's plenty of them, especially on I-10 in TX.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on February 15, 2013, 11:21:03 AM
The thing with those interchanges on NY 17 is, they're fully independent, and not liked by mileage or being in the same interchange as another suffix, since we're a sequential state.  NY 17 is the only sequentially numbered road presently that has triple-digit exit numbers; the next highest I can think of is 61, on the Thruway (I-87 technically has more, but has multiple sets of exit numbers).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on February 16, 2013, 06:22:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on February 17, 2013, 09:46:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on February 17, 2013, 11:13:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on February 20, 2013, 10:28:39 PM
None of that means 281 needs to be a full freeway, let alone an interstate.

Not yet, but I'd imagine TxDOT will be able to make a similar arrangement for US 281 as they did for US 77 - get a private contractor to build the toll overpasses, interchanges, and bypasses that are needed, and upgrade the rest with the toll revenues.

As for "need": the politics demand it, so it will happen.  Brownsville can't have something McAllen doesn't get too, and vice versa.  That's Lower Rio Grande Valley Politics 101.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 21, 2013, 12:19:41 PM
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

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):

Quote
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
...

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):

Quote
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

The Public Hearing Notice suggests that the Driscoll stoplight issue is currently planned to be addressed by a Driscoll relief route, which would be part of a project separate from the one on which the TTC will be voting on Feb. 28:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 24, 2013, 10:24:14 AM
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:
Quote
TxDOT officials are seeking feedback on two possible routes through Angelina and Nacogdoches counties.

TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) page:

Quote
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.

The page also includes a map of the study area:

(http://i.imgur.com/hgia44h.jpg)

edit

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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on February 25, 2013, 08:01:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 25, 2013, 08:13:50 PM
Why would they make plans for control cities this far in advance?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 25, 2013, 08:27:49 PM
the US 83 application was rejected because no number had been requested:
Quote
Establishment 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 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8157.msg206045#msg206045) thread)

I find it interesting that TxDOT thought that AASHTO, in conjunction with the FHWA, could assign an interstate number to US 83 in the absence of a requested number from TxDOT (page 164/212 of pdf):

Quote
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.

I am curious as to why TxDOT did not request "I-169" in the application, why AASHTO did not provide a designated number, and then how and when approval of the "I-169" designation became enough of a certainty for the Pharr District signage project. Maybe time will tell.

Also, in comparing the US 83 and US 281 applications, I do not understand why the US 83 map did not sufficently show interconnected interstate routes, whereas the US 281 map did sufficently show interconnected interstate routes.

The US 83 map (page 165/212 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/C5Q3MDi.jpg)

The US 281 map (page 179/212 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/PK8Z3pi.jpg)

 :confused:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on February 25, 2013, 09:23:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 25, 2013, 10:14:58 PM
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.

For the short term, Victoria and Cleveland are suitable enough. I'd like to see more states include both the closest AND the most significant control cities on their signs..as in: I-10 West (from Lafayette) -- Lake Charles/Houston or I-69 North (from Houston) -- Cleveland/Texarkana/Shreveport.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ShawnP on February 26, 2013, 09:10:52 PM
Congrats must go to Texas for pushing I-69. Only Texas, Indiana and Kentucky somewhat seemed interesting in I-69. Others are talking but not really building and in fact stopping.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 3467 on February 26, 2013, 10:17:23 PM
If the others dont do anything and it sounds like TN is out...It could be routed over to 55 to 40 to 30 and then pick up in Texas. It my take some time but that route is all 4 lane.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ShawnP on February 26, 2013, 10:37:15 PM
I kinda think folks in NW Tenn banging the drum will get this project back online but it will be a slowwww slog.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 26, 2013, 10:49:43 PM
Good for Arkansas and Louisiana for ignoring the pork.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on February 27, 2013, 12:14:48 AM
Arkansas is working on a section of I-69 near Monticello.
Title: Laredo Loop 20 (Future I-69)/McPherson Rd. Overpass Groundbreaking
Post by: Grzrd on February 27, 2013, 08:51:09 PM
^ 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.

This article (http://www.laredosun.us/notas.asp?id=25310) reports on the February 22 groundbreaking of the Loop 20/McPherson Road (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=loop+20+mcpherson+intersection+laredo+tx&hl=en&ll=27.609379,-99.476995&spn=0.003684,0.004801&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.163737,9.832764&t=h&hnear=Texas+20+Loop+%26+McPherson+Rd,+Laredo,+Webb,+Texas+78045&z=18) overpass:

Quote
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.

edit

The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.23.13%20Laredo.html) also has an article about the project:

Quote
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.

(http://i.imgur.com/O5yPtQR.jpg)

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on February 27, 2013, 09:27:29 PM
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.

Regarding the US 281 toll bypass of Falfurrias, I am confused.  The Texas I-69 Alliance site says (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update1.html) that the Texas Transportation Commission has by minute order declared it to be both a controlled-access highway and a toll road.  My understanding, however, is that all (or nearly all) of the construction work for this bypass is being done under TxDOT CCSJ Brooks 0255-03-026, which was let in May 2009 using ARRA stimulus funds.  The plans do not include any tolling infrastructure, as far as I can tell.  So is it still to be a tollway after all?

A quick Google search on {US 281 Falfurrias bypass tolls?} turns up one hit--an article in a South Padre Island newspaper dated December 29, 2011, whose Google teaser snippet includes the phrase "likely won't be tolled after all," but clicking on the link generates a 404 error.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 27, 2013, 10:16:57 PM
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2012_meetings/documents/transcripts/mar29.pdf
Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on February 27, 2013, 10:48:10 PM
NE2--many thanks for this.  The transcript confirms that a motion to rescind the tolling plan was made and carried.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on February 27, 2013, 11:56:30 PM
Quote
Amazing -- 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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: burneraccount on February 28, 2013, 10:14:34 AM
Quote
Amazing -- 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?

They're on the Sam Houston Tollway, as pictured up thread.  I've seen them in the field.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on February 28, 2013, 11:07:25 AM

Is I-69 signed on the BGS for any interchanges that I-69/US-59 encounter in the Houston area yet?

Three more examples of signage that has gone up since October 2012. All photographed by Jeff R:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069_us-059_01.jpg)

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069_us-059_02.jpg)

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069_us-059_03.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 28, 2013, 12:46:04 PM
Quote
Amazing -- a non-neutered Houston interstate shield, and a Houston interstate *with* a signed US route overlap.

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 28, 2013, 04:03:59 PM
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 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:

Quote
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.

(http://i.imgur.com/AcIKwwD.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lamsalfl on February 28, 2013, 05:06:28 PM
What is the issue preventing I-69 from being signed inside the I-610 loop?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on February 28, 2013, 06:53:45 PM
What is the issue preventing I-69 from being signed inside the I-610 loop?

They have to designate the 75 mile Houston stretch in sections, last I heard, the section inside 610 would be last since it's "an older section". But I think it's fine, it should be approved by the end of the year.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 03, 2013, 09:19:43 AM
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):
Quote
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.

This 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:

Quote
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.



Also, some US 77/Future I69E projects in Willacy County will soon resume (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/coastal_current/news/article_3c68d67a-79ed-11e2-a552-001a4bcf6878.html) after a delay caused by the bankruptcy of a contractor:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 03, 2013, 09:29:44 PM
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

An 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.”

A recent Editorial (http://lufkindailynews.com/opinion/editorials/article_1bf9546e-83a2-11e2-b3e2-0019bb2963f4.html?success=2) notes that the project could be completed within six to fifteen years if the current US 59 footprint is used:

Quote
... 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.

The Editorial finishes by encouraging individuals to complete the online survey.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on March 06, 2013, 04:54:31 PM
^ Probably has to do with not having to do as much environmental work for upgrading an existing facility versus building an entirely new one.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on March 10, 2013, 01:24:14 AM
Dumb question, but is that 498 seen on the reassurance shields mileage?  Is that a milepost for US 59?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on March 10, 2013, 04:27:20 AM
Dumb question, but is that 498 seen on the reassurance shields mileage?  Is that a milepost for US 59?

That is properly referred to as a reference marker, but is often called a mile marker.  They don't exactly measure mileage, but are generally placed every two miles, showing only even numbers.  They're often placed on alternating sides of the road, so there's one on each side every four miles.  The small number plate is placed on both sides of the sign post (on undivided roads).  They're used on non-Interstate routes, with numbers increasing west-to-east or north-to-south.  A marker is generally placed at a county line showing the next even number in the direction of increasing numbers, regardless of the distance from the previous marker, making the difference in numbers not equal to mileage across counties.  The number at the beginning of a road is based on the distance of the beginning of the road from the north end of the state for north-south routes, and at the west end of the state for west-east routes, so the numbers are larger than the actual length of the road.  Where they fall near a junction, they're placed at the proper location in addition to the usual reassurance shield.  There may be cases in which a marker is located near enough to the location for a reassurance shield that a single assembly serves both purposes.  I don't know of any.

To see the locations of (nearly) all of them, see the statewide planning map, and select "Markers" in the Map Overlays section.  Note that Interstate highways have actual mile markers placed every mile, but only even numbers are shown on the map.  http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html (http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Brian556 on March 10, 2013, 02:42:59 PM

Quote from AgentSteele53
Quote
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.

That's awsome.

TxDOT usually keeps a decent amount of stock around, so it might be a while before you start seeing these in some areas.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 12, 2013, 06:31:35 PM
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):
Quote
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
This 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

The Transcript for the February 28 meeting (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/transcripts/022813.pdf) indicates that the Driscoll relief route project may also be subject to a TTC decision in the near future (page 50/109 of pdf):
Quote
... 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.

It was also confirmed at the meeting that a section from Farm to Market Road 1898 in Kingsville southward (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Kingsville,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.527073,-97.85059&spn=0.029494,0.038409&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.163737,9.832764&oq=kingsville+tx&t=h&hnear=Kingsville,+Kleberg,+Texas&z=15) is currently interstate standard (pages 49-50/109 of pdf):

Quote
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.

I-37 to south of Kingsville should be good progress for I-69E.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on March 13, 2013, 01:11:23 PM
Drove through downtown Houston last night, that part is not yet 69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on March 13, 2013, 01:15:14 PM
Drove through downtown Houston last night, that part is not yet 69.

The portions inside of 610 are not approved to be designated as I-69 yet. The portion north/northeast of 610 (up to Cleavland) is signed as I-69 already. The portion southwest of 610 going thru Rosenberg has been approved already but is not signed.

Does anyone know when West Loop to Rosenberg portion will be signed as I-69? I thought FHWA and AAHTO approvals were given already?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on March 13, 2013, 07:09:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on March 13, 2013, 07:41:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on March 14, 2013, 12:14:46 AM
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...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on March 14, 2013, 07:36:09 AM
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...

Maybe someone else who is around the area could chime in, but I expect it to be set up where I-69 shields will start popping up. I-69  may only be signed on the BGS and pull through signs, but the reassurance markers will probably still retain US 59 (as I-30/US 67 and I-35/US 77 do now).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on March 14, 2013, 04:39:47 PM
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.

US 59 will probably stay signed for quite a while, as that number has already been well established for decades. However, given Texas's history with decommissioning US routes, it will probably be decommissioned, along with 77, 83, and 281 when I-69 is all finished. That will be a long ways off, and plenty of time for people to adjust to the number change. It will definitely take some time to adjust, but I can just see many people still calling it 59 for a long time.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on March 19, 2013, 03:31:54 PM
We went to Corpus on Sunday, I-69 is signed to the south with I-77.  No signage of a northbound 69 yet. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on March 20, 2013, 01:06:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ssummers72 on March 20, 2013, 09:07:37 PM

J N Winkler wrote: "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"

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.

Thanks,

Stephen
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on March 20, 2013, 09:08:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 20, 2013, 09:55:46 PM
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?

No, ultimately I-69 will be signed through US 59 eventually.  There may be some issues with specific Interstate standard segments such as the downtown viaduct or the lack of frontage roads in the depressed section S of SR 288...but I can't see the Feds not approving the remaining sections after they've already approved the others.

Once I-69 is fully completed, you could make a solid case for truncating US 59 S of Texarkana, or reversing the switch that was made where US 59 and US 96 changed routes, and have US 59 take over US 96 through Beaumont and ultimately to Port Arthur. But..that's going into Fictional territory, so I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on March 20, 2013, 10:46:58 PM
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.

If you have that particular contract (which I mentioned upthread and is how I first learned about I-69C), then you already have all of the I-69-related signing contracts in Texas I know about.  To the best of my knowledge, that is the only such contract so far.

So you're saying 59 through Houston may not be signed as I-69 mainline?

Not at all.  I have no information in hand that addresses that possibility.  It is just that I don't know at this point how I-69 will be handled on large sign panels (which will need overlays if they aren't replaced altogether), and there is always the possibility of a curveball I didn't anticipate, which is what I-69C was for me.
Title: I-69 Signage Being Installed on Southwest Freeway
Post by: Grzrd on April 03, 2013, 08:24:59 PM
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:
Quote
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

This article (http://www.click2houston.com/news/28-miles-of-US-Hwy-59-now-Interstate-69/-/1735978/19603226/-/format/rsss_2.0/-/m7sss9/-/index.html) reports that I-69 signs are now being installed from I-610 the West Loop to Rosenberg:

Quote
Workers from the Texas Department of Transportation are installing blue Interstate 69 signs on the Southwest Freeway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 08, 2013, 09:04:11 PM
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) page

TxDOT recently posted the Materials from the March 25 and March 26 Open Houses (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59_meetings.htm).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on April 14, 2013, 02:15:20 PM
I-69C in Pharr now shows up on Google maps. I-69 was also on Google maps on the Southwest Freeway in Houston last week, but that was removed, I think. Have the signs come up in Houston (SW Freeway) or Pharr yet?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 02, 2013, 01:58:51 PM
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)

This May 1 article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/east_montgomery/news/txdot-considering-improvements-between-fostoria-rd-and-sh-bypass/article_4a1a77d6-b284-11e2-a4b7-0019bb2963f4.html) reports that an Open House will be held on May 14 to provide details about the project, which is planned to extend from Fostoria Road in Montgomery County, Texas, to the State Highway 105 South Cleveland Bypass (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fostoria+Road,+Cleveland,+TX&hl=en&ll=30.292275,-95.120316&spn=0.073963,0.153637&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=4.61356,9.832764&oq=fostoria+road&t=h&hnear=N+Fostoria+Rd,+Cleveland,+Texas+77328&z=13):

Quote
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.

Of course, Google Maps already has this segment of US 59 signed as I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 07, 2013, 11:59:57 PM
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) page:
Quote
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.
TxDOT recently posted the Materials from the March 25 and March 26 Open Houses (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59_meetings.htm).

This TV video report (http://www.ktre.com/story/22189499/i-69-committee-deciding-next-phase-of-development) discusses TxDOT's presentation of the study to representatives of Angelina and Nacogdoches counties:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2013, 04:00:31 PM
List of applications:
....
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread)

The Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering ("Special Committee") Report to the Standing Committee on Highways ("SCOH") (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf) indicates that the Special Committee initially disapproved the above applications, but that SCOH overruled the Special Committee and approved the above applications; finally, the AASHTO Board of Directors accepted SCOH's decision to approve the above applications (page 1/8 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/LLevCEm.jpg)

Approved by AASHTO; high drama indeed!



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.



New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001) ... I-169 (US 83) ...

With TxDOT opting for the I-2 designation instead of I-169 for 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"?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 04:08:42 PM
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"?

probably.  I-905 shields are pretty in-demand. 

I would be surprised if any I-169 shields having been made, but I have seen stranger things... like an Oklahoma US 260 shield (later renumbered US 266).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 09, 2013, 07:23:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 09, 2013, 08:43:28 PM
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.
Oh for gosh sake, where else is I-2 going to go where I-6 wouldn't work better?

For the record, I am also against the suffixes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on May 09, 2013, 10:35:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mrose on May 10, 2013, 12:57:47 AM
I'd run I-37 down US 77, change the spur into Corpus to I-337, run I-33 down US 281 and then 69 can have the Laredo portion.

I guess I-2 is okay since it is probably the only place in the continental US where it would actually belong that has a realistic chance of being applied anytime in the next century.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 10, 2013, 06:33:53 AM
I-2, I don't have a problem with. I-69W,C,E is the dumb part. With 31 and 33 open, and spurs for 37 and 69 open, why does it all need to be a silly suffixed 2di?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 10, 2013, 08:32:52 AM
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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 10, 2013, 11:05:18 AM
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
Totally agree!!!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on May 10, 2013, 11:49:27 AM
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.

But, yes, what corridor can be I-2 anyway? Alligator Alley? TX44?
and it's not like they will be able to not number any of the three branches as anything other than I-69, not even a I-x69 as it would be politically unthinkable (not least as it would require a change in law - or at least a lack of enforcing certain bits of it).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 10, 2013, 01:07:26 PM
Though I hate the idea of using both I-31 and 33, I do agree with using 33 and extending 37. But my preferred option is to extend both I-37 and I-45 unless Galveston needs it for some reason.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 10, 2013, 01:44:45 PM
I45 would exit itself for it to go to either Lake Jackson(288) or Victoria(US59/I69). Better served using I 37 and redoing the I-37 to US77 split interchange.

With Texas being a big state, long 3di shouldn't be a problem. There is a ton of open numbers it can use to solve these problems without needing so many 69_ routes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: FreewayDan on May 10, 2013, 11:23:17 PM
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) 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on May 10, 2013, 11:31:15 PM
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)

And it goes through TWO counties, TWICE as many as I-97 goes through.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Revive 755 on May 10, 2013, 11:52:34 PM
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.

IMHO, better to duplicate I-39, I-41 and/or I-43, and leave I-31 and I-33 available for far future developments in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and/or Minnesota.

The branch to Laredo looks close enough to being an east-west route that it could work as I-6. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mrose on May 11, 2013, 04:33:09 AM
I agree.... I think at least one of 31/33 should remain open.

I actually like the idea I saw on the AASHTO application thread which was to use I-6 for Victoria-Laredo and then use 37 and 69 for the other two, thus only using one new number which will probably never be used anywhere else. Of course, adding this on top of I-2 then uses up everything under I-10.... but are there conceivably any other places for them anyway?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Revive 755 on May 11, 2013, 12:45:05 PM
^ 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rover_0 on May 11, 2013, 02:34:30 PM
^ 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.

You could also make US-57 or US-90 (in Texas) an eastern I-8, as again, where else would you put it? Maybe US-90 in Louisiana (which is going to become I-49)?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on May 11, 2013, 05:25:29 PM
I-4 can be from Laredo to Corpus, it's almost a straight line from Corpus to St Pete, I don't mind the gap in the Gulf of Mexico at all. To free up I-8, one can send I-10 to San Diego, current I-10 through Phoenix and Los Angeles can become I-30, I have plans to send that through Mesa, Roswell, and Lubbock to connect with current I-30. The US 83 corridor from Laredo to Harlingen should be built completely to I terstateIn standards, and can be I-2. I-6 and I-8 would open up, if needed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 11, 2013, 07:54:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abaurgooasdusx on May 14, 2013, 07:45:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 15, 2013, 08:27:20 AM
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.

Me too. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: formulanone on May 15, 2013, 09:22:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 15, 2013, 09:29:51 AM

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.

probably similar to 35E and 35W.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/TX/TX19790354i1.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: formulanone on May 15, 2013, 09:38:20 AM
Yeah, that was kind of what I imagined.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 15, 2013, 10:21:51 AM
Yeah, that was kind of what I imagined.

I bet it's the small letter underneath.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on May 16, 2013, 12:44:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 16, 2013, 12:51:47 AM
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 hope it's that way.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 16, 2013, 08:31:15 AM
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.

Yeah, the average plebian driver wouldn't figure that out anyway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 16, 2013, 10:29:55 AM
I think most of us will agree that I-69C is a dumb idea, especially when you consider the fact that most suffixed Interstate routes (of course, with the exception of the two I-35 splits in TX and MN) were renumbered over 30 years ago. I wouldn't mind duplicating an odd-numbered route, as there are currently none in the system. I-39, I-41 or even I-43 would be a good fit for the spur to McAllen/Brownsville.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 24, 2013, 12:26:59 PM
The final formality needs to be approval by the Texas Transportation Commission.
I would assume that they're the ones who requested it, no?
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.
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications  (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220302#msg220302) thread)

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:

Quote
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.

I'm guessing that the TTC will approve the designations for Interstates 2, 69C, 69E, and 369.  Then, it will be a matter of waiting for FHWA to approve each of these sections as meeting current interstate grade standards.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ski-man on May 25, 2013, 01:21:33 AM
Has there ever been an explanation on why they feel it is better to use the I-69C & 69E instead of another interstate number?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on May 25, 2013, 03:09:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Road Hog on May 25, 2013, 05:11:32 AM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on May 25, 2013, 05:32:57 PM
So Harlingen gets the whole thing?

Harlingen is much closer to Brownsville than McAllen (same county).  (Literally, the doctors will spend the first two years in Hidalgo County and the final two years in Cameron County, so there will be two separate facilities.  But we're getting off-topic.)

Literally putting the med school in the middle would put it somewhere like Mercedes or Weslaco.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Sykotyk on May 25, 2013, 08:22:34 PM
Why can't we just use a few of the unused numbers: I-31 and I-33 are just ripe for this type of routing. I know it's not a continuous I-69, but it is a 2di, and I-31 would work good for what will be I-69C. It might be out of position for I-35 angling southwest, but it is a 2di that's yet to be used.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on May 30, 2013, 06:16:38 AM
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 30, 2013, 08:42:04 AM
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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 30, 2013, 01:01:04 PM
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

you can sign it I-57 and pretend you have a coherent plan to connect it to the other I-57 by 2045.  in fact, you can sign a portion both as I-57 and US-57.  also multiplex part of it with I-56 for no discernible reason.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 30, 2013, 01:22:22 PM
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

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 30, 2013, 01:38:51 PM
List of applications:
....
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
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?

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 30, 2013, 01:45:42 PM
List of applications:
....
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
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?

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.

Great thanks, I must have overlooked the change in Corpus.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 30, 2013, 03:21:52 PM
I'm going down there next weekend, will look to see if the 69 has become 69e yet
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on May 30, 2013, 04:24:15 PM

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.

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:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 30, 2013, 04:44:38 PM
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:

Thanks for sharing, Alex!

If I read the commission notes correctly, FHWA has given all of the necessary approvals (no waiting for contingent approval!) and it is time to start installing some new shields:

Quote
As of May 24, 2013, AASHTO and the FHWA Administrator have issued the required approvals.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 30, 2013, 04:48:06 PM
so they're gonna take down all the shiny new I-69 Texas shields... figure they'll ship 'em up north to where there is no split.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 30, 2013, 05:26:38 PM
I know it would be a pain, but could someone do up a simple map of whats going on down there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 30, 2013, 05:54:37 PM
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):
(http://i.imgur.com/94Tt6.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 30, 2013, 06:52:11 PM
Dumb question but isn't Kenedy County pretty...er...remote, despite its size and location between CC and the LRGV?  I know there's the little county seat (Sarita) but what all needs to be done there again?  Are there a lot of old King Ranch roads crossing the highway at grade?  (1,946 sq. miles, 2011 population 437 (!) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenedy_County,_Texas))
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on May 30, 2013, 09:04:16 PM
I was hoping Corpus Christi would get I-69 mainline. The Freer-Victoria route should be I-269, or better yet not build it. I think a more direct Houston-Laredo route is redundant, while Corpus should have the single number to Houston. Also, shouldn't the control city signs on the Eastex and Southwest freeways in Houston be changed to say Laredo and Shreveport eventually?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 30, 2013, 11:24:45 PM
List of applications:
....
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 31, 2013, 08:47:15 AM
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):

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)



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:
Quote
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.

It looks like the above linked newspaper article received its information from an Alliance for I-69 Texas press release that served as a basis for the Alliance's article.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 31, 2013, 10:35:17 AM
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 31, 2013, 12:08:12 PM
Grzrd,

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 31, 2013, 12:45:18 PM
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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 31, 2013, 12:56:05 PM
1.  Still mildly amusing that Texarkana's getting I-69 (sort of) before Shreveport does.

Not to mention that Texarkana, TX is getting I-369 before Texarkana, AR gets I-49.

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.

This prior post (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg161349#msg161349) discusses in part some of the plans for Kenedy County:

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:
Quote
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.

(http://i.imgur.com/nATsg.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on May 31, 2013, 01:01:37 PM
In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too late
I'm still annoyed over US 66 not being 60 west of Springfield.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 31, 2013, 01:07:33 PM
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!)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 31, 2013, 04:07:51 PM
I wonder what part the total of those items are going to cost out of the $1 billion between Harlingen and CC?

I don't know, but you might be able to find out by looking at the various documents listed in the Index of US 77 Upgrade EA and FONSI Documents (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/).

edit

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/RTDYOgG.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/lC433TD.jpg)

Not an insignificant amount of money.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 31, 2013, 04:16:24 PM
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!!!!

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on May 31, 2013, 04:18:12 PM
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!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on May 31, 2013, 08:45:05 PM
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!

Problem is that gives Cameron county 2 primary interstates (One or two digits) and Hidalgo county only one. We've already gone over how it works in the valley (An example is the med school.) I really think they should build a new Edinburg-Raymondville highway, make that I-69W, US 77 south of Raymondville I-69E, Laredo-Freer-Corpus Christi can be I-4 or I-6, and Freer-Victoria, and US 281 from Three Rivers to Edinburgh don't get upgraded, avoiding redundancies. Just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Road Hog on June 01, 2013, 04:00:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on June 01, 2013, 09:38:22 AM
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.

(http://www.kenedy.org/Portals/39/Images/portraits/sarita_kenedy.jpg)

Sarita Kenedy East (Texas State Historical Association biography) (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fea14)

Once in charge with her brother of a 400,000 acre ranch.  Attended Incarnate Word Academy in Corpus Christi, Sophie Newcomb College (Tulane) in New Orleans, was a debutante in that city.

Now her namesake county seat is the only town in a 1,900+ square mile county with less than 500 residents, and will be (I believe) the only place in Kenedy County where future I-69 has to cross public roads.

Sorry to get OT, but the stories of real people behind these little towns are fascinating.

Back TO topic...one thing that's interesting is that according to the map Grzrd furnished above, pretty much all Kenedy County (DANG, I'd hate to get caught on that road during a hurricane) and its I-69 section appears to be in one segment, not with the Willacy County stretch, but will still be a big chunk of I-69/Texas to open up.  It will be interesting to see how fast that section is built and opened.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 01, 2013, 10:58:43 AM
The county seat, Sarita, was named for the matriarch of the Kenedy family.
I keep reading this as Santa.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on June 01, 2013, 11:56:57 AM

1.  Still mildly amusing that Texarkana's getting I-69 (sort of) before Shreveport does.

Even more amusing that Texarkana will have more limited-access highways leading to it then Austin and triple the Interstate designations  X-(
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 01, 2013, 01:07:37 PM
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)

This TV video report (http://www.kveo.com/news/interstate-69-gains-approval-extension-lower-rio-grande-valley), in addition to having footage of US 77 in Cameron County, reports that the shields "will be up" in thirty to sixty days:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on June 01, 2013, 06:05:39 PM
List of applications:
....
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
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:

Quote
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.


It's nice to finally see a reference to the Texarkana section as 369 and not mainline 69 as many articles have previously said in error.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 02, 2013, 10:39:40 AM
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

The title of the above-linked article is S.H. 550 Ribbon-Cutting Crowd Gets Big I-69 News.  As far as I can tell, the SH 550 ribbon-cutting is I-69 Corridor news in and of itself. First 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:

Quote
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 Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/projects%20ST.html) describes 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) as follows:

Quote
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.

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.

At any rate, the SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:

Quote
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)

The above-linked Alliance for I-69 Texas page also indicates that the Sarita overpass would allow Sarita School Road to pass under I-69E:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 02, 2013, 11:50:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 02, 2013, 12:56:29 PM
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:
Quote
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.
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.

Thanks, NE2! As the toll status implies, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Highway_550) confirms that it will be a limited access connector to I-69E:

Quote
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 ...

I guess this will be a technical exception to the contention that I-69 will not be tolled in Texas.

edit

This TV video report (http://www.krgv.com/videos/toll-road-extended-in-cameron-county/) has some footage of the newly opened section of SH 550.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 02, 2013, 05:52:05 PM
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:

Quote
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 ...

I assume the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway study includes the routing suggested by the Segment Two Committee.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on June 02, 2013, 06:44:41 PM
Quote
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.

That brings up an interesting technicality.  State highways are run by TxDOT.  I read somewhere that RMAs can also operate state highway toll roads, although I haven't found the legal background for that in the statutes.  NTTA and county toll road authority projects are not state highways, although the frontage roads may be state highways.  Obviously, I-69 couldn't run along the frontage roads.  If they wanted to run the interstate along a county toll road, such as the Sam Houston Tollway or the Grand Parkway, a portion of which might be a county toll road, I wonder how that technicality would be worked out.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 02, 2013, 08:39:36 PM
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:

Quote
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 ...

I assume the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway study includes the routing suggested by the Segment Two Committee.


Considering that I-610 was used as the delimiters for the newly designated segments of I-69 rather than the Sam Houston Tollway or the Grand Parkway, I'd assume that I-69 will ultimately run the length of US 59, pending analysis on how to get the middle section to meet full Interstate standards. The "I-69 relief route" is more an offshoot to provide linkage between mainline I-69 to the Port of Houston and points southward.

Most likely scenario??  They complete the Grand Parkway's eastern semicircle and the connector to US 59, and then the entire road gets an I-x-69 loop.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on June 02, 2013, 10:26:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 03, 2013, 04:53:42 PM
The Grand Parkway will become I-69F.  Guess what the F is for.
 :eyebrow:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on June 03, 2013, 05:16:59 PM
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 really think the main I-69 should follow US 59 through Houston, it's about time that gets an interstate designation. Besides, I think the interstates should go through the big cities, and how many times does an interstate make a 200 degree turn on a beltway just to go out of its way to avoid a big city, not counting I-95 and Boston, which was due to NIMBYs. The freeway in Houston is already there, just use it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on June 03, 2013, 05:25:26 PM
I think they should go around the cities.  Why push the major traffic into town?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on June 03, 2013, 07:06:58 PM
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, as their intent is to connect major cities to each other. People have the freedom to use loops or 3di's to avoid the city center if they wish in order to avoid traffic, but maybe the solution should be to use signs such as "Houston bypass" or "Houston area bypass" to encourage through traffic to get off the main highway and take the loop around.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on June 03, 2013, 11:11:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on June 04, 2013, 11:34:33 AM
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).

rte66man
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 04, 2013, 11:39:34 AM
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!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 04, 2013, 06:24:53 PM
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 routes
An 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.

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):

(http://i.imgur.com/Gug6O8H.png)

The comparison indicates that the environmental review process for the relief routes could take up to 3.5 years longer to complete than it would take to complete for the direct route.  The big question is how great the cost differential is between the alternatives.



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

It's interesting to compare and contrast a major city like Houston with towns like Lufkin and Nacogdoches. In reading through the Agenda, many comments from Open House attendees indicate that a lot of people want the traffic to flow through their towns in order to keep their businesses profitable.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 04, 2013, 11:16:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on June 04, 2013, 11:50:31 PM
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 late Lewis "Grzrd" would be proud of you...my condolences if you're related (not that it's a bad thing...anything but...he just left us far too early, IMHO, but God's ways aren't my ways though I'm trying).  Seriously, thanks for the info.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: HighwayMaster on June 05, 2013, 08:48:36 PM
The Grand Parkway will become I-69F.  Guess what the F is for.
 :eyebrow:

Or I-69P.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on June 05, 2013, 08:54:32 PM
The Grand Parkway will become I-69F.  Guess what the F is for.
 :eyebrow:

Or I-69P.

P for Parkway. I prefer I-269 or I-469 for the Grand Parkway. I-69 goes through Houston.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 05, 2013, 09:25:48 PM
I-69 Offshore Rigway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on June 05, 2013, 10:05:02 PM
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on June 06, 2013, 08:24:50 AM
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.

or I-69NWO
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Brandon on June 06, 2013, 09:47:04 AM
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.

or I-69NWO

I-69SOL.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on June 06, 2013, 10:08:24 AM
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.

or I-69NWO

I-69SOL.

I-69AWA
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 06, 2013, 11:28:56 AM
Sounds to me like the Upgrade US 59 option would be the most warranted, but with retaining the Dibold bypass.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2013, 12:51:12 PM
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.

or I-69NWO

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRl079ctVb_og5fR4biSslFxeZf3lNHaZqToajh7wQdDU4OAVGt)

now that is a great song.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on June 06, 2013, 01:12:14 PM
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 06, 2013, 01:34:19 PM
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on June 06, 2013, 03:26:23 PM
Alex is almost as awesome as the nWo
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 08, 2013, 10:22:25 PM
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:
Quote
No 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.
(above two quotes from the Multi-State I-69 Innovative Financing Study (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9001.msg217602#msg217602) thread)
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:
Quote
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.
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? (http://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!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on June 09, 2013, 02:18:09 PM
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!

I a bit stumped at the moment, but I'd love to see it.  Another point of interest is why they chose 550.  State highway numbers are generally assigned sequentially, except in special cases.  The consecutive (or nearly so) numbers go as high as 365, so that's a big jump.  I don't think that this is related to anything current, but the original SH 550 appears to have been designated along the current path of I-30 from US 80 west of Fort Worth to US 67/80 in Dallas.  An interesting note is included.

Quote
This is the minute order that designates the Interstate Highway System, of which SH 550 is a part.

Source: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/sh0550.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/sh0550.htm)

Is this a quiet message about future plans for toll roads and Interstate designations?  Or maybe it's unrelated and they chose 550 for some other reason.  And why were they designating an Interstate Highway System in 1945?  I've seen old maps on which US routes are called "US Interstate Highways," but that system already existed and wouldn't be designated then.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 09, 2013, 03:41:40 PM
And why were they designating an Interstate Highway System in 1945?
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/archstories/late_roads/interstate_system.asp
Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on June 09, 2013, 06:27:11 PM
And why were they designating an Interstate Highway System in 1945?
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/archstories/late_roads/interstate_system.asp
Quote
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.

Thanks for that information.  I didn't know they were called interstate highways that far back.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on June 09, 2013, 08:54:45 PM
The source NE2 cites is less than lucid on the specific origin of the phrase "Interstate highway."  However, an article by D.W. Loutzenheiser in the 1945 edition of Proceedings of the Highway Research Board includes the following two paragraphs (p. 106):

Quote
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.

The title of Loutzenheiser's article?  "Proposed design standards for interregional highways."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: icemandrake on June 15, 2013, 01:23:19 PM
Here is a news article from the Wharton Journal-Spectator on 116 miles being added to I-69 in Texas, its designations in South Texas and the US-83 Freeway being designated as Interstate 2.
http://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_c095c54c-cd54-11e2-996b-001a4bcf887a.html (http://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_c095c54c-cd54-11e2-996b-001a4bcf887a.html)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on June 21, 2013, 11:25:41 PM
...and an article on I-69 in Fort Bend County, right above Wharton (and right next to Harris):  http://www.fortbendstar.com/2013/06/19/signs-of-i-69-in-fort-bend-county-more-than-placards/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 08, 2013, 03:42:28 PM
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:
Quote
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.

The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.4.13%20study281.html) is reporting on current US 281/I-69C construction projects and that Open Houses will be held on July 16, 17 and 24 about the corridor study:

Quote
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.

The adjacent illustration:

(http://i.imgur.com/TThbe0T.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on July 10, 2013, 06:47:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 10, 2013, 08:57:15 AM
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.

I received an email from TxDOT this morning that provides a broad timetable for the signage installation and confirms that I-2 signage installation will also begin on Monday [July 15] (the timing for the Corpus "switch" is a little unclear):

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on July 10, 2013, 11:37:51 AM
At least I-69C will be completed sooner than the other branches, thanks to the US 281 projects going on.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 11, 2013, 04:44:16 PM
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.

Here's the invitation (http://www.co.cameron.tx.us/docs/Invite715.pdf) for the two "historic unveiling" ceremonies/photo ops.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on July 12, 2013, 12:01:07 AM
Are they planning to bypass it around Premont or take the existing ROW through the town?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 12, 2013, 08:34:36 AM
Are they planning to bypass it around Premont or take the existing ROW through the town?

The TxDOT I-69 Funding Program as of January 24, 2013 map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf) lists a $41 million relief route project from North of FM 716 to South of FM 1538.

edit

This presentation (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us281_premont/presentation_041712.pdf) indicates that they hope to have an environmental decision by Spring 2014.  Here is a depiction of the proposed interchange for the project:

(http://i.imgur.com/SsmqyaH.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on July 15, 2013, 12:31:41 PM
According to TxDOT's Facebook page, I-69E and I-2 shields have been officially unveiled in Harlingen. The post:
Quote
(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!!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on July 15, 2013, 03:38:28 PM
Dedication press conference with the 3 different shields displayed. amid much hand-shaking and back-patting.

http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=921608#.UeRIpKy4WSo

So strange to actually see a C-suffixed I-shield, much less a single-digit TX I-shield.

==EDIT==

From McAllen's Twitter page, the Pharr unveiling at the I-2/US 83 - I-69C/US 281 interchange:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPObC4eCMAMG2Hp.jpg:large

==EDIT 2==

Short video showing some BGSes in preparation before installation (one up close shows I-69E included):
http://www.krgv.com/news/state-unveiling-new-interstate-signs-in-the-rgv
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 15, 2013, 04:06:32 PM
Okay, taking bets on how long before those US highways are decommissioned.  Will 281 end in San Antonio or Pleasanton?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 15, 2013, 04:08:03 PM
Why not George West?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 15, 2013, 04:09:26 PM
Here are my pictures from the signing this morning.:

https://plus.google.com/photos/108314424034130737389/albums/5900933620817858929

It was some fun
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 15, 2013, 04:43:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 15, 2013, 06:03:38 PM
I take it there isn't enough old alignment to justify a relocation instead of a truncation?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 15, 2013, 06:22:03 PM
I take it there isn't enough old alignment to justify a relocation instead of a truncation?

Unfortunately not. TxDOT stated a few years back that in order to keep costs down on both construction and ROW acquisitions, that they would do an on site upgrade to the existing uS highways. In South Texas there are not a lot of towns or other roads so that means these Us highways will be redundant.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 15, 2013, 06:46:37 PM
I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Road Hog on July 15, 2013, 06:57:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 15, 2013, 07:17:43 PM
I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C

Agreed. But 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. Unless they say screw it and upgrade that section seeing how it is about 20 miles or so.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 15, 2013, 07:31:18 PM
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)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on July 15, 2013, 11:34:40 PM
Why not George West?

There's a lot of US 281 multiplex with I-37 already. TxDOT could just assign a SH or FM number to the George West-Three Rivers highway, a loop or spur designation to US 281 between 410 and Pleasanton, and leave it at that. US 281 between Pharr and Brownsville is pretty much a local traffic corridor anyway since I-2 (née US 83) is just a few miles north.

I can't see much decommissioning though before the freeways are complete.  US 81 in South Texas lasted quite a while after I-35 was done, for example. US 77 and 281 will probably get truncated, but we're likely stuck with US 83 until I-2 gets extended to Laredo—a partial extension is probably justifiable as far west as Roma today, but beyond there the traffic really isn't present until you hit Webb County.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 15, 2013, 11:41:03 PM
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)
Quote
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 ...
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.4.13%20study281.html)
Quote
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
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.

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 15, 2013, 11:55:36 PM
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)
Quote
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 ...
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.4.13%20study281.html)
Quote
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
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.

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.

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.  But don't worry, the suffixes as they are now have already messed things up.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 16, 2013, 01:16:50 AM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 16, 2013, 01:39:15 AM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Road Hog on July 16, 2013, 07:02:47 AM
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?

Yeah, that's right, I didn't notice the 270 duplex started there.

If you don't want a 2dus to end at a 3dus, you can snip 59 at Sallisaw and extend 259 up.

Or more simply, you can revert the two standalone sections of 59 south of Sallisaw to a state highway and remove all the 59 duplexes south of Spiro.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on July 16, 2013, 09:37:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on July 16, 2013, 10:10:54 AM
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).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: exit322 on July 16, 2013, 11:04:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 16, 2013, 11:05:37 AM
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 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:

Quote
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.

The article does not clarify where I-69 would end and I-69W would begin.  If the transition were to be in George West, then George West may be destined for some variant of an I-69/I-69C/I-69W/US 281 interchange.  I'm sure that would create some interesting signage.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rover_0 on July 16, 2013, 04:26:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on July 16, 2013, 09:40:56 PM
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."

(And, frankly, now that the valley has split the baby on getting the 2di designation, I don't think they'll fuss too much about Laredo getting I-69 instead of I-69W.)

Then again 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on July 16, 2013, 09:49:38 PM
I still don't understand why Texas is building three I-69s in the valley.  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".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 16, 2013, 10:00:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 16, 2013, 10:42:28 PM
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

It's interesting that TxDOT's US 281 Planning and Feasibility Study (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/281/fact_sheet.pdf) study area does not include US 281 "from the Rio Grande River" to US 83/I-2 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Hidalgo,+TX&hl=en&ll=26.150507,-98.207817&spn=0.238839,0.307274&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.163737,9.832764&oq=hidalgo+tx&hnear=Hidalgo,+Texas&t=h&z=12):

Quote
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on July 16, 2013, 11:10:56 PM
First, does Google Maps incorrectly show a TX 241/US 281 overlap into Hidalgo, and then presumably to the Rio Grande?

No, that's correct. US 281 is signed with three legs. Officially I think that's Spur 241, but it's signed as US 281. Even better: like US 83 in the area, it's marked Eastbound (http://goo.gl/maps/lEy1i) and Westbound (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=brownsville,+tx&hl=en&ll=26.097276,-98.220563&spn=0.005453,0.017359&sll=32.832718,-83.644169&sspn=0.179723,0.277748&t=h&hnear=Brownsville,+Cameron,+Texas&z=16&layer=c&cbll=26.097277,-98.220555&panoid=Ohm6FEgQwM6Nc7D5_BqjAQ&cbp=11,280.72,,1,-0.06).

Quote
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?

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 16, 2013, 11:20:05 PM
^ Thanks for the info.  Your I-69E to I-2 observation as satisfying the US 281 statutory purpose seems like a practical solution that is roughly analogous to Loop 20 being a practical alternative to US 59 in Laredo. It may have even been part of the justification of including I-2 as part of the I-69 "system". Problem solved.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on July 17, 2013, 07:46:13 AM
Looking at this I-69 HPC stuff it is very confusing:
Quote
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.

Then there's more detail, where it goes crazy:
Quote
A. In Michigan, the corridor shall be from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, southwesterly along Interstate Route 94 to the Ambassador Bridge interchange in Detroit, Michigan.
B. In Michigan and Illinois, the corridor shall be from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to Chicago, Illinois.
So I-94 is the route of I-69 between Sarnia and Indianapolis? Chicago wasn't mentioned in the summary above. Nor Windsor...

The language here leaves no room for I-69 to also be the corridor in MI. Really poor writing.
Quote
C. In Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the Corridor shall--
 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
Fine, though does that mean that the I-530 extension is part of I-69?
Quote
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 United States Route 77; [I-69 East]
I-69 E defined in law from Victoria to the border.
Quote
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?)
Quote
and
 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.
Where'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).

And how can the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor also be including FM511? Which is also I-69 with no legally defined suffix.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 17, 2013, 08:06:10 AM
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."

I agree that a straightforward reading of HPC 20 would require an I-69 designation along the US 59 corridor from Laredo to Houston, etc. (from above FHWA link):

Quote
20.United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]

That said, FHWA has already created possible I-69W "wiggle room" by allowing a common sense Tenaha-to-Texarkana I-369 "spur" exception to the HPC 20 language (and thus avoiding an I-69/I-69 interchange near Tenaha). A somewhat similar argument might be made that "mainline" I-69 ends in either Victoria (where I-69E branches off) or George West (where I-69C branches off), and that the remainder of the US 59 corridor to Laredo is a "third prong spur".  Since the other two prongs are "East" and "Central", the "Laredo prong spur" could be designated "West" without running afoul of the statutory language (looking to the I-369 Texarkana spur as precedent).  It would only make sense to have "West" be part of a system that already includes "East" and "Central".

I don't support such an argument, and I suspect FHWA would not buy it, but I think TxDOT could at least make it with a straight face.

edit

Quote
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; [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?)

english si's observation strengthens the case for an I-69W designation.  An argument might go as follows: Since US 59 from Victoria to George West (approximately 80 miles) is statutorily defined as I-69C in HPC 18, and Victoria is also where I-69E begins its US 77 route to Brownsville, then Congress must have intended that "mainline" I-69 end in Victoria where the Central and East prongs branch off. With that in mind, Congress surely did not intend an eighty-mile I-69/I-69C overlap and must have intended that a US 59 western spur would branch off of I-69C at the George West US 59/US 281 junction where I-69C begins its US 281 southward route toward the border.  A natural designation for the US 59 western spur would be "I-69W".


Really poor writing.

Yep.



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)

Correct orifice?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on July 17, 2013, 09:48:15 AM
Yeah, I think this is a case of sloppy amendment work more than anything since originally corridors 18 & 20 were seperate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on July 17, 2013, 10:17:07 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on July 17, 2013, 09:25:25 PM
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.
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.

Don't see numbers there either, but maybe they're define something else.  I don't consider suffixed interstates to be a part of their parent routes, which means we technically have three I-35s, for example.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on July 21, 2013, 06:41:46 PM
I still don't understand why Texas is building three I-69s in the valley.

Like every other bit of highway-related stupidity: local politicians
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on July 22, 2013, 05:31:47 AM
Though Laredo is some way from the other two bits.

And hey, the other two bits are far enough apart to have a two-di that simply links them :P
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 22, 2013, 08:21:08 AM
69C & 2 (as one highway named...37?) would have been fine
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on July 23, 2013, 09:25:25 AM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: HandsomeRob on July 23, 2013, 10:33:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on July 24, 2013, 03:31:52 PM
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. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 24, 2013, 03:43:08 PM
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. 
35e is the "implied main route" though thru traffic would more likely go through Fort Worth
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on July 24, 2013, 04:04:49 PM
I am pretty sure there is an AASHTO mileage convention that in the case of split routes, the East (E) or north branch (N) carries the through mileage.  I believe I-35E carries the through mileage through St. Paul, MN, as well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 04:41:49 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on July 24, 2013, 04:53:35 PM
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.

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).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 05:07:00 PM
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.

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).

Whoops!  My mistake.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on July 24, 2013, 05:11:24 PM
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.

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).

Whoops!  My mistake.
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on July 24, 2013, 07:21:29 PM
There really is a rule or convention that sets priorities on which branch continues the mileage, I saw it somewhere, I just don't remember where.  Notice that both 35E's carry the through mileage, which is consistent with it.  It would also apply to the North branch of an east-west interstate, if there were any left.  By the time Texas is through, there may eventually be an I-69N and I-69S to go along with the rest of the family.  In all seriousness, I don't think an I-69C occured to anybody in determining mileage.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on July 24, 2013, 10:08:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 25, 2013, 08:21:13 AM
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.

Because they knew this would be a discussion topic for the next 20 years in this forum - and decided to #trollsohard
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 25, 2013, 10:32:03 AM
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.

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).

But you drive 35W because 35E is the practice freeway with a 45 MPH speed limit in saint paul
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on July 25, 2013, 10:38:41 AM
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.

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).

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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 25, 2013, 10:46:02 AM
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.

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).

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?

Not that I remember. It seems that all the major road work happens in Dallas.  Maybe back when Interstate 20 was being re-routed around Dallas and Ft. Worth, since they worked on it going from east to west, so when the I-20 and I-35W interchange was being worked on, it's counterpart in DeSoto was completed. Funny, I was in Dallas Sunday night and they had only the right hand lane open southbound on I-35E for repaving. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 25, 2013, 02:23:42 PM
We don't go to DFW often but there's ALWAYS construction somewhere on it.  ALWAYS!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 02:27:17 PM
Quote
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?
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.

At its November 16, 2012 meeting, the AASHTO Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering disapproved TxDOT's request for an interstate designation for US 83 (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/SCOH%20Report%2011-16-2012.pdf), in part because TxDOT had not specified a number for the designation (page 1/7 of pdf).  In looking at the Texas Transportation Commission September 27, 2012 Minutes (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2012/documents/minutes/sept27.pdf), I'm beginning to wonder if Texas did not specify a number because they may have thought that the federal legislation did not give them a choice in the matter (pp. 29-30/34 of pdf):

Quote
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.

I wonder if Texas officials were concerned that, since the US 83 routing between US 281 and US 77 (plus US 77 to the border) is basically a substitute for US 281 from US 83 to near the border, a strict reading of the statute would have required US 83 between US 281 and US 77 to be designated as I-69C and would have also required the US 83 segment from US 281 westward to have been assigned another interstate designation? Such a concern would explain the language "one or more segments of US 83".  It would also explain the language that "it is the purview" of AASHTO to "assign an Interstate route number".  In short, Texas may have been telling FHWA/AASHTO: "You tell us what the statute requires".

I assume that, once AASHTO kicked it backed to TxDOT, TxDOT took it as a green light to go for I-2 for the entire US 83 segment at the May, 2013 AASHTO meeting.  Maybe one day the "inside story" will be revealed as to why Texas did not initially request a specific interstate number for US 83.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 25, 2013, 02:28:18 PM
I still think I-2 should eventually be part of an extension of I-35
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 05:02:38 PM
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."
Quote
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; [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?)
english si's observation strengthens the case for an I-69W designation.

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, and it allows TxDOT to choose between I-69C and I-69 for the Victoria to George West segment of US 59:

Quote
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 if TxDOT chooses I-69C for Victoria to George West .....................  :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 25, 2013, 05:49:56 PM
But the current law does not allow for I-369.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 06:07:57 PM
But the current law does not allow for I-369.

Agreed: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg233401#msg233401

The FHWA official seems to have concluded that the Tenaha-to-Texarkana segment of the I-69 Corridor is a "spur" (thus allowing I-369), whereas the George West-to-Laredo segment of the I-69 Corridor is not a "spur" (thus not allowing an I-x69).

Of course, the legislation is silent on "spur" distinctions.  Hardly worth litigation, however.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on July 25, 2013, 06:55:41 PM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 07:03:07 PM
does that mean there would be a gap in 69?

Yes.  TxDOT now has apparent permission to create a "western" ("southern"?) I-69 and an "eastern" ("northern"?) I-69 to add to their repertoire of I-69C, I-69E, and I-369.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 07:52:41 PM
Quote
18. 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
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
(above quotes from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg231246#msg231246) thread)

Not surprisingly, I just received a FHWA email confirming NE2's guess:

Quote
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).

This 2007 article (http://www.caller.com/news/2007/oct/17/fulton-corridor-will-open-now-land-can-be-port/) reports on the opening of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor:

Quote
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.

Here is a map of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor from the article:

(http://i.imgur.com/HIyRdeS.jpg)

edit

Enjoy the direct connection from I-37 southbound to the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor:

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 18, 2013, 09:23:04 AM
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 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":

Angelina County (page 21/22 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/9IU7rXN.jpg)

Nacogdoches County (page 22/22 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/sofFDJ1.jpg)

The top priority for the Angelina County Committee is development of the Diboll relief route (page 20/22 of pdf):

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 19, 2013, 05:37:33 PM
I'm loving how quick the US 59 upgrades seem to be happening north of Houston. I'd love to drive this soon and see what construction might be happening. I drove west across Lufkin on US 69 a few months ago and there were upgrades/realignment on the US 59 loop from US 69 south to the US 59 north exit.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 28, 2013, 08:55:44 AM
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 August 19 Angelina County Recommendation map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf) and the August 19 Nacogdoches County Recommendation map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/nacogdoches-county-map.pdf) are now posted on the TxDOT website.



The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update9.5.13%20Lufkin%20Nacog.html) has posted a map combining the recommendations from the two county committees, as well as a priority list from each county:

(http://i.imgur.com/LKOovhX.jpg)

Quote
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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on September 05, 2013, 11:05:21 AM
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. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on September 05, 2013, 11:21:48 AM
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.

I wish I could remember where I saw this (it's probably linked to somewhere upthread).  As I remember, the current (unfunded) plans call for an interchange at Sarita and a few others along the length of the county.  I also remember the private ranch roads having ramps allowing access to and from only the near side of the freeway.  Unless there's a physical barrier, many will probably just make illegal crossings, but the idea is that they'd drive to the nearest interchange and turn around as needed to get to their destinations.

Edit:  A quick look back reveals this link http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html)  At the bottom is a drawing and this quote:
Quote
Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on September 05, 2013, 11:42:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on September 05, 2013, 12:15:21 PM
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.

There are places in west Texas and in other states with gaps of more than 100 miles between gas stations.  Living in such places is as much a lifestyle choice as a geography choice.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on September 05, 2013, 12:29:04 PM
Remember that in Kenedy County this future interstate closely parallels the Union Pacific railroad's Houston-Brownsville main line.  (TRAINS magazine has a boatload of maps in this month's issue, including one that shows average trains per day on American main lines.  Didn't notice what the traffic is here but I know they run unit grain trains to the Port of Brownsville so those alone will be significant.)

Reason I say this is what happens on the interstate (with ranchers) will likely happen on the rail line.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 05, 2013, 12:59:28 PM
]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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on September 05, 2013, 01:03:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mgk920 on September 05, 2013, 02:25:25 PM
]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.

From what I was reading earlier, TxDOT considered doing the frontage road thing, but what they settled on was far less expensive for the needed utility - especially since there are so few separate property owners along the way.

As for services for those ranchers, I suspect that like with even farmers around here, they buy fuel in bulk and dispense it as needed from their own on-site storage tanks.  And for all but the most major repairs, they can do those by themselves, too.  These guys are pretty self-reliant.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on September 06, 2013, 04:35:57 PM
I rode US 77 from Robstown all the way to the Border and there is hardly any traffic that really warrants upgrades at intersections.  Plus the speed limit then was the same as the interstates of the time which was 70 Day/  65 Night and 60 for Trucks.  If it is still going to be present 75 after the upgrades, then it's a waste of money.  It is freeway where it counts, through the Corpus Christi and Harligen/ Brownsville area and even when completed I am sure that TexDOT is going to leave the one at grade intersection just prior to the Rio Grande just as they are in Laredo with the pair of one way streets that currently create the Breezewood there now as I-69W will most likely tie in north of the City along I-35 and be co-signed with it to the end of the freeway in Downtown Laredo. 

Probably I-69C will go to the border directly as the SPUI where US 281 and US 281 Spur interchange will have to be redone as the current flyover there is the wrong way as it favors the E-W part of US 281 with the N-S portion being the signalized road. 

Another interesting thing is will the E-W portion of US 281 and US 281 Spur be renumbered as most likely US 281 will be truncated to George West or San Antonio?  I doubt TexDOT will have a long concurrency of US and Interstate as the same for US 77 which will most likely be truncated to Victoria once the I-69's take place.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Roadster on September 06, 2013, 07:45:28 PM
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/


Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on September 06, 2013, 07:59:30 PM
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/

Plenty of posts about the Interstate 69 branches on the forum, use the search box up top for photos and news articles in addition to discussion.

Also both routes are covered on AARoads:
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-069c_tx.html
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-069e_tx.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on September 07, 2013, 09:28:00 AM
I rode US 77 from Robstown all the way to the Border and there is hardly any traffic that really warrants upgrades at intersections.

The 2011 AADT is between 9,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day. I wonder if Kenedy County is the only county that has 25 times more vehicles passing through it than it has population.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on September 27, 2013, 10:31:49 PM
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):

(http://i.imgur.com/oXKlqb8.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 28, 2013, 06:41:50 PM
Sorry this is late:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DL0DZG3xHOc/UkJhQhpBduI/AAAAAAAAA20/HIXFT3PPzpA/w740-h553-no/098.JPG)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 28, 2013, 06:44:35 PM
And more:

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-x3acOScpM4s/UkJhRmF1BNI/AAAAAAAAA28/Ms-cl1umZ2I/w413-h553-no/099.JPG)

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-xJhW9Y8YLXg/UkJhTQCkOqI/AAAAAAAAA3Q/qg-R2LvKTH8/w740-h553-no/101.JPG)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fWsVc0NB1fk/UkJhKiZMH0I/AAAAAAAAA2I/OBDZOGibV1E/w413-h553-no/093.JPG)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-STN_7t7BLno/UkJhWbZWFrI/AAAAAAAAA3o/1vthp0jcZQI/w740-h553-no/104.JPG)

 :happy:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on September 28, 2013, 11:47:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on September 29, 2013, 12:30:33 AM
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.

I saw the VMS truck briefly in the video at
http://www.ksla.com/story/23511371/i-369-unveiled-as-new-spur-of-i-69

(the linkie was posted previously in the Texarkana/I-49/I-69 spur thread)

The way the report (and the trees also) show the VMS truck, it must have been at the unveiling, and off to the side.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on September 29, 2013, 12:49:41 AM
Thanks for the info!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 29, 2013, 11:43:50 AM
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.

The LED sign was alternating between "Welcome New" and the 369 shield.  I just forgot to upload the Welcome New one.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-8CgB-ojbEyI/UkJhUBrGmxI/AAAAAAAAA3Y/0HZbnH79WOE/w740-h553-no/102.JPG)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 29, 2013, 12:21:55 PM
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.

The truck was parked off to the side of the sign unveiling.  Thats why it looks like it is in the middle of nowhere.
Title: I-69 Shields Coming to Laredo in 2014?
Post by: Grzrd on October 12, 2013, 10:55:30 AM
Very nice photos, Ethan!

Agreed. Thanks for sharing!



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:
Quote
20.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.
(bottom quote from Interstate 22 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=724.msg250185#msg250185) thread)

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".

I assume that he used "I-69W" merely as a way to distinguish that prong from I-69C and I-69E.  FHWA would probably approve the I-69 designation for that segment of Loop 20, but I can also see FHWA not being comfortable with an isolated I-69 segment west of I-35 for a long foreseeable period of time.  Congress did not specifically include Loop 20 in HPC 20; will FHWA require an interim I-x35 designation?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 25, 2013, 08:18:20 AM
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:
Quote
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 ... 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......
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on October 28, 2013, 12:40:42 PM
Apologies if this is covered above. We drove U.S. 77 from I-37 to south of Harlingen yesterday. It is marked as I-69 from I-37 to where the freeway ends at Robtown. At that point is an "END I-69" sign. There are several interchanges under construction from there south to Harlingen and a few "Future I-69 Interstate Corridor" signs. The existing freeway at Harlingen is only posted as U.S. 77 and U.S. 83. The only I-69E signage is at the I-2/U.S. 83 interchange. No reassurance markers. No exit numbers or Interstate mileposts.

Later this week I should be able to drive I-2.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 28, 2013, 01:16:29 PM
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:

Quote
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.

The good news is that it seems like they are working closely with FHWA in order to develop a successful submittal.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on October 28, 2013, 01:43:32 PM
Any info on when the overhead BGS will be changed to show I-69 for Southwest Freeway outside of I-610? Will it be co-signed I-69/US-59? If so, will the US59 eventually be dropped?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on October 28, 2013, 02:47:48 PM
Will it be co-signed I-69/US-59? If so, will the US59 eventually be dropped?

Good question.  *So far*, all the parts of US 59 with new I-69 (as well as I-369 in Texarkana) signage/shields still include US 59 signage/shields for now.  Nothing has been said officially yet as to the future status of US 59 along the corridors where I-69 and I-369 (plus I-69W and maybe I-69C later on) will overlap the US route.  It could very well be that eventually, US 59 could be mostly or completely phased out in TX.  If that were to happen, who knows where US 59's southern terminus would end up (Texarkana (but with the way US 59 gets treated in AR, maybe not)? Or somewhere in OK?)....  For now though, I don't see any US 66-scale (or US 81 Fort Worth-Laredo, or US 75 Dallas-Galveston, etc...) uprooting of US 59 anytime soon.

((The same conversation could be true about the 3 US routes (77, 83, 281) involved in the Valley's interstate additions, but again, so far, nothing has been said about any future removal/shortening of any of the 3 US designations for now.))
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 28, 2013, 06:15:58 PM
Will it be co-signed I-69/US-59? If so, will the US59 eventually be dropped?

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):

Quote
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

I have no idea whether TxDOT intends to ask the TTC to de-designate US 59 in the future.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 30, 2013, 03:22:51 PM
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 yet
Not 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.
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg231217#msg231217) thread)
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html
the SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:
Quote
The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year

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:

Quote
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 ....

Another I-69 Corridor Section of Independent Utility ("SIU") nearing completion ......  :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 15, 2013, 09:33:37 PM
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)

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).  Basically, the goal is to complete I-69C from Edinburg to Alice by 2037, in part to allow for immediate I-69C signage for completed segments (pp. 11-12/15 of pdf; pp. 8-9 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/td5K8Pf.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/0Bv58vb.jpg)

The Alice connection to the TX 44 corridor from the south appears to be the top priority; it will be interesting to see how soon a Planning and Feasibility study will be conducted for TX 44.

edit

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).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 20, 2013, 01:47:32 PM
If I am interpreting this Victoria Advocate editorial (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2013/oct/22/vp_oilbust_editorial_102313_223042/) correctly, it looks like, one day, to begin traveling southward on I-69E from the I-69/I-69E interchange, one will begin with a northwestward journey along Loop 463 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/SL/SL0463.htm), until it meets up with US 77 south of Victoria (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Victoria,+TX&hl=en&ll=28.806474,-96.999664&spn=0.209383,0.41851&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.434309,13.392334&oq=victoria+tx&t=h&hnear=Victoria,+Texas&z=12):

Quote
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.

I wonder why they would not simply route I-69E along the former Loop 175 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_state_highway_loops_in_Texas)/US 59?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on November 20, 2013, 02:10:17 PM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on November 20, 2013, 02:28:38 PM
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?

Is there an updated version of this PDF? It says "By the end of 2013 the final 11 miles of US 59 in Houston and five miles of US 59 in Texarkana are expected to be added to I-69." -- I don't believe the portion inside of the 610 loop are ready to be designated yet, is it?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 20, 2013, 02:44:30 PM
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:
Quote
US 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?

I think you're right; two possible splits look likely for the south side (assuming the northern Loop 463 route will be designated as I-69):

1. if US 59 from Victoria to US 281 is designated as I-69C, then the south end of US 59 Biz will have a three-way split with I-69, I-69C and I-69E; or

2. if US 59 from Victoria to US 281 is designated as I-69, then it will simply be the I-69/I-69E split.

Any local knowledge regarding Loop 463 is welcome, particularly if US 59 on the east side is considered part of the Loop.



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.

It is interesting how the Victoria Advocate editorial board does not even mention the potential I-69C (or I-69) route southwest of Victoria:

Quote
.... around Loop 463 and then follow U.S. Highway 77

Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria may never be upgraded to an interstate.



I don't believe the portion inside of the 610 loop are ready to be designated yet, is it?

From upthread: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg256017#msg256017 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 25, 2013, 09:31:33 PM
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).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: apjung on November 26, 2013, 05:47:10 AM
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.)
I guess because people would get confused between IH-2 with the I-H2 in Hawaii.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on November 26, 2013, 07:44:45 AM
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
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/may30/8.pdf (p. 4)

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on November 26, 2013, 12:17:05 PM
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 16, 2014, 04:28:06 PM
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):
Quote
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

This article (behind paywall) (http://www.etypeservices.com/SWF/LocalUser/Fortbend1//Magazine43785/Full/index.aspx?id=43785#/1/zoomed) reports on an I-69 project from SH 99 to Spur 10, scheduled to begin in about four months.  It will extend I-69 from "north of Spur 529" to Spur 10 (Hartledge Road) (http://goo.gl/maps/3lSTt) and upgrade the section from SH 99 to "north of Spur 529":

(http://i.imgur.com/g5lGwPz.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 21, 2014, 01:32:40 PM
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:

(http://i.imgur.com/Ekpuokx.png)

I-369 in Texarkana is also shown on the map (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg272862#msg272862).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 21, 2014, 02:49:03 PM
Yay I-blank.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on January 21, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
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.

I wonder why they only showed half of Grand Pkwy Segment E (between I-10 and FM 529).

Also a solid white line follows FM 1093 from I-610 Westloop up to Grand Pkwy. But I think the white line should have followed Westpark Twy from Southwest Fwy and continued as FM 1093 at the Ft Bend / Harris County line.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 21, 2014, 06:35:26 PM
Yay I-blank.

I-blankblank7 is even better!

Ah, font errors...  I can relate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on January 22, 2014, 12:02:01 AM
Any local knowledge regarding Loop 463 is welcome, particularly if US 59 on the east side is considered part of the Loop.

AFAIK US 59 between US 77 south and Loop 463 is not cosigned as Loop 463. Nor is the US 77 concurrency southwest of Victoria, according to Street View.

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

Then again it's all probably moot because TxDOT will probably lose interest once I-69C connects to I-37, there's a continuous I-69/I-69E, and the Laredo-to-Corpus corridor is upgraded as I-6 or whatever. At most I'd hope for a decent Beeville bypass on "I-69W."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on January 24, 2014, 12:37:41 AM
Great photos! And being from California, I love seeing the state name in the Interstate shields! Nicely done.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 24, 2014, 09:55:04 AM
I-blankblank7 is even better!
where do you see that?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Brandon on January 24, 2014, 12:54:14 PM
I-blankblank7 is even better!
where do you see that?

Look where I-2 meets I-69E.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 14, 2014, 08:59:52 AM
A few interesting comments:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FHWA-2013-0050-0003
Quote
We 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.
(above quote from Draft Highway Primary Freight Network (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11125.msg265037#msg265037) thread)

In looking at recent Comments (http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=PS;D=FHWA-2013-0050;refD=FHWA-2013-0050-0001) to the Draft Highway Primary Freight Network Plan (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/pfn/index.htm), it appears that the Alliance for I-69 Texas has organized a late push to include I-69 in the Plan by apparently circulating a "template" letter to its members that some have attached to somewhat individualized cover letters and then submitted as a Comment.  As an example, here is a letter from the Rio Grande Valley Partnership:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FHWA-2013-0050-0067

The attached letter contends that (in a similar vein to the ALDOT/I-22 letter that NE2 posted above) the current plan is merely a static "snapshot" of the current system and that it does not adequately address future freight routes, in particular I-69. Two other interesting points are that the attachment letter expressly includes SH 44 as part of the I-69 system, but not US 83/I-2, and that inclusion is needed for "additional resources and strategies to advance the completion of I-69".

SH 44 snippet:

(http://i.imgur.com/uUWTCeO.jpg)

"Snapshot" snippet:

(http://i.imgur.com/marvUrg.jpg)

"Resources and Strategies" snippet:

(http://i.imgur.com/r5wullU.jpg)

Alliance for I-69 Texas organizations that have submitted a Comment include City of Nacogdoches, Bay Area Houston Transportation Partnership, Texarkana Chamber of Commerce, the Rio Grande Valley Partnership, Cameron County, Nueces County Commissioners Court, TexAmericas Center, and The City of Lufkin, Mayor Bob Brown.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 19, 2014, 04:09:54 PM
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".

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:

Quote
c. Regional Priority Projects
Staff will outline state and local plans for the development of Interstate 69 through upgrades to State Loop 20.

It does say "Interstate 69" instead of "Interstate 69W".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on February 20, 2014, 08:10:04 AM
My wife was lost in Houston on US 59 last night trying to get back to Austin.  I had to bite my tongue not to ask if it had been cosigned with I-69 yet.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 20, 2014, 11:41:24 AM
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

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):

Quote
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.

Slick move; however, does the reference to "the I-69 system"" indicate a temporary 3di designation?

*Yes, there are two different TTC meetings in Laredo: February 26 and February 27.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 20, 2014, 02:35:49 PM
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:
Quote
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.
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:

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:

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on February 20, 2014, 08:00:12 PM
Quote
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.
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on February 21, 2014, 10:03:00 AM
Just got away from checking out the I-2 and I-69E interchange in Harligen and noticed the brand new flyovers that make up all of its ramps.  The thing that strikes me most odd that the whole interchange was completely made over with nothing original.  I can see if lanes were added to both US 77 and US 83 straight through the interchange, but nonetheless US 77 is STILL two lanes through that fully directional facility.  Only to and from the south is it been widened.

No doubt its part of the I-69 upgrade, but I distinctly remember it all being up to interstate standards back in 1997 when I visited there.  I stayed at the old Motel 6 that was in the NW quadrent of that interchange and had a birds eye view of the original flyovers and even walked over to them from my room to seek further viewing.  All seemed fine by me at the time.  I would think that Texas has more better things to use the upgrade money on than fixing something that only needed partial fixing unless there is more there then meets the eye as I only saw it once decades ago.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 22, 2014, 12:27:32 AM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.23.13%20Laredo.html) also has an article about the project:
Quote
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.
(http://i.imgur.com/O5yPtQR.jpg)
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:
Quote
c. Regional Priority Projects
Staff will outline state and local plans for the development of Interstate 69 through upgrades to State Loop 20.

This article (http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2014/02/21/front/news/doc5308181830856545661115.txt) reports that a ribbon-cutting was recently held for the project and that "it can be designated as part of the Interstate 69 system.":

Quote
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'm sure this will be discussed at the February 26 Texas Transportation Commission meeting.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 22, 2014, 12:34:20 AM
Woo, I-69W southbound will curve around 1.25pi and go northeast.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on February 22, 2014, 11:42:57 AM
I don't understand, a "south" highway is heading north.  Oh the logic of I-69WCE.  Are you sure it won't head north of Lake Casa Blanca?  That would make much more sense.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 22, 2014, 02:40:29 PM
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.

From upthread (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg191190#msg191190):

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 25, 2014, 11:10:49 AM
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:

Quote
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.

(http://i.imgur.com/Z2VnitE.png)

I-35A?



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?


We should find out in May:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 25, 2014, 12:20:30 PM
Wait a second. Isn't that bridge trucks-only?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on February 26, 2014, 02:49:07 AM
Wait a second. Isn't that bridge trucks-only?

Yes, although at least on the US side there is (or at least was, as of August 2011) no signage telling you that, so it's possible the trucks-only restriction is technically only US-bound. I never ventured far enough to find out what happened if you drove a car there, although surely people get lost and end up at the bridge fairly regularly given the distinct lack of giant honking warning signs. A Streetview car (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.600512,-99.526629,3a,75y,289.94h,88.92t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sQYX15Z2VBgQYkACh2R6Azw!2e0) got this far without finding any signs saying cars can't cross.

Anyway it's good news to have the McPherson overpass done; with the new high school open in the area and all the truck traffic trying to turn left on McPherson from EB Loop 20 that intersection was becoming a real mess even before I left.

A couple of tweets with pictures of sign pr0n:

437989092484067328[/tweet]] (http://[tweet)[/url]
437984484395200512[/tweet]] (http://[tweet)[/url]

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.

As far as the US 59 redesignation goes, like I said before there really isn't space for I-69 along Loop 20 once you get south of the airport; there was some talk of closing the golf course which might allow it to squeeze in, but even then you'd have trouble fitting in a directional interchange to get I-69 onto the US 59 corridor to the east. The development plans I've seen for Loop 20 didn't call for a full freeway since there wasn't room for any frontage roads between the airport and US 59. So I stand by my prediction that I-69 will have a more direct routing north of the lake and TAMIU.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2014, 01:38:41 PM
Unless there is some kind of environmentally protected area among the creek beds on the North side of Lake Casa Blanca there is a good chance I-69 would bypass the lake to the North. I-69 would leave US-59 a few miles East of Laredo and hook into Loop 20 just North of the Texas A&M International University campus. That would make the most sense in terms of avoiding commercial and residential properties.

However, lots of highway expansions into Interstate style roads have consumed lots of existing properties. It all comes down to how important that road's preferred alignment may be. US-59 could be converted into I-69 to the Loop 20 interchange by expanding the road on its North/Right side. There's not a much in the way of nice looking commercial and residential property along that stretch of US-59. The main things that would have to be bought and demolished to make way for I-69: some junky looking auto parts businesses, a yard furniture/pottery business, a National Guard Armory building and a Jack in the Box. I've seen a lot more businesses cleared away for smaller things.

Here in Lawton the city bought and cleared 10 blocks of old homes and businesses on the North side of downtown along 2nd Street, just South of the I-44 interchange. Most of the properties looked bad. A couple decades ago it was a hot spot for crime (prostitution in particular). A new Hilton Garden Inn and new shopping center is fixing to open on that land. An Interstate highway project is an arguably far bigger deal than a new hotel and shopping center.

Maybe some decision makers in SW Texas want I-69 and TX Loop 20 upgraded into full Interstate level roads to encourage improvement and new development on Laredo's East side. The sights along US-59 coming into Laredo don't look so good. It could use a "face lift."

Regarding expansion of TX Loop 20: not all superhighways need to have frontage/access roads. Loop 20 may need another overpass to leap frog a tricky spot South of Clark Blvd. That golf course looks like hell.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 01, 2014, 12:50:56 AM
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

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 .......
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on March 01, 2014, 01:07:34 PM
If Loop 20 is given an interstate number, it will probably be I-69W. 

US 59 is signed E-W through Laredo, so the fact that it turns almost due north doesn't mean it's going in the opposite direction of the signage.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 01, 2014, 02:22:58 PM
Quote
If Loop 20 is given an interstate number, it will probably be I-69W.

Isn't the most northern spoke of I-69 just going to be called I-69 rather than I-69W? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the impression I had.

The I-69 numbering would only be good on TX Loop 20 as far South as the current intersection with US-59. There's another Interstate number I'd like to see applied to the southern half of TX Loop 20: I-2.
:sombrero:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: andy3175 on March 01, 2014, 08:14:53 PM
I-35A?

Business Loop I-35A on San Bernardo Avenue.

Regards,
Andy
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on March 02, 2014, 09:02:52 PM
A couple of tweets with pictures of sign pr0n:

437989092484067328[/tweet]][/url]
437984484395200512[/tweet]] (http://[tweet)[/url]

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.

Luckily I noticed this thread on my way to Texas, so I got to Laredo a few days after the ribbon-cutting and could add Loop 20 to today's itinerary.  Timing is everything, huh?

EDIT:  The Future I-69 Corridor sign shown in the above tweets is on eastbound Loop 20 west of I-35, just east of where the main lanes end and split into two off-ramps.  The sign is placed in the median, to the left of the exit ramp onto the frontage road for traffic continuing on Loop 20 or to SB I-35, and to the right of where the main lanes go once they're extended.  That's the only Future I-69 Corridor sign posted anywhere on Loop 20 in either direction. 

This photo might help a little.  I took the photo from the median between the frontage road and the two off-ramps noted above.  The flyover in the background is for traffic to WB Loop 20, from both SB and NB I-35.

(http://www.alaskaroads.com/Fut-I69-sign-TXLp20-EB_DSC1909.jpg)

A few other notes (not reflecting all the discussion upthread, I'm just laying out my observations even if some are not new news): 

Loop 20 west of I-35 is basically a full freeway to the commercial traffic-only World Trade Bridge border crossing over to Nuevo Laredo.  There is an incomplete set of flyover ramps (SB 35 to WB 20, NB 35 to WB 20, EB 20 to NB 35 -- there's a stub end for an unbuilt connector for EB 20 to SB 35), providing freeway-to-freeway connections.  The only exit west of I-35, and the last one until the border, is with FM 1472. 

There's a minor at-grade intersection just short of the border, allowing some EB traffic to access some export facility right after clearing customs, and WB traffic a last chance to turn back before the border (which I did). Here's two photos of WB Loop 20 at the closed bridge entrance (the bridge has limited hours, especially on Sundays, but it was open the first time I stopped by that day), showing the intersection and details of the signs there:

(http://www.alaskaroads.com/TXLoop20-west-end_DSC1931.jpg)

(http://www.alaskaroads.com/TXLoop20-west-end-sign-detail_DSC1913.jpg)

The rest of Loop 20 is not yet even close to Interstate-grade.  EB Loop 20 traffic continuing east of I-35, and WB traffic heading west of i-35, has to go onto frontage roads, through two signalized intersections with I-35 ramps.  There are more to the east of the I-35 ramps.  Loop 20 between I-35 and US 59 is a mix of frontage roads with a wide median roomy enough to handle a freeway conversion (but only one overpass in the median), and divided or undivided highway with no obvious provisions to upgrade to freeway.  So it doesn't surprise me that there's no Future I-69 corridor signage east of I-35.

Nor is there any signage indicating that Loop 20 includes the future re-routing of US 59, which for now continues into downtown Laredo as before. (http://[tweet)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 02, 2014, 11:20:03 PM
^ Oscar, great photos! Thanks for sharing!



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

This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_cc5b232c-a283-11e3-a9e6-001a4bcf6878.html) includes a photo of construction at the I-69E/SH 550 interchange and reports that it is hoped to be completed in September:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 03, 2014, 12:02:29 PM
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 .......

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%202.27.14Laredo.html) reports that FHWA and TxDOT are currently reviewing a two-mile section of Loop 20/US 59 for designation as I-69:

Quote
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.

No "W" suffix!!!  No great surprise since the statute does not authorize an I-69W, but it is still nice to see confirmation.  FHWA still has to sign off on the I-69 designation, though.

The article also has several photos from the Laredo area related to the ribboncutting.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on March 03, 2014, 12:43:00 PM
Before I-69C and I-69E were added, did articles say they were planning those designations or merely I-69?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 20, 2014, 12:34:56 PM
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:
Quote
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.
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):

Quote
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 anticipate "inside I-610" in Houston will be one of the applications; any guesses regarding other applications?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 20, 2014, 01:24:01 PM
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:
Quote
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.
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):

Quote
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 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 and the various sections of freeway on US 59 between Rosenberg and Victoria and around Cleveland and some points north.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 24, 2014, 06:42:13 PM
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:

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 24, 2014, 07:44:47 PM
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:

Quote
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 27, 2014, 12:44:11 PM
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.pdf
Quote
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.
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

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:

Quote
The US 281 Falfurrias project is scheduled to be complete next month.  It will be constructed to Interstate standards and will not be tolled.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on March 31, 2014, 03:34:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on March 31, 2014, 03:39:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 31, 2014, 07:52:00 PM
Has anybody gotten photographs proving that the first I-69 segment in Robstown, TX has been converted to I-69E?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on April 01, 2014, 02:23:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on April 01, 2014, 05:27:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on April 01, 2014, 06:18:53 PM
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.
Thank you Yakra and Henry.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rickmastfan67 on April 01, 2014, 07:20:15 PM
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.

Well, both Google and OSM have been changed to show that segment as I-69E, that's why I'm asking.
http://goo.gl/maps/fSG7L
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on April 01, 2014, 09:35:00 PM
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.

I think this interchange work was an interim idea, not really a pre- I-69 thing.  The intersection, historically, wasn't built right for all the patterns of traffic.  It's tight for a major interchange, plus there are at-grades and driveways right by it without much, if any, room for service roads.  I-69 really needs to pass by to the east of this spot to avoid a worst-case eminent-domain issue.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 16, 2014, 11:21:38 PM
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):

Quote
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.

Wharton County (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/wharton-050614.html):

Quote
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.

This August 19, 2013 Angelina County map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf) probably qualifies as older info, but it does include two short sections that are "under development to meet interstate standards and funded through construction":

(http://i.imgur.com/7klZzpo.jpg)

The lower short section may be the construction work that yakra identified.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on April 16, 2014, 11:43:07 PM
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.

What I saw in south Texas last month:

-- AFAIK, I-69's Robstown segment was still signed as I-69, not I-69E.  Since I was focused on snagging the rather confusing US 77 business route through Robstown, I'm not sure I re-traveled the entire Robstown I-69 segment on this trip.

-- I saw no I-2, I-69C, or I-69E reassurance markers, just the shields on guide signs you saw (maybe a few more of them, including some relatively minor I-69E interchanges).  TxDOT seems content to sign those routes in the Brownsville region primarily as US 83, US 281, US 77, or US 77/83 respectively. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Brian556 on April 21, 2014, 10:45:19 PM
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)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on April 26, 2014, 10:25:32 PM
Have I-69 overhead signs started to be hung on Southwest Fwy? I noticed ONE overhead sign heading northbound about a mile before the 610 (west loop) exits that said "I-69 north downtown". About half mile later it was followed with a " US-59 north downtown" overhead sign.

I know 59/69 dual signs were added to the sides of the highway and on/off ramps but wasn't aware of overheads just yet.

I know 59/69 dual signs were added to the sides of the highway and on/off ramps but wasn't aware of overheads.

Nexus 5
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on April 26, 2014, 11:41:09 PM
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)

Wait, I just noticed something (why it didn't come to me before, I don't know....) -- shouldn't there be a US 83 shield under the I-69E and US 77 side of the post?  Unless they know something we don't know about which routes are designated from here south to the border bridge...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on April 28, 2014, 02:25:12 PM
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

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on April 28, 2014, 03:48:42 PM
(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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on April 28, 2014, 08:33:53 PM
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


Coming in and out of the Bush airport I saw that 69 is signed on the brown airport signs.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 30, 2014, 03:58:31 PM
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:
Quote
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 ...

This article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/Growth-presents-transportation-challenges-for-the-5439353.php) reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port:

Quote
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."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 30, 2014, 08:32:00 PM
Since I-69 is already signed N and S of I-610, it's a no brainer to sign the remainder section of the Eastex/Southwest Freeway the same. Why not just compete the Grand Parkway as a full loop, dub it I-869/TX 99, and call it a decade??
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 01, 2014, 06:32:10 AM
Eastern half will be next to impossible to finish. Too much built up stuff in sections, A, B, and I-2. Western half will be done by late Summer, early fall of 2015.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US 41 on May 01, 2014, 11:42:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on May 01, 2014, 12:03:15 PM
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 wonder about that, too.  I'm not bothered by the suffixes (that may be because I've always lived near I-35s E and W, so it's normal to me), and I kinda like I-2 being where it is, especially if it connects to I-35.  My concern is over whether this project is being overbuilt.  I suspect it may be related to the political manner in which the plans were made.  If all of the funding were put into one road, which I agree should be the eastern alignment, might that result in the road getting completed sooner?  Maybe we're stretching too thin by trying to please everyone who wants an I-way.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 01, 2014, 03:33:01 PM
37 could have been extended south along 69E and 69C not really necessary.  An expressway out there where few live suffices
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 01, 2014, 04:40:35 PM
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.

This TxDOT slide from the I-369 Working Group's Feb. 25 meeting (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/harrison-marshall/meeting-materials.pdf) shows that part of US 77 south of Robstown is also being studied for an I-69E designation (page 4/39 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/gpc1B5E.png)

I wonder if this section was also included in the AASHTO application (April 14 was the deadline for submission)?
Title: Bill Introduced to Add TX 44 to Texas I-69 System
Post by: Grzrd on May 03, 2014, 06:36:10 PM
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.

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:

Quote
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.”

Here is the map that accompanies the article:

(http://i.imgur.com/cWQCzDz.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on May 03, 2014, 06:55:10 PM
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.

Rather than loading up the I-69 network in south Texas -- what to use for the suffix, with W, C, and E already taken? -- they could just go for I-6.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on May 03, 2014, 07:15:11 PM
Given that I-369 is considered part of the "I-69 system", an I-269 designation would make sense there.

Unless they just really want I-69F or something.

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 05, 2014, 12:01:32 AM
Unless they just really want I-69F or something.

I can guess what the "F" is for... :lol
Definitely should be yet another suffixed I-69.  That way every business in South Texas can say they're located "just off I-69!"
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on May 05, 2014, 08:24:19 AM
If they don't go with the odd-number I-x69, what about:

I-69A (for alternate)
or
I-69M (for middle?)

Something else I just thought of....would the east end of what has been TX 44, if interstate-named, really end at TX 358 (like TX 44 does now), or would it need to end at Robstown (at I-69E) or where TX 358's north end is, at I-37?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 05, 2014, 10:04:06 PM
LONG 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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 05, 2014, 10:06:47 PM
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

Another article from yesterday...LOTS of interest in I-69...oh, if only Arkansas'/extreme southern Missouri's/Bowie County, Texas' remaining sections of I-49 will have as much cheerleading (and sooner or later they will):  http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/123-general-news-for-all-sites/48054-kentucky-among-five-states-represented-on-i-69-advocacy-trip-to-dc
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: RBBrittain on May 06, 2014, 12:14:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 06, 2014, 03:14:10 PM
I'm going to stop adding stories here and go back to my "home" in Bella Vista  :D , but here's another story from six hours ago about how the I-69/I-369 Harrison County/Marshall, TX working group is gaining support for its part in a proposed route through that area (the largest Texas city south of Texarkana that I-369 will go through).  The fact that articles seem to be coming at a more rapid clip for this tells me that project is well on its way, no surprise given the "Panama Canal widening/Houston has supplanted New York City as the nation's premier good exporting region" stories of late:  http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/i--working-group-gains-support-for-area-route/article_0da90b4d-39ef-5478-aadf-43d10f0ffd59.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kkt on May 06, 2014, 04:46:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 06, 2014, 04:50:11 PM
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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: RBBrittain on May 06, 2014, 09:30:58 PM
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
I-6 would make sense, especially with I-2 now in the Valley.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 07, 2014, 11:54:43 AM
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


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 07, 2014, 12:11:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 07, 2014, 12:56:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 07, 2014, 01:15:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 07, 2014, 01:18:59 PM
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:
Quote
The US 281 Falfurrias project is scheduled to be complete next month.  It will be constructed to Interstate standards and will not be tolled

I have not seen any media reports about it, but recent email correspondence with TxDOT indicates that the six mile US 281/Future I-69C Falfurrias Expressway Project is now open to traffic:

Quote
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).

So one current Future I-69C construction project completed and four more apparently still ongoing (pages 13-14/15 of pdf from above-quoted link):

(http://i.imgur.com/p5IW2qY.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/Sk7PSP9.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 07, 2014, 01:22:17 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rover_0 on May 07, 2014, 01:25:45 PM
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.

To be honest, I can appreciate North Carolina being proactive, though I'll admit that they are a bit too proactive (I-74). I don't mind the suffixed I-69s, but ideally:

I-69C -> I-169 or I-33 (even if it's east of I-35)
I-69E -> I-37 reroute/extension or just I-69
US-59/TX-44 -> I-6
US-59 between Freer-George West -> I-x06 or I-x69

If suffixes have to stay, I-69C -> I-69W while I-69E remains, as does my I-6 and x06 or x69. US-59 between Freer and George West can then be an I-x69 or I-x06. But I'll hold out hope that Laredo-Corpus Christi becomes I-6.

In that vein and without going too much into detail (re: Molandfreak), Loop 289 should become an even I-x27. But enough of that tangent here.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 07, 2014, 01:29:36 PM

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 think it's overdoing it. What exactly is the point of I-2? Perhaps we are forgetting what an INTERstate is supposed to be. As for NC, it's a little out of hand when three interstates share the same roadway (40,73,85). They rerouted the rerouted 40 at least. Not to mention how many US routes share the exact same road (29,70,220, and maybe 421)


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 07, 2014, 01:41:16 PM
I lived in NC quite a few years and the road system they are developing is incredible and the state deserves praise for that. It's the numberings and renumberings that is horrible. 540 to 640 and back and the routing of Greensboro-Winston-Salem having 840 and 785 overlap and so forth. I see 785 as the interstate to nowhere (Danville is not a major city) being 29 was just fine. If they extend the route to DC that would be great. I just think we're losing sight of what an interstate is supposed to be. 


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 07, 2014, 01:44:11 PM
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...

Yes, I get that the routing of I-73 in/north of Greensboro is stupid. I-74 is also a pie-in-the-sky dream in the long run. But both are worthy of Interstate designation in a less-elaborate form than planned.

The 3di Interstates in NC are a different story.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 07, 2014, 01:58:11 PM

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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 07, 2014, 05:39:28 PM
I see now. I agree that it's not necessary, though I don't have a problem with it per se. The loops are the main addition I wish they would consider.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 07, 2014, 08:54:46 PM
Maybe Texas knows road geeks like me will drive down there just to get a pic of the sign and drive the highway...


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 08, 2014, 12:39:46 AM

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 they are planning to extend this to Laredo or Del Rio or even El Paso, then I-2 makes perfect sense. Otherwise, I'd rather they stuck with US 83.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 08, 2014, 08:05:45 AM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 08, 2014, 08:26:55 AM

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?

I wouldn't be. The purpose of those interstates was to move traffic and goods long distances across the country. I'm not sure how building long highways to improve connectivity is comparable to just slapping shields on an existing highway that's 40 miles long. I appreciate I69 and it's purpose of moving ported goods nationwide. The 2/69C system is redundant and adheres to the TX/NC philosophy of putting an interstate shield on anything and everything.


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 08, 2014, 10:31:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2014, 09:36:03 AM
The I-69 Driven By Texans website (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us77-kingsville-driscoll.htm) recently posted a page about the US 77/Future I-69E Kingsville-Driscoll project, with construction ramping up this Spring and anticipated to have an opening date of October 2016:

Quote
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)

The I-69 Driven By Texans website has also posted public meetings materials for the El Campo project (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59-el-campo.htm) and the Wharton County project (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59-wharton.htm).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 12, 2014, 03:14:49 PM
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."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 12, 2014, 04:07:56 PM
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 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.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 12, 2014, 04:38:48 PM
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."

Yes.  The freeway system was built to get people into downtowns when it reality through traffic needs to avoid it. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 12, 2014, 05:22:33 PM
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."

This is very true.  When, say, I-49 is completed there will be a lot more traffic than is currently on US 71.  Vehicles that would normally go way out of the way just to stay on good roads would take the new I-49 instead of US 69 or some other north south highway.  Same with I-69 between Shreveport and Memphis.  On paper it doesn't look like it will get much traffic but it will make a great bypass of the Little Rock/North Little Rock mess and traffic will be able to avoid the awful I-40 from NLR to West Memphis.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 12, 2014, 08:00:02 PM
finally most of us agree on something. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 13, 2014, 01:48:45 PM

finally most of us agree on something.

I agree with your philosophy, but I still don't think 2/69C applies to this....


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 13, 2014, 01:56:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 13, 2014, 02:58:25 PM
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.


You got that right.  Part of it is giving people an easier way to travel, part of it is funneling people off of other roads.  I-15 & I-25 would still have unbuilt stretches if we used that logic.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 13, 2014, 03:01:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 13, 2014, 03:35:42 PM
I agree they didn't need 69 & 69C.  69E (as 37) would have been sufficient.  I dont hate 69 but I sure dont see the need for 69C.  Or one road could have been put in that branched further south.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on May 13, 2014, 09:35:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US 41 on May 13, 2014, 09:53:22 PM
Honestly interstates probably weren't really needed out west. Multilane highways with bypasses around towns would've been enough in most places. And as long as businesses weren't allowed to build right on the highway it would've worked very well that way.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 13, 2014, 10:42:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: swbrotha100 on May 14, 2014, 02:40:56 AM
If US 290 became an interstate someday, I would hope there were significant improvements to the section that shares I-35 in Austin, or a new freeway would bypass Austin altogether.

Z992

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US 41 on May 14, 2014, 07:58:59 AM
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.

...like Asia (China). I thought America didn't support communism.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 14, 2014, 08:29:33 AM
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.

One thing everyone forgets is both of these were already divided highways in isolated areas anyway.  It just required building a few interchanges as opposed to entire new highways.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 08:36:16 AM
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.


 
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!
 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
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. Putting an interstate alternative in the valley will increase the traffic because of the people who used to avoid the area because of the lack of an interstate will now drive it. 

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. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 14, 2014, 11:56:09 AM


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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 12:01:59 PM


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.

Yes it would be cheaper.  But I always like the job done right , not cheaply.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 14, 2014, 12:02:35 PM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kkt on May 14, 2014, 12:05:24 PM
With an interstate designation, those poor design flaws will be eliminated.

In Texas, maybe.  Ever driven I-880 in California through Oakland?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on May 14, 2014, 12:05:56 PM
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. 

Now it's more "zoom past" than "pounce upon".  US 281 through Falfurrias is now a freeway, and it wouldn't surprise me if it soon becomes another I-69C segment. 

I lucked into the opening when I was in south Texas in early March.  The new freeway was open in one direction when I drove it, with the other direction scheduled to open the next day.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 14, 2014, 12:07:12 PM
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?

Quote
People 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 12:07:46 PM
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?

I have always thought I-45 needs extending from Dallas, even though I am a Texan and love the fact we have the only intrastate main interstate in the system!   But seriously, I don't think it would be redundant, seeing how it opens up a direct route from Dallas to Tulsa and possibly Kansas City.  It will keep the trucks off I-35 and/or I-44 for the same purpose.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 14, 2014, 12:13:14 PM
I'm not talking about the US 69 clusterfuck from Big Cabin to Colbert (except for the section between just south of Muskogee to just north of McAlester, which is a freeway but is in very bad condition), I'm talking about north of I-44.  The US 69 highway from Big Cabin to Muskogee and from McAlester to Colbert is just awful.  I don't see a reason to extend I-45 at this time.  US 69 could be I-47 if you must assign an interstate number to it, which is something I wouldn't do.  The US 69 designation works just fine for it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 12:15:11 PM
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?

Quote
People 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 a freeway. Maybe it isn't the absolute best road in the world (Bronx-Queens Expressway) but you are garunteed not to have a traffic light in every powdunk community you drive through. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 14, 2014, 12:20:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 01:29:01 PM
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.

So you have given me two examples of non freeway interstates. With Interstate 180 being 1.24 miles long and the approach to the Holland Tunnel being a few blocks long, we are talking a total of maybe 2 miles out of 47,714. I don't think people really stress the fact that those little sections are not freeway so that means all interstates might break into having traffic lights and driveways right up to the main lanes. And we didn't even mention the approach to the Ben Franklin Bridge on I-676 or I-70 in Breezewood. With that added, there might be 5 miles of non freeway interstates. Again out of 47,714 miles, I say you are guaranteed a freeway when you see the shield.
 
I have know of many map publications where interstates are represented with two red lines with blue in the middle and US highways are represented with two red lines with yellow in the middle regardless if they are a freeway or not. So acording to those maps, US 75 from Dallas to Sherman looks the same as US 290 in downtown Fredricksburg with stopłights everywhere and a 30 MPH speed limit.

My point is not my ability to know a freeway or not, it is making the long distance traveler comfortable. US 1 north from Boston through Saugus shows up on Google Maps as a freeway when speaking from experience it is full of sharp curves, blind hills and is signed like any other Massachusetts state highway, which is inconsistent to the national standard to interstates. Sorry, but it is far from an interstate alternative. Texas is bad about having that same thing.  They have several non interstate freeways that couldn't pass the interstate standards test if it tried.  I hate to be like that, but I like the standards because there are no surprises because a state wanted to save a few bucks here or there and made that hill blind and that curve way too tight. Just because a road is a freeway doesn't make it "just as good as an interstate". 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 14, 2014, 01:39:39 PM
Well, what happens when you have highways like US59 north of I-10 being better cleaner freeways than I-45 north of I-10. Both will get you to the beltway, but 59 will not take so much thread off your tires.

I am not saying don't build anything. I am saying build smartly when you are crying broke. Right now both C and E aren't needed. Could be handled with just one of them, done correct