Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[burneraccount]

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.

[Alex]

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:

[agentsteel53]

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.

[Grzrd]

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)

The Alliance for I-69 Texas website reports that the TTC made the I-69 designation official today:

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.

[lamsalfl]

What is the issue preventing I-69 from being signed inside the I-610 loop?

[Speedway99]

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.

[Grzrd]

The February 28 Agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") ....
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):

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 reports that the TTC chose a developer for the project at its Feb. 28 meeting:

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 after a delay caused by the bankruptcy of a contractor:

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.

[Grzrd]

TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study ....
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

An interesting observation from the above article:

“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 notes that the project could be completed within six to fifteen years if the current US 59 footprint is used:

... 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.

[codyg1985]

^ Probably has to do with not having to do as much environmental work for upgrading an existing facility versus building an entirely new one.

[OCGuy81]

Dumb question, but is that 498 seen on the reassurance shields mileage?  Is that a milepost for US 59?

[wxfree]

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

[Brian556]

Quote from AgentSteele53

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.

[Grzrd]

TxDOT's Public Hearing Notice notes that the Driscoll and Riviera relief routes may be tolled.

The February 28 Agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") ....
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):

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 reports that the TTC chose a developer for the project at its Feb. 28 meeting

The Transcript for the February 28 meeting indicates that the Driscoll relief route project may also be subject to a TTC decision in the near future (page 50/109 of pdf):

... 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 is currently interstate standard (pages 49-50/109 of pdf):

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.

[texaskdog]

Drove through downtown Houston last night, that part is not yet 69.

[nolia_boi504]

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?

[Perfxion]

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.

[codyg1985]

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.

[OCGuy81]

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...

[codyg1985]

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).

[Speedway99]

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.

[texaskdog]

We went to Corpus on Sunday, I-69 is signed to the south with I-77.  No signage of a northbound 69 yet. 

[J N Winkler]

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.

[ssummers72]

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

[Speedway99]

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?

[Anthony_JK]

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.