I-69 in TX

[kphoger]

From the Laredo-area I-69W routing plan, which utilizes the northern arc of Loop 20 (apparently the upgrade construction has already been let or is even under way), it's quite obvious that the main purpose of 69W was to provide a straight but primarily commercial shot from the border crossing to Houston.  Cross-border general traffic, having to divert to another route (south on I-35 at the present junction) or continue straight through town on Business US 59, is certainly not readily accommodated by the present arrangement.  Chances are that if & when I-2 reaches Laredo, the remainder of the Bullock/Loop 20 corridor south of where I-69W will strike out eastward will be part of I-2, so unless an additional free-flow bridge and approaches is built along I-2 south of town the current arrangement will prevail, with general cross-border traffic squeezed into one of the existing downtown crossings.         

Is Bridge V still on the table?

[Thegeet]

From the Laredo-area I-69W routing plan, which utilizes the northern arc of Loop 20 (apparently the upgrade construction has already been let or is even under way), it's quite obvious that the main purpose of 69W was to provide a straight but primarily commercial shot from the border crossing to Houston.  Cross-border general traffic, having to divert to another route (south on I-35 at the present junction) or continue straight through town on Business US 59, is certainly not readily accommodated by the present arrangement.  Chances are that if & when I-2 reaches Laredo, the remainder of the Bullock/Loop 20 corridor south of where I-69W will strike out eastward will be part of I-2, so unless an additional free-flow bridge and approaches is built along I-2 south of town the current arrangement will prevail, with general cross-border traffic squeezed into one of the existing downtown crossings.         

Is Bridge V still on the table?

I'm not sure, but maybe not.

[bwana39]

Maybe once more of Interstate 69W from Laredo to Victoria is constructed, they will start retracting the US 59 designation from Laredo. In fact, once 69W, 69 and 369 are completed, US 59 could be truncated all the way to Interstate 30 along the Arkansas/Texas border in Texarkana. I think the same could be said for US Highways 77, 83 and 281 when Interstates 2, 69C and 69E are completed.

Actually, it could be truncated to its intersection with US-270 in Heavner OK. It is concurrent with US-270 or US-71 all the way to Texarkana.

I would expect it to be truncated to Texarkana (or maybe the Red River) as soon as I-69 / I-369 is complete to Texarkana.

[CoreySamson]

I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.

[sparker]

Maybe once more of Interstate 69W from Laredo to Victoria is constructed, they will start retracting the US 59 designation from Laredo. In fact, once 69W, 69 and 369 are completed, US 59 could be truncated all the way to Interstate 30 along the Arkansas/Texas border in Texarkana. I think the same could be said for US Highways 77, 83 and 281 when Interstates 2, 69C and 69E are completed.

Actually, it could be truncated to its intersection with US-270 in Heavner OK. It is concurrent with US-270 or US-71 all the way to Texarkana.

I would expect it to be truncated to Texarkana (or maybe the Red River) as soon as I-69 / I-369 is complete to Texarkana.

If it were to be truncated to Heavener/US 270, it's highly likely it would just continue south by subsuming US 259, which would carry it back to Nacogdoches.  But all that is moot until such time as both I-49 and I-369 reach full fruition. 

[The Ghostbuster]

This is in response to CoreySamson: US 59 did continue down present-day US 96 between Tenaha and Port Arthur from 1934 (when the route was first designated) to 1939. That year, US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha, and extended to Laredo (replacing the first US 96 between Rosenberg and Laredo). Old 59 between Tenaha and Port Arthur became the new US 96. I think one of two things should have happened instead: 1. Either US 96 should have been extended to Tenaha, leaving US 59 on its pre-existing route to Port Arthur; or 2. When US 59 was rerouted to Laredo, the Tenaha-to-Port-Arthur route should have been designated US 57 instead of US 96. Doing that would have made a better use of the 57 designation than the existing one between Eagle Pass and Moore (which would have made a better US 96 [II] than the existing one).

[Thegeet]

This is in response to CoreySamson: US 59 did continue down present-day US 96 between Tenaha and Port Arthur from 1934 (when the route was first designated) to 1939. That year, US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha, and extended to Laredo (replacing the first US 96 between Rosenberg and Laredo). Old 59 between Tenaha and Port Arthur became the new US 96. I think one of two things should have happened instead: 1. Either US 96 should have been extended to Tenaha, leaving US 59 on its pre-existing route to Port Arthur; or 2. When US 59 was rerouted to Laredo, the Tenaha-to-Port-Arthur route should have been designated US 57 instead of US 96. Doing that would have made a better use of the 57 designation than the existing one between Eagle Pass and Moore (which would have made a better US 96 [II] than the existing one).

I think that would be great, but Houstonians will be mad about US-59 nowhere to be in Houston. I think that is they plan to go rerouting of US-59 , it will be long after I-69 is finished in Texas. Then, maybe it wouldn't hurt them as much as far as confusion goes.

BTW: my iPhone maps app says construction of Victoria from SL 463 to FM 1686 is finished by May 2021.

[achilles765]

This is in response to CoreySamson: US 59 did continue down present-day US 96 between Tenaha and Port Arthur from 1934 (when the route was first designated) to 1939. That year, US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha, and extended to Laredo (replacing the first US 96 between Rosenberg and Laredo). Old 59 between Tenaha and Port Arthur became the new US 96. I think one of two things should have happened instead: 1. Either US 96 should have been extended to Tenaha, leaving US 59 on its pre-existing route to Port Arthur; or 2. When US 59 was rerouted to Laredo, the Tenaha-to-Port-Arthur route should have been designated US 57 instead of US 96. Doing that would have made a better use of the 57 designation than the existing one between Eagle Pass and Moore (which would have made a better US 96 [II] than the existing one).

I think that would be great, but Houstonians will be mad about US-59 nowhere to be in Houston. I think that is they plan to go rerouting of US-59 , it will be long after I-69 is finished in Texas. Then, maybe it wouldn't hurt them as much as far as confusion goes.

BTW: my iPhone maps app says construction of Victoria from SL 463 to FM 1686 is finished by May 2021.

Most of us who have been here for a while still refer to it as 59. You can tell pretty easily and pretty quickly when somebody is new in town when they refer to it as interstate 69

[bwana39]

This is in response to CoreySamson: US 59 did continue down present-day US 96 between Tenaha and Port Arthur from 1934 (when the route was first designated) to 1939. That year, US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha, and extended to Laredo (replacing the first US 96 between Rosenberg and Laredo). Old 59 between Tenaha and Port Arthur became the new US 96. I think one of two things should have happened instead: 1. Either US 96 should have been extended to Tenaha, leaving US 59 on its pre-existing route to Port Arthur; or 2. When US 59 was rerouted to Laredo, the Tenaha-to-Port-Arthur route should have been designated US 57 instead of US 96. Doing that would have made a better use of the 57 designation than the existing one between Eagle Pass and Moore (which would have made a better US 96 [II] than the existing one).

I think that would be great, but Houstonians will be mad about US-59 nowhere to be in Houston. I think that is they plan to go rerouting of US-59 , it will be long after I-69 is finished in Texas. Then, maybe it wouldn't hurt them as much as far as confusion goes.

BTW: my iPhone maps app says construction of Victoria from SL 463 to FM 1686 is finished by May 2021.

I don't think Houstonians will even notice. It will still be the Southwest and Eastex Freeways regardless what the numbers are.

[Thegeet]

Anyone know what happened to the I-169 shield unveiled in 2016?

[Thegeet]

Update on County Rd interchange in Victoria: they're mostly done with the overpass. There are yellow rails, which will be concreted soon. Afterwards, the road will be ready to pave.

[bwana39]

I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.

It would be more grid compliant, but in Texas this would be highly unlikely. Renumbers or even major reroutes have been almost non-existent in Texas post WWII.  The renumbering that should be on the forefront is US-69. The plan to deal with the conflict in Lufkin is pretty much leave it alone.  It appears that unless someone outside of Texas intervenes, that it will remain and Interstate-69 will cross (and likely still share mileage with)  US-69 in Lufkin.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2527925#msg2527925

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone know what the "eventual" exit number will be when Interstate 69 crosses US 69 around Lufkin?

[Thegeet]

I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.

It would be more grid compliant, but in Texas this would be highly unlikely. Renumbers or even major reroutes have been almost non-existent in Texas post WWII.  The renumbering that should be on the forefront is US-69. The plan to deal with the conflict in Lufkin is pretty much leave it alone.  It appears that unless someone outside of Texas intervenes, that it will remain and Interstate-69 will cross (and likely still share mileage with)  US-69 in Lufkin.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2527925#msg2527925

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645

I think it would have to take a fine or something to force a change, but I don't think we have these laws.

[bwana39]

I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.

It would be more grid compliant, but in Texas this would be highly unlikely. Renumbers or even major reroutes have been almost non-existent in Texas post WWII.  The renumbering that should be on the forefront is US-69. The plan to deal with the conflict in Lufkin is pretty much leave it alone.  It appears that unless someone outside of Texas intervenes, that it will remain and Interstate-69 will cross (and likely still share mileage with)  US-69 in Lufkin.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2527925#msg2527925

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645

I think it would have to take a fine or something to force a change, but I don’t think we have these laws.

Theoretically, AASHTO could refuse to grant its' permission to sign it as interstate 69 until they fix the rule violation.  FHWA could overrule them and allow an exception (or not). The US Congress could mandate overruling AASHTO.   This is assuming that AASHTO doesn't just rubber stamp the waiver.  Don't believe for a moment that AASHTO is a non-political entity. They MAY not subscribe to PARTISAN politics, but there is political wrangling that happens.  Because of this wrangling, approval is as much situational as it is rules based.

Even if they refuse to allow it, it might be a simple wink wink nod nod thing that happens. I-69 takes a break from north of Lufkin to around the mall. In Hunt and Hopkins counties there were grade crossings on interstate 30 until the mid-eighties. Until they put up the "freeway ends" signs at division street in Greenville hardly anyone thought about it.  Then TxDOT came in and built the rest of the overpasses.  So in Lufkin. the FREEWAY (I-69) could end for a couple of miles.

The laws are there, but enforcement is uneven and avoidable if you want to bad enough.....

[debragga]

Does anyone know what the "eventual" exit number will be when Interstate 69 crosses US 69 around Lufkin?

Hopefully it's exit 69

[abqtraveler]

I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.

It would be more grid compliant, but in Texas this would be highly unlikely. Renumbers or even major reroutes have been almost non-existent in Texas post WWII.  The renumbering that should be on the forefront is US-69. The plan to deal with the conflict in Lufkin is pretty much leave it alone.  It appears that unless someone outside of Texas intervenes, that it will remain and Interstate-69 will cross (and likely still share mileage with)  US-69 in Lufkin.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2527925#msg2527925

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645

I think it would have to take a fine or something to force a change, but I don't think we have these laws.

Theoretically, AASHTO could refuse to grant its' permission to sign it as interstate 69 until they fix the rule violation.  FHWA could overrule them and allow an exception (or not). The US Congress could mandate overruling AASHTO.   This is assuming that AASHTO doesn't just rubber stamp the waiver.  Don't believe for a moment that AASHTO is a non-political entity. They MAY not subscribe to PARTISAN politics, but there is political wrangling that happens.  Because of this wrangling, approval is as much situational as it is rules based.

Even if they refuse to allow it, it might be a simple wink wink nod nod thing that happens. I-69 takes a break from north of Lufkin to around the mall. In Hunt and Hopkins counties there were grade crossings on interstate 30 until the mid-eighties. Until they put up the "freeway ends" signs at division street in Greenville hardly anyone thought about it.  Then TxDOT came in and built the rest of the overpasses.  So in Lufkin. the FREEWAY (I-69) could end for a couple of miles.

The laws are there, but enforcement is uneven and avoidable if you want to bad enough.....

There is a lot of precedence on signing completed segments of interstate as interstates, even though they may not connect to other parts of the interstate system. When the interstate highway system was being built, many states built bypasses around towns first, then connected them by upgrading the pre-existing US or state routes to interstate standards. Interstate 40 through New Mexico was not fully completed until the mid-1980s; yet completed but not-yet-connected segments were signed as I-40. In places where I-40 had not been completed, the interstate transitioned into US-66 that was either 2 lanes or 4 lanes in some places, until one hit the next section of freeway. Then I-40 resumed again. All told, it took around 30 years to complete I-40 through New Mexico, so in that time there was plenty of going back and forth between US-66 and I-40 while driving across the state.

[sprjus4]

Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?

In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.

[Thegeet]

Does anyone know what the "eventual" exit number will be when Interstate 69 crosses US 69 around Lufkin?

Hopefully it's exit 69

Imagine such a 69ish vibe. In all seriousness, exit 69 would be within Wharton county, if there is an exit at mile 69. For US 69, the exit would likely be something between 250-269.

[sparker]

Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?

In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.

Since the end of the chargeability era, AASHTO hasn't looked too kindly on "temporary" signage along existing routes.    For the time being, about the only indication that a route is part of a designated Interstate corridor -- even if it connects two disparate signed segments -- are green signs, big or small, clearly stating "Future I-xx Corridor". 

[sprjus4]

Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?

In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.

Since the end of the chargeability era, AASHTO hasn't looked too kindly on "temporary" signage along existing routes.    For the time being, about the only indication that a route is part of a designated Interstate corridor -- even if it connects two disparate signed segments -- are green signs, big or small, clearly stating "Future I-xx Corridor".

I was referring to I-40 across New Mexico.

[abqtraveler]

Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?

In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.

Nope, there were no Temporary I-40 designations for sections of US-66 that connected to the completed sections of I-40.

[vdeane]

Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?

In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.

Since the end of the chargeability era, AASHTO hasn't looked too kindly on "temporary" signage along existing routes.    For the time being, about the only indication that a route is part of a designated Interstate corridor -- even if it connects two disparate signed segments -- are green signs, big or small, clearly stating "Future I-xx Corridor". 

Except in North Carolina, which pervasively posts regular interstate shields that have the word "future" in the top instead of "interstate" as a way to stealth-designate a section that's not up to standards yet.

[sprjus4]

Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?

In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.

Since the end of the chargeability era, AASHTO hasn't looked too kindly on "temporary" signage along existing routes.    For the time being, about the only indication that a route is part of a designated Interstate corridor -- even if it connects two disparate signed segments -- are green signs, big or small, clearly stating "Future I-xx Corridor". 

Except in North Carolina, which pervasively posts regular interstate shields that have the word "future" in the top instead of "interstate" as a way to stealth-designate a section that's not up to standards yet.

It only exists in one place - I-26.

And it's a logical designation to provide continuity for drivers.

[vdeane]

It also means they have no motivation to finish the road, which is probably why I-26 has languished for 20 years.