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 514206 times)

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9964
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 04:23:01 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #500 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.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 524
  • Last Login: Today at 03:24:49 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #501 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
Logged

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 #502 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
Logged

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 #503 on: July 22, 2013, 08:21:08 AM »

69C & 2 (as one highway named...37?) would have been fine
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9094
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:53 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #504 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?
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

HandsomeRob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 34
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: November 30, 2016, 03:10:59 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #505 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.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9094
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:53 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #506 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. 
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

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 #507 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
Logged

RoadWarrior56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 418
  • Last Login: May 24, 2019, 06:18:34 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #508 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.
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: April 09, 2019, 05:15:35 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #509 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.
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: March 27, 2019, 10:51:58 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #510 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).
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 04:56:12 PM by Molandfreak »
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: April 09, 2019, 05:15:35 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #511 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.
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: March 27, 2019, 10:51:58 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #512 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.
Logged

RoadWarrior56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 418
  • Last Login: May 24, 2019, 06:18:34 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #513 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.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9094
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:53 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #514 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.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

CanesFan27

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1215
  • Last Login: May 20, 2019, 07:53:50 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #515 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
Logged

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 #516 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
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: March 27, 2019, 10:51:58 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #517 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?
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: April 09, 2019, 05:15:35 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #518 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. 
Logged

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 #519 on: July 25, 2013, 02:23:42 PM »

We don't go to DFW often but there's ALWAYS construction somewhere on it.  ALWAYS!
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 #520 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, 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, 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.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 02:31:09 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

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 #521 on: July 25, 2013, 02:28:18 PM »

I still think I-2 should eventually be part of an extension of I-35
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 #522 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
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:
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13788
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: May 24, 2019, 11:27:10 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #523 on: July 25, 2013, 05:49:56 PM »

But the current law does not allow for I-369.
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: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #524 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.
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.