Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NE2]

I'm guessing that, somewhere along the historical way, the SH 550 corridor replaced the FM 511 corridor as satisfying the statutory I-69 mandate.  Any historical insight into that transition would be appreciated.

SH 550 is (mostly) toll lanes in the middle of FM 511.

[Grzrd]

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html

... ongoing SH 550 work from I-69E/US 77 to the Port of Brownsville .... the SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:

organizers persevered and local luminaries took turns at the podium, buffeted by gale-force winds, praising the completion of the second phase of a project touted as creating a more efficient and safer link for commercial trucks between U.S. 77/83 and the Port of Brownsville.
The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year.

I'm guessing that, somewhere along the historical way, the SH 550 corridor replaced the FM 511 corridor as satisfying the statutory I-69 mandate.  Any historical insight into that transition would be appreciated.

SH 550 is (mostly) toll lanes in the middle of FM 511.

Thanks, NE2! As the toll status implies, Wikipedia confirms that it will be a limited access connector to I-69E:

State Highway 550 (SH 550) is an under construction highway that, when complete, will be a limited access toll route around the northern and eastern edges of Brownsville, Texas, partly replacing and expanding Farm to Market Road 511 (FM 511). It is to provide a new entry point for truck traffic to the Port of Brownsville ....
SH 550 is being constructed on the same routing as FM 511 from its connection with US 77 and US 83 southeastward to Farm to Market Road 3248. Separated travel lanes, intended to be the frontage roads, are the first stage of construction from US 77/83 to Farm to Market Road 3248. Flyover bridges have been constructed at Farm to Market Road 1847 and at two rail crossings. The second stage of construction will build a new divided limited-access highway, which will split from FM 511 at FM 3248 and travel southeast to a new entry point for the Port of Brownsville, and a new crossover bridge at Old Port Isabel Road. The third stage will complete the mainlanes on the Stage one portion, and construct exit ramps directly to and from US 77 and 83 at Olmito. The route is a toll route, but the second and third stages of the route are being funded with $36 million of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ...

I guess this will be a technical exception to the contention that I-69 will not be tolled in Texas.

edit

This TV video report has some footage of the newly opened section of SH 550.

[Grzrd]

As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route

... the Segment Two Committee.  Below is a map included in their report in which they incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):

This article reports that five alternatives are being considered for Houston's I-69 relief route:

According to the Texas Department of Transportation, I-69 will enter the Houston area from the southwest on the current U.S. 59 (Southwest Freeway). It will also leave the area on U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway).
In the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
• Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
• Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
• Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...

I assume the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway study includes the routing suggested by the Segment Two Committee.

[wxfree]

In the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
• Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
• Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
• Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...

I assume the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway study includes the routing suggested by the Segment Two Committee.

That brings up an interesting technicality.  State highways are run by TxDOT.  I read somewhere that RMAs can also operate state highway toll roads, although I haven't found the legal background for that in the statutes.  NTTA and county toll road authority projects are not state highways, although the frontage roads may be state highways.  Obviously, I-69 couldn't run along the frontage roads.  If they wanted to run the interstate along a county toll road, such as the Sam Houston Tollway or the Grand Parkway, a portion of which might be a county toll road, I wonder how that technicality would be worked out.

[Anthony_JK]

As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route

... the Segment Two Committee.  Below is a map included in their report in which they incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):

This article reports that five alternatives are being considered for Houston's I-69 relief route:

According to the Texas Department of Transportation, I-69 will enter the Houston area from the southwest on the current U.S. 59 (Southwest Freeway). It will also leave the area on U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway).
In the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
• Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
• Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
• Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
• Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...

I assume the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway study includes the routing suggested by the Segment Two Committee.

Considering that I-610 was used as the delimiters for the newly designated segments of I-69 rather than the Sam Houston Tollway or the Grand Parkway, I'd assume that I-69 will ultimately run the length of US 59, pending analysis on how to get the middle section to meet full Interstate standards. The "I-69 relief route" is more an offshoot to provide linkage between mainline I-69 to the Port of Houston and points southward.

Most likely scenario??  They complete the Grand Parkway's eastern semicircle and the connector to US 59, and then the entire road gets an I-x-69 loop.

[Perfxion]

Seeing how slow they are at building the grand parkway(over 30 years), I could see I-69 using US59 between 610, but if they want to use a relief route, use the Beltway. Which could end up being a Federal, State, and County road all in one.

[triplemultiplex]

The Grand Parkway will become I-69F.  Guess what the F is for.
 

[Speedway99]

Seeing how slow they are at building the grand parkway(over 30 years), I could see I-69 using US59 between 610, but if they want to use a relief route, use the Beltway. Which could end up being a Federal, State, and County road all in one.

I really think the main I-69 should follow US 59 through Houston, it's about time that gets an interstate designation. Besides, I think the interstates should go through the big cities, and how many times does an interstate make a 200 degree turn on a beltway just to go out of its way to avoid a big city, not counting I-95 and Boston, which was due to NIMBYs. The freeway in Houston is already there, just use it.

[texaskdog]

I think they should go around the cities.  Why push the major traffic into town?

[nolia_boi504]

I think they should go around the cities.  Why push the major traffic into town?

It makes sense to me to have the major highways go through the major cities, as their intent is to connect major cities to each other. People have the freedom to use loops or 3di's to avoid the city center if they wish in order to avoid traffic, but maybe the solution should be to use signs such as "Houston bypass" or "Houston area bypass" to encourage through traffic to get off the main highway and take the loop around.

[Perfxion]

But with the hub and spoke style of Houston highways, what is a bypass of Houston traffic when the city limits could be a full hours drive straight through it.

[rte66man]

But with the hub and spoke style of Houston highways, what is a bypass of Houston traffic when the city limits could be a full hours drive straight through it.

As you well know, there is NO bypass of Houston traffic. It exists on all Houston freeways (and even the Sam Houston in places).

rte66man

[NE2]

As you well know, there is NO bypass of Houston traffic. It exists on all Houston freeways (and even the Sam Houston in places).

I-69 along US 77 and US 79!

[Grzrd]

TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study page:
The page also includes a map of the study area:

This Feb. 26 article (behind paywall) reports that the majority of local respondents to the online survey favor upgrading US 59 over building relief routes

An interesting observation from the above article:

“As we cross the Angelina River, it’s obvious we should stay on the 59 footprint,” said Nacogdoches City Manager Jim Jeffers, a member of the committee. “It’s difficult to compare (the two designs) because we don’t have cost estimates.The longer we stay on the 59 footprint, the quicker the project will be built.”

^ Probably has to do with not having to do as much environmental work for upgrading an existing facility versus building an entirely new one.

The TxDOT I-69 Driven By Texans website has posted a May 7, 2013 Agenda for the US 59 Scoping Study. A comparison of the direct route vs. the relief routes sets up an interesting choice of lower cost/longer environmental review for the relief routes vs. higher cost/shorter environmental review for the direct US 59 route (page 43/43 of pdf):



The comparison indicates that the environmental review process for the relief routes could take up to 3.5 years longer to complete than it would take to complete for the direct route.  The big question is how great the cost differential is between the alternatives.

I think they should go around the cities.  Why push the major traffic into town?

It makes sense to me to have the major highways go through the major cities

It's interesting to compare and contrast a major city like Houston with towns like Lufkin and Nacogdoches. In reading through the Agenda, many comments from Open House attendees indicate that a lot of people want the traffic to flow through their towns in order to keep their businesses profitable.

[Grzrd]

I took a look at the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 and ran across the following cost estimates (pages 13-14/271 of pdf)

This I-69 Funding Program map shows which I-69 projects are funded as of January 24, 2013, including I-69E/US 77 projects in Kenedy County.

[O Tamandua]

I took a look at the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 and ran across the following cost estimates (pages 13-14/271 of pdf)

This I-69 Funding Program map shows which I-69 projects are funded as of January 24, 2013, including I-69E/US 77 projects in Kenedy County.

The late Lewis "Grzrd" would be proud of you...my condolences if you're related (not that it's a bad thing...anything but...he just left us far too early, IMHO, but God's ways aren't my ways though I'm trying).  Seriously, thanks for the info.

[HighwayMaster]

The Grand Parkway will become I-69F.  Guess what the F is for.
 

Or I-69P.

[Speedway99]

The Grand Parkway will become I-69F.  Guess what the F is for.
 

Or I-69P.

P for Parkway. I prefer I-269 or I-469 for the Grand Parkway. I-69 goes through Houston.

[NE2]

I-69 Offshore Rigway.

[The High Plains Traveler]

I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.

[texaskdog]

I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.

or I-69NWO

[Brandon]

I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.

or I-69NWO

I-69SOL.

[rte66man]

I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.

or I-69NWO

I-69SOL.

I-69AWA

[Anthony_JK]

Sounds to me like the Upgrade US 59 option would be the most warranted, but with retaining the Dibold bypass.

[agentsteel53]

I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.

or I-69NWO

now that is a great song.