AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in TX  (Read 537901 times)

lamsalfl

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 342
  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Orleans
  • Last Login: July 02, 2019, 09:34:24 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #250 on: December 09, 2012, 10:16:16 PM »

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

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Possible TX I-69 Routes Through/ Around Lufkin and Nacogdoches
« Reply #251 on: December 12, 2012, 11:57:50 AM »

This (behind paywall) article 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:
                         

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
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 04:07:36 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
TX; US 83 Interstate Numerical Designation and I-69 Signage Updates
« Reply #252 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) 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.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 09:58:23 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

lamsalfl

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 342
  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Orleans
  • Last Login: July 02, 2019, 09:34:24 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #253 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. 
Logged

Perfxion

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 320
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: December 05, 2019, 08:31:20 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #254 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.
Logged
5/10/20/30/15/35/37/40/44/45/70/76/78/80/85/87/95/
(CA)405,(NJ)195/295(NY)295/495/278/678(CT)395(MD/VA)195/495/695/895

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1349
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: December 05, 2019, 01:48:17 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #255 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.
Logged

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: March 28, 2019, 10:31:40 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #256 on: December 17, 2012, 03:27:11 AM »

^ I wouldn't say this 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, 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.
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6415
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 12:26:29 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #257 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.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 38
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #258 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.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #259 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.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2012, 01:59:40 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

lamsalfl

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 342
  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Orleans
  • Last Login: July 02, 2019, 09:34:24 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #260 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?
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #261 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.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1349
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: December 05, 2019, 01:48:17 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #262 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.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #263 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,


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).
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 01:56:19 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3535
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: November 27, 2019, 04:02:44 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #264 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.
Logged

drummer_evans_aki

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 105
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: February 25, 2013, 01:07:24 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #265 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?

Logged
Could you imagine getting directions from a guy with tourettes?

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6415
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 12:26:29 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #266 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?
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 38
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #267 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.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #268 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!
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 38
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #269 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?
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3535
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: November 27, 2019, 04:02:44 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #270 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?
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3753
  • Last Login: Today at 01:11:34 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #271 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.
Logged
Chris Sampang

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12862
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:06 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #272 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.)

mcdonaat

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 907
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Pineville, LA
  • Last Login: August 15, 2015, 05:21:19 PM
    • Backroading Louisiana
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #273 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.

longhorn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 334
  • Last Login: December 05, 2019, 07:48:26 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #274 on: December 26, 2012, 12:14:12 PM »

So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.