AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in TX  (Read 514080 times)

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6256
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: May 22, 2019, 11:53:56 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #350 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.
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

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
I-69 Signage Being Installed on Southwest Freeway
« Reply #351 on: April 03, 2013, 08:24:59 PM »

The Alliance for I-69 Texas website 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 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.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 08:35:49 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #352 on: April 08, 2013, 09:04:11 PM »

Logged

Speedway99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 65
  • Last Login: July 22, 2015, 11:23:04 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #353 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?
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #354 on: May 02, 2013, 01:58:51 PM »

This article 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

This May 1 article 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:

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.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #355 on: May 07, 2013, 11:59:57 PM »

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.
TxDOT recently posted the Materials from the March 25 and March 26 Open Houses.

This TV video report 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.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #356 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 thread)

The Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering ("Special Committee") Report to the Standing Committee on Highways ("SCOH") 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):



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"?
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 06:48:02 PM by Grzrd »
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 #357 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).
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1312
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: May 22, 2019, 01:04:45 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #358 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.
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: March 27, 2019, 10:51:58 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #359 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.
Logged

Alps

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

  • Posts: 12374
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 22, 2019, 11:50:59 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #360 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.

mrose

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 161
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Northglenn, CO
  • Last Login: Today at 02:53:44 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #361 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.
Logged

Perfxion

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 314
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: May 14, 2019, 12:15:02 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #362 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?
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

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2434
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: May 22, 2019, 08:13:46 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #363 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
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4750
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: May 22, 2019, 10:25:39 AM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #364 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!!!
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

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 #365 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).
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: March 27, 2019, 10:51:58 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #366 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.
Logged

Perfxion

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 314
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: May 14, 2019, 12:15:02 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #367 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.
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

FreewayDan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 204
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Woodforest, TX
  • Last Login: May 22, 2019, 11:39:41 PM
    • FreewayDan's Flickr Channel
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #368 on: May 10, 2013, 11:23:17 PM »

Interstate 2 had a "brief existence" along the Glendale Freeway in Los Angeles:

This is not the correct sign for highway 2, Glendale Freeway, since there is no such thing as Interstate 2 by Atwater Village Newbie, 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) 
Logged
LEFT ON GREEN
 ARROW ONLY

Speedway99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 65
  • Last Login: July 22, 2015, 11:23:04 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #369 on: May 10, 2013, 11:31:15 PM »

Interstate 2 had a "brief existence" along the Glendale Freeway in Los Angeles:

This is not the correct sign for highway 2, Glendale Freeway, since there is no such thing as Interstate 2 by Atwater Village Newbie, 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.
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3574
  • Last Login: May 21, 2019, 10:46:08 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #370 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. 
Logged

mrose

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 161
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Northglenn, CO
  • Last Login: Today at 02:53:44 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #371 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?
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3574
  • Last Login: May 21, 2019, 10:46:08 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #372 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.
Logged

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 861
  • Why not?

  • Age: -67
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:29 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #373 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)?
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

Speedway99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 65
  • Last Login: July 22, 2015, 11:23:04 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #374 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.
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.