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 537853 times)

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 02:32:31 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #475 on: July 15, 2013, 06:46:37 PM »

I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C
Logged

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1163
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: November 20, 2019, 08:12:57 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #476 on: July 15, 2013, 06:57:35 PM »

I think that Interstate 69 will have to be completed in Texas before decomissioning will happen. First you will have to have the "getting used to" period in which residents will start associating the new route numbers with the old route numbers. So it may take a while, but those US highways will be decommissioned. I think US 281 will be truncated in George West, US 77 in Victoria and US 59 in Texarkana.

If that's the case, US 59 will be truncated in Page, OK. From that point to Texarkana it's all concurrencies with US 270 and 71, and AHTD does not officially recognize the existence of US 59.
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 383
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 06:03:09 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #477 on: July 15, 2013, 07:17:43 PM »

I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C

Agreed. But seeing how the I-69 Aliance has never considered the section of US 281 from its break from I-37 near Three Rivers to George West for interstate upgrade, I am guessing that section of US 281 will stay. Unless they say screw it and upgrade that section seeing how it is about 20 miles or so.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 12:37:11 PM by ethanhopkin14 »
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13912
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 02:30:02 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #478 on: July 15, 2013, 07:31:18 PM »

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.

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: March 28, 2019, 10:31:40 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #479 on: July 15, 2013, 11:34:40 PM »

Why not George West?

There's a lot of US 281 multiplex with I-37 already. TxDOT could just assign a SH or FM number to the George West-Three Rivers highway, a loop or spur designation to US 281 between 410 and Pleasanton, and leave it at that. US 281 between Pharr and Brownsville is pretty much a local traffic corridor anyway since I-2 (née US 83) is just a few miles north.

I can't see much decommissioning though before the freeways are complete.  US 81 in South Texas lasted quite a while after I-35 was done, for example. US 77 and 281 will probably get truncated, but we're likely stuck with US 83 until I-2 gets extended to Laredo—a partial extension is probably justifiable as far west as Roma today, but beyond there the traffic really isn't present until you hit Webb County.
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 #480 on: July 15, 2013, 11:41:03 PM »

TxDOT is in the process of conducting an interstate development plan for US 281 (and a small piece of US 59)
Quote
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards ...
The Alliance for I-69 Texas
Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation is conducting a study to determine what upgrade improvements will be necessary to bring US 281 up to interstate highway standards along the Interstate 69 Central route.
The study area begins at the intersection of US 59 and Interstate 37 in Live Oak County. It extends west on US 59 to George West and then south on US 281 to the intersection with Interstate 2/US 83 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
Will 281 end in San Antonio or Pleasanton?
Why not George West?
I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C
By seeing how the I-69 Aliance has never considered the section of US 281 from its break from I-37 near Three Rivers to George West for interstate upgrade, I am guessing that section of US 281 will stay.

It's interesting to note that the Alliance for I-69 Texas slightly misreported the US 281 upgrade to I-69C study area by incorrectly indicating that the US 59 to I-37 segment of US 281 is not included in the study area. Here's a snip of the map of the actual TxDOT study area (from the TxDOT link in the top quote):



Assuming the entire TxDOT US 281 study area is upgraded to I-69C, I'm guessing Pleasanton. I also assume that a major question to be addressed by the study is whether an upgrade to the George West to Three Rivers section of US 281 would even be necessary in light of the comparatively short US 59 "I-69" section included in the study. If it is deemed not necessary, then George West.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 11:53:30 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 383
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 06:03:09 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #481 on: July 15, 2013, 11:55:36 PM »

TxDOT is in the process of conducting an interstate development plan for US 281 (and a small piece of US 59)
Quote
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards ...
The Alliance for I-69 Texas
Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation is conducting a study to determine what upgrade improvements will be necessary to bring US 281 up to interstate highway standards along the Interstate 69 Central route.
The study area begins at the intersection of US 59 and Interstate 37 in Live Oak County. It extends west on US 59 to George West and then south on US 281 to the intersection with Interstate 2/US 83 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
Will 281 end in San Antonio or Pleasanton?
Why not George West?
I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C
By seeing how the I-69 Aliance has never considered the section of US 281 from its break from I-37 near Three Rivers to George West for interstate upgrade, I am guessing that section of US 281 will stay.

It's interesting to note that the Alliance for I-69 Texas slightly misreported the US 281 upgrade to I-69C study area by incorrectly indicating that the US 59 to I-37 segment of US 281 is not included in the study area. Here's a snip of the map of the actual TxDOT study area (from the TxDOT link in the top quote):



Assuming the entire TxDOT US 281 study area is upgraded to I-69C, I'm guessing Pleasanton. I also assume that a major question to be addressed by the study is whether an upgrade to the George West to Three Rivers section of US 281 would even be necessary in light of the comparatively short US 59 "I-69" section included in the study. If it is deemed not necessary, then George West.

That makes more sense for through traffic, but interestingly enough, it would make for a weird numbering situation.  I-69C would actually become a spur of I-37.  But don't worry, the suffixes as they are now have already messed things up.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 01:11:39 AM by ethanhopkin14 »
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 383
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 06:03:09 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #482 on: July 16, 2013, 01:16:50 AM »

I think that Interstate 69 will have to be completed in Texas before decomissioning will happen. First you will have to have the "getting used to" period in which residents will start associating the new route numbers with the old route numbers. So it may take a while, but those US highways will be decommissioned. I think US 281 will be truncated in George West, US 77 in Victoria and US 59 in Texarkana.

If that's the case, US 59 will be truncated in Page, OK. From that point to Texarkana it's all concurrencies with US 270 and 71, and AHTD does not officially recognize the existence of US 59.

Don't you mean Heavener, OK?
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13912
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 02:30:02 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #483 on: July 16, 2013, 01:39:15 AM »

That makes more sense for through traffic, but interestingly enough, it would make for a weird numbering situation.  I-69C would actually become a spur of I-37.
US 25E is a spur of I-75, so why not?
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.

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1163
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: November 20, 2019, 08:12:57 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #484 on: July 16, 2013, 07:02:47 AM »

I think that Interstate 69 will have to be completed in Texas before decomissioning will happen. First you will have to have the "getting used to" period in which residents will start associating the new route numbers with the old route numbers. So it may take a while, but those US highways will be decommissioned. I think US 281 will be truncated in George West, US 77 in Victoria and US 59 in Texarkana.

If that's the case, US 59 will be truncated in Page, OK. From that point to Texarkana it's all concurrencies with US 270 and 71, and AHTD does not officially recognize the existence of US 59.

Don't you mean Heavener, OK?

Yeah, that's right, I didn't notice the 270 duplex started there.

If you don't want a 2dus to end at a 3dus, you can snip 59 at Sallisaw and extend 259 up.

Or more simply, you can revert the two standalone sections of 59 south of Sallisaw to a state highway and remove all the 59 duplexes south of Spiro.
Logged

thefro

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 370
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: December 03, 2019, 02:39:56 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #485 on: July 16, 2013, 09:37:30 AM »

I'm curious to find out what they do with US-59 from Victoria to George West once that eventually gets upgraded.  I'm guessing it will end up being I-69W and I-69C will split off of that at George West, but they could make it mainline I-69 or co-sign the whole road as I-69W & I-69C.
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5187
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:56:52 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #486 on: July 16, 2013, 10:10:54 AM »

Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

exit322

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 394
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Massillon, OH
  • Last Login: October 17, 2019, 09:41:08 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #487 on: July 16, 2013, 11:04:07 AM »

Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).

That's correct - though even if they were regular I- numbers, 76, 84, 86, 88 are all duplicated, so I don't think even that would have in theory precluded an I-1, I-2, or I-3 on the mainland.
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 #488 on: July 16, 2013, 11:05:37 AM »

I'm curious to find out what they do with US-59 from Victoria to George West once that eventually gets upgraded.  I'm guessing it will end up being I-69W and I-69C will split off of that at George West, but they could make it mainline I-69 or co-sign the whole road as I-69W & I-69C.

The federal legislation that numerically designates I-69 indicates that Victoria to George West will be I-69. However, this July 15 TV video report reports that it may be I-69W:

Quote
The more than $700 million project will eventually consist of three I-69 legs; East, West and Central as well as US 83 converting to I-2.

The article does not clarify where I-69 would end and I-69W would begin.  If the transition were to be in George West, then George West may be destined for some variant of an I-69/I-69C/I-69W/US 281 interchange.  I'm sure that would create some interesting signage.  :sombrero:
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 11:17:02 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 878
  • Why not?

  • Age: -66
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:43 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #489 on: July 16, 2013, 04:26:34 PM »

Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).

That's correct - though even if they were regular I- numbers, 76, 84, 86, 88 are all duplicated, so I don't think even that would have in theory precluded an I-1, I-2, or I-3 on the mainland.

There's also the fact that I-2 is a spur; I can't imagine a scenario where a hypothetical I-1 or I-3 don't at least start out as spurs.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 04:50:28 PM by Rover_0 »
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: March 28, 2019, 10:31:40 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #490 on: July 16, 2013, 09:40:56 PM »

The federal legislation that numerically designates I-69 indicates that Victoria to George West will be I-69. However, this July 15 TV video report reports that it may be I-69W...

Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18

Unlike with I-69E and I-69C, there is no legal authority requiring, or even allowing, AASHTO or FHWA to designate an "I-69 West" or any variant thereof. It seems to me that legally mainline I-69 would have to go to Laredo, unless ISTEA is modified to designate an "I-69W."

(And, frankly, now that the valley has split the baby on getting the 2di designation, I don't think they'll fuss too much about Laredo getting I-69 instead of I-69W.)

Then again there's a good chance no "I-69W" ever gets built per se. Laredo-Freer-Alice-Corpus is a much greater priority for traffic relief and connectivity than Laredo-Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria, given the finite pot of money available.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10557
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 02:03:36 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #491 on: July 16, 2013, 09:49:38 PM »

I still don't understand why Texas is building three I-69s in the valley.  It seems clear to me that the original law gave a general corridor and the states were to build I-69 in some path within that corridor - not build up every nook and cranny in the corridor as Texas is doing.  I would have just picked whatever would give the most bang for my buck and told the other communities "screw you".
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13912
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 02:30:02 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #492 on: July 16, 2013, 10:00:22 PM »

It seems clear to me that the original law gave a general corridor and the states were to build I-69 in some path within that corridor - not build up every nook and cranny in the corridor as Texas is doing.  I would have just picked whatever would give the most bang for my buck and told the other communities "screw you".
You're right about the original law (ISTEA, 1991), but it was amended by TEA-21 (1998):
Quote
(D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
    (i) include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via U.S. Route 77;
    (ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; and
    (iii) include the Corpus Christi Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
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.

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 #493 on: July 16, 2013, 10:42:28 PM »

You're right about the original law (ISTEA, 1991), but it was amended by TEA-21 (1998):
Quote
(D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
    (ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59

It's interesting that TxDOT's US 281 Planning and Feasibility Study study area does not include US 281 "from the Rio Grande River" to US 83/I-2:

Quote
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards

First, does Google Maps incorrectly show a TX 241/US 281 overlap into Hidalgo, and then presumably to the Rio Grande? Then, have TxDOT et al abandoned efforts to include US 281 "from the Rio Grande River" to US 83/I-2 as part of I-69C?
Logged

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: March 28, 2019, 10:31:40 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #494 on: July 16, 2013, 11:10:56 PM »

First, does Google Maps incorrectly show a TX 241/US 281 overlap into Hidalgo, and then presumably to the Rio Grande?

No, that's correct. US 281 is signed with three legs. Officially I think that's Spur 241, but it's signed as US 281. Even better: like US 83 in the area, it's marked Eastbound and Westbound.

Quote
Then, have TxDOT et al abandoned efforts to include US 281 "from the Rio Grande River" to US 83/I-2 as part of I-69C?

Well, technically US 281 starts in Brownsville near the Rio Grande River.  You could make the argument that I-69E to I-2 fulfills that requirement even if it's not signed as I-69C along there.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 11:13:34 PM by lordsutch »
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 #495 on: July 16, 2013, 11:20:05 PM »

^ Thanks for the info.  Your I-69E to I-2 observation as satisfying the US 281 statutory purpose seems like a practical solution that is roughly analogous to Loop 20 being a practical alternative to US 59 in Laredo. It may have even been part of the justification of including I-2 as part of the I-69 "system". Problem solved.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 11:22:40 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3535
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: November 27, 2019, 04:02:44 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #496 on: July 17, 2013, 07:46:13 AM »

Looking at this I-69 HPC stuff it is very confusing:
Quote
Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan, southwesterly along Interstate Route 69 through Indianapolis, Indiana, through Evansville, Indiana, Memphis, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Shreveport / Bossier Louisiana, to Houston, Texas, and to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69]
Right, that makes sense. Sarnia - Port Huron - Indianapolis - Evansville - Memphis - MS - AR - Shreveport / Bossier - Houston - Lower Rio Grande Valley (unspecific where in that valley) is I-69 and I-69 is the corridor. The bit through AR is a defined future bit of the corridor, but not currently part of the corridor as it isn't I-69.

Then there's more detail, where it goes crazy:
Quote
A. In Michigan, the corridor shall be from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, southwesterly along Interstate Route 94 to the Ambassador Bridge interchange in Detroit, Michigan.
B. In Michigan and Illinois, the corridor shall be from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to Chicago, Illinois.
So I-94 is the route of I-69 between Sarnia and Indianapolis? Chicago wasn't mentioned in the summary above. Nor Windsor...

The language here leaves no room for I-69 to also be the corridor in MI. Really poor writing.
Quote
C. In Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the Corridor shall--
 i. follow the alignment generally identified in the Corridor 18 Special Issues Study Final Report; and
 ii. include a connection between the Corridor east of Wilmar, Arkansas, and west of Monticello, Arkansas, to Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Fine, though does that mean that the I-530 extension is part of I-69?
Quote
In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall-
 i. include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 77; [I-69 East]
I-69 E defined in law from Victoria to the border.
Quote
ii. include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central]
wait a minute. I-69C is legally defined to Victoria, and includes a three-way junction with itself at George West (or does it then, on arriving at I-37 north of Three Rivers take I-37 to US 59?)
Quote
and
 iii. include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
Where's Laredo? Laredo isn't explicitly defined as part of the I-69 corridor 18, and can therefore have whatever number TX DOT, AASHTO and the FHWA choose to give it. Ditto the Texarkana spur, US 83 and TX 44. However, the North-side Highway is part of I-69 (with no legally defined suffix).

And how can the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor also be including FM511? Which is also I-69 with no legally defined suffix.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 07:50:53 AM by english si »
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 #497 on: July 17, 2013, 08:06:10 AM »

The federal legislation that numerically designates I-69 indicates that Victoria to George West will be I-69. However, this July 15 TV video report reports that it may be I-69W...
Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18
Unlike with I-69E and I-69C, there is no legal authority requiring, or even allowing, AASHTO or FHWA to designate an "I-69 West" or any variant thereof. It seems to me that legally mainline I-69 would have to go to Laredo, unless ISTEA is modified to designate an "I-69W."

I agree that a straightforward reading of HPC 20 would require an I-69 designation along the US 59 corridor from Laredo to Houston, etc. (from above FHWA link):

Quote
20.United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]

That said, FHWA has already created possible I-69W "wiggle room" by allowing a common sense Tenaha-to-Texarkana I-369 "spur" exception to the HPC 20 language (and thus avoiding an I-69/I-69 interchange near Tenaha). A somewhat similar argument might be made that "mainline" I-69 ends in either Victoria (where I-69E branches off) or George West (where I-69C branches off), and that the remainder of the US 59 corridor to Laredo is a "third prong spur".  Since the other two prongs are "East" and "Central", the "Laredo prong spur" could be designated "West" without running afoul of the statutory language (looking to the I-369 Texarkana spur as precedent).  It would only make sense to have "West" be part of a system that already includes "East" and "Central".

I don't support such an argument, and I suspect FHWA would not buy it, but I think TxDOT could at least make it with a straight face.

edit

Quote
In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall-
ii. include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central]
wait a minute. I-69C is legally defined to Victoria, and includes a three-way junction with itself at George West (or does it then, on arriving at I-37 north of Three Rivers take I-37 to US 59?)

english si's observation strengthens the case for an I-69W designation.  An argument might go as follows: Since US 59 from Victoria to George West (approximately 80 miles) is statutorily defined as I-69C in HPC 18, and Victoria is also where I-69E begins its US 77 route to Brownsville, then Congress must have intended that "mainline" I-69 end in Victoria where the Central and East prongs branch off. With that in mind, Congress surely did not intend an eighty-mile I-69/I-69C overlap and must have intended that a US 59 western spur would branch off of I-69C at the George West US 59/US 281 junction where I-69C begins its US 281 southward route toward the border.  A natural designation for the US 59 western spur would be "I-69W".


Really poor writing.

Yep.



Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18

Correct orifice?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 03:55:07 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

thefro

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 370
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: December 03, 2019, 02:39:56 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #498 on: July 17, 2013, 09:48:15 AM »

Yeah, I think this is a case of sloppy amendment work more than anything since originally corridors 18 & 20 were seperate.
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5187
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:56:52 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #499 on: July 17, 2013, 10:17:07 AM »

Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).

That's correct - though even if they were regular I- numbers, 76, 84, 86, 88 are all duplicated, so I don't think even that would have in theory precluded an I-1, I-2, or I-3 on the mainland.

There's also the fact that I-2 is a spur; I can't imagine a scenario where a hypothetical I-1 or I-3 don't at least start out as spurs.
I could see that happening too! As CA 1 is an iconic number, I-3 would be a better fit, seeing that the out-of-place highway in GA will most likely never be built.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

 


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.