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 514112 times)

Arkansastravelguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 351
  • Location: Farmington, AR
  • Last Login: May 08, 2019, 01:58:18 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #650 on: May 07, 2014, 01:58:11 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...


I agree with that. But what's the real point? I don't believe it will serve an economic purpose. The roadway was already limited access. So what's the point? Because 2 isn't used yet? That's my point. There doesn't have to be a 2. We don't need to put a blue and red sign on every highway.


iPhone
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: March 27, 2019, 10:51:58 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #651 on: May 07, 2014, 05:39:28 PM »

I see now. I agree that it's not necessary, though I don't have a problem with it per se. The loops are the main addition I wish they would consider.
Logged

Arkansastravelguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 351
  • Location: Farmington, AR
  • Last Login: May 08, 2019, 01:58:18 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #652 on: May 07, 2014, 08:54:46 PM »

Maybe Texas knows road geeks like me will drive down there just to get a pic of the sign and drive the highway...


iPhone
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1312
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 09:59:08 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #653 on: May 08, 2014, 12:39:46 AM »


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...


I agree with that. But what's the real point? I don't believe it will serve an economic purpose. The roadway was already limited access. So what's the point? Because 2 isn't used yet? That's my point. There doesn't have to be a 2. We don't need to put a blue and red sign on every highway.


iPhone

If they are planning to extend this to Laredo or Del Rio or even El Paso, then I-2 makes perfect sense. Otherwise, I'd rather they stuck with US 83.
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 #654 on: May 08, 2014, 08:05:45 AM »

if y'all were around when they formed the interstate system you'd be complaining about how no one is driving out west and why would we every build I-25 & I-15?
Logged

Arkansastravelguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 351
  • Location: Farmington, AR
  • Last Login: May 08, 2019, 01:58:18 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #655 on: May 08, 2014, 08:26:55 AM »


if y'all were around when they formed the interstate system you'd be complaining about how no one is driving out west and why would we every build I-25 & I-15?

I wouldn't be. The purpose of those interstates was to move traffic and goods long distances across the country. I'm not sure how building long highways to improve connectivity is comparable to just slapping shields on an existing highway that's 40 miles long. I appreciate I69 and it's purpose of moving ported goods nationwide. The 2/69C system is redundant and adheres to the TX/NC philosophy of putting an interstate shield on anything and everything.


iPhone
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 #656 on: May 08, 2014, 10:31:25 AM »

I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time.  I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls.  It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.
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 #657 on: May 09, 2014, 09:36:03 AM »

The I-69 Driven By Texans website recently posted a page about the US 77/Future I-69E Kingsville-Driscoll project, with construction ramping up this Spring and anticipated to have an opening date of October 2016:

Quote
This project, from Kingsville to Driscoll, is approximately eight miles in length and spans from E. Corral Avenue / Farm-to-Market Road 1898 in the northern portion of Kingsville in Kleburg County north to County Road 12/FM 3354, just south of the City of Driscoll in Nueces County. The project will consist of:
Reconstruction of and improvements to the existing road to include
Two main lanes in each direction
Discontinuous frontage roads
Construction and overlay of main lanes and frontage roads
Construction and widening of bridges, which will eliminate crossroad traffic on main lanes of travel
Construction of at-grade ramps and intersection improvements
The improvements will also include wider road shoulders and increase safety for disabled vehicles and motorists needing to pull over to the shoulders.
Construction for the project is anticipated to run April 2014 - August 2016 with a projected opening date of October 2016.
The estimated total project cost is approximately $79 million.



In May, TxDOT will hold public meetings about their plans to upgrade US 59 to I-69 in El Campo and Wharton County.
El Campo
Wharton County

The I-69 Driven By Texans website has also posted public meetings materials for the El Campo project and the Wharton County project.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2014, 11:40:34 PM by Grzrd »
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 #658 on: May 12, 2014, 03:14:49 PM »

I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time.  I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls.  It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.

I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap!   No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate.  I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW).  Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise.  Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4753
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 10:40:23 AM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #659 on: May 12, 2014, 04:07:56 PM »

I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time.  I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls.  It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.

I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap!   No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate.  I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW).  Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise.  Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."
I was thinking the same thing too! Except it would be an extension of I-12. (And the existing I-12 does a pretty good job of helping motorists avoid New Orleans altogether.)
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

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 #660 on: May 12, 2014, 04:38:48 PM »

I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time.  I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls.  It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.

I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap!   No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate.  I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW).  Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise.  Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."

Yes.  The freeway system was built to get people into downtowns when it reality through traffic needs to avoid it. 
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6032
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 06:25:43 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #661 on: May 12, 2014, 05:22:33 PM »

I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time.  I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls.  It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.

I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap!   No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate.  I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW).  Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise.  Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."

This is very true.  When, say, I-49 is completed there will be a lot more traffic than is currently on US 71.  Vehicles that would normally go way out of the way just to stay on good roads would take the new I-49 instead of US 69 or some other north south highway.  Same with I-69 between Shreveport and Memphis.  On paper it doesn't look like it will get much traffic but it will make a great bypass of the Little Rock/North Little Rock mess and traffic will be able to avoid the awful I-40 from NLR to West Memphis.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

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 #662 on: May 12, 2014, 08:00:02 PM »

finally most of us agree on something. 
Logged

Arkansastravelguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 351
  • Location: Farmington, AR
  • Last Login: May 08, 2019, 01:58:18 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #663 on: May 13, 2014, 01:48:45 PM »


finally most of us agree on something.

I agree with your philosophy, but I still don't think 2/69C applies to this....


iPhone
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 #664 on: May 13, 2014, 01:56:29 PM »

If the "there has to be significant traffic to upgrade to an interstate" argument was used in 1957 when they laid out the interstate highway system, Interstate 10 would not have been built between Kerrville and Junction (or Lordsburg, NM and Benson, AZ for that fact) because here wasn't a single car driving on that guy's ranch out there.
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 #665 on: May 13, 2014, 02:58:25 PM »

If the "there has to be significant traffic to upgrade to an interstate" argument was used in 1957 when they laid out the interstate highway system, Interstate 10 would not have been built between Kerrville and Junction (or Lordsburg, NM and Benson, AZ for that fact) because here wasn't a single car driving on that guy's ranch out there.


You got that right.  Part of it is giving people an easier way to travel, part of it is funneling people off of other roads.  I-15 & I-25 would still have unbuilt stretches if we used that logic.
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 #666 on: May 13, 2014, 03:01:45 PM »

The problem with the theory of "build it and they will come" boils down to money and logic. It cost a lot of money to upgrade these state and US highways to interstate grade. State and Federal level have a lot of people complaining about money being spent. Less money is going into road funds, why build what isn't needed when you can't be sure that the money for needed projects is there?

If you are building 1 to the RGV, why build a second so close? Why build a highway to bypass traffic that isn't there on the western half of San Antonio/Austin? Why build an interstate all the way to Texarkana from Houston when traffic would not go that route, plus 49 would not be that far away north of the 69 diverge into LA?

If I am not mistaken from the years I lived in Texas, most traffic flows within the NBA triangle. Only one interstate is really needed beyond East and West. Only one is really needed South.
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 #667 on: May 13, 2014, 03:35:42 PM »

I agree they didn't need 69 & 69C.  69E (as 37) would have been sufficient.  I dont hate 69 but I sure dont see the need for 69C.  Or one road could have been put in that branched further south.
Logged

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: March 28, 2019, 10:31:40 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #668 on: May 13, 2014, 09:35:06 PM »

The problem with this logic (which I agreed with until I lived in South Texas and saw it for myself) is that the 69C/281 and 69E/77 corridors serve fundamentally different traffic flows.  69C serves the Hidalgo County to/from San Antonio + (with TX 44) Corpus Christi + (with US 59) Houston flows, 69E serves the Cameron County to/from San Antonio + Corpus Christi + Houston flows.  If you only had 69C or 69E, a lot of those flows would require backtracking 40+ miles in the wrong direction, and people just aren't going to go that far out of their way unless the non-freeway corridor is gridlocked. So you're still going to have more or less the same traffic on both corridors, even if one is upgraded and the other isn't.

(To put it another way, 69C and 69E are only really redundant for SW to NE or NW to SE movements, because of I-2/US 83 and I-37. They are not redundant for NW to SW and NE to SE. Nobody would take I-37 to I-69E to I-2 to get from San Antonio to McAllen or vice versa. They'd take US 281. Hence why US 281 needs to be upgraded through Falfurrias, Alice, George West, etc.)

By similar logic, you could argue that I-35 should have gone through Fort Worth, and there should be no I-35E or I-x35 through Dallas, since if you wanted to access Dallas, you could use I-20 or I-30 from Fort Worth to get there. The folks who'd be in Waxahatchie and Desoto sitting in US 77 traffic in that scenario would likely disagree.

All that leaves aside the RGV politics which dictate that Hidalgo can't have anything Cameron doesn't already have, and vice versa.
Logged

US 41

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1789
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Terre Haute, IN
  • Last Login: May 12, 2019, 08:57:48 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #669 on: May 13, 2014, 09:53:22 PM »

Honestly interstates probably weren't really needed out west. Multilane highways with bypasses around towns would've been enough in most places. And as long as businesses weren't allowed to build right on the highway it would've worked very well that way.
Logged
Places I've drove in North America

USA (36)= AL, AZ, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WV, WI
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PE, QC
Mexico (6)= CH, CO, DG, NL, SI, TM

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1650
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 05:22:28 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #670 on: May 13, 2014, 10:42:52 PM »

I have no problem with the separate I-69C and I-69E Interstate highway corridors other than perhaps the numbering choices (pushing a number like I-69 that far West is just plain strange, but it is what it is). Population growth in the far South end of Texas is as rapid as anywhere else in the Lone Star State. There is a lot of people and traffic down there. Further, I can certainly see the validity in building I-2 and even extending it North up to Laredo. Going farther than that, I think I-27 and its Ports to Plains Corridor needs to be upgraded to Interstate level standards at some point, either in terms of a freeway or some kind of turnpike. Same goes for extending I-44 South into Texas, at least down to San Angelo and an extended I-27 corridor or down to the border at Del Rio. Just sayin'.

Of course this infrastructure building would work better with some improved trade dealing with Mexico and Canada and not having quite so much manufacturing production exporting to far away continents.
Logged

swbrotha100

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 405
  • Last Login: October 02, 2016, 10:07:09 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #671 on: May 14, 2014, 02:40:56 AM »

If US 290 became an interstate someday, I would hope there were significant improvements to the section that shares I-35 in Austin, or a new freeway would bypass Austin altogether.

Z992

Logged

US 41

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1789
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Terre Haute, IN
  • Last Login: May 12, 2019, 08:57:48 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #672 on: May 14, 2014, 07:58:59 AM »

I have no problem with the separate I-69C and I-69E Interstate highway corridors other than perhaps the numbering choices (pushing a number like I-69 that far West is just plain strange, but it is what it is). Population growth in the far South end of Texas is as rapid as anywhere else in the Lone Star State. There is a lot of people and traffic down there. Further, I can certainly see the validity in building I-2 and even extending it North up to Laredo. Going farther than that, I think I-27 and its Ports to Plains Corridor needs to be upgraded to Interstate level standards at some point, either in terms of a freeway or some kind of turnpike. Same goes for extending I-44 South into Texas, at least down to San Angelo and an extended I-27 corridor or down to the border at Del Rio. Just sayin'.

Of course this infrastructure building would work better with some improved trade dealing with Mexico and Canada and not having quite so much manufacturing production exporting to far away continents.

...like Asia (China). I thought America didn't support communism.
Logged
Places I've drove in North America

USA (36)= AL, AZ, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WV, WI
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PE, QC
Mexico (6)= CH, CO, DG, NL, SI, TM

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 #673 on: May 14, 2014, 08:29:33 AM »

The problem with this logic (which I agreed with until I lived in South Texas and saw it for myself) is that the 69C/281 and 69E/77 corridors serve fundamentally different traffic flows.  69C serves the Hidalgo County to/from San Antonio + (with TX 44) Corpus Christi + (with US 59) Houston flows, 69E serves the Cameron County to/from San Antonio + Corpus Christi + Houston flows.  If you only had 69C or 69E, a lot of those flows would require backtracking 40+ miles in the wrong direction, and people just aren't going to go that far out of their way unless the non-freeway corridor is gridlocked. So you're still going to have more or less the same traffic on both corridors, even if one is upgraded and the other isn't.

(To put it another way, 69C and 69E are only really redundant for SW to NE or NW to SE movements, because of I-2/US 83 and I-37. They are not redundant for NW to SW and NE to SE. Nobody would take I-37 to I-69E to I-2 to get from San Antonio to McAllen or vice versa. They'd take US 281. Hence why US 281 needs to be upgraded through Falfurrias, Alice, George West, etc.)

By similar logic, you could argue that I-35 should have gone through Fort Worth, and there should be no I-35E or I-x35 through Dallas, since if you wanted to access Dallas, you could use I-20 or I-30 from Fort Worth to get there. The folks who'd be in Waxahatchie and Desoto sitting in US 77 traffic in that scenario would likely disagree.

All that leaves aside the RGV politics which dictate that Hidalgo can't have anything Cameron doesn't already have, and vice versa.

One thing everyone forgets is both of these were already divided highways in isolated areas anyway.  It just required building a few interchanges as opposed to entire new highways.
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 #674 on: May 14, 2014, 08:36:16 AM »

The problem with the theory of "build it and they will come" boils down to money and logic. It cost a lot of money to upgrade these state and US highways to interstate grade. State and Federal level have a lot of people complaining about money being spent. Less money is going into road funds, why build what isn't needed when you can't be sure that the money for needed projects is there?

If you are building 1 to the RGV, why build a second so close? Why build a highway to bypass traffic that isn't there on the western half of San Antonio/Austin? Why build an interstate all the way to Texarkana from Houston when traffic would not go that route, plus 49 would not be that far away north of the 69 diverge into LA?

If I am not mistaken from the years I lived in Texas, most traffic flows within the NBA triangle. Only one interstate is really needed beyond East and West. Only one is really needed South.


 
Everyone seems to think that the “build it and they will come” idea is a pipe dream.   Like they are building roads and praying people will use it.  No, it is more like the second this is finished it will be one of the most heavily traveled roads in America.  I hear you that you think I-69e and I-69C are redundant and on a map they sure look redundant, but their existence is quite needed.  I-69E serves two purposes: for traffic going from Corpus Christi to Houston and traffic going from Corpus Christi to the valley, no more than that.  It serves a link between 3 metro areas.  I-69C would be better if it were numbered an I-X37, because it is more of a branch of I-37.  Ask any truck driver who drives the route between San Antonio (or Austin, or Waco, or Dallas/Ft. Worth) and the valley day in and day out which way he goes to the valley from I-37: US 77 or US 281.  I bet you 10 out of 10 drivers will tell you US 281.  So if you said you were going to upgrade one of them to and interstate, they would emphatically ask for US 281, because it is straighter and more direct.  So, since I-69E is vital for the Corpus Christi connection, with truck traffic that is related to the Valley/Corpus/Houston/Shreveport  corridor, then I-69C is just as vital for the Dallas/Ft. Worth/Waco/Austin/San Antonio/Valley corridor.  I think they are much needed, and as for money, that I can’t tell you about!
 
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.