Interstate 369

[Bobby5280]

In the case of these I-69 segments from Louisiana up to Indiana they're not being designed to serve the regional and long distance functions of the overall highway network. They're being tailored for local interests. Considerations for long distance traffic (and reducing vehicle counts on the overloaded I-40 corridor) are not being factored into the design. The route wouldn't be so crooked otherwise. The route turns into a kind of dead end route serving sparsely or modestly populated zones. You don't really need a full blown Interstate highway for that. There's nothing wrong with securing ROW and then building an upgrade-able route. That can be in the form of a 4 lane expressway with ample property set backs. It could be a Super 2 with or without limited access interchanges, but with room to grow into a full freeway. Or it could be a combination of both.

[sparker]

In the case of these I-69 segments from Louisiana up to Indiana they're not being designed to serve the regional and long distance functions of the overall highway network. They're being tailored for local interests. Considerations for long distance traffic (and reducing vehicle counts on the overloaded I-40 corridor) are not being factored into the design. The route wouldn't be so crooked otherwise. The route turns into a kind of dead end route serving sparsely or modestly populated zones. You don't really need a full blown Interstate highway for that. There's nothing wrong with securing ROW and then building an upgrade-able route. That can be in the form of a 4 lane expressway with ample property set backs. It could be a Super 2 with or without limited access interchanges, but with room to grow into a full freeway. Or it could be a combination of both.

Which is precisely what will happen -- and is happening -- in S Arkansas.  The SIU's of I-69 are, deliberately or inadvertently, tailored for this approach (including the AR 530 segment that is SIU #28 of the corridor definition).  Take care of the local needs first with 2-lane facilities built to Interstate geometrics on full-width ROW, and build out as needed.  Until the Great River bridge is actually a let project, that's all anything north of I-20 will need for the time being.  Seeing that US 278 across AR is merely a re-badged state facility, it's no wonder that even a 2-lane new-terrain expressway will benefit connectivity across that part of the state -- essentially "throwing a bone" to that historically ignored area while putting off the more costly aspects of an Interstate corridor (twinning and structures) until well down the line. 

One thing that has perplexed me about the routing of I-69 in southern Arkansas is why the US 278 corridor was selected over the parallel US 82 about 30 miles south.  Two things come to mind as reasons:  trying not to duplicate the I-20 corridor across LA and ensuring that Monticello, home of a U of A branch campus, was served by the corridor.  But the presence of the aforementioned SIU #28, aka the N-S AR 530 expressway (and presumably future I-530 freeway extension) immediately west of Monticello (at about the same radial distance from the city center as the new I-69/US 278 bypass) means that town and university would be served by a segment of the corridor regardless of the main I-69 trunk's path.   In a more efficient universe, I-69 would merge with I-20 east of Shreveport and multiplex over to Monroe, where it would follow US 165 and then 425 north to US 82; it would meet with the south end of AR 530 somewhere around Hamburg.  From there I-69 could simply follow US 82 east and use that nice new multilane bridge over the Mississippi River into MS (and directly serve Greenville in the process) before turning north along US 61.  Monticello and its university would be served by a N-S corridor directly linking it with the state capital; a shitload of $$ would be saved by obviating new-terrain construction as well as the big new-terrain bridge.  Yeah, El Dorado will no longer be near an Interstate -- but when all is said & done, it'd be much more cost-effective -- and actually stand a chance in hell of being completed in our lifetimes!  Just thinking.................   

[Bobby5280]

Which is precisely what will happen -- and is happening -- in S Arkansas.  The SIU's of I-69 are, deliberately or inadvertently, tailored for this approach (including the AR 530 segment that is SIU #28 of the corridor definition).  Take care of the local needs first with 2-lane facilities built to Interstate geometrics on full-width ROW, and build out as needed.  Until the Great River bridge is actually a let project, that's all anything north of I-20 will need for the time being.

I'm certain if they ever managed getting the Great River Bridge built the traffic counts on upgrade-able Super 2 roads leading to the bridge wouldn't rise to the levels needed to justify adding the second set of lanes, much less all the other pricey features common to Interstate highways. I think most long distance drivers will stay on I-30 and I-40 in droves. They won't shift to I-69 unless something forces them to do so, such as a massive construction project on the existing I-40 bridge over the Mississippi.

One thing that has perplexed me about the routing of I-69 in southern Arkansas is why the US 278 corridor was selected over the parallel US 82 about 30 miles south.

I am more perplexed why the proposed I-69 route was not aimed more directly from Shreveport to Memphis. El Dorado and Warren are along a logical path, but not Monticello and McGehee. It seems obvious the routing choice was made to be South of the confluence with the Arkansas River so only one large bridge crossing would be needed rather than two. But it comes at the cost of pulling the route farther out of the way, rendering it less desirable to drivers who default to using the I-30 and I-40 combo to cross Arkansas to Memphis. If money wasn't an issue it would have been better for I-69 to go directly NE from Warren up to the Helena-West Helena area and cross the Mississippi River there. The route would have skirted much closer to Pine Bluff.

Pulling I-69 even farther South along US-82 would make the route across Arkansas and Mississippi into an even more wasteful, way out of the way route. It would be a giant backward L shape path. The only benefit of diverting the route down there is overlaying I-69 onto a relatively new US-82 bridge over the Mississippi. But that comes at a cost of building many more miles of new terrain Interstate just to get there. That's going to offset much of the cost savings. And that translates into even more miles of driving for people expected to use this road as an alternative to I-30 and I-40 to get to Memphis.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
It wasn't just the projected cost of bridges over both the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers that prompted the location of the Great River bridge, it was the fact that the confluence of the two rivers and much of the land in the "V" north of the Arkansas is federally protected wetlands.  One of the original options when the corridor was being put together in the early '90's was pretty much straight up US 79 via El Dorado and Pine Bluff -- but that was shot down by the Arkansas delegation, which was under intrastate pressure to provide something that would serve the "neglected" southern area of the state.  A 2-corridor solution, the "Dickey Split" which would have used mostly US 79 but shift east across the Mississippi near Helena in order to avoid loading down the existing Memphis-area river crossings, was suggested (it would have supplemented the existing corridor rather than replacing it) but the cost to develop both branches was deemed exorbitant; the AR 530 extension was crafted to replace the Pine Bluff-based branch. 

Pulling I-69 even farther South along US-82 would make the route across Arkansas and Mississippi into an even more wasteful, way out of the way route. It would be a giant backward L shape path. The only benefit of diverting the route down there is overlaying I-69 onto a relatively new US-82 bridge over the Mississippi. But that comes at a cost of building many more miles of new terrain Interstate just to get there. That's going to offset much of the cost savings. And that translates into even more miles of driving for people expected to use this road as an alternative to I-30 and I-40 to get to Memphis.

The concept I mentioned in my last thread post would have cut down the total unconstructed mileage significantly by merging I-69 with I-20 from east of Shreveport to Monroe.  Using a combination of US 165, 425, and 82 north and then east from there would be considerably less than the path via El Dorado, Warren, Monticello, and McGehee; and, of course, also eliminating the LA mileage NE of the I-20 junction near Barksdale.  The only actual additional new-terrain mileage would be an approximately 30-mile southern extension of AR 530 down to the revised I-69 trunk at Hamburg.  The cost savings alone of utilizing the extant US 82 Mississippi River bridge versus a new structure to the north (particularly now that the rail crossing originally proposed for the structure, to be offset by a trackage lease to either UP, CSX, or NS, is no longer a component of the project) renders the project feasible in a shorter term.  In terms of traffic shifting to I-69 rather than the present I-30/40 combination, it's likely that commercial traffic would be the first to make the move, since the congestion points of Little Rock and West Memphis, plus the perpetually crowded stretch of I-40 between those points, would be readily circumvented by using the new route.  General traffic flow will take a bit longer to become acclimated to the new option -- but it'll eventually get there.   

[Bobby5280]

An I-69 multiplex with I-20 to Monroe? While it might save money on new terrain construction costs such a route would create even more of an L-shape than the previously mentioned versions of I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi. The I-20 portion would be pretty straight, but West to East.

Hypothetically, if such a route were built it might possibly attract long haul trucks looking to avoid the I-30 & I-40 corridors on the way to Memphis. But I don't see it attracting other long distance motorists. There wouldn't be any mileage savings. Plus there would be fewer services along the way. I-30 and I-40 in Arkansas might have a lot of traffic, but there is a lot of places to eat, fuel up and sleep along that way.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Most of which are in and around Little Rock (I've stayed there or in NLR quite often!); the concentration of restaurants and lodging is impressive.  But that's the thing about established Interstate corridors -- they do tend to attract enough roadside business to enhance the travel environment.  But if and when the "midsection" of I-69 is completed, it is most likely that the initial usage will be dominated by commercial traffic; there isn't a metro area like LR along that route with an existing selection of travel amenities; those will have to be developed concurrent with or after the facility itself.  In time El Dorado, Monticello, Clarksdale, and the other larger towns along the route will get the smattering of La Quintas, Denny's, Waffle Houses, etc. such as currently found along I-30 and I-40.  If and when that occurs, choosing a Texas-Memphis route might be as simple as determining the lodging location with an available room!  But one of the deciding factors hasn't been mentioned yet -- what will be the toll rate for the Great River Bridge.  If set too high, then it will tend to drive off both commercial and recreational drivers -- and if excessive per-axle rates are applied to trucks, it would prompt route reconsideration regarding those who drive for a living.  The bridge will be costly; attempts to recoup those costs too quickly via tolls would be counterproductive in the long haul.     

[Grzrd]

At the end of January, TxDOT held an Open House for the initial, approximately four-mile segment of Future I-369 (to be initially called SL 390) that will be part of the relief route around Marshall:

The approximately four-mile roadway, designated as SL 390, would be designed to interstate standards and would eventually become part of the US 59 Relief Route and the future I-369 (part of the I-69 system through Texas). The proposed roadway would connect to the existing SL 390 at US 80 to the north and would terminate south of I-20, extending the partial loop around Marshall that currently exists.
The proposed section of SL 390 would include two mainlanes in each direction separated by a grassy median. One-way frontage roads may be constructed on either side of the proposed roadway ....

They provided an alternative direct connection for west-bound I-20 traffic to access Future I-369:

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
Absent the outflung SB>EB/WB>NB ramps as shown above, the 20/369 interchange looks like a standard-issue Texas Stack; quite appropriate, since it'll likely be carrying the bulk of Houston-Shreveport traffic for quite a while -- presuming the likely event that I-369 is prioritized over the mainline I-69 into LA.  Out that far, I would have expected a cloverleaf/CD with a WB>SB flyover added -- but it looks like TXDOT's going all out with this particular project. 

[The Ghostbuster]

I think they should finish more of 69 in Texas (especially the portion where future 69 meets future 369) before they build more of Interstate 369. In the interim, any additional portions of future 369 constructed should be signed solely as US 59. I don't think 369 should have been signposted before the connecting segment of future 69 was constructed.

[sparker]

I think they should finish more of 69 in Texas (especially the portion where future 69 meets future 369) before they build more of Interstate 369. In the interim, any additional portions of future 369 constructed should be signed solely as US 59. I don't think 369 should have been signposted before the connecting segment of future 69 was constructed.

As I (and others) have insinuated over the last few years, it seems that the TX-based I-69 backers and their cohorts at TXDOT don't share that sentiment; instead they consider the combination 69/369 corridor "Job #1" for its value as an effective northeast outlet from Houston and the surrounding "chemical coast" -- something lacking from the time of the original 50's Interstate route layout.   And they're probably at least as cynical as many of us about the prospects for the middle I-69 segment and are hedging their bets with the I-369 "appendage", which at least gets traffic to both I-20 and I-30 -- and which they can develop unilaterally without any input from adjoining states.   And as stated before -- there's a reason the entire corridor was broken up into individual SIU's -- so the more determined jurisdictions can get their sections done according to their own schedules. 

[Bobby5280]

The I-369 corridor is definitely a priority for TX DOT. However, that doesn't mean they're giving segments of I-69 farther South toward Houston a short shrift. The nearer term emphasis is on building bypasses and/or upgrading segments of US-59 to Interstate quality in small cities along the corridor, such as segments of I-69 in Lufkin-Diboll and Nacogdoches. Basically TX DOT has to get ahead of the very messy, anything goes nonsense in many communities along the route that stupidly allow developers to build way too close to the highway ROW. These jerk developers have known the Interstate was coming for many years but choose to build in the way anyway.

Unfortunately the emphasis of getting ahead of developers in towns and small cities along the way comes at the expense of building the longer rural connections of I-69 and I-369.

A lot of planning work has already gone into I-369 in the Marshall area. That is compounded by TX DOT efforts at extending the TX Toll-49 highway from Tyler up across I-20 over the top of Longview and ending at I-369. I'm a little surprised TX DOT intends to build a directional stack interchange with I-20 and I-369. If the same project was taking place in Oklahoma it would almost certainly be built as an old fashioned (and CHEAP) cloverleaf interchange. ODOT couldn't build a stack interchange to save its own life.

I think TX DOT needs to work much harder and much much faster at simply securing the required ROW for I-69 and I-369 and clearing the properties in the way off of the corridor. Texas is seeing unprecedented rapid growth and development. The standard operating procedure process of literally taking decades to build any of this new highway infrastructure simply is not going to work. While TX DOT and others spend years endlessly studying a given corridor segment all sorts of hair-brained, greedy developers are going to continue building all over the land on the proposed corridor. Each year that passes will see more and more homes, businesses hugging up next to US-59, along with lots of driveways spilling traffic directly onto the US-59 main lanes.

It's a Catch-22 situation with these towns. Many of them want the new Interstate coming thru town, along existing US-59 so it doesn't bypass the town on a new terrain alignment. But the town fathers in many of these places have so little discipline at keeping developers in line and keeping their new buildings and driveways off the existing corridor that it all but forces the Interstate on a new terrain alignment.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Yeah, small towns -- and their correspondingly small town budgets -- are often no match for the siren song of development dollars rolling in -- so strip malls get built, motels crowd around interchanges, and invariably a Super Wal-Mart opens next to the bypass, sucking consumer $$ away from the town center.   But the calculus of disrupting town business with an immediately adjacent freeway against all of the above doesn't favor anything but the bypass approach (especially when local residents chime in).  And except for a few chain stores, local businesses are the ones who would piss & moan the most about denial of access to the main drag.  So the circus continues town by town.  And that's the general approach that TXDOT is taking with the US 59/I-69 upgrades north of Houston -- do the most expensive (town bypass) sections first before inflation wreaks havoc, saving the intervening more rural mileage for later.   But being TX, just about any facility save those with frontage roads features full road access via driveways, farm roads (sub-FM variety), ad hoc parking lots carved out next to the roadway, etc.  So either TXDOT has to make provisions for alternate access modes in those locations or simply plan a new-terrain parallel facility (which, IIRC, is what has been planned for the Nacgodoches-Tenaha segment in any instance).  For better or worse, this isn't the '50's or '60's, where eminent domain paperwork was distributed like the local pennysaver -- and folks took their money and hightailed it somewhere else.  Now the paperwork is dominated by impact statements -- both environmental and socioeconomic -- one of the principal reasons actual development proceeds at a glacial pace compared with 50-60 years ago, when such considerations were brushed off or blithefully ignored.  Nevertheless, TX seems to be more proactive than most jurisdictions about making some continuous measure of progress once a corridor concept has been nailed down; so it's likely that, one step at a time, I-69 will make it at least as far north as Tenaha and the I-369 junction in most of our lifetimes.
 

[roadman65]

Is the interchange on US 59 at FM 3129 that was recently constructed there part of the future interstate upgrades?  I see it has full shoulders, but it has no wide median as it uses a jersey barrier (which is only allowed in urban areas) instead.

[abqtraveler]

Is the interchange on US 59 at FM 3129 that was recently constructed there part of the future interstate upgrades?  I see it has full shoulders, but it has no wide median as it uses a jersey barrier (which is only allowed in urban areas) instead.

TxDOT is using a narrow median/Jersey barrier approach to other sections of US-59, 77 and 281 that are currently being converted to I-69 or its branches.  I think the reasoning presented in the I-69 Texas threads page is that it minimizes the amount of additional ROW required to upgrade the routes to interstate standards, while also providing for an interstate-grade facility with adjacent frontage roads that could be expanded without additional land takings should future traffic needs dictate.

[seicer]

Is the interchange on US 59 at FM 3129 that was recently constructed there part of the future interstate upgrades?  I see it has full shoulders, but it has no wide median as it uses a jersey barrier (which is only allowed in urban areas) instead.

Jersey barriers are used quite frequently in rural areas as a median divider - on newer interstates.

[sparker]

Is the interchange on US 59 at FM 3129 that was recently constructed there part of the future interstate upgrades?  I see it has full shoulders, but it has no wide median as it uses a jersey barrier (which is only allowed in urban areas) instead.

Jersey barriers are used quite frequently in rural areas as a median divider - on newer interstates.

More than a few recent corridor plans, both urban/suburban and rural, are predicated upon narrower than previously specified ROW's in order to minimize environmental disruption (not to mention requiring less property acquisition).  The notion that all rural facilities need a median that's a city block wide, while still occasionally part of some plans, is increasingly being questioned -- and subsequently adjusted to local circumstances.   

[MaxConcrete]

More than a few recent corridor plans, both urban/suburban and rural, are predicated upon narrower than previously specified ROW's in order to minimize environmental disruption (not to mention requiring less property acquisition).  The notion that all rural facilities need a median that's a city block wide, while still occasionally part of some plans, is increasingly being questioned -- and subsequently adjusted to local circumstances.   

Texas has generally been an underperformer in terms of rural right-of-way widths and median widths compared to other states. This was especially true for pre-1967 interstates; the last sections of interstates built in Texas are closer to the standards of other states.

As Sparker and others mention, TxDOT is not adhering to the standards used in the latter part of the original interstate program, but is instead mostly eliminating medians and using center concrete barriers. This is less visually pleasing of course, but I don't think TxDOT cares about aesthetics. Of course, medians are rare on Europe's rural freeways. Having driven in many countries, they overwhelmingly have center metal barriers.

I think all these factors come into play
1. TxDOT probably feels that the original medians were intended for future expansion, not for aesthetics
2. Many interstate medians in Texas are already narrow, especially where expansions are needed the most. Many medians are already gone due to expansion, and current expansions in progress eliminate them (e.g. I-45, I-35E, I-10).
3. Wire rope barriers in medians, while less expensive to build, require ongoing maintenance.
4. Mowing medians is more of a hassle than mowing alongside freeways, especially when there are wire rope barriers.
5. In contrast to most other states, TxDOT has no interest in aesthetics or natural foliage in medians.
6. There is no guidance or requirement from FHWA to have medians or maintain natural foliage in medians. (I think this may have been a requirement from the late 1960s until the completion of the original network)
7. Paving over medians eliminates or minimizes right-of-way acquisition needs. Resistance to ROW acquisition is a big problem in urban areas, and can also be a problem in rural areas.
8. Paving over medians can make construction sequencing easier, as all the concrete is adjacent and traffic can temporarily run down the middle as work progresses on one side.
9. Eliminating the median eliminates median drainage issues
10. Median elimination is less expensive due to many of the reasons above, and this is probably the bottom line.

[Bobby5280]

Even a good number of older Interstate highways have lacked medians. When I was a kid I remember being kind of surprised by some of the turnpikes in Pennsylvania. Back then it was just a metal guardrail separating the EB and WB lanes on many stretches of the Penn Turnpike (which carried Interstates like I-70, I-76 and others in the Philly area).

Oklahoma's turnpikes had minimal (and stupidly dangerous) grassy medians. Most of them went away in the mid 1990's, replaced by concrete and Jersey barriers. South of Lawton I-44 still had the nothing little grassy strip until OTA finally put concrete over it, but cheaper cable barriers for the separation. And, yeah, it does seem like they have to make repairs on those pretty frequently.

[dfwmapper]

11. Concrete median barriers completely eliminate crossover crashes, which tend to cause more fatalities than other types of crashes, especially in a state where 75mph rural speed limits are the norm. Cable barriers are better than nothing, but aside from the maintenance issues, they are only marginally effective against semis, and Texas has a lot of semis on the road. Even a fully loaded semi would have a hard time doing any real damage to the 42" constant-slope barrier Texas uses. The permanent installs have each segment secured to its neighbors using rebar and grout, so it's not going anywhere without a huge amount of force being applied.

[roadman65]

Personally I have no issues with jersey walls on freeways.  In fact traveling to PA I got used to them as most interstates have them in the eastern part.  I-78 has it for many miles where overlapped with US 22 as that was a preexisting arterial before PA made it the interstate.  I-83, part of I-80 (where it used to be US 209 & 611), and then recently I-70 from Washington to New Stanton (as that originally had a box girder median),  and even the new part of I-78 between PA 309 and US 22 near Allentown was constructed in late 1989 as that.

To me it saves space and it is safer as many states have begun on wide grassy medians to install metal guard rails or span wire cables as crossovers have become way too frequent.

I just wondered if I was seeing the first of many projects to convert present US 59 into I-369.  That interchange surprised me as I saw it under construction in GSV rather recently from the date too.  I drove it completed in June and had no idea just how new that one was.

Also I take that in Atlanta and Queen City the proposal is to construct I-369 on present US 59 as well?  I noticed that in Sulpher Springs IH 30 is built through the city instead of bypassing it.  I know many states (NY especially) consider in city freeways to divide neighborhoods, but seeing I-30 being on the old US 67 in Sulpher Springs, I am not surprised if Texas don't care about that aspect either.  Even Missouri did it with I-70 in Columbia and some other cities in the state where the freeway was built through and not around them.

I would assume in Marshall, though, that a new freeway either east of the city or west of the city is to be built as I saw most of that city has a narrow right of way with a local street like condition for the US route there. 

[Bobby5280]

I'm not a big fan of cable barriers, but they do have a couple selling points.

It costs about half as much to install a cable barrier as it does a standard concrete Jersey barrier, and even less still than the newer, taller concrete Jersey barriers. A concrete Jersey barrier will prevent vehicles from crossing into the oncoming lanes, but they do little to slow down a vehicle that has lost control.

Here's a personal account from a couple years ago. On the way back to Lawton from Oklahoma City, on a weekend night a few miles North of the Elgin exit, I personally saw a drunk driver in front of me on I-44 drift over into the barrier. When the left side of his car made contact with the barrier it launched his car up on the right two wheels. He drove it like that for a good 2 or 3 seconds before the car came back down on all four wheels. The dude nearly lost control, fish tailing it. But he straightened out the vehicle and then sped the hell out of there. I called 911 on the guy, worried he would collide with someone else before he reached his destination (be it home or another bar).

[rte66man]

Also I take that in Atlanta and Queen City the proposal is to construct I-369 on present US 59 as well?  I noticed that in Sulphur Springs IH 30 is built through the city instead of bypassing it.  I know many states (NY especially) consider in city freeways to divide neighborhoods, but seeing I-30 being on the old US 67 in Sulpher Springs, I am not surprised if Texas don't care about that aspect either.  Even Missouri did it with I-70 in Columbia and some other cities in the state where the freeway was built through and not around them.

Not true. When I30 was built in the early 60's around Sulphur Springs, it bypassed it. In the 50+ years following, the city has migrated out to the highway. US67 used to run east on what is now Bus 67

[motorola870]

Also I take that in Atlanta and Queen City the proposal is to construct I-369 on present US 59 as well?  I noticed that in Sulphur Springs IH 30 is built through the city instead of bypassing it.  I know many states (NY especially) consider in city freeways to divide neighborhoods, but seeing I-30 being on the old US 67 in Sulpher Springs, I am not surprised if Texas don't care about that aspect either.  Even Missouri did it with I-70 in Columbia and some other cities in the state where the freeway was built through and not around them.

Not true. When I30 was built in the early 60's around Sulphur Springs, it bypassed it. In the 50+ years following, the city has migrated out to the highway. US67 used to run east on what is now Bus 67

This is has happened in a lot of the smaller towns along US67 and US287 the towns got bypassed and they exploded on the development on the bypasses. Midlothian, Waxahachie are good examples Midlothian for years had US67 and US287 going right through town. They built the 67 bypass in 1970 that sent 67 around the western side of town that sloped down the uplift that Midlothian was built on and there is evidence it started out as a super 2 at the now business 287 exit on US67 as the north bound bridge has two pillars per support besides the added on merge lane from when they built the stack interchange in the early 2000s for US287 bypass while southbound has three  pillars and the bridge looks several years newer. When U.S. 287 rerouted around town they built the town out to it in the last decade now it is basically towards the center of the city. Waxahachie had a bunch of development towards the bypass after it was built. Honestly these towns that say no to the interstate are failing at finding ways to sell their city as a destination for expansion.

[motorola870]

Is the interchange on US 59 at FM 3129 that was recently constructed there part of the future interstate upgrades?  I see it has full shoulders, but it has no wide median as it uses a jersey barrier (which is only allowed in urban areas) instead.

Jersey barriers are used quite frequently in rural areas as a median divider - on newer interstates.

More than a few recent corridor plans, both urban/suburban and rural, are predicated upon narrower than previously specified ROW's in order to minimize environmental disruption (not to mention requiring less property acquisition).  The notion that all rural facilities need a median that's a city block wide, while still occasionally part of some plans, is increasingly being questioned -- and subsequently adjusted to local circumstances.   

I think one of the best examples of right of way optimization is the Wichita Falls elevated they basically sent the freeway over two city streets to minimize the ROW removal of entire blocks. Yes it is more costly but in the end it was less disruptive and allows people to continue to own property next to the elevated highway. If they need to expand it in the future they can just extend the deck over the frontage road.

[sparker]

Is the interchange on US 59 at FM 3129 that was recently constructed there part of the future interstate upgrades?  I see it has full shoulders, but it has no wide median as it uses a jersey barrier (which is only allowed in urban areas) instead.

Jersey barriers are used quite frequently in rural areas as a median divider - on newer interstates.

More than a few recent corridor plans, both urban/suburban and rural, are predicated upon narrower than previously specified ROW's in order to minimize environmental disruption (not to mention requiring less property acquisition).  The notion that all rural facilities need a median that's a city block wide, while still occasionally part of some plans, is increasingly being questioned -- and subsequently adjusted to local circumstances.   

I think one of the best examples of right of way optimization is the Wichita Falls elevated they basically sent the freeway over two city streets to minimize the ROW removal of entire blocks. Yes it is more costly but in the end it was less disruptive and allows people to continue to own property next to the elevated highway. If they need to expand it in the future they can just extend the deck over the frontage road.

Urban and rural design criteria are completely different creatures.  For the former, considerably more creativity is required if disruption is to be minimized; the Wichita Falls example is a prime illustration.  Obviously the avoidance of having to use eminent domain to secure a freeway path had quite a bit to do with the configuration of that freeway segment.  When it comes to rural design, there's more often than not a bit more latitude as to precisely what will be built; whereas during the initial Interstate days in the '50's and throughout much of the '60's there was either implied public consensus or (except for a few notable and mostly urban situations) lack of organized opposition to the overall project; it was largely "sold" to the public as a matter of national pride ("just look at those nice wide roads will all that greenery down the middle!") or, in a sense, a collective prioritization over any individual (or even local) set of reservations.  Today, everything is required to be taken into consideration, which has resulted in plan relocations, modification, and even truncations in some instances.   Narrower than previously considered medians with barriers (IMO, preferably K-rail or thrie-beam rather than simply cable) are just part of the current calculus which looks at both local environmental impact as well as expense minimization.