AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in TX  (Read 538729 times)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2913
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: December 12, 2019, 10:09:05 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1550 on: October 17, 2019, 06:51:49 PM »

The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.

Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.

That could reasonably work.

If it looks like I69 south of Robstown, then I may get claustrophobia
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7673179,-97.6778267,3a,75y,29.72h,78.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se61zYfjE1a0mNyyYbXzX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
A lot of future I-69 segments, including 40 miles south of Falfurrius and 40 miles south of Houston are planned like that.

Itís not that bad honestly, and having the full left shoulder gives a lot of breathing room. Iíve driven that stretch near Robstown and around Bishop with that design at least a dozen times since itís been completed, and have never felt cramped. Itís only on some of those isolated interchanges that they reduce the left shoulder to only 3-4 ft thatís it cramped.

The key to snaking I-69 through this area is: all of the above!  It'll probably look a lot like the pic of I-69E down by Robstown, minus the elevation for most of the run.  It probably boils down to:  K-rails, 4' inner shoulders/10' outer shoulders, and frontage roads, frontage roads, and more frontage roads.  Except for some parking lots used for trailer storage, most facilities look far enough away from the lanes to shove a frontage road through their front yards (going by the 4-year-old GE view).   The finished product won't be particularly pretty, but it'll get the job done -- hopefully in a few short years.
The US-75 freeway northeast of Dallas has a long segment with this design - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4836781,-96.6200904,3a,75y,197.55h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrJz-0sN8Pai_tN9GYDZ8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seems to work. IIRC, a lot of the segments with median barrier are being built with a stealth 3rd outer lane for future expansion purposes. The stretch I mentioned of US-75 originally actually had a ~40 ft grassy median plus the frontage roads & freeway design, but was rebuilt to its current design about 20 years ago with the torn-up outer lane a stealth lane for future expansion purposes.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6161
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:33:26 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1551 on: October 17, 2019, 10:07:18 PM »

The US-75 freeway northeast of Dallas has a long segment with this design - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4836781,-96.6200904,3a,75y,197.55h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrJz-0sN8Pai_tN9GYDZ8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seems to work. IIRC, a lot of the segments with median barrier are being built with a stealth 3rd outer lane for future expansion purposes. The stretch I mentioned of US-75 originally actually had a ~40 ft grassy median plus the frontage roads & freeway design, but was rebuilt to its current design about 20 years ago with the torn-up outer lane a stealth lane for future expansion purposes.

The picture sure shows that "stealth" lane in all its glory; it appears to be a full 12' wide, so another 10' of shoulder should do it down the road.  Right now it's certainly 4-lane Interstate standard -- but if the rate of growth in the area continues, 6-laning won't be all that far in the future.   Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).   
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3748
  • Last Login: December 12, 2019, 11:36:36 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1552 on: October 17, 2019, 10:14:05 PM »

Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).

If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2913
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: December 12, 2019, 10:09:05 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1553 on: October 18, 2019, 12:14:34 AM »

The US-75 freeway northeast of Dallas has a long segment with this design - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4836781,-96.6200904,3a,75y,197.55h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrJz-0sN8Pai_tN9GYDZ8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seems to work. IIRC, a lot of the segments with median barrier are being built with a stealth 3rd outer lane for future expansion purposes. The stretch I mentioned of US-75 originally actually had a ~40 ft grassy median plus the frontage roads & freeway design, but was rebuilt to its current design about 20 years ago with the torn-up outer lane a stealth lane for future expansion purposes.

The picture sure shows that "stealth" lane in all its glory; it appears to be a full 12' wide, so another 10' of shoulder should do it down the road.  Right now it's certainly 4-lane Interstate standard -- but if the rate of growth in the area continues, 6-laning won't be all that far in the future.   Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).   
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5061733,-96.6180646,3a,75y,14.33h,74.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0F8dqmUhDlVLvKpsLCTZiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

A lot of the northbound bridges have a full lane already built over the bridges, a leftover from the original design with the grassy median, but the southbound lane does not have that wide shoulder.

A lot of I-35 between Austin and Dallas was rebuilt around 10-20 years ago removing the grassy median and filling it in and leaving the outside lane as a "stealth" lane. Here we are today, and it has all since been expanded fully to 6-lanes. A similar design exists on portions of I-10 east of Houston, and most of that is currently underway or planned to be 6-laned all the way to Louisiana.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6161
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:33:26 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1554 on: October 18, 2019, 04:28:16 PM »

Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).

If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.

I've actually hears that there have been recent plans proposed that would "sink" this stretch of freeway using a cut-and-cover approach (due to a couple of RR crossings that the current bridge surmounts).  Maybe this will placate the more rational members of the RE/T crowd: the ones who primarily view the structure as urban blight -- but the generalist "anti-car" cadre will still piss & moan.  Can't please 'em all!
Logged

debragga

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 37
  • Location: Texas/Louisiana
  • Last Login: December 11, 2019, 10:50:59 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1555 on: October 19, 2019, 12:42:26 PM »

Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).

If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.

The second option isn't even possible right now going northbound: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/32.7722302,-96.7780709/32.7747035,-96.7922203/32.8017573,-96.7929922/@32.7851225,-96.8047162,14.16z/data=!4m10!4m9!1m0!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-96.8060881!2d32.7698137!3s0x864e990e2d69908b:0x93c8baf93e3d631e!1m0!3e0

But it is possible southbound: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/32.8087309,-96.793012/32.7715106,-96.7782931/@32.7885107,-96.8135235,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m19!4m18!1m15!3m4!1m2!1d-96.7964791!2d32.7937113!3s0x864e9928a80a6491:0xe1f1dda09b4d75a1!3m4!1m2!1d-96.8022813!2d32.7890178!3s0x864e9924c2b368db:0x71f60d7a1eaed1f0!3m4!1m2!1d-96.7992671!2d32.7719069!3s0x864e991b25051697:0xf9635357053f29c0!1m0!3e0
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2913
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: December 12, 2019, 10:09:05 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1556 on: October 19, 2019, 12:56:37 PM »

Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).

If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.

The second option isn't even possible right now going northbound: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/32.7722302,-96.7780709/32.7747035,-96.7922203/32.8017573,-96.7929922/@32.7851225,-96.8047162,14.16z/data=!4m10!4m9!1m0!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-96.8060881!2d32.7698137!3s0x864e990e2d69908b:0x93c8baf93e3d631e!1m0!3e0

But it is possible southbound: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/32.8087309,-96.793012/32.7715106,-96.7782931/@32.7885107,-96.8135235,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m19!4m18!1m15!3m4!1m2!1d-96.7964791!2d32.7937113!3s0x864e9928a80a6491:0xe1f1dda09b4d75a1!3m4!1m2!1d-96.8022813!2d32.7890178!3s0x864e9924c2b368db:0x71f60d7a1eaed1f0!3m4!1m2!1d-96.7992671!2d32.7719069!3s0x864e991b25051697:0xf9635357053f29c0!1m0!3e0
That just seems like a mistake. I-345 needs to stay - it's a major corridor for north-south traffic and destroying it would just create a catastrophe on I-30, I-35E, and TX-366.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: December 12, 2019, 11:48:54 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1557 on: October 19, 2019, 09:13:04 PM »

Yeah, if the New Urbanists succeed in removing I-345 completely, taking out that major freeway connection would overwhelm the recently completed I-30/I-35E "Horseshoe" widening project (the "mixmaster" interchange around the South and West sides of downtown). Both I-30 and I-35E generate a heck of a lot of traffic all on their own and that newly upgraded interchange was only designed to handle that. The interchange can't take on all the traffic coming up from I-45 and coming down from North Central Expressway. It would be one hell of a bottle neck situation.

But then the New Urbanists probably have their own plans about that: y'know, remove all the freeways inside of the I-635 loop. I would not put it past them to float that kind of insanity out to the general public.
Logged

aboges26

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 126
  • GIS Enthusiast / Canyon Country Adventurer

  • Age: 29
  • Location: Farmington, NM
  • Last Login: November 24, 2019, 03:37:46 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1558 on: October 20, 2019, 11:00:32 AM »

Yeah, if the New Urbanists succeed in removing I-345 completely, taking out that major freeway connection would overwhelm the recently completed I-30/I-35E "Horseshoe" widening project (the "mixmaster" interchange around the South and West sides of downtown). Both I-30 and I-35E generate a heck of a lot of traffic all on their own and that newly upgraded interchange was only designed to handle that. The interchange can't take on all the traffic coming up from I-45 and coming down from North Central Expressway. It would be one hell of a bottle neck situation.

But then the New Urbanists probably have their own plans about that: y'know, remove all the freeways inside of the I-635 loop. I would not put it past them to float that kind of insanity out to the general public.

The New Urbanists should put their money where their mouth is and have the DOT shut down I-345 for a week or even a month, turn the freeway into a bike and pedestrian highway, and see what it does to car traffic.  That way they can see what it would be like if they had their way and it would not have to result in permanent traffic hell for the rest of us that would take millions of dollars to undo after seeing that maybe I-345 was a necessary facility to disperse and move traffic.  Maybe traffic would readjust and we would all be proven wrong, but this way the proposal could be tested and officials make an educated decision afterwards, rather than ripping the freeway out based on feelings instead of reality.
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 294
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: Today at 03:34:14 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1559 on: October 20, 2019, 05:48:14 PM »

Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).

If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.

Yes they would. Crooked, Lengthy Interstates are the new Industry Standard.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6161
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:33:26 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1560 on: October 20, 2019, 08:52:38 PM »

Yeah, if the New Urbanists succeed in removing I-345 completely, taking out that major freeway connection would overwhelm the recently completed I-30/I-35E "Horseshoe" widening project (the "mixmaster" interchange around the South and West sides of downtown). Both I-30 and I-35E generate a heck of a lot of traffic all on their own and that newly upgraded interchange was only designed to handle that. The interchange can't take on all the traffic coming up from I-45 and coming down from North Central Expressway. It would be one hell of a bottle neck situation.

But then the New Urbanists probably have their own plans about that: y'know, remove all the freeways inside of the I-635 loop. I would not put it past them to float that kind of insanity out to the general public.

The New Urbanists should put their money where their mouth is and have the DOT shut down I-345 for a week or even a month, turn the freeway into a bike and pedestrian highway, and see what it does to car traffic.  That way they can see what it would be like if they had their way and it would not have to result in permanent traffic hell for the rest of us that would take millions of dollars to undo after seeing that maybe I-345 was a necessary facility to disperse and move traffic.  Maybe traffic would readjust and we would all be proven wrong, but this way the proposal could be tested and officials make an educated decision afterwards, rather than ripping the freeway out based on feelings instead of reality.

You do realize that the NU's would actually like to see such traffic congestion; they seem to be under the impression that making driving particularly onerous in urban areas will cause auto owner/drivers to "see the light" and either (a) start using transit to get around in town or (b) move out of the suburbs into dense city centers.   In reality, they may get 5-10% compliance with their wishes from that small portion of commuters who have the freedom to actually make those choices.   But if the overall urban regions keep expanding in population at the current rates, the numbers of those making the modal switch will be rapidly swamped by new arrivals with their vehicles.  What the NU crowd seems not to comprehend is that owning a private vehicle is about more than simply getting to and from work; it's inexorably tied to "trip-chaining" -- taking care of personal and commercial activities during the commute process; not necessarily a "hub-and-spoke" affair (work>home, home>grocery store & back, etc.).  And the concept of online ordering of merchandise with subsequent delivery as an alternative to personal shopping is only applicable to those purchases that are relatively fungible in nature or repeat items; there's still plenty of us who give a shit about what we purchase who would rather examine potential items personally prior to committing to buy.   But then the NU's probably are predicating their positions upon a future sea change in consumption habits that largely limit purchases to absolutely necessary items (i.e., an existentialist approach to purchasing).   But despite their wish list, much of the present commercial arena is tied it with availability of a vehicle to both shop for and transport the purchased items.   Of course it remains to be seen if that model will persist as it has since at least the end of WWII, arguably the beginning of the modern consumer era, when auto ownership became widespread.   But for the foreseeable future, folks will continue to consume items for necessity and pleasure -- and more often than not use their vehicles to expedite that phenomenon.         
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 294
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: Today at 03:34:14 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1561 on: October 20, 2019, 10:04:25 PM »

Despite it happening all the time in Cartoons, you can not simply order Pets and have them delivered.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6161
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:33:26 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1562 on: October 20, 2019, 10:20:46 PM »

Despite it happening all the time in Cartoons, you can not simply order Pets and have them delivered.

............unless they're of the Penthouse variety; but in that case the tariff is likely to be exorbitant!  :awesomeface:
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: December 12, 2019, 11:48:54 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1563 on: October 21, 2019, 10:31:33 AM »

Quote from: sparker
You do realize that the NU's would actually like to see such traffic congestion; they seem to be under the impression that making driving particularly onerous in urban areas will cause auto owner/drivers to "see the light" and either (a) start using transit to get around in town or (b) move out of the suburbs into dense city centers. In reality, they may get 5-10% compliance with their wishes from that small portion of commuters who have the freedom to actually make those choices.

It appears New Urbanists are completely out of touch with FINANCIAL reality. They utterly fail to realize suburban sprawl is driven by economics more than any other factor. People move farther and farther out from city centers in search of housing that is more affordable and situated in safer neighborhoods. Good housing in city centers is extremely expensive, and the costs are just obscene for living spaces big enough for a family.

A middle class worker has a variety of bad living arrangement choices if he wants to reside in the dense urban center of a major city. He might be able to find affordable housing in an urban ghetto, if the ghetto hasn't been gentrified by real estate speculators already. If the process of gentrification hasn't taken hold he can put up with the risk of crime. The middle class worker can try co-habitation with multiple roommates to share living costs. That arrangement can work out great for young adults, but it's a lousy environment in which to start a family.

Today we're not only seeing cities like New York and Los Angeles driving middle and lower class workers farther and farther out into the exhurbs. We're seeing major cities and high cost of living states drive a lot of residents and businesses to states with lower living costs. The homeless population has exploded in NYC, LA and other major cities. The biggest of those cities have significant numbers of working homeless; they have jobs, but not enough savings to escape to the exhurbs or a totally different region of the country.

This whole New Urbanism movement is pretty much a Utopian douchebag lie. And it will remain an absurdly out of touch pipe dream as long as the cost of living in dense urban centers remains sky high. Suburban and exhurban sprawl as well as Interstate migration will keep on happening until the cost of living in the middle of the city becomes financially attractive. Until then the New Urbanists can keep on dreaming.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2391
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: December 10, 2019, 04:04:28 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1564 on: October 21, 2019, 03:03:04 PM »

While I completely agree with previous posters about New Urbanism, let's get back to discussing Interstate 69 in Texas. Complaints about New Urbanism can go on a different thread in a different location in the AAROADS forum.
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.