General I-69

[silverback1065]

I can't believe how many roads we are building / going to build that go to Mexico period. The US Government issues travel warnings telling everyone not to go to Mexico because it's a war zone (which is mostly not true) but then we spend billions of dollars to build roads that lead there. I-69 is a great example of this. All 3 spurs (E, C, and W) will lead into the Mexican state of Tamaulipas which is #1 on the state departments avoid list. The most laughable part is that 69E and 69C both lead into Mexican Highway 101 (which is famous for cartels) which is only a 2 lane highway.

The whole Mexico trade route is just some bullshit they made up just to get federal funding.  This road never would have been built otherwise.

[lordsutch]

Anyone who's ever seen the volume of truck traffic crossing from Mexico into Laredo or Brownsville or McAllen would dispute this. While there are certainly safety issues for individuals who end up in the wrong place at the wrong time, a lot of the stuff that ends up in American stores comes overland by truck from Mexican ports up through the Rio Grande crossings, over routes like Mex 85D and 40D. Not to mention all the stuff that's actually made in Mexico.

Besides which, both I-69C and I-69E serve over a million Americans on the US side of the border alone; somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million people live in the Lower RGV and nearly a million more live in Laredo and Nuevo Laredo.

[US 41]

I guess you could say that 69C turns into 40D once in Mexico. Laredo, Reynosa, and Monterrey are the three biggest and most industrialized cities in northeastern Mexico. All three are under travel warnings, but in reality I wouldn't hesitate to go to any of these cities. There are good and bad parts of any city. Apparently many companies that are investing their money into northeastern Mexico agree.

BTW Here is the travel warning for Tamaulipas in Mexico.

Tamaulipas: Matamoros, Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa, and Tampico are major cities in Tamaulipas. Defer all non-essential travel to the state of Tamaulipas. Throughout the state violent crime, including homicide, armed robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, extortion, and sexual assault, pose significant safety risks. State and municipal law enforcement capacity is limited to nonexistent in many parts of Tamaulipas. Violent conflicts between rival criminal elements and/or the Mexican military can occur in all parts of the region and at all times of the day. Violent criminal activity occurs more frequently along the northern border. While no highway routes through Tamaulipas are considered safe, the highways between Matamoros-Ciudad Victoria, Reynosa-Ciudad Victoria, Ciudad Victoria-Tampico, Monterrey-Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros-Reynosa, and Monterrey-Reynosa, are more prone to criminal activity. Organized criminal groups sometimes target public and private passenger buses traveling through Tamaulipas. These groups sometimes take all passengers hostage and demand ransom payments. In Tamaulipas, U.S. government employees are subject to movement restrictions and a curfew between midnight and 6 a.m. Matamoros, Reynosa, Nuevo Laredo, and Ciudad Victoria have experienced numerous gun battles and attacks with explosive devices in the past year. The number of reported kidnappings in Tamaulipas is among the highest in Mexico, and the number of U.S. citizens reported to the consulates in Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo as being kidnapped, abducted, or disappearing involuntarily in 2014 has also increased.

[vdeane]

I guess you could say that 69C turns into 40D once in Mexico.

I-69C ends at I-2, and unless something isn't showing on Google Maps, MX 40D ends 62 km away from there (as the crow flies).

[ET21]

Name it after Bill Clinton.
Something on I-69 should carry his name.

You win the internet today 

[roadman65]

I guess you could say that 69C turns into 40D once in Mexico.

I-69C ends at I-2, and unless something isn't showing on Google Maps, MX 40D ends 62 km away from there (as the crow flies).

You noticed that one too.  I thought it was me only, but considering that the whole purpose of the I-69 thing is to connect directly to Mexico, then all three should really.  Only 2 out of 3 do, while you must use US 281 and that short Texas Spur that goes south of US 281 where it turns East to Brownsville, or its own alter ego technical US 281 SPUR, but signed as another mainline US 281.

[vdeane]

Unless that last at-grade on US 77 is removed, I-69E won't hit Mexico either, though it will get much closer.  I believe I-69W ends at a crossing that is trucks-only (also the only freeway-freeway crossing on the entire border).

[Grzrd]

Houston-Texarkana is the only really needed part of I-69 that fills in a major missing link in the interstate system.  Connecting our fifth largest city to the Midwest in a way that is actually helpful ...
Memphis to Shreveport is completely baffling.  You can tell every little burg anywhere near the general corridor wanted in on some of that sweet, sweet 69 money ...
Finally, Memphis-Indy.  Okay ...

Anyone who's ever seen the volume of truck traffic crossing from Mexico into Laredo or Brownsville or McAllen ... a lot of the stuff that ends up in American stores comes overland by truck from Mexican ports up through the Rio Grande crossings, over routes like Mex 85D and 40D. Not to mention all the stuff that's actually made in Mexico.
Besides which, both I-69C and I-69E serve over a million Americans on the US side of the border alone; somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million people live in the Lower RGV and nearly a million more live in Laredo and Nuevo Laredo.

AHTD has posted the slide presentation made by Director Scott Bennett at the December 7, 2015 Interstate 69 Coalition Meeting.  One of the slides pertains to the history of I-69 (p. 2/15 of pdf):



Looking at the slide, I am struck by how much of the progress on the I-69 Corridor has been made on the original, disconnected HPCs 18 and 20, as well as later additions to the I-69 corridor in Texas.  Similarly, progress on the later addition of the (arguably porkified) Memphis to Houston segment has been minimal, at best.  Do Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana really have the will/desire to build SIUs 11-16?  Time will (slowly) tell ..........

[jbnv]

Do Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana really have the will/desire to build SIUs 11-16?  Time will (slowly) tell ..........

I don't see any reason to believe that I-69 will ever be a great priority for Louisiana. We're slowly but surely improving US 90 between Lafayette and metro New Orleans. Baton Rouge needs a loop. Even if some magic resolved both of these today, we'd probably focus on US 165 which connects three of our major cities.

Maybe we'll connect Shreveport to Houston via I-69. But there's practically no benefit for us in the northern part.

[sparker]

Do Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana really have the will/desire to build SIUs 11-16?  Time will (slowly) tell ..........

I don't see any reason to believe that I-69 will ever be a great priority for Louisiana. We're slowly but surely improving US 90 between Lafayette and metro New Orleans. Baton Rouge needs a loop. Even if some magic resolved both of these today, we'd probably focus on US 165 which connects three of our major cities.

Maybe we'll connect Shreveport to Houston via I-69. But there's practically no benefit for us in the northern part.

The portion of I-69/HPC #18 from the I-369 divergence in Texas to the Memphis area is, plain & simple, aimed at promoting development in both south/southeast Arkansas and the upper Mississippi Delta region in MS.  The fact that it skirts Shreveport is almost incidental (with the desired route, there weren't a lot of other places for it to go!); the only palpable benefit to LA is as a southeast bypass of that metro area.  But that seemed to be, for better or worse, the nature of a lot of the original batch of high priority corridors (HPC 5/I-73/74 is another example) was speculative and intended to provide some attention to previously underserved regions.  But post-charged-Interstate system additions are as much political entities -- and quite possibly more so -- than driven by planning, engineering, and in-depth studies and/or cost-benefit analyses.  However, some (e.g. I-49, I-22) fill actual system voids -- so it seems that in order to get the facilities that are really needed, it is necessary to tolerate (after taking some deep breaths!) some routes whose need or potential is at best marginal.   

[ColossalBlocks]

I have been looking for the full route of Interstate 69 lately, does it go past the Mississippi river? As far as i know the route terminates in Western Mississippi.

[mvak36]

I have been looking for the full route of Interstate 69 lately, does it go past the Mississippi river? As far as i know the route terminates in Western Mississippi.

There are a lot of I-69 threads already going on. You will find all the info you need in those.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4855.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4783.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1329.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4510.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3841.0

[Grzrd]

Here is the "General I-69" thread, which should give you a pretty good idea of the route:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13977.0

Mods, perhaps you could merge this thread into "General I-69".

And, here's a good map of the entire route:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg231217#msg231217

[amroad17]

As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction.  All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. 

[hbelkins]

As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction.  All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. 

I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.

[Anthony_JK]

Do Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana really have the will/desire to build SIUs 11-16?  Time will (slowly) tell ..........

I don't see any reason to believe that I-69 will ever be a great priority for Louisiana. We're slowly but surely improving US 90 between Lafayette and metro New Orleans. Baton Rouge needs a loop. Even if some magic resolved both of these today, we'd probably focus on US 165 which connects three of our major cities.

Maybe we'll connect Shreveport to Houston via I-69. But there's practically no benefit for us in the northern part.

The portion of I-69/HPC #18 from the I-369 divergence in Texas to the Memphis area is, plain & simple, aimed at promoting development in both south/southeast Arkansas and the upper Mississippi Delta region in MS.  The fact that it skirts Shreveport is almost incidental (with the desired route, there weren't a lot of other places for it to go!); the only palpable benefit to LA is as a southeast bypass of that metro area.  But that seemed to be, for better or worse, the nature of a lot of the original batch of high priority corridors (HPC 5/I-73/74 is another example) was speculative and intended to provide some attention to previously underserved regions.  But post-charged-Interstate system additions are as much political entities -- and quite possibly more so -- than driven by planning, engineering, and in-depth studies and/or cost-benefit analyses.  However, some (e.g. I-49, I-22) fill actual system voids -- so it seems that in order to get the facilities that are really needed, it is necessary to tolerate (after taking some deep breaths!) some routes whose need or potential is at best marginal.   

The problem is, though, that the Tenaha/Shreveport/Monticello/Clarksburg/Tunica portion of proposed I-69 is mostly there as filler to connect the more important Texas and Memphis/Troy/Evansville/Indy links together to create a "national corridor" feasible enough for mass public support. The only actual benefits it gives Shreveport are that it provides a means to access the Port of Shreveport/Bossier and it completes the Inner Loop freeway to east of the Red River.

And while the proposed I-69 routing through southern Arkansas probably would improve economic development for cities like El Dorado, Monticello, and possibly Clarksburg, as well as add a needed multimodal bridge across the Mississippi River, I still say that extending I-530/AR 530 south to Monroe, then upgrading US 165 through Alexandria down to I-10 would provide more bang for the buck. Four-laning US 82 and US 278 with freeway bypasses of major cities would help as well.

Either way, there are higher priorities in LA than I-69 (namely I-49 South, I-49 Shreveport ICC and the BTR clusterwack),  and AR (BVB and I-49), plus, not nearly enough money.

[Rick Powell]

As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction.  All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. 

I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.

That's correct, they are upgrading IN 37 to interstate standards all the way from the current I-69 junction to the south end of Martinsville, and it is expected to be done and marked I-69 by end of next year. The section between Martinsville and I-465 is currently under study and will be built and marked I-69, probably by early 2020's. That will leave only the Ohio River crossing left to be done to close the gap in IN.

[Interstate 69 Fan]

As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction.  All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. 

I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.

That's correct, they are upgrading IN 37 to interstate standards all the way from the current I-69 junction to the south end of Martinsville, and it is expected to be done and marked I-69 by end of next year. The section between Martinsville and I-465 is currently under study and will be built and marked I-69, probably by early 2020's. That will leave only the Ohio River crossing left to be done to close the gap in IN.

To add on, once I-69 is completed to I-465, all of the I-465/I-74 signs from Exit 4 to Exit 49 will come down, and be replaced with I-465/I-74/I-69 signs. North of exit 49, I-465/I-69. This will take a while.

[froggie]

Do Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana really have the will/desire to build SIUs 11-16?

A little late in replying, but MDOT does not intend to build additional segments of their part of I-69 without additional/dedicated Federal funding.

[codyg1985]

As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction.  All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. 

I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.

That's correct, they are upgrading IN 37 to interstate standards all the way from the current I-69 junction to the south end of Martinsville, and it is expected to be done and marked I-69 by end of next year. The section between Martinsville and I-465 is currently under study and will be built and marked I-69, probably by early 2020's. That will leave only the Ohio River crossing left to be done to close the gap in IN.

To add on, once I-69 is completed to I-465, all of the I-465/I-74 signs from Exit 4 to Exit 49 will come down, and be replaced with I-465/I-74/I-69 signs. North of exit 49, I-465/I-69. This will take a while.

That will be a cluster of signage. I noticed at the I-465/65 south interchange there are dedicated portions of each sign that designate the interstate and its control city. Those signs would have to be huge in order to add I-69 and its control cities.

[silverback1065]

As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction.  All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. 

I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.

That's correct, they are upgrading IN 37 to interstate standards all the way from the current I-69 junction to the south end of Martinsville, and it is expected to be done and marked I-69 by end of next year. The section between Martinsville and I-465 is currently under study and will be built and marked I-69, probably by early 2020's. That will leave only the Ohio River crossing left to be done to close the gap in IN.

To add on, once I-69 is completed to I-465, all of the I-465/I-74 signs from Exit 4 to Exit 49 will come down, and be replaced with I-465/I-74/I-69 signs. North of exit 49, I-465/I-69. This will take a while.

That will be a cluster of signage. I noticed at the I-465/65 south interchange there are dedicated portions of each sign that designate the interstate and its control city. Those signs would have to be huge in order to add I-69 and its control cities.

they'll probably put the 69 next to the 465 shield on those signs, they need to sign 465 like they do 270 in Columbus, Ohio, with the control cities on it to encourage through traffic to bypass the city. 

[Avalanchez71]

As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction.  All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. 

I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.

That's correct, they are upgrading IN 37 to interstate standards all the way from the current I-69 junction to the south end of Martinsville, and it is expected to be done and marked I-69 by end of next year. The section between Martinsville and I-465 is currently under study and will be built and marked I-69, probably by early 2020's. That will leave only the Ohio River crossing left to be done to close the gap in IN.

The entire Ohio River section is in Kentucky and not in Indiana.  The southern end in Indiana is complete.  It is up to Kentucky now to build.  Henderson should be smart to keep I-69 as is and be the Breezewood of I-69.

[silverback1065]

As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction.  All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. 

I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.

That's correct, they are upgrading IN 37 to interstate standards all the way from the current I-69 junction to the south end of Martinsville, and it is expected to be done and marked I-69 by end of next year. The section between Martinsville and I-465 is currently under study and will be built and marked I-69, probably by early 2020's. That will leave only the Ohio River crossing left to be done to close the gap in IN.

The entire Ohio River section is in Kentucky and not in Indiana.  The southern end in Indiana is complete.  It is up to Kentucky now to build.  Henderson should be smart to keep I-69 as is and be the Breezewood of I-69.

that is completely true, but Indiana is still going to pay for some of it.  I believe Indiana is even doing the environmental for the bridge right now too.

[Avalanchez71]

Waste of IN taxpayer money.

[Life in Paradise]

Indiana has some sort of agreement with Kentucky on bridges over the Ohio River.  They also were active with the new bridge near Rockport IN/Owensboro KY as well as Louisville, KY.