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 592588 times)

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 744
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 23, 2020, 12:38:14 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1650 on: August 06, 2020, 05:35:11 PM »

Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.

About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.

As far as I can remember, all the legs have to be built.
In reality, I cannot see any segments of I-69W northeast of Freer actually getting funding. Maybe in 50 years it'll be segmented together, but it's certain a low priority compared to I-69C and I-69E which are due for major construction activities in the next decade, notably completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, and completing I-69C between McAllen and Falfurrias. Nothing earmarked for I-69W.

I agree it will be the slower leg, but it still will be finished per legislation.  It won't be a "on the shelf indefinitely" thing like a lot of projects become. 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7316
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 24, 2020, 09:44:42 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1651 on: August 06, 2020, 07:31:11 PM »

Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.

About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.

As far as I can remember, all the legs have to be built.
In reality, I cannot see any segments of I-69W northeast of Freer actually getting funding. Maybe in 50 years it'll be segmented together, but it's certain a low priority compared to I-69C and I-69E which are due for major construction activities in the next decade, notably completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, and completing I-69C between McAllen and Falfurrias. Nothing earmarked for I-69W.

I agree it will be the slower leg, but it still will be finished per legislation.  It won't be a "on the shelf indefinitely" thing like a lot of projects become. 

It's probably safe to assume that the prioritization will be I-69E and I-69C because of the sheer present volume of commercial traffic.  Prior to the Freer-Corpus cluster addition, the sole purpose of I-69W was to take San Antonio out of the mix for Houston-bound traffic coming over the border at Laredo; in that respect, that particular branch is more of a "relief route" for the I-35/10 combination than anything else.  It makes sense when one realizes that the San Antonio-Austin corridor, besides being TX' "tech central", is also one of the major consumer-product distribution areas in the central U.S., particularly in regards to food items.  Houston, OTOH, is more geared toward large industrial and manufacturing distribution -- B-to-B stuff -- like PVC conduits and pipes (the Alvin/Lake Jackson area produces at least a plurality of the nation's supply of the stuff).  Industrial components coming through Laredo tend to head for Houston, while consumer products will for the most part stay right on I-35.  So I-69W/69 -- as a "straight shot" to the destination -- is an effective relief route for the present "arc" through SA.  And yeah, I know it's an indirect subsidy to business interests -- but what else is new? 

That being said -- I-69W will almost certainly be the last of the three legs to be developed, although in the long run it will happen; the W-C-E "trident" was specifically intended in the authorizing legislation (itself whipped up by members of TX' congressional delegation back in '91 through '95) to provide access to the three major border crossings in the lower Rio Grande Valley (I-2 connecting them all near their southern termini was a bit of an afterthought).  I'll opine that the "I-6" Freer-Corpus segment will be built quickly if Corpus' port sees significantly increased business due to the Panamax opening.  If not, it'll join the queue with the rest of the I-69 projects. 
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 744
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 23, 2020, 12:38:14 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1652 on: August 07, 2020, 08:52:41 AM »

I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 744
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 23, 2020, 12:38:14 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1653 on: August 07, 2020, 09:13:47 AM »

I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7316
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 24, 2020, 09:44:42 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1654 on: August 07, 2020, 04:51:33 PM »

I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?

Probably so.  The Federal HPC-18 definition of I-69C only specifies the segment south of the Victoria-Laredo branch; it was always just US 281 by itself that extended north to Three Rivers.  That means that the legislated corridor didn't include that short stretch north of US 59, so any improvements there would have to source any federal share from outside the "normal" means associated with the overall corridor concept.  It was likely simply a cartographic error if the Three Rivers "spur" was highlighted by the Alliance at any point.  Of course, it could be included at some point in the future in much the same way that Freer-Corpus was added to the cluster; but since any activity in the George West area is quite a way down the line, it doesn't seem to be a priority with either the Alliance or TxDOT right now; they've got enough on their respective plates without worrying about a short stretch that won't be relevant for decades.     
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5006
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:20 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1655 on: August 07, 2020, 05:23:37 PM »

I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 744
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 23, 2020, 12:38:14 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1656 on: August 07, 2020, 05:37:13 PM »

I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.

Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog. 
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5006
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:20 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1657 on: August 07, 2020, 05:41:57 PM »

I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.

Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog.
Agreed, but it would save 14 miles of construction, and likely over $100 million in funding that can go elsewhere in the corridor.

5 miles added for a trip, likely no additional minutes.
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 744
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 23, 2020, 12:38:14 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1658 on: August 07, 2020, 05:50:10 PM »

I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.

Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog.
Agreed, but it would save 14 miles of construction, and likely over $100 million in funding that can go elsewhere in the corridor.

5 miles added for a trip, likely no additional minutes.

Sorry, I am not about saving a buck here or there when it comes to roads.  Take my tax dollars and buy me some awesome roads.  I would rather have that piece upgraded as well.

Aside, most of the traffic that heads south down US 281 to the valley is coming from San Antonio, so it would be natural to have that segment upgraded. 

There is this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.515473,-98.185253,3a,20.5y,194.05h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3_rsOnEhJjt4imcEY8ECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm not crazy after all! 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7316
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 24, 2020, 09:44:42 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1659 on: August 08, 2020, 01:54:10 AM »

I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.

Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog.
Agreed, but it would save 14 miles of construction, and likely over $100 million in funding that can go elsewhere in the corridor.

5 miles added for a trip, likely no additional minutes.

Sorry, I am not about saving a buck here or there when it comes to roads.  Take my tax dollars and buy me some awesome roads.  I would rather have that piece upgraded as well.

Aside, most of the traffic that heads south down US 281 to the valley is coming from San Antonio, so it would be natural to have that segment upgraded. 

There is this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.515473,-98.185253,3a,20.5y,194.05h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3_rsOnEhJjt4imcEY8ECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm not crazy after all! 

Technically, that future I-69 notification sign shouldn't be posted on that portion of US 281, since it's actually not included in the corridor's definition.  But enthusiasm being what it is, someone simply posted it there since there's not a lot of physical difference regarding 281 north vs. south of US 59.  So no one's crazy -- just looking at something that is functionally meaningless.  As said previously, if someone can make a case for including that stretch within corridor parameters down the line, it'll be done -- but as of right now, that's not the situation. 
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14024
  • fuck

  • Age: 12
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:45:08 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1660 on: August 08, 2020, 01:55:44 PM »

The more I think about it, the more I realize I-69 is all about bypassing some cities but going right through others. It's being touted as a bypass to the congested I-40 west of Memphis, but then goes right through the Houston and Laredo metro areas. A true bypass would make its way somehow to Eagle Pass to link with Fed. 57, the best route to Mexico City. This would probably involve the US 79 or SH 21 corridor and then some sort of big bypass around the north side of San Antonio. Maybe it could even overlap bullshit I-14.

Alternately, to at least bypass Laredo, Texas and Mexico could collaborate on a new border crossing about halfway between Laredo and Brownsville. On the Texas side, it would leave I-69 near Kingsville and make its way southwest along the FM 755 corridor, or perhaps from Robstown on SH 44-SH 359-SH 16. In Mexico, an upgrade of Fed. 54 and a better interchange with 1600 (the Monterrey bypass) would take traffic to Fed. 57.

Yeah, fictional, fuck off. Victors write the history books.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 744
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 23, 2020, 12:38:14 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1661 on: August 08, 2020, 02:51:26 PM »

I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.

Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog.
Agreed, but it would save 14 miles of construction, and likely over $100 million in funding that can go elsewhere in the corridor.

5 miles added for a trip, likely no additional minutes.

Sorry, I am not about saving a buck here or there when it comes to roads.  Take my tax dollars and buy me some awesome roads.  I would rather have that piece upgraded as well.

Aside, most of the traffic that heads south down US 281 to the valley is coming from San Antonio, so it would be natural to have that segment upgraded. 

There is this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.515473,-98.185253,3a,20.5y,194.05h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3_rsOnEhJjt4imcEY8ECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm not crazy after all! 

Technically, that future I-69 notification sign shouldn't be posted on that portion of US 281, since it's actually not included in the corridor's definition.  But enthusiasm being what it is, someone simply posted it there since there's not a lot of physical difference regarding 281 north vs. south of US 59.  So no one's crazy -- just looking at something that is functionally meaningless.  As said previously, if someone can make a case for including that stretch within corridor parameters down the line, it'll be done -- but as of right now, that's not the situation.

I think where I was going with that was I remember the map showing all of US 281 as I-69C some years ago, and that sign proves (at least in my mind) I didnít make that up. I wish I had a copy of the older map.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5006
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:20 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1662 on: August 08, 2020, 03:17:32 PM »

The more I think about it, the more I realize I-69 is all about bypassing some cities but going right through others. It's being touted as a bypass to the congested I-40 west of Memphis, but then goes right through the Houston and Laredo metro areas.
There's also internal gaps in the interstate system in Texas that I-69 would fill - a northeast connection out of Houston, and a connection between the Valley, Corpus Christi, and Houston - that have to be considered.

The current proposal bypasses existing corridors and major cities north of Texas, though once in Texas is largely its own independent corridor, and is to serve the major cities on the eastern side. I-35 acts as the major north-south highway for the central part of the state, I-69 would serve that role for the eastern part of the state, and perhaps in the future I-27 would serve the western part of the state.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3447
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 27, 2020, 03:56:45 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1663 on: August 08, 2020, 03:39:54 PM »

..... I think where I was going with that was I remember the map showing all of US 281 as I-69C some years ago, and that sign proves (at least in my mind) I didnít make that up. I wish I had a copy of the older map.

Take a look at this post, and the link to the U.S. 281 Planning Study:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg233353#msg233353

Note that the legislation that NE2 quotes includes George West to Three Rivers. Iím pretty sure the Final Report is later in the thread, but I could not find it after a quick look.
* edit

The Final Report can be found here:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg259482#msg259482

After a quick glance, it appears they dropped the Three Rivers to George West section from consideration from the draft to the final product, even though it is included in the legislation. BUT, the map from the draft contains the Three Rivers to George West section.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2020, 08:00:35 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7316
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 24, 2020, 09:44:42 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1664 on: August 08, 2020, 03:55:16 PM »

The more I think about it, the more I realize I-69 is all about bypassing some cities but going right through others. It's being touted as a bypass to the congested I-40 west of Memphis, but then goes right through the Houston and Laredo metro areas. A true bypass would make its way somehow to Eagle Pass to link with Fed. 57, the best route to Mexico City. This would probably involve the US 79 or SH 21 corridor and then some sort of big bypass around the north side of San Antonio. Maybe it could even overlap bullshit I-14.

Alternately, to at least bypass Laredo, Texas and Mexico could collaborate on a new border crossing about halfway between Laredo and Brownsville. On the Texas side, it would leave I-69 near Kingsville and make its way southwest along the FM 755 corridor, or perhaps from Robstown on SH 44-SH 359-SH 16. In Mexico, an upgrade of Fed. 54 and a better interchange with 1600 (the Monterrey bypass) would take traffic to Fed. 57.

Yeah, fictional, fuck off. Victors write the history books.

The fact that it shoots right through central Houston is hardly surprising considering the major backing from TX for the entire corridor concept emanated from that city; the Alliance for I-69/Texas has always maintained its HQ there.  It seems to me that the "trident" (W-C-E branches) are simply "bet hedging"; whereas historically most of the cross-border traffic has come through Laredo, particularly after the construction of I-35 down to the border and Mexico's improvement of Federal 85 coming up to meet it; it's the most convenient (and familiar to commercial border-crossing entities) of the locations.  Crossing at Hidalgo or Brownsville is about a hundred miles out of the way (and out of the pocket of independent drivers); those seem to serve as "overflow" checkpoints when Laredo is backed up.  But Mexico elected to likewise improve Federal 40 east of Monterrey partially to expedite access to those alternate crossing points, so complementing that with the likes of I-69C and I-69E was something of a given.  Also, the outsized growth of the lower Rio Grande Valley was something on the radar that required addressing -- an additional rationale to add to the pile of explanations for the I-69 split termini.  And although 20 years ago most of us were skeptical, to say the least, about the need for I-69C, commercial traffic volumes on the existing US 281 corridor these days has largely validated that deployment decision.   

NE2 may be prescient -- a 4th border crossing between McAllen and Laredo might well be considered, particularly if I-2 continues development as a dispersal corridor for that crossing.  But it would be likely that the first move would have to come from south of the border -- Mexico or one of their states would have to cobble up an efficient pathway between either Federal 40 or 85 to render such an additional crossing economically viable -- or all 3 existing major crossings would have to be experiencing consistent congested periods to warrant expedition of such a new facility (which would require re-deployment of INS, Border Patrol, and other enforcement agents to the new site).  This would be something that would likely require a great deal of hand-wringing in both countries -- and with what's on national plates these days, will probably be a project well off into the future -- I'd guesstimate 25 years at a minimum.

Closing note -- I'm surprised that US 57 isn't at least an expressway with some interchanges by now.  It was slapped into place in 1971 with little fanfare, but always seems to have been an afterthought simply to placate the Mexican developers of Federal 57 by giving them a direct 2dus path to our regional version of "main street". 
Logged

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1368
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 06:19:05 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1665 on: August 09, 2020, 04:18:00 PM »

Closing note -- I'm surprised that US 57 isn't at least an expressway with some interchanges by now.  It was slapped into place in 1971 with little fanfare, but always seems to have been an afterthought simply to placate the Mexican developers of Federal 57 by giving them a direct 2dus path to our regional version of "main street". 

I thought that was a typo then I looked it up. US57??  Is that the shortest 2-digit US highway? Looks like about 100 miles long. Also, I saw this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.9720123,-99.2433617,3a,75y,39.01h,83.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbYuRPl46wkwDgzLPctTHDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I've never seen an FM take precedence in an interchange with a US highway.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3447
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 27, 2020, 03:56:45 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1666 on: August 09, 2020, 04:44:01 PM »

One interesting aspect of the coronavirus is that there are now a lot of virtual meetings in which roadgeeks can participate. One such meeting is about the proposed widening of US 59/ US 77 in Victoria for the Future I-69:

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/082520.html

It will take place on August 25.

* edit

Thanks to rte66man for the welcome back over in the Interstate 269 thread.

« Last Edit: August 09, 2020, 04:50:43 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5006
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:20 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1667 on: August 09, 2020, 07:53:13 PM »

One interesting aspect of the coronavirus is that there are now a lot of virtual meetings in which roadgeeks can participate. One such meeting is about the proposed widening of US 59/ US 77 in Victoria for the Future I-69:

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/082520.html

It will take place on August 25.

* edit

Thanks to rte66man for the welcome back over in the Interstate 269 thread.
If Iím not mistaken, this would be the first project specifically for the I-69W corridor outside Laredo?
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3447
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 27, 2020, 03:56:45 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1668 on: August 09, 2020, 09:00:13 PM »

^ I think it will actually be I-69E. I believe the US 59 section will go right up to the beginning of I-69W, but not actually be part of Future I-69W. Of course, US 77 heads in the direction of Brownsville. In other words, it will include the I-69E/ I-69W interchange location. It will be interesting to see what degree they plan for the interchange.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2020, 09:10:47 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3447
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 27, 2020, 03:56:45 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1669 on: August 09, 2020, 09:56:12 PM »

Take a look at this post, and the link to the U.S. 281 Planning Study:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg233353#msg233353

The map linked in the above quote reflects that I-69C has the two northern prongs provided for in the legislation: (1) US 281 from George West to I-37 at Three Rivers and (2) US 59 from George West to I-37. US 281 from George West to I-37 disappeared from consideration for the Planning Study (and from maps). However, US 281 from George West to I-37 is still on the books as part of the I-69 Corridor.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5006
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:20 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1670 on: August 09, 2020, 11:57:18 PM »

^ I think it will actually be I-69E. I believe the US 59 section will go right up to the beginning of I-69W, but not actually be part of Future I-69W. Of course, US 77 heads in the direction of Brownsville. In other words, it will include the I-69E/ I-69W interchange location. It will be interesting to see what degree they plan for the interchange.
From what I'm seeing, the project does not include any portion of the I-69E corridor, rather the western half of the Victoria loop (to be I-69W between I-69E and US-59 / US-59 Business) that's still two lanes and four lane divided approaching the I-69E corridor.



The completion of this project would complete the entire loop to interstate standards (with the exception of the eastern approach to US-59 / Future I-69E), though besides the small portion of I-69W on the western end, it's not to be included in the I-69 system unless some loop route is eventually proposed. I-69E would follow the direct US-59 to US-77 South routing on the southern side of the city.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3447
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 27, 2020, 03:56:45 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1671 on: August 10, 2020, 12:16:18 AM »

^ Youíre right. I stand corrected.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7316
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 24, 2020, 09:44:42 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1672 on: August 10, 2020, 04:06:25 AM »

^ I think it will actually be I-69E. I believe the US 59 section will go right up to the beginning of I-69W, but not actually be part of Future I-69W. Of course, US 77 heads in the direction of Brownsville. In other words, it will include the I-69E/ I-69W interchange location. It will be interesting to see what degree they plan for the interchange.
From what I'm seeing, the project does not include any portion of the I-69E corridor, rather the western half of the Victoria loop (to be I-69W between I-69E and US-59 / US-59 Business) that's still two lanes and four lane divided approaching the I-69E corridor.



The completion of this project would complete the entire loop to interstate standards (with the exception of the eastern approach to US-59 / Future I-69E), though besides the small portion of I-69W on the western end, it's not to be included in the I-69 system unless some loop route is eventually proposed. I-69E would follow the direct US-59 to US-77 South routing on the southern side of the city.

I had always understood that the current "wye" of US 59 & 77 south of Victoria would be the division point of the I-69 "cluster".  Northeast of this point -- the southern US 59 bypass of Victoria -- would be the southernmost section signed as I-69; US 77 south of there would be I-69E, and I-69W would turn northwest at the interchange along WB US 59 and NB US 77 to a point yet TBD where I-69W would diverge parallel to US 59 toward George West and Laredo.  The northern loop wasn't included in Interstate planning (as of yet); the "split" would make use of the present ramps carrying the continuation of US 59 for I-69W -- it would be a functional "69W TOTSO", with I-69E/US 77 using the main carriageways.   Since the present US 59 bypass is not only a more direct path but currently configured in such a way as to require less in the way of upgrades to reach Interstate standards, it would seem to fit the bill regarding where the actual corridor is located.  Same with the US 59/77 segment; utilizing it for the northern end of I-69W would provide the shortest path once that segment is up for letting.  Unless local pressure is brought to bear regarding a 69W reroute around the northern loop, simple economics would dictate the extant path around the south side.   
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 744
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 23, 2020, 12:38:14 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1673 on: August 10, 2020, 08:39:59 AM »

I wonder why they don't go ahead and signs some of the bypasses between Corpus Christi and Houston as I-69 (Beasley, Kendleton, Wharton, El Campo, Edna, Inez and Victoria) now.  The others I didn't mention (like Louise and Ganado) which are currently almost freeway, albeit a few expressway grade interchanges and a gas station driveway away from full freeway, TxDOT can focus small projects of closing off driveways and bulldozing crossovers to make them interstate grade, then sign them as I-69.  I know the argument would be that these sections are a few miles apiece, but I think it would be good for route continuity.  It would get locals and travelers alike used to the fact that US 59 is pretty much going away in lieu of I-69, and give some validity to the BGSs in Houston that say I-69 goes to Victoria when in reality it goes to Rosenberg. 

I know this is a new world and just because things were done like this before doesn't mean they will be done like this again, but that's how a lot of interstates got built.  The bypasses/town freeway sections came first, then the rural freeways were built in between connecting the sections.  If you recall, the disjointed sections of the interstates were signed as the interstate on the freeway sections, then they stopped either on a crossroad, or on the road they were displacing and had "TO I-XX" trailblazers on the non freeway parts.  All this to say, I think it would help the long term transition.  People in and around Houston still call Eastex and Southwest Freeways in Houston 59 (or the cringey I-59).  They kinda need to get people used to phasing out US 59 because we all know once this project is complete, US 59 will completely not exist in Texas. 
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3447
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 27, 2020, 03:56:45 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1674 on: August 10, 2020, 11:15:08 AM »

Unless local pressure is brought to bear regarding a 69W reroute around the northern loop, simple economics would dictate the extant path around the south side.

I took a look at the 2045 Victoria MTP (May 2020) and I canít tell if they have chosen the route for I-69W. Part of the loop is designated as ďFuture I-69Ē and it goes beyond US 59, but not all of the way around on the loop. On page 162 of 169:

https://www.victoriatx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2627/2045-MTP

Can anyone tell the route from the map?
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.