AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-69 in TX  (Read 516189 times)

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3475
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: May 21, 2019, 07:30:10 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #300 on: February 13, 2013, 02:24:55 PM »

Have Catalunya given in now and switched to km-based exit numbers?
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10013
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: June 18, 2019, 09:12:30 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #301 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.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Speedway99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 65
  • Last Login: July 22, 2015, 11:23:04 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #302 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.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10013
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: June 18, 2019, 09:12:30 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #303 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).
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

InterstateNG

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 518
  • Last Login: January 03, 2014, 01:12:36 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #304 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.
Logged
I demand an apology.

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: March 28, 2019, 10:31:40 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #305 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.
Logged

InterstateNG

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 518
  • Last Login: January 03, 2014, 01:12:36 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #306 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.
Logged
I demand an apology.

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: March 28, 2019, 10:31:40 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #307 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.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3420
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: June 14, 2019, 03:05:17 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #308 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.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Interstate-69-coming-piece-by-piece-4257896.php

The February 28 Agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") 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 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 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.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 01:45:12 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3420
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: June 14, 2019, 03:05:17 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #309 on: February 24, 2013, 10:24:14 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.

TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study 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:



edit

This Feb. 26 article (behind paywall) 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.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 10:57:36 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

Speedway99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 65
  • Last Login: July 22, 2015, 11:23:04 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #310 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.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13804
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: June 18, 2019, 09:36:50 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #311 on: February 25, 2013, 08:13:50 PM »

Why would they make plans for control cities this far in advance?
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3420
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: June 14, 2019, 03:05:17 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #312 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.
(bottom quote from AASHTO Committee on Route Numbering (Nov. 2012) Actions 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):


The US 281 map (page 179/212 of pdf):


 :confused:
« Last Edit: February 25, 2013, 08:30:19 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

InterstateNG

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 518
  • Last Login: January 03, 2014, 01:12:36 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #313 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.
Logged
I demand an apology.

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1316
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 12:22:02 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #314 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.
Logged

ShawnP

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 747
  • Last Login: December 30, 2018, 12:48:31 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #315 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.
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 930
  • Last Login: Today at 10:15:12 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #316 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.
Logged

ShawnP

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 747
  • Last Login: December 30, 2018, 12:48:31 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #317 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.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13804
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: June 18, 2019, 09:36:50 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #318 on: February 26, 2013, 10:49:43 PM »

Good for Arkansas and Louisiana for ignoring the pork.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6040
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 02:39:14 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #319 on: February 27, 2013, 12:14:48 AM »

Arkansas is working on a section of I-69 near Monticello.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3420
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: June 14, 2019, 03:05:17 PM
Laredo Loop 20 (Future I-69)/McPherson Rd. Overpass Groundbreaking
« Reply #320 on: February 27, 2013, 08:51:09 PM »

^ 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 .... 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 reports on the February 22 groundbreaking of the Loop 20/McPherson Road 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 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.



« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 04:31:00 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6279
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 02:10:16 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #321 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 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.
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

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13804
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: June 18, 2019, 09:36:50 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #322 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.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6279
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 02:10:16 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #323 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.
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

OCGuy81

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 773
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Bend, OR
  • Last Login: March 28, 2019, 12:36:25 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #324 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?
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.