News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-69 in TX

Started by Grzrd, October 09, 2010, 01:18:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Finrod

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 30, 2019, 12:15:53 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2019, 11:53:48 AM
I don't know the Interstate number it could receive or if it will ultimately receive an Interstate number. If it was designated as an Interstate another question would arise as to where the Interstate would officially end. Would it bump up North along TX-358 to meet I-37? Or might it follow TX-358 down to North Padre Island?
I could see it just ending at TX-358, but if it were to continue, routing it along TX-358 down to Flour Bluff would be the most beneficial and provide the main corridor through southeastern Corpus Christi with an interstate designation, along with connecting with NAS Corpus Christi.

If it's routed to the south like that, and it was to get an interstate number, what would it get?  It's not long enough for a 2di, and it wouldn't touch I-37 so it wouldn't be eligible to get an x37 number.  Also, odd or even for the first digit?
Internet member since 1987.

Hate speech is a nonsense concept; the truth is hate speech to those that hate the truth.

People who use their free speech to try to silence others' free speech are dangerous fools.


sprjus4

Quote from: Finrod on January 02, 2020, 02:38:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 30, 2019, 12:15:53 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2019, 11:53:48 AM
I don't know the Interstate number it could receive or if it will ultimately receive an Interstate number. If it was designated as an Interstate another question would arise as to where the Interstate would officially end. Would it bump up North along TX-358 to meet I-37? Or might it follow TX-358 down to North Padre Island?
I could see it just ending at TX-358, but if it were to continue, routing it along TX-358 down to Flour Bluff would be the most beneficial and provide the main corridor through southeastern Corpus Christi with an interstate designation, along with connecting with NAS Corpus Christi.

If it's routed to the south like that, and it was to get an interstate number, what would it get?  It's not long enough for a 2di, and it wouldn't touch I-37 so it wouldn't be eligible to get an x37 number.  Also, odd or even for the first digit?
I-x69...

kphoger

Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Scott5114

uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

sparker

^^^^^^^^^
Somehow I don't think I-69N (for Navy/Naval Base) would fly!  But seriously, the chances are that any Interstate route along TX 44, be it a trunk or 3di number, will simply shunt up to I-37 over that short stretch of TX 358.  But if, somehow, local parties get it moved to the southern CC bypass, it would be simple to just declare the short 44-to-37 stretch a "spur" (like spur I-270 at the DC Beltway) and sign the various interchanges "TO I-6 (or x69)" and "TO I-37", which would facilitate movement between the two routes.   

sprjus4

Quote from: sparker on January 02, 2020, 07:05:03 PM
southern CC bypass
The proposed Regional Parkway, or TX-358?

The TX-358 South Padre Island Drive is certainly not a "bypass", it's a major 6-8 lane urban freeway serving the entire eastern half of the city and a tourist road to Padre Island during peak weekends.

sparker

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 02, 2020, 07:20:53 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 02, 2020, 07:05:03 PM
southern CC bypass
The proposed Regional Parkway, or TX-358?

The TX-358 South Padre Island Drive is certainly not a "bypass", it's a major 6-8 lane urban freeway serving the entire eastern half of the city and a tourist road to Padre Island during peak weekends.

I was referring to TX 358, which allows traffic to bypass central Corpus Christi en route to the NAS and the outer islands.   Now whether that bypass function is the primary rationale for the route is pretty moot; it could conceivably be called a long virtual spur of I-37.  Regardless of the semantics here, there would be a lot of possibilities regarding a potential Interstate designation.  Until we all know what TX 44's I-designation will be, speculation belongs more in the fictional realm.  But also it's likely that if such a designation for 358 were contemplated, it probably would have happened as a x37 well before the I-69 system entered the local picture;  spurs have been commissioned with less demonstrated value than this one. 

Bobby5280

I could see TX-358 gaining an Interstate designation from the additional angle of being a major Hurricane Evacuation Route for the Corpus Christi area.

sprjus4

^

Realistically, I could see TX-358 becoming a I-x37 between I-37 and Park Road 22. It certainly has merit, and it appears to fully meet interstate standards. The busiest stretch between Ayers St and Nile Dr is currently having its ramps reversed and being expanded, and more than likely will meet full urban interstate standards.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2020, 11:16:52 AM
I could see TX-358 gaining an Interstate designation from the additional angle of being a major Hurricane Evacuation Route for the Corpus Christi area.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 03, 2020, 04:41:55 PM
^

Realistically, I could see TX-358 becoming a I-x37 between I-37 and Park Road 22. It certainly has merit, and it appears to fully meet interstate standards. The busiest stretch between Ayers St and Nile Dr is currently having its ramps reversed and being expanded, and more than likely will meet full urban interstate standards.


It certainly meets the "defense" criteria for such routes, serving the front gate of a NAS -- in addition to being a recreational access facility.  Hey, if the Fort Drum access road in upstate NY can get I-781 as a designation, a I-137/337/537 shouldn't be out of the question for TX 358.  But TX has a lot of Interstate-grade freeways outside the actual system -- and they don't seem in too much of a hurry to change that status.

sprjus4

Quote from: sparker on January 03, 2020, 06:56:49 PM
and they don't seem in too much of a hurry to change that status.
Unless it's I-69  :bigass:

sparker

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 03, 2020, 07:02:01 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 03, 2020, 06:56:49 PM
and they don't seem in too much of a hurry to change that status.
Unless it's I-69  :bigass:

That is most certainly true -- but I was considering mileage outside of even the I-69 cluster (like TX 288, US 69/96/287 between Beaumont and Port Arthur, etc.) -- that's been around a while. 

sprjus4

Quote from: sparker on January 03, 2020, 07:09:08 PM
but I was considering mileage outside of even the I-69 cluster (like TX 288, US 69/96/287 between Beaumont and Port Arthur, etc.) -- that's been around a while.
Very true. IIRC, parts of the US-69/US-96/US-287 corridor are not up to interstate standards. TX-288 appears to be for the freeway segment.

US-75 can be added to that from Dallas to Oklahoma. Easily could become an I-45 extension.

sparker

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 03, 2020, 07:11:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 03, 2020, 07:09:08 PM
but I was considering mileage outside of even the I-69 cluster (like TX 288, US 69/96/287 between Beaumont and Port Arthur, etc.) -- that's been around a while.
Very true. IIRC, parts of the US-69/US-96/US-287 corridor are not up to interstate standards. TX-288 appears to be for the freeway segment.

US-75 can be added to that from Dallas to Oklahoma. Easily could become an I-45 extension.

I would think that TxDOT would wait until ODOT committed to raising US 69/75 to I-standards at least to the nearest NHS highway interchange (US 70 near Durant) before even considering extending I-45 up US 75.  Then again, they could simply act unilaterally and apply for the designation right to the state line at the Red River crossing, effectively sending ODOT a message imitating the late Ted Knight in Caddyshack:  "Wellllll......we're WAITING!"  :-P

Bobby5280

Such an example has at least a couple or more existing precedents. There's the New York version of I-99 ending at the PA state line. I-41 ends at the Illinois state line.

It does look like ODOT will get US-69/75 improved to Interstate quality at least up to US-70 in Durant. A completed Interstate up to that point would serve the giant WinStar Casino (the biggest in the US) more efficiently and move traffic through that area more safely. It's just too bad the lunkheads farther North in Atoka, Stringtown, etc won't get with the program. But those towns are "graying" fast and not retaining any youth. They'll be ghost towns eventually.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2020, 09:10:26 PM
Such an example has at least a couple or more existing precedents. There's the New York version of I-99 ending at the PA state line. I-41 ends at the Illinois state line.

It does look like ODOT will get US-69/75 improved to Interstate quality at least up to US-70 in Durant. A completed Interstate up to that point would serve the giant WinStar Casino (the biggest in the US) more efficiently and move traffic through that area more safely. It's just too bad the lunkheads farther North in Atoka, Stringtown, etc won't get with the program. But those towns are "graying" fast and not retaining any youth. They'll be ghost towns eventually.

Then, unless the historical objectors start resembling the walking dead, one of the obstacles to upgrading US 69 at least to I-40 if not beyond will be in the rear view mirror.  Then the only thing would be for ODOT to cobble up some funding for the project(s) -- which, considering their recent history, might not occur for some time.   But I suppose miracles can happen....but I for one don't plan to hold my breath! 

-- US 175 --

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2020, 09:10:26 PM
A completed Interstate up to that point would serve the giant WinStar Casino (the biggest in the US) more efficiently and move traffic through that area more safely.

Actually, the Choctaw Casino is the one on US 69-US 75;  while the Winstar is on I-35 (but who's counting?)

Bobby5280

Quote from: US 175Actually, the Choctaw Casino is the one on US 69-US 75;  while the Winstar is on I-35 (but who's counting?)

Uh, yeah, DERP!!! That is correct.:-D Ugh, how embarrassing.:crazy: Still, the Choctaw Casino is a pretty big facility. It's not on the enormous scale of WinStar, but it's still a pretty big attraction to DFW residents.

Quote from: sparkerThen, unless the historical objectors start resembling the walking dead, one of the obstacles to upgrading US 69 at least to I-40 if not beyond will be in the rear view mirror. Then the only thing would be for ODOT to cobble up some funding for the project(s) -- which, considering their recent history, might not occur for some time. But I suppose miracles can happen....but I for one don't plan to hold my breath!

That's the other really difficult thing about a state losing population. The people moving South of the Red River are taking their tax dollars with them. Many of the citizens leaving are younger, more productive people. We've lost a BUNCH of teachers due to the idiots in OKC. The cursory pay raise they passed recently came out of highway funding via the first fuel tax increase in over 25 years. The right-wing jerks still despise teachers as if they're communists or something. They still think they're going to solve the "education issue" by transforming public schools into private, for-profit, fly-by-night "charter schools" that are free to turn class into Sunday School Monday-Friday. Who cares what young, working families can afford for class tuition or making their kids actually competitive in a GLOBAL marketplace?

Anyway, that rant put aside, the aging folks in Stringtown, Atoka, etc may not want some Interstate highway bypassing their towns. But I guarantee they're a lot more scared about the continued exodus of youth from those towns. They're very scared of the idea that the local K-12 school could eventually close. It's a point of debate on how a superhighway bypass can help or harm a small town. But there is no debate about the consequence of the local school closing. That will kill a small town, guaranteed.

rte66man

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2020, 03:36:19 PM
Quote from: sparkerThen, unless the historical objectors start resembling the walking dead, one of the obstacles to upgrading US 69 at least to I-40 if not beyond will be in the rear view mirror. Then the only thing would be for ODOT to cobble up some funding for the project(s) -- which, considering their recent history, might not occur for some time. But I suppose miracles can happen....but I for one don't plan to hold my breath!

That's the other really difficult thing about a state losing population.


Not true. Early estimates for the 2020 census say there has been growth, small but positive.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/oklahoma-population/

When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Bobby5280

#1619
Most of Oklahoma's projected net population gains are happening within the Oklahoma City and Tulsa MSA's. The only notable exceptions to that are Love and Bryan Counties along the Red River. The WinStar and Choctaw Casinos likely have something to do with that population growth in counties that are otherwise fairly low in population.

Most of Oklahoma's rural counties are showing net population losses. It's pretty bad here in the Southwest part of the state. Some counties, like Tillman County may show losses as much as 10% compared to the 2010 Census. Even Comanche County may end up with a net loss of population. Lawton's current estimated population is down to 93,000 -about 5,000 less than a peak reached a few years ago.

Along the US-69/75 corridor the counties North of Durant are showing net losses. Both Atoka and Pittsburg Counties are losing people. The US-69 corridor doesn't move into growing counties until it reaches Wagoner County -and that county is only growing in its Western-most areas, near Tulsa.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2020, 09:35:19 PM
Most of Oklahoma's projected net population gains are happening within the Oklahoma City and Tulsa MSA's. The only notable exceptions to that are Love and Bryan Counties along the Red River. The WinStar and Choctaw Casinos likely have something to do with that population growth in counties that are otherwise fairly low in population.

Most of Oklahoma's rural counties are showing net population losses. It's pretty bad here in the Southwest part of the state. Some counties, like Tillman County may show losses as much as 10% compared to the 2010 Census. Even Comanche County may end up with a net loss of population. Lawton's current estimated population is down to 93,000 -about 5,000 less than a peak reached a few years ago.

Along the US-69/75 corridor the counties North of Durant are showing net losses. Both Atoka and Pittsburg Counties are losing people. The US-69 corridor doesn't move into growing counties until it reaches Wagoner County -and that county is only growing in its Western-most areas, near Tulsa.

That's to be expected; unless some sort of public-sector incentives (tax breaks, nominal-cost services, etc) are applied, the corporations and industries that tend to dominate the hiring arena stay away from smaller communities and metro areas.  And there's the "catch-22":  cities like Muskogee, McAlester, etc. can't raise the $$$ needed to offset those tax breaks, so they aren't being offered on a regular basis, while the metro areas that can financially accommodate incoming businesses do so regularly, which in relatively short order results in growth in housing -- more often than not outward as suburban/exurban -- that generally transcends county or metro lines.  So tracts and the associated commercial development are deployed -- but there's little if any connection to the remainder of whatever rural county in which they're located; both economic and commuter direction are directed toward the main metro area that prompted the development in the first place.  The relative cheapness of the previously rural land is a principal driving factor with housing developers, whose respect for jurisdictional lines only is relevant to them in terms of which politicos to schmooze to get the incentives or terms they want.  In this case, the fact that the US 69 corridor is, distance-wise, closer to the development than central Tulsa is neither here nor there; the development is still considered to be within the greater Tulsa sphere of influence.   

Bobby5280

My point still stands that the US-69 corridor North of Durant to up past Muskogee is losing population. The forces obstructing improvements to the US-69 corridor (residents of Atoka, Stringtown, etc) are not going to live forever. Eventually there will be too few interested parties left to continue the fight to block improvements to US-69.

In all likelihood, if the exodus of youth continues I could see those communities developing a sudden about-face in their attitudes to the US-69 corridor. They could become desperate for anything that could spark economic growth locally. Having an new Interstate, such as an extension of I-45, come through the area would do more to make their towns more visible on a large, national map.

The US-69 corridor is a major trucking route, one even more busy as an Interstate route. McAlester and Muskogee might become more attractive to businesses scouting for distribution center locations if they are along a completed Interstate corridor. Both of those small cities are currently losing population, just like Lawton. It's going to take the addition of good paying jobs, improvements to public schools among other things to attract young working families to those areas or at least retain locals who grow up there. Some of that requires tax dollars to happen. Unfortunately too many in the older set see any taxes as socialism or communism. There are rural towns here where residents have voted against tax measures to help the local school despite the roof at the school leaking and the walls growing black mold. Yet the same no-tax voters get angry when their kids or grandkids move away to the big city. It's hypocrisy.

Residents of many smaller cities and towns just don't realize the uphill battle they're facing at attracting talent. The state can do only so much via tax incentives like mapping out TIF districts in sections of the town. Major employers are just not going to locate there if they feel there is not enough of a workforce there to fill all the job positions.

I think US-69 is eventually going to be converted into a limited access super highway from the Red River to Big Cabin. It's only a question of how many years or decades will pass before then. And then there is also a question as to what form such a finished super highway will take. Will it be a freeway the entire length? Or will it be a mix of long toll roads with short freeway segments (like I-44)?

If the people in Atoka and Stringtown were fighting this battle smarter they might be able to lobby ODOT to convert this corridor into a "free I-45" without toll gates. That would attract more commerce and jobs to the corridor and help prevent those towns from drying up. But if they want to stay the course and let their towns wither, that eventual I-45 (or whatever it is) will bypass their towns in the form of a turnpike with few exits. The only free sections between Durant and Big Cabin will be segments in McAlester and Muskogee.

rte66man

See this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20467.175

for reasons why that won't happen IF the state has to be the driving force for improvements
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

MaxConcrete

#1623
Bids were opened today for 8.29 miles of upgrade southwest of Houston. This is the first section in Wharton County, from the Fort Bend County Line to the north end of the city of Wharton. (Fort Bend county is the first county southwest of Houston, and work is in progress from the Grand Parkway to the Wharton/Fort Bend county line).

The existing facility is mostly 2x2 4-lane divided and generally lacks frontage roads. Frontage roads will be added for most of the length.

The bid works out to $23 million per mile. Looking at the plans, it is 3x3 with 12-foot-wide inner and outer shoulders (122 foot concrete width), built to TxDOT's standard design using a center barrier and no median.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01103201.htm

County:   WHARTON   Let Date:   01/10/20
Type:   UPGRADE TO RURAL FREEWAY   Seq No:   3201
Time:   0 X   Project ID:   NH 2020(496)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   01203201
Length:   0.000   CCSJ:   0089-08-098
Limits:   
From:   FORT BEND C/L   Check:   $100,000
To:   0.83 MILES SOUTH OF SH 60   Misc Cost:   $1222527.00
Estimate   $195,525,805.90   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $191,395,295.32   -2.11%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 2   $198,029,850.12   +1.28%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.
Bidder 3   $205,280,801.49   +4.99%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $210,039,775.48   +7.42%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 5   $230,462,130.37   +17.87%   JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

sprjus4

#1624
Quote from: MaxConcrete on January 10, 2020, 07:08:54 PM
Bids were opened today for 8.29 miles of upgrade southwest of Houston. This is the first section in Wharton County, from the Fort Bend County Line to the north end of the city of Wharton. (Fort Bend county is the first county southwest of Houston, and work is in progress from the Grand Parkway to the Wharton/Fort Bend county line).

The existing facility is mostly 2x2 4-lane divided and generally lacks frontage roads. Frontage roads will be added for most of the length.

The bid works out to $23 million per mile. Looking at the plans, it is 3x3 with 12-foot-wide inner and outer shoulders (122 foot concrete width), built to TxDOT's standard design using a center barrier and no median.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01103201.htm

County:   WHARTON   Let Date:   01/10/20
Type:   UPGRADE TO RURAL FREEWAY   Seq No:   3201
Time:   0 X   Project ID:   NH 2020(496)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   01203201
Length:   0.000   CCSJ:   0089-08-098
Limits:   
From:   FORT BEND C/L   Check:   $100,000
To:   0.83 MILES SOUTH OF SH 60   Misc Cost:   $1222527.00
Estimate   $195,525,805.90   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $191,395,295.32   -2.11%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 2   $198,029,850.12   +1.28%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.
Bidder 3   $205,280,801.49   +4.99%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $210,039,775.48   +7.42%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 5   $230,462,130.37   +17.87%   JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY

Nice to see more work continuing to progress on the Houston <-> Corpus Christi segment. Drove through the current segment down to Kendleton currently under construction this past summer, and work was coming along nicely.

I imagine the next piece will be the 14 mile segment from Wharton to the El Campo bypass, which is currently being upgraded to interstate standards. At some point between Wharton and El Campo, the freeway will reduce from 6 lanes to 4 lanes.

Once this segment to Wharton is completed, about 100 miles of continuous I-69 roadway will be completed from Wharton to Cleveland. An additional 147 mile gap will remain from Wharton to I-37 to be completed in the future, though currently exists as a 75 mph expressway without interruption, with the exception of Refugio and Odem on the southern end.



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.