Home » Public urged to drive I-69 development » Unverified Comments


  • Yes! Let's build roads with public funds and then give them to foreign companies! Do some research on Cintra / Zachary and the Austin toll road scam.

    July 1, 2011 at 10:54 a.m.
  • most people who will be affected by this are not even born yet. People with land, their grandkids will sell it off because they don't want to deal with it. They will want the money more than anything else and if you have the royalities it will be divided by so many kin folk it won't be worth keeping it and then you have the laywers with their hand out protecting your rights. So don't lose any sleep over it

    June 30, 2011 at 10:34 p.m.
  • I agree with Bardstine.

    I'm getting me one of those I-69 signs for sure. Greatest name for a highway ever.

    June 29, 2011 at 7:55 p.m.
  • I visited the TxDOT comment page. They did not want names, address, or anything else. All they wanted was a comment and the name of a town. Makes it simple. That was a lot simpler than with the TTC.

    June 29, 2011 at 5:22 p.m.
  • This roadway is to help move foreign products made in other countries (outsourced) easier to move to the north. Mexico to Canada.
    How does enabling the the exporting of American Jobs become an economic advantage to the people of the area?
    Also, for the people whos land will be grabbed, dont get excited about expensive Interstate frontage, as you can only receive this by a letting process and the exits for fuel and concesions are only allowed under this process. In other words, you cant build a garage or station because the access will be denied from the interstate.

    June 29, 2011 at 3:38 p.m.
  • Jack, talk about not comparing apples to apples. How can you even try to compare the traffic of I-10 west of Houston to anything close to here. The total population of Victoria county doesn't even come close to the number of commuters using I-10 daily. Your arguments are nothing more than anecdotal at best and have no real facts.

    Fact: Some major corporations, both domestic and international, will not consider a site if there is no direct link to an interstate highway.

    Texas is lucky. We have the best roadway system in the US, better than a lot of countries. Unfortunately, you can't tell that from looking at a map. Whip out a map and take a look at the key. You'll see that there is a distinct difference in the way an interstate and a state highway are designated. Plus, most state highways are nothing like 59 between Victoria and Houston, divided 4 lanes.

    I believe that you need to get a better understanding of what an economic development corporation does and how it works. I think your mention of giving people a reason to stop while traveling Hwy 59 or I-69 falls more in line with a Chamber of Commerce or Convention and Visitors Bureau.

    June 29, 2011 at 3:17 p.m.
  • Can VICAD please repost the web address for comments? The linkn appears to be cut off in the box below the map. Thank you.


    June 29, 2011 at 2:38 p.m.
  • Public input on this project is just as important as it was for the Trans Texas Corridor. Victorian's must express their opinions.

    Where do we send our letters of support? Must the letter be via certified letter or email?


    June 29, 2011 at 1:14 p.m.
  • On the flip side, there's a lot of money to be made with I-69 T-shirts, bumper stickers, caps, koozies, etc.!

    June 29, 2011 at 11:10 a.m.
  • I think everyone here is overlooking one of the biggest hidden expenses of the I-69 project...replacement of signage.

    Within a year this will become the most stolen highway sign in the U.S. Every high school kid and collage dorm and frat house will not be compleat without an I-69 sign on the wall. Cost will run into the millions in replacing of signs, DPS monitoring and arresting of sign snatchers, and lost time and gas by drivers who can't find the road.

    This fact alone should be enough to scrap the project. :-)

    June 29, 2011 at 10:12 a.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    June 29, 2011 at 9:02 a.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    June 29, 2011 at 9:01 a.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    June 29, 2011 at 8:52 a.m.
  • US 59 going south from Goliad is a TWO LANE road similar to a Farm-to-Market. It will take enormous construction efforts to make it an Interstate. Do we need it? What's the other route?
    Pat Barnes

    June 29, 2011 at 8:14 a.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    June 29, 2011 at 8:08 a.m.
  • They don't need to be putting all that money for a stupid Highway, spend that money on education instead of short funding our kids.

    June 29, 2011 at 7:57 a.m.
  • This proposed project ends at the Rio Grande River and nobody is willing to say where it goes from there. It also removes vast portions of land from tax roles and has a negative impact on agriculture in Texas.
    I-69 should not be considered until Texas has a secure border with Mexico. We do not need a superhighway for criminals, terrorists, and drug traffic.

    June 29, 2011 at 7:38 a.m.
  • el69runner ... AMEN!!!!!

    You may have left out some "multiple benefits", but I'm laughing too hard to think of them! Great post.

    June 29, 2011 at 4:04 a.m.
  • Any possibility of this plan also rerouting train lines AROUND rather than through Victoria?

    June 28, 2011 at 10:18 p.m.
  • The interstate offers multiple benefits,
    The Bring your Boots to Victoria offers multiple benefits,
    The Caterpillar Project offers multiple benefits,
    The Park Parking spaces offers multiple benefits,
    The Pump house Restaurant offers multiple benefits,
    The Hotel Convention Center offers multiple benefits
    The Water Park offers multiple benefits
    The Down Town Victoria Development Project offers multiple benefits

    Any more multiple benefits I left out...

    June 28, 2011 at 7:08 p.m.
  • Is there any truth to this:


    June 28, 2011 at 5:40 p.m.