AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in TX  (Read 648482 times)

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8743
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 09:24:54 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #725 on: June 19, 2014, 05:50:50 PM »

Will this make US 59 a border-to-border highway once again?

Almost, technically.  Both I-69W and US 59 will stop just a little short of the Mexican border, excluding the World Trade Bridge across the Rio Grande into Mexico, the U.S. Customs facilities on the eastbound lanes, and what appears to be a toll plaza on the westbound and eastbound lanes.  No such technicality at the north end of US 59, AFAIK, with US 59 reaching the Canadian border and continuing north as MB 59 to Victoria Beach.

Since the bridge is limited to commercial traffic, and isn't even open 24/7 (the Sunday afternoon I was there, it closed for the day at 2pm), it made sense to end at least I-69W at the minor at-grade crossing just east of the World Trade Bridge.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2014, 10:34:22 PM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4332
  • Last Login: June 22, 2021, 11:17:20 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #726 on: June 19, 2014, 09:36:43 PM »

Since the bridge is limited to commercial traffic, and isn't even open 24/7 (the Sunday afternoon I was there, it closed for the day at 2pm), it made sense to end at least I-69W at the minor at-grade crossing just east of the World Trade Bridge.

If that bridge is really commercial vehicles only, there seems to be an extreme lack of signage warning non-commercial vehicles of this restriction.
Streetview
Streetview
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8743
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 09:24:54 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #727 on: June 19, 2014, 09:59:39 PM »

Since the bridge is limited to commercial traffic, and isn't even open 24/7 (the Sunday afternoon I was there, it closed for the day at 2pm), it made sense to end at least I-69W at the minor at-grade crossing just east of the World Trade Bridge.

If that bridge is really commercial vehicles only, there seems to be an extreme lack of signage warning non-commercial vehicles of this restriction.

I didn't see any either.  As noted upthread, the restriction might be enforced only eastbound; or if it's enforced westbound, non-commercial vehicles might be turned around at what looks like a toll plaza on the U.S. side (west of the gates closing the bridge when it isn't open, which is where I and the Streetview camera car turned back).
« Last Edit: June 19, 2014, 10:35:47 PM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

wxfree

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1309
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 11:58:02 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #728 on: June 19, 2014, 10:24:04 PM »

According to the City of Laredo web site, that bridge is open only to commercial traffic, and has limited hours.  Two non-commercial bridges are open at all times.  All bridges for commercial traffic have limited hours.  There probably should be signs, but I'd guess that if you want to cross the border, you're expected to know which bridge to use and at what time.
http://www.cityoflaredo.com/bridgesys/bridges.html

One interesting thing is that the toll is higher for a motorcycle than for a car.
http://www.cityoflaredo.com/bridgesys/Fees/BridgeFees2.htm
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8743
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 09:24:54 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #729 on: June 19, 2014, 10:49:46 PM »

According to the City of Laredo web site, that bridge is open only to commercial traffic, and has limited hours.  Two non-commercial bridges are open at all times.  All bridges for commercial traffic have limited hours.  There probably should be signs, but I'd guess that if you want to cross the border, you're expected to know which bridge to use and at what time.
http://www.cityoflaredo.com/bridgesys/bridges.html

Also, the World Trade Bridge (unlike the bridges open to non-commercial traffic) doesn't take cash payment for tolls, only "commercial AVI and prepaid", and tolls are collected in both directions.  So non-commercial traffic might get turned back for inability to pay the toll, never mind the commercial vehicle restriction.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

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 #730 on: June 26, 2014, 07:39:20 PM »

the June 26, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda indicates that the TTC also needs to sign off on I-69W (page 2/17 of pdf)

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article reports that the TTC has given final approval to the 1.4 mile section of I-69W in Laredo:

Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of a key 1.4-mile section of freeway in Laredo as part of the Interstate 69 system.  The Federal Highway Administration approved the designation on June 17 ....
The American Association of State Highway Officials committee that approves the numbering of federal highways voted in April to designate the Laredo highway as Interstate 69 West (I-69W).

edit

Here's the TTC's Minute Order:

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0626/7.pdf



That still leaves the question of what the route from George West to Victoria will be named.  I'm in favor of that being I-69W.

The article indicates that you will get your wish:

Quote
The 69W section will eventually run on US 59 from Laredo to Victoria.



The article also discusses the long-range plan for upgrading former Loop 20/US 59/Future I-69W:

Quote
The TxDOT Laredo District has developed a plan for upgrading Loop 20/US 59 to interstate standard from I-35 to the connection with the rural section of US 59. Phase 1 will included completion of the interchange at I-35 and development of expressway main lanes east to International Blvd., a section which includes the recently completed overpass bridges at McPherson Road.  Phase 2 will include main lanes and interchanges at Shiloh Road, Del Mar Blvd, University Blvd., Jacaman Blvd. and Airport Drive.  None of these projects are currently funded.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2014, 10:20:55 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 #731 on: July 02, 2014, 05:54:45 PM »

Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.
This August 19, 2013 Angelina County map probably qualifies as older info, but it does include two short sections that are "under development to meet interstate standards and funded through construction"

This July 1 article provides an update on the upper short section, the FM 2021 overpass, and reports that is due to be completed by December 2015:

Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation is moving forward this week with the next phase of highway construction at U.S. Highway 59 north and FM 2021 and is urging motorists to be extra careful from Loop 287 north to the Redland area.
Kathi White, TxDOT public information official, said contractors working to build an overpass at the intersection of U.S. 59 and FM 2021 could, as early as today if weather conditions allow, move FM 2021 traffic to the northbound ramp. That will keep traffic on FM 2021 from crossing the high-volume, fast-moving traffic on U.S. 59, she said.
White said excavation work at the intersection for the bridge construction has been hindered by rain, but the project is still six weeks ahead of schedule and due to be completed by December 2015 ...



In regard to the lower short section on the map, TxDOT has an Overview page about the project and a page with links to five January 15, 2014 aerial photos of the project.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 01:03:40 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 #732 on: July 03, 2014, 03:13:57 PM »

This article reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port:
Quote
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett addressed the importance of Interstate 69.
"It's pretty much agreed now that we need to have a bypass around the Houston area," he said. "It needs to go south and east instead of west, so it can support the port."

As recently posted in another thread, the Texas Transportation Commission recently authorized the issuance of a RFQ for the development, design and construction, as well as the potential maintenance of all or part of Segments H, I-1 and I-2 of the SH 99 Grand Parkway as a design-build project.  Given Judge Emmett's comment (he is the Harris County representative on the Segment 2 Committee and the Segment 3 Committee), it is quite possible that most, if not all, of Segments H & I will one day be part of an I-x69 bypass around Houston.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2014, 02:12:40 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 #733 on: July 05, 2014, 04:45:45 PM »

isn't there some controversy over upgrading US 77 in Refugio, where some folk have expressed opposition to a freeway upgrade there??

This June 26 article reports on a June 23 meeting during which I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and TxDOT officials encouraged Refugio officials to become involved in planning for I-69E:

Quote
Whether Refugio gets involved in long-term planning for Interstate 69 will determine what happens in 20 to 40 years.
That was the gist of an I-69 update at City Hall Monday evening, June 23.

Presenting the update, at the request of Refugio County Community Development Foundation executive director Victor Garza, was Judy Hawley, who chairs the State I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and many other statewide transportation boards. Hawley also is a commissioner of the Port of Corpus Christi.
Joining Hawley was Roger Beal, Texas Transportation Department’s advanced project development director, and Christopher Caron, deputy district engineer of the TxDOT Corpus Christi District.
I can’t imagine a community in this day and age in our environment not wanting to be a part of I-69,” Hawley said.
“It’s a growing thriving sustainable economy, and it behooves you to pull I-69 into your plan,” she added.
“But if you prefer to stay the way you are, which is fine, you can. We’re talking about a 20-, 40-, 60-year growth plan. Long-term planning placed in your lap,” she said.
Hawley and Beal agreed that infrastructure was key to a sustainable economy, and getting involved in I-69 planning would ensure the well being of the community.
“It’s one of the few variables you can control,” Hawley said.
For example, Hawley said $32 billion was going on right now in Corpus Christi, including I-69, I-35, deep water ship channel and other freight routes and sources, including rail.
Other examples of cities that were reluctant but then became involved were given. Those included Laredo, Freer, El Campo, Sinton and Marshall, to name some of the examples.
However, early I-69 segment committees left no consensus where Refugio wanted to be in the process.
“We are looking at a relief route for this community,” Beal said.
Hawley said the best action is to get involved in the I-69 process to plan now for the location and infrastructure
....
Refugio County Judge Rene Mascorro noted it was easy to say get involved when it isn’t TxDOT land ....
The term “relief route” really seemed to refer to a bypass exit.
And one such relief route is on the I-69 planning map as a possible solution to Refugio.
That relief route could be close to Refugio, farther east or west of Refugio or completely out of Refugio County. Hence, that is why it is important to become part of the planning process.

Hawley suggested meeting with and getting more information from Corpus Christi District Engineer Lonnie Gregorcyk, who could inform officials who owns the rights of way and what would be the best plan going forward, as well as any financial advice ....
“Just decide you want to move forward. Solving the problems comes later,” Hawley said.
“I-69 is going to happen whether it goes through, around or outside the county,” Garza said.
Beal suggested to plan relief routes through downtown Refugio.
Mascorro said downtown Refugio as it is now would dry up if bypassed ....

Maybe Refugio will evolve into a kinda-sorta I-69 Breezewood.



A snip from this Segment 3 Committee map describes the corridor near Refugio as an "I-69 potential program route" instead of a "committee suggested I-69 route" (page 21/157 of pdf):

« Last Edit: July 06, 2014, 09:13:08 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

dariusb

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 236
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Belton, Tx
  • Last Login: June 11, 2021, 08:42:36 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #734 on: July 07, 2014, 04:38:31 AM »

isn't there some controversy over upgrading US 77 in Refugio, where some folk have expressed opposition to a freeway upgrade there??

This June 26 article reports on a June 23 meeting during which I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and TxDOT officials encouraged Refugio officials to become involved in planning for I-69E:

Quote
Whether Refugio gets involved in long-term planning for Interstate 69 will determine what happens in 20 to 40 years.
That was the gist of an I-69 update at City Hall Monday evening, June 23.

Presenting the update, at the request of Refugio County Community Development Foundation executive director Victor Garza, was Judy Hawley, who chairs the State I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and many other statewide transportation boards. Hawley also is a commissioner of the Port of Corpus Christi.
Joining Hawley was Roger Beal, Texas Transportation Department’s advanced project development director, and Christopher Caron, deputy district engineer of the TxDOT Corpus Christi District.
I can’t imagine a community in this day and age in our environment not wanting to be a part of I-69,” Hawley said.
“It’s a growing thriving sustainable economy, and it behooves you to pull I-69 into your plan,” she added.
“But if you prefer to stay the way you are, which is fine, you can. We’re talking about a 20-, 40-, 60-year growth plan. Long-term planning placed in your lap,” she said.
Hawley and Beal agreed that infrastructure was key to a sustainable economy, and getting involved in I-69 planning would ensure the well being of the community.
“It’s one of the few variables you can control,” Hawley said.
For example, Hawley said $32 billion was going on right now in Corpus Christi, including I-69, I-35, deep water ship channel and other freight routes and sources, including rail.
Other examples of cities that were reluctant but then became involved were given. Those included Laredo, Freer, El Campo, Sinton and Marshall, to name some of the examples.
However, early I-69 segment committees left no consensus where Refugio wanted to be in the process.
“We are looking at a relief route for this community,” Beal said.
Hawley said the best action is to get involved in the I-69 process to plan now for the location and infrastructure
....
Refugio County Judge Rene Mascorro noted it was easy to say get involved when it isn’t TxDOT land ....
The term “relief route” really seemed to refer to a bypass exit.
And one such relief route is on the I-69 planning map as a possible solution to Refugio.
That relief route could be close to Refugio, farther east or west of Refugio or completely out of Refugio County. Hence, that is why it is important to become part of the planning process.

Hawley suggested meeting with and getting more information from Corpus Christi District Engineer Lonnie Gregorcyk, who could inform officials who owns the rights of way and what would be the best plan going forward, as well as any financial advice ....
“Just decide you want to move forward. Solving the problems comes later,” Hawley said.
“I-69 is going to happen whether it goes through, around or outside the county,” Garza said.
Beal suggested to plan relief routes through downtown Refugio.
Mascorro said downtown Refugio as it is now would dry up if bypassed ....

Maybe Refugio will evolve into a kinda-sorta I-69 Breezewood.



A snip from this Segment 3 Committee map describes the corridor near Refugio as an "I-69 potential program route" instead of a "committee suggested I-69 route" (page 21/157 of pdf):



Thank you for the updates. I greatly appreciated it.
Logged
It's a new day for a new beginning.

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 #735 on: July 23, 2014, 05:07:40 PM »

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article ....  also discusses the long-range plan for upgrading former Loop 20/US 59/Future I-69W

A proposed Minute Order on the July 31, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda indicates that the TTC will designate Loop 20 to be concurrent with US 59/ Future I-69W so that local businesses will not have to change their addresses (page 7/14 of pdf; page 7 of document):

Quote
Webb County - Designate State Loop 20 (SL 20) on the state highway system concurrent with US 59 from the entrance to the World Trade Bridge to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in the city of Laredo (MO)
Minute Order 113852 redesignated a portion of SL 20 as US 59 from the entrance of the World Trade Bridge to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in Laredo, which began the process of designating applicable portions of US 59 as part of the I-69 system. However, the minute order did not reference maintaining the LP 20 signage so that addresses would not need to be changed. This minute order corrects that oversight and designates a portion of SL 20 on the state highway system, concurrent with US 59.



Thank you for the updates. I greatly appreciated it.

dariusb, you are welcome.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 05:28:07 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 #736 on: July 23, 2014, 08:37:31 PM »

TxDOT is beginning to conduct public meetings for a Corrigan relief route; the plans do not include frontage roads for the relief route:

Quote
TxDOT is studying alignment alternatives for the US 59 Corrigan Relief Route (future I-69) on a new location. The relief route would be designed to meet interstate standards for possible future designation as I-69, which would alleviate congestion through the Polk County community of Corrigan, as well as increase safety and mobility along the US 59 corridor ....
The new location alignment would be a four-lane access controlled roadway with no frontage roads.

Here is a snip of the map of relief route alternatives:

Logged

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 739
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 11:38:06 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #737 on: July 26, 2014, 05:11:15 PM »

There is a public meeting on 29-July-2014 to collect public feedback on the two remaining alignment options in Nacogdoches, one following the existing west loop and one on a new alignment just west of the west loop. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/072914-display-adver.pdf

New alignment option
http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_new_location_full.jpg

Option using the existing alignment
http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_upgrade_full.jpg

In August 2013 the local guidance committee recommended the US 59 upgrade option, which eliminated nearly all new alignments for the corridor.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/081913_materials.pdf
My preference was for a new alignment bypassing the entire region on either the west of east side, but the locals want to upgrade US 59.

This shows the route in Nacogdoches from the 2013 recommendation. Based on the new map, the southmost of the two options south of Nacogdoches is eliminated.
http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_nacogdoches.jpg

This shows the recommended alignment in Lufkin. The Diboll bypass and a section southeast of Lufkin is the only part on a new alignment. Based on my exposure to the area, the Diboll bypass is by far the most urgent need. A pdf is available at http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf
http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_lufkin.jpg
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 09:30:22 PM by rickmastfan67 »
Logged

rickmastfan67

  • The Invisible One
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2927
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 10:14:38 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #738 on: July 26, 2014, 09:33:00 PM »

MaxConcrete, I had to convert your images to links because all of them were way too tall.  The forum only allows a height of 600px on images, and yours were well over 1000px.

Next time, please resize a copy to a thumbnail size and then link to the bigger versions. ;)  Thanks. :wave:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=992.0

  • Photos and images posted in forum threads should not exceed 800 pixels in width or 600 pixels in height. Everyone is not using the same monitor. To reference larger images, just add a link from the 800x600 sized image to the larger file in question.

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 #739 on: August 11, 2014, 01:50:41 PM »

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

The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an update on current I-69E projects, which includes the following map illustrating the projects:



The update also includes a discussion about the future Driscoll relief route project that will be the last upgrade between I-37 and south of Kingsville:

Quote
DRISCOLL RELIEF ROUTE - A relief route around the town of Driscoll will be built in the future.  It will close a gap in highway upgrades of about six miles and will create a connected freeway from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi south through Kingsville. The relief route will run through open farm fields and cross Petronila Creek on the east side of Driscoll.
Logged

RoadMaster09

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 241
  • Last Login: April 25, 2021, 12:48:18 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #740 on: August 14, 2014, 02:59:17 PM »

I know we are getting back to numbering issues, but given the lack of an otherwise suitable placement, how about I-6 for the 69W route? It is mostly east-west and fits in that place on the grid. 69E should take the 69 mainline, and is 69C really necessary as a freeway? An alternative is 69 mainline on the 69C route, 37 extension of the 69E route (with 37 to Corpus Christi becoming 137).
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2516
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 04:58:47 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #741 on: August 14, 2014, 03:54:37 PM »

The I-69 route numbering scheme, whether one likes suffixes or not, is pretty much set in stone.

While "I-6" would make sense for the Victoria to Laredo segment of I-69W in terms of grid purity the numbering grid itself is all whacked out already with a few congressionally legislated route designations. There's also no rule saying we have to use up all the potential single and two digit route designations between 1 and 99 either. I think its better to use as few of those numbers as possible so they can be used many years or decades later as population centers and transportation corridors change.
Logged

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 397
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: June 15, 2021, 11:19:02 PM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #742 on: August 14, 2014, 05:51:59 PM »

Speaking of Grzrd's last post above, I wonder how the (unique, with its ranch and cattle lane construction) Kenedy County part of this is going?
Logged

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: June 05, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #743 on: August 15, 2014, 11:18:40 AM »

Speaking of Grzrd's last post above, I wonder how the (unique, with its ranch and cattle lane construction) Kenedy County part of this is going?

The only part I've seen was on the aerial part of Google Maps, they've made the turnoff at Sarita (La Parra Ave.) into a grade-separated exit ( http://goo.gl/maps/IlXba ), while, if you try the Street View ( http://goo.gl/maps/4KDDp ), it is only the previous version that shows.
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

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 #744 on: August 15, 2014, 11:56:31 PM »

The Texas Official Travel Map has been updated to show I-2, I-69C, and I-69E:
I-blankblank7 is even better!
where do you see that?
Look where I-2 meets I-69E.

It looks like TxDOT has corrected the map and eliminated the blank shields:



There is not an I-69W shield in Laredo, though.
Logged

nolia_boi504

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 77
  • Location: Houston
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 08:10:07 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #745 on: August 23, 2014, 07:39:27 PM »

When are mile markers and exit numbers supposed to be signed on the completed portions of I-69? How will the south to north increasing numbers get assigned with I-69 E/C/W taking up the southern portion? I assume each leg will be numbered S-N and then I-69 will start from 0 at some point after the separate legs merge.

I looked at I-35 and I-35E/W for comparison and according to google maps the mile markers continued from I-35 coming from Austin through I-35E and onward to the north after merging with I-35W. And then I-35W started from 0 at the split south of DFW.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2014, 07:42:19 PM by nolia_boi504 »
Logged

ARMOURERERIC

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1099
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Morganton NC
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 11:19:07 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #746 on: August 23, 2014, 09:59:44 PM »

I would almost expect the exit numbers on 69 throughout the remainder of Texas to be continuation of 69c
Logged

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 397
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: June 15, 2021, 11:19:02 PM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #747 on: August 23, 2014, 11:31:05 PM »

Speaking of Grzrd's last post above, I wonder how the (unique, with its ranch and cattle lane construction) Kenedy County part of this is going?

The only part I've seen was on the aerial part of Google Maps, they've made the turnoff at Sarita (La Parra Ave.) into a grade-separated exit ( http://goo.gl/maps/IlXba ), while, if you try the Street View ( http://goo.gl/maps/4KDDp ), it is only the previous version that shows.

Thank you, txstateends.  Any other county along this corridor it would be hugely significant that the county seat highway conversion was just about finished (and it still is significant here).
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3447
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 27, 2020, 03:56:45 PM
I-69W Shield Unveiled in Laredo
« Reply #748 on: August 25, 2014, 07:34:07 PM »

Documents now up http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx
Approved if not otherwise stated, details via the document ....
TX I-69W extension (Laredo) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed ....
(bottom quote from AASHTO Numbering Committee Spring '14 Meeting thread)
I find it really interesting that TxDOT sought, and received, FHWA approval to depart from the "I-69" statutory designation in favor of an "I-69W" designation for the Laredo section (pages 3-5/10 of Texas I-69W pdf)

This article reports that the I-69W shield was unveiled today:

« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 07:38:56 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

MikeSantNY78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 124
  • Location: Depew, NY (suburban Buffalo)
  • Last Login: November 15, 2019, 08:58:12 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #749 on: August 26, 2014, 02:45:55 PM »

The I-69 route numbering scheme, whether one likes suffixes or not, is pretty much set in stone.

While "I-6" would make sense for the Victoria to Laredo segment of I-69W in terms of grid purity the numbering grid itself is all whacked out already with a few congressionally legislated route designations. There's also no rule saying we have to use up all the potential single and two digit route designations between 1 and 99 either. I think its better to use as few of those numbers as possible so they can be used many years or decades later as population centers and transportation corridors change.
Which now answers the question: Per Wikipedia, the official split (E and W branches) will occur in Victoria, and C splits from W in George West...
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 02:48:19 PM by MikeSantNY78 »
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.