AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in TX  (Read 528383 times)

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #975 on: April 22, 2015, 11:54:41 AM »

this link to an Alliance for I-69 Texas discussion of the frontage roads:
Quote
An interesting element of the schematic plans included in the EA is the way ranch access is to be accomplished in the 42-mile passage through Kenedy County where there are no public roads crossing US 77. This highway passes through sections of the King Ranch, the Kenedy Ranch and the Armstrong Ranch, all of which span the highway and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad. Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction.
Aren't most/all of the I-69E projects to have it connect to I-37 on the docket already?  A lot of that mileage is the King Ranch in Kenedy county.  I'd probably expect that to be done by 2020, anyway.

Judging by this map, I agree:



If not by 2020, then by not too long thereafter.

edit

TRIP's April, 2015 Texas’ Most Critical Highway Projects to Support Economic Growth and Quality of Life report ranks this section of I-69E as the eighth most needed project (with an estimated cost of approximately $600 million) out of twenty projects in "Other Texas Regions" (DFW and Houston have fifteen ranked projects apiece, and Austin and San Antonio have ten ranked projects apiece):

Quote
8. Upgrade a portion of US 77 in Willacy, Kennedy [sic], Nueces and Kleberg Counties to Interstate standards. This approximately $600 million project would upgrade a 92-mile portion of SH [sic] 77  from I-69 north of Raymondville to I-69 in Robstown to Interstate design standards including lane widths and limited access. These improvements will enhance regional connectivity, relieve congestion, improve regional goods movement and improve safety.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 08:51:24 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #976 on: April 22, 2015, 06:59:16 PM »

TxDOT also has a US 77 Upgrade page with pdfs of the Draft Environmental Assessment.
I find it fascinating how they use off ramps to handle the many ranch "gate crossings" along the route, as well as the strategic cattle crossings they would have. In Louisiana, they probably would have used frontage roads with intermediate interchanges and grade-seperated "crossunders" for that purpose.
the frontage road design is something they use in west Texas a lot.  what about the crossunders - do they have those out there?  I've never noticed.
also, in west Texas, they have the occasional at-grade crossing! 
they could pull an I-10 in west Texas and keep the at-grades. Why were those allowed to be grandfathered there but not here?

It may not be too late for them to keep the at-grades in Kenedy County. This article reports on a recent trip to Washington by Texas representatives urging federal officials to continue and accelerate the ongoing development of Interstate 69.  Included in their wish list is "greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area":

Quote
More than 20 representatives of Texas communities and two members of the Texas Transportation Commission are on Capitol Hill this week urging federal officials to continue and accelerate the ongoing development of Interstate 69.
The Texas delegation is leading a larger group of representatives from states on the I-69 national route including Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana and Michigan ....
Participants provided a state-by-state progress update to the I-69 Congressional Caucus which includes Members of Congress from all of the eight states along the I-69 corridor. During their visit the delegation is also meeting with individual members of Congress and with U.S. Department of Transportation officials ....
The I-69 delegation presented a set of priorities they would like to be considered in a new highway bill. These include protecting gains made in the last bill – called MAP-21 – such as environmental streamlining provisions and increased flexibility for states in how they allocate funding.
They are also seeking expansion of innovative financing options that are now part of the law. Priorities for Texas include providing greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area and the designation of State Highway 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi as a future I-69 system connector.

They may be trying to save some money in Kenedy County.  I suppose greater flexibility would be useful for sections of Future I-69W, too.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 11:01:27 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

Alex

  • Webmaster
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4797
  • Location: Tampa, FL
  • Last Login: Today at 08:46:14 AM
    • AARoads
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #977 on: April 24, 2015, 02:30:11 PM »

Jeff R shared this article with me this morning touting the possibility of an branch of I-69 serving Corpus Christi.

I-69 supporters urge passage of federal highway bill

Quote
They are also seeking expansion of innovative financing options that are now part of the law. Priorities for Texas include providing greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area and the designation of State Highway 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi as a future I-69 system connector.

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1328
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 06:03:59 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #978 on: April 24, 2015, 08:51:11 PM »

Jeff R shared this article with me this morning touting the possibility of an branch of I-69 serving Corpus Christi.

I-69 supporters urge passage of federal highway bill

Quote
They are also seeking expansion of innovative financing options that are now part of the law. Priorities for Texas include providing greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area and the designation of State Highway 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi as a future I-69 system connector.

I-69E already serves Corpus Christi via US 77 and I-37. The SH 44 addition to the I-69 system is to provide a more direct connection between Laredo and Corpus, which would be bypassed originally by I-69W.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #979 on: April 24, 2015, 09:17:02 PM »

Jeff R shared this article with me this morning touting the possibility of an branch of I-69 serving Corpus Christi.
I-69 supporters urge passage of federal highway bill
The SH 44 addition to the I-69 system is to provide a more direct connection between Laredo and Corpus, which would be bypassed originally by I-69W.

This post provides a link to a press release from Congressman Blake Farenthold regarding how Corpus Christi, its port, and airport would benefit from passage of his bill designating SH 44 as Future I-69, a link to the text of the bill, and a link to an April, 2015 report touting the importance of upgrading SH 44 to an interstate between I-69C and I-69E.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2015, 09:22:40 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #980 on: April 26, 2015, 08:51:14 PM »

Do we have an idea of what SIUs are actually under construction or scheduled in Texas?
I'd like to update the Wikipedia article on I-69, which says there's only 2 SIUs under construction nationally now.
This map summarizing the status of Texas I-69 projects is current as of September 1, 2014.

The Alliance for I-69 Texas has updated its Resource Center page to include links to an I-69 System Funding Program as of April 1, 2015 map and an April 22, 2015 Status of Texas Projects by Congressional District presentation.

Also included on the Resource Center page is an April 1, 2015 I-69 National Status map.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #981 on: May 03, 2015, 09:00:16 PM »

This post provides a link to a press release from Congressman Blake Farenthold regarding how Corpus Christi, its port, and airport would benefit from passage of his bill designating SH 44 as Future I-69, a link to the text of the bill, and a link to an April, 2015 report touting the importance of upgrading SH 44 to an interstate between I-69C and I-69E.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has updated its Resource Center page to include links to an I-69 System Funding Program as of April 1, 2015 map

Perhaps reflecting optimism regarding potential passage of the bill designating part of SH 44 as part of the I-69 Corridor, the above-linked I-69 System Funding Program as of April 1, 2015 map includes a Prop 1 SH 44 "Proposed as Potential I-69" overpass project at FM 3386 (McKinzie Road):

« Last Edit: May 03, 2015, 09:52:00 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #982 on: May 06, 2015, 10:21:41 PM »

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html
the SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:
Quote
The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year, according to David Garcia, deputy county administrator and assistant coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority.

This TV video provides a SH 550 update from a Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority spokesperson, who states that the third phase, weather permitting, should be completed in two weeks.  She also refers to SH 550 as "the future I-169".

Since I-169 will not be co-designated with a U.S. highway, I'm wondering whether TxDOT will even submit an application to AASHTO for approval of the designation. I assume that they would only need FHWA approval for the numerical designation.  Something to look for in the next round of AASHTO designations ........
« Last Edit: May 06, 2015, 10:30:51 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5016
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 08:39:49 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #983 on: May 07, 2015, 01:04:09 PM »

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html
the SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:
Quote
The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year, according to David Garcia, deputy county administrator and assistant coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority.

This TV video provides a SH 550 update from a Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority spokesperson, who states that the third phase, weather permitting, should be completed in two weeks.  She also refers to SH 550 as "the future I-169".

Since I-169 will not be co-designated with a U.S. highway, I'm wondering whether TxDOT will even submit an application to AASHTO for approval of the designation. I assume that they would only need FHWA approval for the numerical designation.  Something to look for in the next round of AASHTO designations ........
Well, well, well...another I-x69 coming soon; I'll bet no one is surprised by that.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6066
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 06:40:52 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #984 on: May 07, 2015, 04:04:24 PM »

Shouldn't it be I-169E?
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: July 17, 2019, 10:11:08 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #985 on: May 07, 2015, 08:29:27 PM »

Just make it a stub end of I-2
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8145
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 09:14:07 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #986 on: May 10, 2015, 12:52:43 PM »

Shouldn't it be I-169E?

Not necessarily. The only case of this was Idaho's I-180N. Other 3dis from suffixed routes dropped the suffix letter.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #987 on: June 01, 2015, 10:32:12 AM »

This article reports that SH 550's direct connection with I-69E should be completed in January, 2015; after that, work will begin on a new section to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road, the completion of which will be necessary for an I-169 designation:
Quote
“The next step after that is to work with TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) to design the portion that connects 550 with I-69 East to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road,” Sepulveda said. “That will be designated as Interstate-169. It’ll be about three miles long.”
In all, two more segments of the project have to be finished before the 550 connector can be designated as interstate along its entire length, he said. That construction will start the first quarter of this month.

AASHTO has approved the I-169 designation:

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne,%20WY%20Report/SM%202015%20USRN%20SCOH%20REPORT.pdf



I guess TxDOT wants to install shields on the first 1.5 miles as soon as possible.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2015, 01:10:32 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5016
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 08:39:49 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #988 on: June 01, 2015, 01:13:44 PM »

It was only a matter of time before I-169 would open a new chapter in the madness that is I-69 in TX! But for a state that loves to think big, 1.5 miles doesn't seem to cut it. I'd expect it to reach the port eventually, but this is definitely a start.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2190
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: September 06, 2019, 12:55:16 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #989 on: June 03, 2015, 09:37:24 PM »

Weird that with all the interstate-grade freeways built in Texas in recent decades, they only seem to be pursuing interstate spurs for I-69.
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3512
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: Today at 03:28:15 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #990 on: June 04, 2015, 07:15:31 AM »

TX130 was proposed as I-35E.

The US190 freeway to Killeen was proposed at I-14.

I'm not sure what other ones there are (especially free) that aren't in the I-69 corridor.
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2493
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: September 16, 2019, 12:36:34 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #991 on: June 04, 2015, 08:54:06 AM »

I don't know why I-169 couldn't have been an extension of I-2
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #992 on: June 04, 2015, 06:02:08 PM »

I don't know why I-169 couldn't have been an extension of I-2

I think it could have been an extension of I-2, but the March 23 TxDOT designation application reflects their belief that an I-169 designation was more appropriate because I-169 is SIU 32 of the Congressionally designated I-69 Corridor:



FHWA also approved the I-169 designation on May 14:



It looks like we might have a Texas Transportation Commission formality later this month.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2015, 06:17:16 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: July 17, 2019, 10:11:08 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #993 on: June 04, 2015, 06:58:34 PM »

That really isn't a good argument. I-2 is supposed to be an "I-69 connector" so why can't it include another freeway that's part of the I-69 system? If it must be a 3DI, it should have been I-169E because it has nothing to do with the rest of the spurs.

Weird that with all the interstate-grade freeways built in Texas in recent decades, they only seem to be pursuing interstate spurs for I-69.
Yeah, with a simple upgrade, Loop 289 could easily become I-227. The Abilene loop should have got something, too.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #994 on: June 04, 2015, 08:03:33 PM »

I-2 is supposed to be an "I-69 connector" so why can't it include another freeway that's part of the I-69 system?

The Arkansas I-69 Connector is SIU 28 of the I-69 Corridor and it is destined to be an extension of I-530 (if Arkansas ever builds it to interstate standards).  I don't think FHWA (or AASHTO) would have objected to an I-2 designation for SH 550.  The locals may have preferred a 2di designation, as well.
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8145
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 09:14:07 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #995 on: June 05, 2015, 09:31:40 AM »

That really isn't a good argument. I-2 is supposed to be an "I-69 connector" so why can't it include another freeway that's part of the I-69 system? If it must be a 3DI, it should have been I-169E because it has nothing to do with the rest of the spurs.

Back in the day when letter suffixed interstates were common nationwide, the suffix letter was almost always dropped on the 3dis. This is the case with the sole non-69 suffixed interstate 3di, I-635 in Dallas, which connects to I-35E. I-169 follows the established pattern.
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: July 17, 2019, 10:11:08 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #996 on: June 05, 2015, 11:20:18 AM »

That really isn't a good argument. I-2 is supposed to be an "I-69 connector" so why can't it include another freeway that's part of the I-69 system? If it must be a 3DI, it should have been I-169E because it has nothing to do with the rest of the spurs.

Back in the day when letter suffixed interstates were common nationwide, the suffix letter was almost always dropped on the 3dis. This is the case with the sole non-69 suffixed interstate 3di, I-635 in Dallas, which connects to I-35E. I-169 follows the established pattern.
So? It's a stupid pattern. I-635 should be renumbered or extended to I-35W, because it suggests that it connects with both branches.


iPhone
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3732
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 05:58:48 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #997 on: June 05, 2015, 12:06:56 PM »


So? It's a stupid pattern. I-635 should be renumbered or extended to I-35W, because it suggests that it connects with both branches.

In another thread, I noted that the only suffixed 3di ever was I-180N (from I-80N in Idaho).  Certainly the non-suffixed x80 routes in Philadelphia when I-80S existed didn't suggest a connection with regular I-80 further north, but simply connecting to one of the 80 branches at the time.

Logged
Chris Sampang

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8145
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 09:14:07 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #998 on: June 05, 2015, 09:00:47 PM »

Why is it a stupid pattern?

Good luck fitting 4 digits in an Interstate shield, by the way. 169E might barely fit, but 635E wouldn't. H201 does it but only by horizontally stretching the sign and using Series B. Poor aesthetics of distorted graphics aside, it's much easier to read the wider fonts.
Logged

noelbotevera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2983
  • Now at a Redbox kiosk near you!

  • Age: 15
  • Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
  • Last Login: Today at 01:59:28 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #999 on: June 08, 2015, 03:35:05 PM »

Why is it a stupid pattern?

Good luck fitting 4 digits in an Interstate shield, by the way. 169E might barely fit, but 635E wouldn't. H201 does it but only by horizontally stretching the sign and using Series B. Poor aesthetics of distorted graphics aside, it's much easier to read the wider fonts.
Or just make each reassurance shield be overhead signs with all text  :-D

Yeah, 4 digits is hard, but simply create a 4 digit shield rather than stretching the 3-digit one. Dimensions would be 60x48.
Logged
Doing things that nobody wants to do since 2004.
I was THE youngest forum member from May 14th, 2015 to September 25th, 2016.

I am the second Alex, since I currently use my father's name...

 


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.