AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in TX  (Read 513897 times)

wxfree

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1035
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: May 15, 2019, 10:40:15 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #625 on: May 01, 2014, 12:03:15 PM »

An honest question. Are the I-69W and C necessary. It's almost as short just to take I-35 and I-10 via San Antonio. I 69 C is also pretty close to the E. The E route is the only necessary routing of I-69 in Texas.

I wonder about that, too.  I'm not bothered by the suffixes (that may be because I've always lived near I-35s E and W, so it's normal to me), and I kinda like I-2 being where it is, especially if it connects to I-35.  My concern is over whether this project is being overbuilt.  I suspect it may be related to the political manner in which the plans were made.  If all of the funding were put into one road, which I agree should be the eastern alignment, might that result in the road getting completed sooner?  Maybe we're stretching too thin by trying to please everyone who wants an I-way.
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2434
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 02:29:23 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #626 on: May 01, 2014, 03:33:01 PM »

37 could have been extended south along 69E and 69C not really necessary.  An expressway out there where few live suffices
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 #627 on: May 01, 2014, 04:40:35 PM »

I suppose that it is still possible that specific applications (US 59 in Houston?) will be submitted in time for AASHTO's May meeting.
I heard from a contact in the I-69 Alliance that there are two submitted sections of US 59.  First is the section between the 610s in Houston and the other is Loop 20 in Laredo.

This TxDOT slide from the I-369 Working Group's Feb. 25 meeting shows that part of US 77 south of Robstown is also being studied for an I-69E designation (page 4/39 of pdf):



I wonder if this section was also included in the AASHTO application (April 14 was the deadline for submission)?
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Bill Introduced to Add TX 44 to Texas I-69 System
« Reply #628 on: May 03, 2014, 06:36:10 PM »

there's a good chance no "I-69W" ever gets built per se. Laredo-Freer-Alice-Corpus is a much greater priority for traffic relief and connectivity than Laredo-Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria, given the finite pot of money available.

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:

Quote
South Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold has introduced legislation has been that would add 73 more miles to the Interstate 69 system of routes in Texas and ultimately provide an interstate connection between Laredo and Corpus Christi ....
Congressman Farenthold’s bill applies to the section of State Highway 44 between US 59 in Freer and the SH 358 Freeway in Corpus Christi.
If enacted the legislation would designate this section of SH 44 as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System and designate it as a Future Interstate.  The Alliance for I-69 Texas and the statewide I-69 Advisory Committee have been instrumental in moving the legislation forward ....
SH 44 is already at interstate highway standard in Corpus Christi and is a four-lane divided highway westward to the city of San Diego.  The 23 miles from San Diego to Freer is a two-lane section passing through sparsely populated ranch land.  Upgrades recommended by the committees include relief routes around Alice, San Diego and Freer plus a new link at Robstown.
The legislation, H.R. 4523, is being referred to as the “44 to 69 Act of 2014.”

Here is the map that accompanies the article:

Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6226
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:14:19 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #629 on: May 03, 2014, 06:55:10 PM »

South Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold has introduced legislation has been that would add 73 more miles to the Interstate 69 system of routes in Texas and ultimately provide an interstate connection between Laredo and Corpus Christi ....
Congressman Farenthold’s bill applies to the section of State Highway 44 between US 59 in Freer and the SH 358 Freeway in Corpus Christi.

Rather than loading up the I-69 network in south Texas -- what to use for the suffix, with W, C, and E already taken? -- they could just go for I-6.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8019
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:40:29 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #630 on: May 03, 2014, 07:15:11 PM »

Given that I-369 is considered part of the "I-69 system", an I-269 designation would make sense there.

Unless they just really want I-69F or something.

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Logged

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2168
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: May 12, 2019, 11:07:52 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #631 on: May 05, 2014, 12:01:32 AM »

Unless they just really want I-69F or something.

I can guess what the "F" is for... :lol
Definitely should be yet another suffixed I-69.  That way every business in South Texas can say they're located "just off I-69!"
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1077
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: Today at 01:21:44 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #632 on: May 05, 2014, 08:24:19 AM »

If they don't go with the odd-number I-x69, what about:

I-69A (for alternate)
or
I-69M (for middle?)

Something else I just thought of....would the east end of what has been TX 44, if interstate-named, really end at TX 358 (like TX 44 does now), or would it need to end at Robstown (at I-69E) or where TX 358's north end is, at I-37?
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 348
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: May 15, 2019, 01:39:37 PM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #633 on: May 05, 2014, 10:04:06 PM »

LONG article from the Victoria Advocate yesterday about small business owners in Victoria (my daughter's name  :colorful: ) who are less than enthralled by what the future I-69 will do for their retail traffic...feel for them.  I didn't know I-69 construction was so full-bore there.  There is a significant petrochemical presence in that city, too, enough that a large barge canal has been dug some time back...I'm sure there will be some happy I-69 shippers there eventually:
  http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2014/may/03/frontage_road_mc_050414_238470/?business
« Last Edit: May 05, 2014, 10:10:06 PM by O Tamandua »
Logged

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 348
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: May 15, 2019, 01:39:37 PM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #634 on: May 05, 2014, 10:06:47 PM »

Article from the Victoria Advocate yesterday about small business owners in Victoria (my daughter's name  :colorful: ) who are less than enthralled by what the future I-69 will do for their retail traffic...feel for them.  I didn't know I-69 construction was so full-bore there.  There is a significant petrochemical presence in that city, too, enough that a large barge canal has been dug some time back...I'm sure there will be some happy I-69 shippers there eventually:
  http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2014/may/03/frontage_road_mc_050414_238470/?business

Another article from yesterday...LOTS of interest in I-69...oh, if only Arkansas'/extreme southern Missouri's/Bowie County, Texas' remaining sections of I-49 will have as much cheerleading (and sooner or later they will):  http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/123-general-news-for-all-sites/48054-kentucky-among-five-states-represented-on-i-69-advocacy-trip-to-dc
Logged

RBBrittain

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 51
  • Location: Little Rock, AR
  • Last Login: December 20, 2017, 08:58:06 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #635 on: May 06, 2014, 12:14:06 AM »

An honest question. Are the I-69W and C necessary. It's almost as short just to take I-35 and I-10 via San Antonio. I 69 C is also pretty close to the E. The E route is the only necessary routing of I-69 in Texas.
Laredo is not only a boomtown (from <70,000 in 1970 to pushing 250,000 today -- just the city proper, not counting suburbs, Mexico, etc.), but it's also the busiest inland port of entry in the U.S.; it needs I-69W just to relieve current I-35 truck traffic.  Maybe I-69C is overkill, but Laredo needs I-69W just as much as the Valley needs I-69E.
Logged

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 348
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: May 15, 2019, 01:39:37 PM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #636 on: May 06, 2014, 03:14:10 PM »

I'm going to stop adding stories here and go back to my "home" in Bella Vista  :D , but here's another story from six hours ago about how the I-69/I-369 Harrison County/Marshall, TX working group is gaining support for its part in a proposed route through that area (the largest Texas city south of Texarkana that I-369 will go through).  The fact that articles seem to be coming at a more rapid clip for this tells me that project is well on its way, no surprise given the "Panama Canal widening/Houston has supplanted New York City as the nation's premier good exporting region" stories of late:  http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/i--working-group-gains-support-for-area-route/article_0da90b4d-39ef-5478-aadf-43d10f0ffd59.html
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4507
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:33 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #637 on: May 06, 2014, 04:46:37 PM »

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:

Oh no, not again.
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2434
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 02:29:23 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #638 on: May 06, 2014, 04:50:11 PM »

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:

Oh no, not again.


I-69Uhoh
Logged

RBBrittain

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 51
  • Location: Little Rock, AR
  • Last Login: December 20, 2017, 08:58:06 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #639 on: May 06, 2014, 09:30:58 PM »

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:

Oh no, not again.


I-69Uhoh
I-6 would make sense, especially with I-2 now in the Valley.
Logged

Arkansastravelguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 351
  • Location: Farmington, AR
  • Last Login: May 08, 2019, 01:58:18 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #640 on: May 07, 2014, 11:54:43 AM »

Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes


iPhone
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6024
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 11:54:22 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #641 on: May 07, 2014, 12:11:55 PM »

Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes

NC is the worst.  I'm glad all states aren't doing that.  If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di.  The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road.  US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644.  The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: March 27, 2019, 10:51:58 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #642 on: May 07, 2014, 12:56:45 PM »

I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4741
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:09:51 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #643 on: May 07, 2014, 01:15:19 PM »

Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes

NC is the worst.  I'm glad all states aren't doing that.  If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di.  The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road.  US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644.  The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.
I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.
Well, given that I-74 has a missing link to Cincinnati, the current route of I-73 is entirely east of I-77 (and I-75, for that matter), and I-69 may not be built back to Indianapolis in most of our lifetimes, I will agree that all these routes are really not necessary. Sure, having a new Interstate is nice, but there is such a thing as overdoing it. Then again, this was attempted in many large cities and ended up becoming a major failure for the most part, thanks to community and/or environmental opposition.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

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 #644 on: May 07, 2014, 01:18:59 PM »

I recently emailed TxDOT to ask about progress on the Falfurrias Expressway Project and it should be open to traffic in approximately a month:
Quote
The US 281 Falfurrias project is scheduled to be complete next month.  It will be constructed to Interstate standards and will not be tolled

I have not seen any media reports about it, but recent email correspondence with TxDOT indicates that the six mile US 281/Future I-69C Falfurrias Expressway Project is now open to traffic:

Quote
Q: I just wanted to check and see if the US 281 Falfurrias project is now open to traffic. I have not been able to find any information about it on the internet.

A: Yes, the project is now open to traffic.  Please let me know if you have any other questions.



TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C).

So one current Future I-69C construction project completed and four more apparently still ongoing (pages 13-14/15 of pdf from above-quoted link):


« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 03:37:32 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: March 27, 2019, 10:51:58 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #645 on: May 07, 2014, 01:22:17 PM »

Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes

NC is the worst.  I'm glad all states aren't doing that.  If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di.  The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road.  US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644.  The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.
I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.
Well, given that I-74 has a missing link to Cincinnati, the current route of I-73 is entirely east of I-77 (and I-75, for that matter), and I-69 may not be built back to Indianapolis in most of our lifetimes, I will agree that all these routes are really not necessary. Sure, having a new Interstate is nice, but there is such a thing as overdoing it. Then again, this was attempted in many large cities and ended up becoming a major failure for the most part, thanks to community and/or environmental opposition.
I never said they don't overdo it. I said the eventual routes make sense in the overall system (in TX and NC, that is). And I-73 isn't too bad in the grid as it is. Not everything has to be 100% perfect.
Logged

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 861
  • Why not?

  • Age: -67
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 04:09:15 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #646 on: May 07, 2014, 01:25:45 PM »

Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes

NC is the worst.  I'm glad all states aren't doing that.  If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di.  The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road.  US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644.  The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.

I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.

To be honest, I can appreciate North Carolina being proactive, though I'll admit that they are a bit too proactive (I-74). I don't mind the suffixed I-69s, but ideally:

I-69C -> I-169 or I-33 (even if it's east of I-35)
I-69E -> I-37 reroute/extension or just I-69
US-59/TX-44 -> I-6
US-59 between Freer-George West -> I-x06 or I-x69

If suffixes have to stay, I-69C -> I-69W while I-69E remains, as does my I-6 and x06 or x69. US-59 between Freer and George West can then be an I-x69 or I-x06. But I'll hold out hope that Laredo-Corpus Christi becomes I-6.

In that vein and without going too much into detail (re: Molandfreak), Loop 289 should become an even I-x27. But enough of that tangent here.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 01:34:13 PM by Rover_0 »
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

Arkansastravelguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 351
  • Location: Farmington, AR
  • Last Login: May 08, 2019, 01:58:18 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #647 on: May 07, 2014, 01:29:36 PM »


Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes

NC is the worst.  I'm glad all states aren't doing that.  If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di.  The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road.  US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644.  The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.
I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.
Well, given that I-74 has a missing link to Cincinnati, the current route of I-73 is entirely east of I-77 (and I-75, for that matter), and I-69 may not be built back to Indianapolis in most of our lifetimes, I will agree that all these routes are really not necessary. Sure, having a new Interstate is nice, but there is such a thing as overdoing it. Then again, this was attempted in many large cities and ended up becoming a major failure for the most part, thanks to community and/or environmental opposition.

I think it's overdoing it. What exactly is the point of I-2? Perhaps we are forgetting what an INTERstate is supposed to be. As for NC, it's a little out of hand when three interstates share the same roadway (40,73,85). They rerouted the rerouted 40 at least. Not to mention how many US routes share the exact same road (29,70,220, and maybe 421)


iPhone
Logged

Arkansastravelguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 351
  • Location: Farmington, AR
  • Last Login: May 08, 2019, 01:58:18 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #648 on: May 07, 2014, 01:41:16 PM »

I lived in NC quite a few years and the road system they are developing is incredible and the state deserves praise for that. It's the numberings and renumberings that is horrible. 540 to 640 and back and the routing of Greensboro-Winston-Salem having 840 and 785 overlap and so forth. I see 785 as the interstate to nowhere (Danville is not a major city) being 29 was just fine. If they extend the route to DC that would be great. I just think we're losing sight of what an interstate is supposed to be. 


iPhone
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: March 27, 2019, 10:51:58 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #649 on: May 07, 2014, 01:44:11 PM »

What exactly is the point of I-2?
Not this again. This is about the only corridor that makes any sense for an I-2 to follow within the next century...

Yes, I get that the routing of I-73 in/north of Greensboro is stupid. I-74 is also a pie-in-the-sky dream in the long run. But both are worthy of Interstate designation in a less-elaborate form than planned.

The 3di Interstates in NC are a different story.
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.