Quote from: Grzrd on September 23, 2013, 08:04:43 PM
Quote from: txstateends on September 21, 2013, 09:28:37 PM
why bother covering it, if it's half-undone before they even unveil the sign?
Maybe to hide the "TEXAS" on the shield, as revealed in this unveiled photo from this article (http://www.ktbs.com/story/23508100/expansion-of-i-69-continues-in-texarkana):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5WNXXft.jpg&hash=0987cc3a32ef26609e966316b3f8547495d7208b)
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg248813#msg248813) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on July 21, 2012, 11:24:58 PM
This July 16 video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/Carthage-I-69/-/144844/15567214/-/hat6ha/-/index.html), in addition to having footage of "Future I-69 Corridor" signs, reports (as does this related print report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/I-69-progress/-/144844/15567454/-/o85aimz/-/index.html)), that the immediate focus regarding the Carthage part of the I-69 Spur (slightly north of where mainline I-69 will meet the I-69 Spur in Tenaha (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Carthage,+TX&hl=en&ll=32.056973,-94.289474&spn=0.438787,0.617294&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=51.974572,79.013672&oq=carthage,+tx&hnear=Carthage,+Panola,+Texas&t=h&z=11)) is to try to get $15 million to complete the west loop around Carthage:
Quote
... the I-69 project through Panola County would cost about $35 million. But, for now, the focus is on trying to get about $15 million to complete the west loop around Carthage.
Even though it will take a long time to build the I-69 Spur, it is interesting to see media coverage of future segments outside of Texarkana.
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg163069#msg163069) thread)
Since the I-369 shields are now up in Texarkana, I thought it would be a good time to start an I-369 thread for the occasional bits of information about I-369 outside of Texarkana. This article (http://www.news-journal.com/panola/news/future-of-i--looking-brighter/article_1a68f6e6-1864-5d18-81dc-c6184106714f.html) discusses Future I-369 in Carthage and other communities along the corridor:
Quote
More progress on Interstate 69 has been completed in the past two years than in the entire 20 years the project has been in the works, said Charles Thomas, executive director of the Carthage Improvement Corporation.
"I guess no one took us serious at first," Thomas said.
Thomas, along with County Judge David Anderson, are both members of the I-69 Segment One committee. Segment One includes all the counties in which Highway 59 traverses from Texarkana to Nacogdoches ....
the 115 mile segment of interstate that will connect I-69 in Teneha to I-30 in Texarkana will be built around Carthage and has been named I-369.
"The interstate could take the route of the east loop," Thomas said. "I don't think either side of the loop would require more studies, and the wide right-of-way wouldn't take too much space."
The interstate will split in Tenaha where Thomas said segments will go north to Texarkana and east to Logansport.
"We wanted I-69 to come up to Carthage and then go Highway 79 east, but Logansport had a congressman on the appropriation board," Thomas said.
Thomas said the interstate construction in Carthage should be smooth.
"Our four lane divided loop is basically an interstate without frontage roads," Thomas said. "They will either use the existing loop or build an outside loop. I think they will use the existing loop, there are a few driveways, but that's not hard to fix."
The entire loop is four lanes except for the Southwest segment from U.S. 59 to Highway 315.
"Panola County is so far ahead of most everyone else," Thomas said. "We voted bonds to buy the right-of-ways years ago, and now, only one section of the loop is two lanes, that can be fixed in a few years."
When construction of the interstate is completed, Thomas said Panola Countians will be able to access safer, faster and more convenient roads easier.
"I-69 will only be about 10 miles away," Thomas said. "Then we'll have the interstate coming through Carthage." ....
"They haven't decided which way the interstate will go around Marshall," Thomas said. "People want it to go one way or another, but there is no way it can go through town."
Relief routes have been suggested for existing US Highway 59 through Garrison, Timpson and Tenaha that would widen and upgrade the road, but also include new alignment options around these communities where there is not enough right-of-way to expand the existing road.
Maybe the Carthage Loop will be the first I-369 segment outside of Texarkana.*
edit * However, the Segment One Committee officially listed (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/advisory_committee_report.pdf) the Marshall relief route and the Texarkana West Loop as higher priorities. Two other priorities, (1) the US 59 relief route at Garrison, Timpson and Tenaha, and (2) the US 84 relief route at Tenaha and Joaquin, may involve the I-369/I-69 interchange near Tenaha (page 25/30 of pdf; page 19 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvCFUXy4.jpg&hash=a2883ed7fa7acd07dea404dddc6f53e590ea15ff)
The I-369 shields in Texarkana capped off the first accomplishment of a Segment One I-369-related priority.
Got a really stupid question based on the map. Why is I-369 needed when I-49 will do the exact same thing, not all that far away? Is Shreveport really all that busy and congested?
Quote from: Brandon on October 20, 2013, 10:41:30 AM
Got a really stupid question based on the map. Why is I-369 needed when I-49 will do the exact same thing, not all that far away? Is Shreveport really all that busy and congested?
Probably the same reason why I-69E and I-69C are so close together in SE Texas.
Was there some routing change for I-369, or did I just have it pictured wrong? I had thought it was to be more of a diagonal between Texarkana and I-69, but the map a couple posts up just has it going north-south and even cutting back to the east a bit where it will intersect I-69 - a lot less useful IMHO.
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 20, 2013, 02:11:23 PM
Was there some routing change for I-369, or did I just have it pictured wrong? I had thought it was to be more of a diagonal between Texarkana and I-69, but the map a couple posts up just has it going north-south and even cutting back to the east a bit where it will intersect I-69 - a lot less useful IMHO.
You might be thinking of the map from this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg166484#msg166484):
Quote from: Grzrd on August 06, 2012, 06:18:58 PM
The I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg1_final.pdf) contains an interesting map which ... shows a direct "Committee Suggested I-69 Connecting Route" between Carthage and Nacogdoches as a "Truck Route" (instead of a Relief Route) ... (page 21/155 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVWdNt.png&hash=921f62b57bd046ee3b52463703852412e2f2bc60)
If cost were of no concern, then the "Truck Route" would make a lot of sense. However, if you look at the $4.58 billion cost estimate for Segment One (of which I-369 is a large part) in the map from the OP and compare it to the cost estimates for the other Segments, then it makes sense that they would characterize a new terrain connection from Nacogdoches to Carthage as a "Truck Route".
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 20, 2013, 02:11:23 PM
Was there some routing change for I-369, or did I just have it pictured wrong? I had thought it was to be more of a diagonal between Texarkana and I-69, but the map a couple posts up just has it going north-south and even cutting back to the east a bit where it will intersect I-69 - a lot less useful IMHO.
That's how US 59 currently goes, and is not really out of the way, being only 8 miles longer than the cutoff on SH 315-US 259 (which would be 45 miles of new freeway). Going via Shreveport, on the other hand, adds 20-30 miles, the same increase as the potential I-69 via Terre Haute that everyone bitched about.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3821/10397906274_10cd2657d9_o.jpg)
IMO, 369 isn't needed (at least for now).
It's poorly signed (no overheads, even on I-30) and doesn't really add anything to the route.
Quote from: Grzrd on October 19, 2013, 10:41:06 AM
Maybe the Carthage Loop will be the first I-369 segment outside of Texarkana.*
edit * However, the Segment One Committee officially listed (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/advisory_committee_report.pdf) the Marshall relief route and the Texarkana West Loop as higher priorities ... (page 25/30 of pdf; page 19 of document)
TxDOT has posted The I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Route Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/i369_us59.htm) page that will essentially study whether to upgrade the existing US 59 through Marshall or to build a relief route, with the study anticipated to be completed in "late fall 2014":
Quote
The I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Route Study will, with substantial citizen and community participation, determine options for development of I-369 in the Marshall area, with the eventual goal of constructing, designating and signing US 59 as I-369.
The study includes two broad options for consideration:
Upgrade of existing US 59 through Marshall to an interstate highway (I-369), or
Construction of I-369/US 59 on a new location and conversion of existing US 59 through Marshall to Business 59.
Ultimately, this route study and the working group's efforts will result in the identification of an interstate route option that will then be studied in detail as part of the environmental process. The route study is anticipated to be completed in late fall 2014.
Quote from: US71 on November 18, 2013, 10:13:52 AM
IMO, 369 isn't needed (at least for now).
It's poorly signed (no overheads, even on I-30) and doesn't really add anything to the route.
We'll suspect that this will be the case until the Houston-Shreveport link is completed in the far-off future.
I-369 at Carthage, TX would need a lot of upgrading: most of the intersections are at-grade (except at 59 North & South and 79 East (North) & West (south). There is a new Wal-Mart (approx 2 y/o) that directly connects to Loop 436 just before US 79.
Apologies for the bad photo (driving into the sun), but I-369 is now posted on the BGS's along I-30 in Texarkana, TX:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8fhGuM6.jpg&hash=8e662f40e0d3a8a66269bc7631eaab38653a6a9a)
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 25, 2014, 07:02:49 AM
Apologies for the bad photo (driving into the sun), but I-369 is now posted on the BGS's along I-30 in Texarkana, TX:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8fhGuM6.jpg&hash=8e662f40e0d3a8a66269bc7631eaab38653a6a9a)
Is this Eastbound? I know Westbound doesn't have a "TO 71" overhead...or didn't when I was down there last.
^ Yep, this is eastbound. I do wonder if I-49 would eventually be added to that BGS when it is eventually signed?
It is interesting, though (I hate to sound nitpicky, because I AM glad to see a new sign), that US 71 is chosen with Shreveport. I think having Shreveport there is appropriate seeing that the I-49 connection is another 7-8 miles away on EB I-30 and this is the quickest route to Shreveport and points south. But you wouldn't take US 71 once you get to the southern part of the Texarkana loop, you would take AR 549. It's one of those cases where the state highway is the better and faster way to go than the US highway. Either way, the shield over Shreveport can be covered with "TO I-49" shield when that day comes.
I was totally unaware that they had come up with a number for this route and am very surprised to see that signs for this route are posted. Honestly when I clicked on this page I was thinking it was going to discuss I-369 in Kentucky and I was going to hear about the crazy Owensboro mayor.
Quote from: US 41 on February 25, 2014, 07:57:30 PM
I was totally unaware that they had come up with a number for this route and am very surprised to see that signs for this route are posted. Honestly when I clicked on this page I was thinking it was going to discuss I-369 in Kentucky and I was going to hear about the crazy Owensboro mayor.
Texas moves fast with their 69 business.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 06, 2012, 06:18:58 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVWdNt.png&hash=921f62b57bd046ee3b52463703852412e2f2bc60)
Note how current I-369 won't be I-369 in the future, thanks to the loop around Texarkana.
If you are going to have it as an interstate, call it, and loop 151, an x30 or an x49, where x is even!
The entire Texarkana loop from I-30 in Texas to I-30 in Arkansas should be an even x30 (I-230 would work). It should be duplexed with both I-49 in Arkansas and US 59 in Texas. I-369 could either end at I-230 or there could be a 230/369/59 triplex between I-30 and the US 59 split.
At least Arkansas renumbered its segment of the bypass from I-49 to the state line to 151 to sort of match Texas' Loop 151.
Quote from: bugo on February 27, 2014, 10:53:59 PM
The entire Texarkana loop from I-30 in Texas to I-30 in Arkansas should be an even x30 (I-230 would work). It should be duplexed with both I-49 in Arkansas and US 59 in Texas. I-369 could either end at I-230 or there could be a 230/369/59 triplex between I-30 and the US 59 split.
At least Arkansas renumbered its segment of the bypass from I-49 to the state line to 151 to sort of match Texas' Loop 151.
Can't be done due to FHWA/AASHTO protocols. Best to make it an I-x30 between Future I-49 and I-30.
In fact, given that I-369 will probably have to be removed from that segment anyway if the West Texarkana Loop is built since a loop further out will probably have to be constructed to adequately hook it with I-49 north of Texarkana, it may be better to simply keep it as TX/AR 151 for the time being, and save the I-369 shields for later. I know...too late, right?
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 28, 2014, 01:24:16 PM
Quote from: bugo on February 27, 2014, 10:53:59 PM
The entire Texarkana loop from I-30 in Texas to I-30 in Arkansas should be an even x30 (I-230 would work). It should be duplexed with both I-49 in Arkansas and US 59 in Texas. I-369 could either end at I-230 or there could be a 230/369/59 triplex between I-30 and the US 59 split.
At least Arkansas renumbered its segment of the bypass from I-49 to the state line to 151 to sort of match Texas' Loop 151.
Can't be done due to FHWA/AASHTO protocols. Best to make it an I-x30 between Future I-49 and I-30.
Why can't it be done? I know of no FHWA/AASHTO rule that says that two interstates can't be duplexed.
If nothing else, make the entire loop AR/TX 151. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be better than a loop having 5 different numbers.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 28, 2014, 01:24:16 PM
Quote from: bugo on February 27, 2014, 10:53:59 PM
The entire Texarkana loop from I-30 in Texas to I-30 in Arkansas should be an even x30 (I-230 would work). It should be duplexed with both I-49 in Arkansas and US 59 in Texas. I-369 could either end at I-230 or there could be a 230/369/59 triplex between I-30 and the US 59 split.
At least Arkansas renumbered its segment of the bypass from I-49 to the state line to 151 to sort of match Texas' Loop 151.
Can't be done due to FHWA/AASHTO protocols. Best to make it an I-x30 between Future I-49 and I-30.
I-840.
Quote from: NE2 on February 28, 2014, 03:52:04 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 28, 2014, 01:24:16 PM
Quote from: bugo on February 27, 2014, 10:53:59 PM
The entire Texarkana loop from I-30 in Texas to I-30 in Arkansas should be an even x30 (I-230 would work). It should be duplexed with both I-49 in Arkansas and US 59 in Texas. I-369 could either end at I-230 or there could be a 230/369/59 triplex between I-30 and the US 59 split.
At least Arkansas renumbered its segment of the bypass from I-49 to the state line to 151 to sort of match Texas' Loop 151.
Can't be done due to FHWA/AASHTO protocols. Best to make it an I-x30 between Future I-49 and I-30.
I-840, dummy.
Multiplexed to Nashville?
Overlaps I-73 and I-785.
Quote from: NE2 on February 28, 2014, 07:19:38 PM
Overlaps I-73 and I-785.
Okay, so then the word "dummy" was uncalled for. Got it.
*admin hat* Please don't throw in epithets, however true or even funny you may believe them to be.
Quote from: Alps on February 28, 2014, 07:35:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 28, 2014, 07:19:38 PM
Overlaps I-73 and I-785.
Okay, so then the word "dummy" was uncalled for. Got it.
*admin hat* Please don't throw in epithets, however true or even funny you may believe them to be.
"Dummy" is not an epithet. Considering the language you use in the chatroom, you shouldn't get upset at "dummy".
Quote from: bugo on February 28, 2014, 08:11:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 28, 2014, 07:35:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 28, 2014, 07:19:38 PM
Overlaps I-73 and I-785.
Okay, so then the word "dummy" was uncalled for. Got it.
*admin hat* Please don't throw in epithets, however true or even funny you may believe them to be.
"Dummy" is not an epithet. Considering the language you use in the chatroom, you shouldn't get upset at "dummy".
The chatroom is a different animal than the forum. We try to avoid name-calling in the forum. And even in the chatroom, I'd say we try to limit it to what we all feel comfortable with. We want to be inclusive.
Quote from: bugo on February 28, 2014, 08:11:21 PM
"Dummy" is not an epithet. Considering the language you use in the chatroom, you shouldn't get upset at "dummy".
Dummy is a noun, no? As in a ventriloquest's dummy (like Achmed the Dead Terrorist)?
I should have said "I-840, person making a false statement authoritatively". But then he'd be Kettle.
That I-369 is too long for a spur. Should be I-45 extension and have it end at I-49 north of Texarkana. But again, I forgot the routes like I-476 in PA and I-395 in CT/MA. oh well.
Quote from: Alps on February 28, 2014, 08:17:29 PM
Quote from: bugo on February 28, 2014, 08:11:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 28, 2014, 07:35:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 28, 2014, 07:19:38 PM
Overlaps I-73 and I-785.
Okay, so then the word "dummy" was uncalled for. Got it.
*admin hat* Please don't throw in epithets, however true or even funny you may believe them to be.
"Dummy" is not an epithet. Considering the language you use in the chatroom, you shouldn't get upset at "dummy".
The chatroom is a different animal than the forum. We try to avoid name-calling in the forum. And even in the chatroom, I'd say we try to limit it to what we all feel comfortable with. We want to be inclusive.
But "dummy"? Seriously? Would you ban me if I said you were a "big poopy head" or a "real mean
Quote from: Grzrd on February 24, 2014, 03:06:07 PM
TxDOT has posted The I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Route Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/i369_us59.htm) page that will essentially study whether to upgrade the existing US 59 through Marshall or to build a relief route, with the study anticipated to be completed in "late fall 2014"
This Feb. 25 article (http://www.cbs19.tv/story/24822651/working-group-organized-to-study-i-369-in-the-marshall-area) reports that a working group of local citizens had its first meeting on Feb. 25 to study a possible I-369 route though Marshall and Harrison County:
Quote
A working group of local citizens, led by Harrison County Judge Hugh Taylor, met for the first time Tuesday to begin a study on the possible future route of Interstate 369 in the Marshall area ....
"I-69 and I-369 will follow the current US 59 footprint through Texas, but relief routes are needed around many of the towns US 59 passes through in order to prevent the loss or relocation of many homes and businesses in the towns," Judge Taylor said. "The purpose of this study group is to determine the best route for the highway to pass through Harrison County and, particularly, around the city of Marshall."
The group will be looking at the future transportation needs of the area and routes with the least amount of impact to citizens and businesses. They will also actively seek public input from local citizens, business owners and elected officials concerning possible routes.
"Having ready access to good and efficient transportation systems are vital to business and industry anywhere. Being at a crossroads of two interstate highways through this area can bring lots of businesses and jobs to the area. If new routes are needed for these highways, then we need to know the best location for them and have a say so in where they are located," Judge Taylor said.
Still doesn't make sense to overlap a route over another route just to terminate it at a third route while the second route continues. The less concurrencies, the better.
Also I-41.
Quote from: Grzrd on March 01, 2014, 10:47:18 PM
This Feb. 25 article (http://www.cbs19.tv/story/24822651/working-group-organized-to-study-i-369-in-the-marshall-area) reports that a working group of local citizens had its first meeting on Feb. 25 to study a possible I-369 route though Marshall and Harrison County
This article (http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/planning-begins/article_3e1a15e0-4f8b-5fee-93d5-85ee4c44f03d.html) reports on a meeting of the I-369/I-69 System Harrison County-Marshall Study Group, notes that the I-369 study is being conducted concurrently with the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html), and suggests that a new alignment for I-20 around Marshall is also on the table:
Quote
The I-369/I-69 System Harrison County-Marshall Study Group, comprised of 15 local citizens and elected officials, held its first meeting to begin a study on the possible future route of Interstate 369 through Harrison County.
"The purpose of this study group is to determine the best route for the highway to pass through Harrison County, and, particularly, around the city of Marshall," said Harrison County Judge Hugh Taylor, chair of the study group ....
Taylor, who is also involved in the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, said the timeline of the study will parallel with that of the I-20 study.
"It dovetails together because you just can't do one without the other, under the circumstances," said Taylor.
"In order to have a correlated transportation model that would affect us for the rest of the century, we've got to get up to speed with I-69 here in the county, and we hope to finalize our concept and our plan by December 2014, much like the I-20 advisory committee," he added
Tracy Hill, consultant and facilitator of the meeting ....
Hill explained that Interstate spur routes connecting with a main Interstate route at one end are required to carry a three-digit Interstate number that begins with an odd number followed by the number of the main route. And once the remaining sections of U.S. 59 between Tenaha and I-30 are upgraded to meet Interstate standards and are connected to or planned to connect to the existing Interstate system by July 2037, they would also be designated as I-369, he said ....
"Being at a crossroads of two interstate highways through this area can bring lots of businesses and jobs to the area," said Taylor. "If new routes are needed for these highways, then we need to know the best location for them and have a say so in where they are located."
Why is there a new alignment needed for I-20?
Quote from: codyg1985 on March 11, 2014, 12:06:14 PM
Why is there a new alignment needed for I-20?
Looking at the fact sheet on the web site, the I-20 study is focused on getting local input for needed improvements in the corridor. Improvements could include new frontage roads, additional main lanes, safety improvements and median barriers. There is one mention of study of possible "Alternate routes", which could mean many things.
Reading the article at the link in the previous post by Grzd, I don't interpret anything in that article as suggesting a new alignment for I-20 is on the table. Obviously there would be an interchange between I-20 and I-369, which would likely necessitate improvements and new lanes on adjacent sections of I-20.
In my view, I-20 will need six continuous main lanes for most or all of its full length through east Texas at some point in the future.
Quote from: O Tamandua on June 13, 2014, 12:35:31 AM
reading about this article on how engineers, meeting with the public at Marshall, TX (the largest city on I-369 not named "Texarkana"), presented three different routes the other day:
http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/best-roads-highway-development-group-considers-options-at-meeting/article_ba1d78b1-c583-5a13-ba42-5b6f4f0270bb.html
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg305780#msg305780) thread)
The Marshall Working Group's June 10, 2014 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/harrison-marshall/061014-agenda.pdf) includes a map showing the three "better performing options" on the eastern side of Marshall in green and the remaining "poorer performing options" in red (page 11/46 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDHqEhit.jpg&hash=667997f904641da2648fcfdb824edaa495c3789a)
Apparently, there'd be opposition to the west of Marshall because it's more built-up than to the east, but I may be wrong.
Quote from: Henry on June 25, 2014, 02:23:35 PM
Apparently, there'd be opposition to the west of Marshall because it's more built-up than to the east, but I may be wrong.
As I recall (having driven it back in May), west of Marshall is more built up.
Yeah, the loop on the west side isn't that suitable. Might as well build the brand new corridor to the east and be done with. You could also probably get away with very few frontage roads to the east, which should keep development to a minimum directly alongside the freeway.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 24, 2014, 11:14:54 PM
The Marshall Working Group's June 10, 2014 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/harrison-marshall/061014-agenda.pdf) includes a map showing the three "better performing options" on the eastern side of Marshall in green and the remaining "poorer performing options" in red (page 11/46 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDHqEhit.jpg&hash=667997f904641da2648fcfdb824edaa495c3789a)
This article (http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/local-group-picks-choice-for-i--route/article_db1982e6-fa20-5d4c-afab-145c794b0ee6.html) reports that the preliminary choice is the better performing option located closest to town:
Quote
The local I-69/I-369 working group decided Tuesday to go forward with presenting the public the preliminary recommendation they chose for the interstate route option in Harrison County ....
From south to north, the recommendation option deviates from existing U.S. Highway 59 north of Farm-to-Market Road 2625, crosses Interstate Highway 20 just east of the city wastewater treatment plant, passes south of the airport, uses the Loop 390 alignment to north of Marshall, and then connects back to U.S. 59 north of FM 1793. A pamphlet about the project noted that the working group requested the preliminary recommendation to be refined to include an interchange at North Buck Sherrod Road to provide better traffic circulation.
"The reasoning behind the working group selecting this option of the other two (best performing options) was because this route is closer to town and easier to provide city utility services," TxDOT officials, who are assisting the group with the project, informed. "Therefore, the group believes this option will better support economic development in the area."
It looks like the proposed new terrain North Buck Sherrod Road interchange would be slightly east of the southern end of the airport (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Buck+Sherrod+Rd,+Marshall,+TX+75672/@32.5091169,-94.2958031,7010m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8636f05642182b5b:0xfbc0302b6581ebd).
Quote from: Grzrd on August 14, 2014, 09:28:26 PM
This article (http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/local-group-picks-choice-for-i--route/article_db1982e6-fa20-5d4c-afab-145c794b0ee6.html) reports that the preliminary choice is the better performing option located closest to town
TxDOT has posted a more detailed map of the preliminary recommendation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/harrison-marshall/harrison-map-prelim-recommendations.pdf) that includes interchange schematics and the location of a potential interchange with Toll 49.
edit
Here is a slide of the preliminary recommendation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/harrison-marshall/harrision-prelimin-recommendation.pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fo1r2Vgf.jpg&hash=3dff1d38a8016917c1b9ee4a956b7ac21785e3ed)
More detailed look at two best performing options:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/harrison-marshall/harrison-map-best-options.pdf
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted TxDOT's December 18 I-369 Route Study presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1218/4a2-presentation.pdf) that includes a slide showing the recommended route and recommended points of emphasis for the environmental process (further study of the northern and southern tie-ins and further study moving east) (page 7/8 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FagRppjT.jpg&hash=a7eeccefca090c42066888060c2e0c98e99b4b37)
That route includes the east half of Loop 390; the interchange at SH 43 is set up for easy dualling.
Quote from: Grzrd on October 19, 2013, 10:41:06 AM
This article (http://www.news-journal.com/panola/news/future-of-i--looking-brighter/article_1a68f6e6-1864-5d18-81dc-c6184106714f.html) discusses Future I-369 in Carthage ... :
Quote
More progress on Interstate 69 has been completed in the past two years than in the entire 20 years the project has been in the works, said Charles Thomas, executive director of the Carthage Improvement Corporation ....
Thomas said the interstate construction in Carthage should be smooth.
"Our four lane divided loop is basically an interstate without frontage roads," Thomas said. "They will either use the existing loop or build an outside loop. I think they will use the existing loop, there are a few driveways, but that's not hard to fix."
The entire loop is four lanes except for the Southwest segment from U.S. 59 to Highway 315.
"Panola County is so far ahead of most everyone else," Thomas said. "We voted bonds to buy the right-of-ways years ago, and now, only one section of the loop is two lanes, that can be fixed in a few years."
Although short on details, this article (http://www.news-journal.com/news/local/east-texas-counties-see-road-industry-projects-for/article_3636bf61-3f83-512c-919e-9b357bbbf3f3.html) reports that 2015 should see some work, in some form or fashion, on I-369 in Carthage and Panola County:
Quote
Outgoing Panola County Judge David Anderson said the county would have to be aware of the oil industry going into 2015.
"I think you are going to see the drop in oil and gas is probably going to affect us. It is probably going to affect the appraisal values," he said.
The county will also continue to work on road projects including continued work on I-69 and the loop around it.
edit
Above said, this I-69 Funding Program as of March 27, 2014 map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf) does not show any activity in Panola County, which suggests that the county wants to make progress on initiating the Project Development phase for the work in the Carthage area:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpsEQOLo.jpg&hash=7bcd738765bd3c23ee5219ce0cbd83128d8b8f6c)
Quote from: english si on September 20, 2012, 07:52:04 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 20, 2012, 07:33:21 AMHowever, I think AASHTO does have the authority to determine the proper first number of the designation; in other words, should it be I-"3"69? Since the statute does not provide a specific spur designation, I think AASHTO has authority to require that it comply with the conventional spur numbering scheme and be designated as I-969 (or maybe I-769), and I think that there is a reasonable chance that they will issue a conditional approval that will require a change in the designation.
What convention? There might be a pattern that some states use, but there doesn't look like a convention to me - or if there is, there's a lot of exceptions.
I reckon it's more likely that AASHTO would raise the question of why not I-169 (as the lowest free number - with no conflicts with other states), than raise the question of why not I-969.
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg174727#msg174727) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on January 03, 2015, 12:42:26 PM
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_62f4b928-92f3-11e4-967c-cff11f6ba46b.html):
Quote
Pete Sepulveda Jr., Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority executive director, said work on the final phase of the $44 million 550 connector project started in March 2013 and is expected to be complete this month in terms of establishing direct connectivity between the interstate and the port ....
"The next step after that is to work with TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) to design the portion that connects 550 with I-69 East to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road," Sepulveda said. "That will be designated as Interstate-169 ..."
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2031682#msg2031682) thread)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2015, 11:32:10 PM
QuoteWonder how long it will be before an I-569 is announced somewhere in Texas?
That developing freeway spur of TX-44 off of I-69E in Robstown going toward Corpus Christi looks like a very obvious I-569 candidate. Going one better, if TX-44 was turned into I-569 then TX-358 could conceivably get turned into I-769.
I wonder where I-969 could wind up in Texas.
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2031806#msg2031806) thread)
While searching for FHWA's Interstate Route Log, I stumbled across the following guidance from FHWA regarding a "progression" in 3di numbering (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ft33PSP3.jpg&hash=8a0a87be64614da6ce2e00481885a27849cc68f8)
However, if FHWA does have a 3di progression policy, then why did it sign off on an I-369 designation for the Tenaha-to-Texarkana spur instead of requiring an I-969 (or perhaps I-769) designation for that spur? If anything, english si's observation that there are a lot of exceptions to this guidance appears to be directly on point.
It doesn't say they should increase from south to north. It's also not clear if that's still followed, or if it was only used in the initial 1950s numbering.
It doesn't even hold true in Texas. The only child of I-20 is I-820, the only child of I-35 is I-635, the only child of I-45 is I-345, and there are I-410 and I-610 but no I-210.
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 06, 2015, 12:43:19 AM
It doesn't even hold true in Texas. The only child of I-20 is I-820, the only child of I-35 is I-635, the only child of I-45 is I-345, and there are I-410 and I-610 but no I-210.
It holds if you postulate future routes in other cities, such as 210 in El Paso and 145 in Houston.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 23, 2014, 12:46:24 PM
HPC 20 defines the Texarkana-to-Tenaha corridor as I-69; however, FHWA realized that HPC 18 also defines "mainline national" I-69, and that the two statutes, when read together, created an I-69/I-69 interchange in the Tenaha area. FHWA, in interpreting the statutes, decided that Congress did not intend that result. FHWA apparently decided that Congress intended that the Texarkana-to-Tenaha corridor be an I-69 "spur". As a "spur", the corridor received an odd first digit, I-369, even though the corridor is intended to eventually connect I-30 with I-69, which under normal circumstances would warrant an even first digit I-x69 ....
In light of FHWA's recent decision that the I-69W designation for the Laredo-to-George West prong complies with the HPC 20 "I-69" designation language, perhaps it's not too late to redesignate I-369 as I-69N in order to give Texarkana a 2di suffixed I-69 and remove any controversy over an odd first digit 3di vs. even first digit 3di. :bigass:
(above quote from What happened to Future I-130? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12903.msg314462#msg314462) thread)
Quote from: Brandon on September 02, 2014, 09:51:04 AM
Actually, it is inconsistent for the application of an even or odd first digit when the interstate spur in question connects two different mainline interstates.
(above quote from What happened to Future I-130? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12903.msg2004460#msg2004460) thread)
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2015, 08:20:49 AM
I've always interpreted FHWA guidance on 3di numbering to where an auxiliary interstate that "connects Interstate routes" (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm) can have an even prefix (so I-476 PA or I-271 OH would be valid). Though we have so much variability because of different state (and AASHTO or regional BPR office) interpretations, as well as cases where a state simply ran out of prefix's (namely CA and NY).
(above quote from 3-digit Interstates that begin and end at different Interstates: odd or even? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14412.msg2032714#msg2032714) thread)
I had interpreted the FHWA guidance that Froggie links in his post as the rule instead of the exception (I knew that I had seen it somewhere), but all of the examples that Brandon cites in his linked complete post as well as the examples posted in the new 3-digit Interstates thread in which Froggie posted demonstrate that there does not appear to be a controlling rule. With I-369's legislative history, I think it is a unique case example of a statutory I-69 spur with a 3di designation that happens to connect I-69 to another 2di, I-30. At the risk of repeating myself, it's still not too late for an I-69N redesignation ................ :spin:
TxDOT has posted the December 2014 I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Route Study Working Group Recommendation Report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/harrison-marshall/grp-recommendations-1214.pdf) and its conclusion is as follows (page 23/25 of pdf; page 23 of document):
Quote
During Working Group meeting 5 on November 18, 2014, it was concluded that concerns about the northern and southern tie-in points, moving east, and the No Action Alternative would be considered in any future environmental studies. Additionally, the Working Group was in agreement that going west through the mining areas would be difficult because of ground settlement, making it the least suitable location to construct a roadway. It was also reiterated that moving the route option farther east may pose a financial strain on the City of Marshall to provide utility services for future development.
Subsequent to Working Group meeting 5, it was further recommended that the existing US 59/ Loop 390 intersection be included as the potential northern tie-in point interchange and be included in the future environmental studies.
The Working Group members concurred to carry their Interstate route option preliminary recommendation (Figure 5) forward as a final recommendation to TxDOT to be studied in detail as part of the environmental process, should the project progress.
Quote from: Grzrd on March 11, 2013, 01:59:22 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update3.3.13tyler.html) has an article about the ceremony, in which it touts Toll 49 as a future connection to the I-69 "system":
Quote
Road hands from around Northeast Texas gathered March 2nd to celebrate the completion of a major milestone in the development of Toll 49 -- a new highway that will eventually be a connector to the Interstate 69 System in Texas.
By late March a 10.2-mile section connecting to Interstate 20 in western Smith County will be open to traffic, allowing motorists safer, faster access to points around the south side of Tyler. Tolls from the project will eventually be used to extend the connector to the northeast around Longview and then east to connect with US 59/Future I-69 on the north side of Marshall in Harrison County. The long-range plan calls for Toll 49 to cover more the 100 miles. A total of 26 miles of the highway have been completed so far.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZiq9X4r.jpg&hash=b22178e770d6213c5dab2a8cde6e08265f1e7ff5)
(above quote from Tyler: Loop 49 section (TX 31 west => I-20) to open Saturday (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8881.msg208753#msg208753) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on August 21, 2014, 11:07:52 PM
TxDOT has posted a more detailed map of the preliminary recommendation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/harrison-marshall/harrison-map-prelim-recommendations.pdf) that includes interchange schematics and the location of a potential interchange with Toll 49.
This article (http://www.news-journal.com/news/local/plans-move-forward-for-million-hourglass-route/article_7791862d-78be-56f1-9dc8-240237d6b4d5.html), primarily about the Toll 49 East Texas "hourglass", reports on how I-369 is viewed as part of the proposed Toll 49 tolled shortcut for (presumably I-30) traffic from Arkansas to get to I-20:
Quote
Highway planners for a 12-county area approved $2.6 million in spending Tuesday for the next section of the East Texas Hourglass and looked favorably on a proposal to avoid oilfields.
"This is, we think, a much better fit – a much more realistic fit for Segments 7 and 8," Everett Owen told trustees of the North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority.
The mobility authority's executive director was describing segments of the East Texas Hourglass that one day could take drivers from U.S. 271, on an east-west route midway between Longview and Gilmer, to U.S. 59 north of Marshall.
"It's an east-west corridor that I think is important enough that it will be well-traveled," Gregg County representative Dave Spurrier said as he walked trustees along the proposed Hourglass route.
The Hourglass project is envisioned, in part, as a tolled shortcut for traffic from Arkansas, ideally along the planned Interstate 69 [369], to reach I-20 west of Tyler, and vice versa. It will extend off Tyler's Toll 49 Loop and be funded from its tolls.
However, it seems like the I-369 Marshall relief route set forth in the preliminary recommendation would provide a relativey easy shunpike opportunity.
Ever since seeing the initial plan maps for this, I'm still at a loss. They act like TX 31 and I-20 are invisible and there's no other way to get from Tyler to Longview to Marshall. The RMA should just finish Loop 49 like what was in the original plans, no wasteful funny business.
And you're right--there's ALL KINDS of shunpike-ness (including what becomes of I-369) that can be had in east TX without giving the RMA a dime. I've never been on Loop 49, and don't need to, either.
Google Earth has posted January 25, 2015 imagery of the US 59/ Future I-369 main lane overpass construction (and associated frontage road work) at FM 3129 in Cass County:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvkwE9K0.jpg&hash=bcb8de5162a18ec2f5435c42361436278673097e)
This is certainly a baby step, but I believe it will be the first non-Texarkana, post-I-369 corridor designation, and interstate-grade upgrade, section upon completion.
edit
Google Maps has now updated its imagery (which includes a labelled U.S. 59 Frontage Road) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Domino,+TX/@33.2627792,-94.1529258,434m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x86343c4c16520c93:0x6545557ee2fb06ec), as well.
^I know exactly where that is. That's going to be the exit used by residents of the town of Domino/International Paper employees. I wonder will this be the last exit on future I-369 before the road veers off and heads toward I-30?
Quote from: Grzrd on December 18, 2014, 08:22:15 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted TxDOT's December 18 I-369 Route Study presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1218/4a2-presentation.pdf) that includes a slide showing the recommended route and recommended points of emphasis for the environmental process (further study of the northern and southern tie-ins and further study moving east) (page 7/8 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FagRppjT.jpg&hash=a7eeccefca090c42066888060c2e0c98e99b4b37)
This June 17, 2015 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%206.17.15%20marshall.html) reports that three regional planning groups in East Texas have joined in a resolution supporting the work of the I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Working Group:
Quote
Three regional planning groups in East Texas have joined in a resolution supporting the work of the I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Working Group.
The Working Group has been seeking citizen consensus on potential routes for Interstate 369 to flow through or around the city of Marshall and to interconnect with Interstate 20 which runs east-west at the city's southern edge.
The joint resolution was signed by the policy boards of the Ark-Tex, East Texas, and Deep East Texas Rural Planning Organizations and represents the first formal cooperative action of the thirty five (35) county East Texas Coalition ....
"East Texas Coalition members have all said for the first time that this is a project we want to endorse because it benefits us all," said ETCOG Executive Director, David Cleveland. "This collaborative effort enhances the economic development and creation of jobs in each of the regions." ....
The joint resolution states that the three RPOs, under the umbrella of the East Texas Coalition, will coordinate actions to provide coordinated and prioritized transportation planning for the entire thirty-five county northeast Texas area. They will support locally determined route options for the I-69/I369 route through Harrison County and the City of Marshall while supporting the mission and goals of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) by enhancing safety, addressing congestion, and connecting the communities ....
Because of highway funding constraints it is likely that the proposed loop option would be built over time as a series of construction projects that would each improve traffic flow and safety and would eventually connected to new freeway sections extending north and south from Marshall ....
The next steps in the project will be for TxDOT to identify funding sources and complete the environmental and schematic design process.
Quote from: Grzrd on March 03, 2015, 01:27:39 PM
the US 59/ Future I-369 main lane overpass construction (and associated frontage road work) at FM 3129 in Cass County .... I believe it will be the first non-Texarkana, post-I-369 corridor designation, and interstate-grade upgrade, section upon completion.
Google Maps has now updated its imagery (which includes a labelled U.S. 59 Frontage Road) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Domino,+TX/@33.2627792,-94.1529258,434m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x86343c4c16520c93:0x6545557ee2fb06ec), as well:
Quote from: dariusb on March 06, 2015, 03:47:50 PM
That's going to be the exit used by residents of the town of Domino/International Paper employees. I wonder will this be the last exit on future I-369 before the road veers off and heads toward I-30?
Recent discussion about I-369 in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2083163#msg2083163) discussed, among other things, a possible "new" western routing for I-369 in the vicinity of Texarkana, a possible I-49/ I-369 interchange north of Texarkana, and how development north of the current I-369 northern terminus would make a connection to I-49 from that point unlikely at best. The discussion also reminded me of the above question. The short answer is that we don't even know for sure that there will be a new terrain western route of I-369 from some point north of the Sulphur River bridge to I-30 near TexAmericas Center.
The potential for a western routing (commonly known as the "West Loop") was anticipated during environmental studies along the eventual I-49 corridor that included a "Northern Loop" from I-30 in Arkansas to I-30 in Texas (the study basically anticipated using the then currently existing Texarkana Loop south of I-30, with a slight new terrain addition along I-49 in Arkansas). The Executive Summary of the Texarkana to DeQueen US 71 and Texarkana Northern Loop Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/030108_2001_09_01_aFEIS_Sum.pdf) anticipated the possibility that US 59 south of I-30 would be relocated to the west, which would necessitate new environmental and location placement studies for the Texarkana Northern Loop (page 14/24 of pdf; page ES-13 of the document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrxyaeXL.png&hash=4082de52af12abba757c8a9b0e9a95c7e1462c97)
This map from the FEIS Executive Summary shows both the Texarkana Loop routing of US 59 and the Northern Loop and a potential US 59 relocation and Northern Loop routing, as well as the location of the I-49/ I-369 interchange (same location under each alternative) (p. 15/24 of pdf; Exh. ES-3 of document)*:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FX8Lf7Af.jpg&hash=c90270776e8f61a738ef99b57390eb1531945705)
As an aside, it should be noted that AHTD raced ahead of TxDOT and has completed its section of the Northern Loop (greatest DOT upset ever?). To be fair to TxDOT, the Texarkana MPO has studied a potential corridor for the West Loop and the Northern Loop (http://www.texarkanampo.org/documents/upcoming-activities/I-69-Proposed-Planning-Corridor-Citizen-Alternative.pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3SH3v.jpg&hash=656ba8c81853eb60900425e902669cec2271cab1)
However, neighborhood opposition and lack of funding basically made that effort stall. Since the stall, the I-69 Corridor has gained momentum throughout Texas and the Segment One Citizen Committee identified three priorities along the I-369 corridor: designation of part the Texarkana Loop as I-369, a Marshall relief route, and a Texarkana relief route. In agreeing to the I-369 (then referred to as I-69) signage on the Texarkana Loop, the Texarkana MPO made it explicitly clear that they still wanted the "relief route" to the TexAmericas Center, as reflected in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg149646#msg149646):
Quote
the Texarkana MPO adopted Resolution 14-2012 supporting an I-69 designation:
Quote
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICY BOARD OF THE TEXARKANA MPO, THAT THE BOARD SUPPORTS CO-DESIGNATION OF THE PORTION OF US 59 FROM I-30 TO THE JUNCTION OF LP 151 AS US 59/I-69. THE BOARD ALSO SUPPORTS:
SECTION 1: IMPROVEMENT OF US 59 TO INTERSTATE STANDARDS through the State of Texas consistent with recommendations developed by the I-69 Corridor and Segment Advisory Committees; and
SECTION 2: participation by the Texas Department of Transportation in the EVALUATION OF ACCESS TO/FROM US 59/I-69 and the TexAmericas Center, an Intermodal Freight Facility, along the west side of the Texarkana Study Area Boundary, including the need for DEVELOPMENT OF AN I-69 RELIEF ROUTE as described in Texarkana MPO Resolution #3-2011 ...
Resolution 3-2011 describes the relief route as follows:
Quote
WHEREAS, the Texarkana MPO is supportive of the continued study and development of a relief route under the guidance of the Texas Department of Transportation and the direction of the I-69 Segment Corridor Committee One, as described below:
Beginning at the north end of the Sulphur River bridge and concurrent with existing US 59, then connecting to the TexAmerica's property (former Lone Star Army Ammunition site) and continuing to an interchange point with I-30 ...
Two of the three I-369 priorities have progressed: I-369 has been designated and signed along part of the Texarkana Loop, and a working group has developed a recommended corridor for the Marshall relief route. No similar apparent progress has been made regarding the Texarkana relief route. Since it has been identified as a "priority", progress towards identifying the corridor and achieving a solution with the neighborhoods might be made in the relatively near future.
Identification of the West Loop routing, if any, is a prerequisite for identifying the routing of the Northern Loop. The I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg1_final.pdf) contains an interesting map which shows the Northern Loop as an "I-69 connecting route", as well as showing the West Loop as the eventual primary I-369 corridor (and doing a horrible job of showing both I-49 in Arkansas and the I-49/ I-369 interchange location) ... (page 21/155 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FogSTEcN.png&hash=6b0ee55e89fc5904b2e56118f2f45746765c0425)
At least the Northern Loop is on the radar, even though it is not a priority.
Above said, a second short answer to the above question is that it is time to hurry up and wait.
edit *
Quote from: Grzrd on May 14, 2016, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: AHTD on April 17, 2014, 05:14:15 PM
Here is the proposed logging of the entire I-49 corridor in Arkansas (and Texas).
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-49-Proposed-Mileage.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-49-Proposed-Mileage.pdf)
Proposed exit numbering from the Louisiana State Line (through Texas) and to the Polk County, Arkansas line:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-49_Exits_1.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-49_Exits_1.pdf)
Please understand this is all PROPOSED and is subject to a tweak every now and then.
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg293262;topicseen#msg293262) thread)
Here is a snip from the logging that shows the mileage in Texas;
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGSGkTdg.jpg&hash=cd4fc989a4e3674f80063e1322fec2e555bcdb0b)
Here is a snip showing the proposed Texas exits:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPq42PmS.jpg&hash=0e1039b8bc87cbf6e481b036b4b015a013d5a614)
above quote from (I-49 in Arkansas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2144668#msg2144668) thread)
I assume that Exit 44 in the above snip of the Texas I-49 exit numbers will be the eventual I-369/ I-49 interchange location; it provides a good visual approximation of the I-369/ I-49 interchange location in mileage terms.
Maybe the Texarkana Loop should have been numbered Interstate 230. In any event, it will likely be a long time before Interstate 369 is completed.
Quote from: Grzrd on January 21, 2015, 01:15:10 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 11, 2013, 01:59:22 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update3.3.13tyler.html) has an article about the ceremony, in which it touts Toll 49 as a future connection to the I-69 "system":
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZiq9X4r.jpg&hash=b22178e770d6213c5dab2a8cde6e08265f1e7ff5)
(above quote from Tyler: Loop 49 section (TX 31 west => I-20) to open Saturday (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8881.msg208753#msg208753) thread)
This article (http://www.news-journal.com/news/local/plans-move-forward-for-million-hourglass-route/article_7791862d-78be-56f1-9dc8-240237d6b4d5.html), primarily about the Toll 49 East Texas "hourglass", reports on how I-369 is viewed as part of the proposed Toll 49 tolled shortcut for (presumably I-30) traffic from Arkansas to get to I-20:
Quote
The Hourglass project is envisioned, in part, as a tolled shortcut for traffic from Arkansas, ideally along the planned Interstate 69 [369], to reach I-20 west of Tyler, and vice versa. It will extend off Tyler’s Toll 49 Loop and be funded from its tolls.
This article (http://www.news-journal.com/news/2015/sep/28/revenue-from-tylers-toll-49-fueling-highway-expans/) reports that Toll 49 tolls are steadily growing on a monthly basis, which wil allow for further expansion on the Hourglass, beginning with Segment 4 (http://www.netrma.org/lindale-relief-route/):
Quote
Tolls from Loop 49, which in recent years reached Interstate 20 just west of U.S. 69, are dedicated to pushing the loop's first extension into what planners eventually hope to be a multi-county connector.
"It's going great," North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority Executive Director Everett Owen said Friday. "The (toll) revenue is up. It's been building 15 percent every year, month-to-month. That's allowed us to move along faster than we expected."
The so-called East Texas Hourglass, a proposed extension of Loop 49, is drawn up to eventually encircle Tyler and link Smith, Upshur, Gregg and Harrison counties in a sweeping, part-toll highway concluding at U.S. 59 north of Marshall. For more information and to view a map of the proposal, visit www.netrma.org/east-texas-hourglass.
The proposal would not put a toll on existing roadways.
It has greater implications, with U.S. 59 slated as the East Texas portion of the planned Interstate 69, drawn to run from South Texas to the Canadian border at Lansing, Michigan.
The mobility authority is swinging the Hourglass' next leg north from Toll 49's dead-end at I-20 to U.S. 69 north of Lindale. Environmental studies for that stretch were completed in April, Owen said.
Meanwhile, the money to pay for that leg, which is Segment 4 on the Hourglass, appears to be flowing in from completed sections of Toll 49. An increasing number of drivers are taking the toll loop from the southeast side of Tyler, south around the city and north to the I-20 end point, a mobility authority study from April shows.
Segment 4 is expected to cost $34.2 million.
Quote from: Grzrd on March 03, 2015, 01:27:39 PM
Google Earth has posted January 25, 2015 imagery of the US 59/ Future I-369 main lane overpass construction (and associated frontage road work) at FM 3129 in Cass County:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvkwE9K0.jpg&hash=bcb8de5162a18ec2f5435c42361436278673097e)
....
Google Maps has now updated its imagery (which includes a labelled U.S. 59 Frontage Road) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Domino,+TX/@33.2627792,-94.1529258,434m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x86343c4c16520c93:0x6545557ee2fb06ec), as well.
Perhaps as a sign of confidence in the US 59/ Future I-369 corridor, this article (https://txktoday.com/news/loves-purchases-land-in-domino-for-truck-stop/) reports that Love's will build a truck stop on the cleared-out parcel in the bottom right-hand corner of the above image:
Quote
Love's Truck Stop has purchased the land on U.S. 59 and FM 3129 in Domino, Texas that TXK Today previously reported would be the home of a new Love's.
As we previously reported the land was cleared in the summer of 2014 for a new Love's Truck Stop. Loves closed on the property within the previous week.
According to a preliminary site plan Loves plans on building a 10,000 square foot facility on the 15 acre site. There will be parking for 75 vehicles and 84 trucks. The site will also have truck scales and a tire shop.
No word from Loves on when building is set to start.
Interstate 369 should not have been signed in Texarkana until the road at least connected with the yet-to-be-built segment in Tenaha.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 21, 2014, 10:56:38 AM
The Texarkana MPO has posted its Draft Texarkana Urban Transportation Study ("TUTS") 2015-2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan ("MTP") (http://www.texarkanampo.org/documents/program-documents/MPT%20Draft%207_14_2014.pdf) ....
After a quick scan of the document, I could not find a direct reference to either the West Loop or the Northern Loop.
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg313993#msg313993) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on August 04, 2015, 01:23:37 PM
... the Texarkana MPO has studied a potential corridor for the West Loop and the Northern Loop (http://www.texarkanampo.org/documents/upcoming-activities/I-69-Proposed-Planning-Corridor-Citizen-Alternative.pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3SH3v.jpg&hash=656ba8c81853eb60900425e902669cec2271cab1)
I finally got around to taking a look at the September 17, 2014 Final Texarkana Urban Transportation Study ("TUTS") 2015-2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan ("MTP") (http://texarkanampo.com/documents/Tuts/TUTS%202040%20Plan.pdf) and it does contain some information about an envisioned new terrain I-369 routing and an I-369 connection to I-49. In discussing the results of April 24, 2014 stakeholder meetings, the following comments were noted about roadway capacity (p. 62/126 of pdf; p. 55 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRY8dlKM.png&hash=94b094ab160c800c11dfabc6b4155ff4844172fb)
The northwest loop and new terrain I-369 construction is included in an Illustrative, Vision and Unfunded Projects Map (p. 76/126 of pdf; p. 69 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfYwGUrr.png&hash=662a29c412b18576c5cc904f2358949e032db1a8)
The tentative western, new terrain I-369 routing is within the MPO boundary, which I believe the MPO felt obligated to do for this purpose. I suspect the eventual route will be closer to the corridor previously studied in the map from the above-quoted August 4, 2015 post. That said, at least that corridor and the northwest loop are included in the map.
Also, the map does not reflect any intention to upgrade the US 59 corridor from where the new terrain western routing leaves US 59 to the current US 59/ I-369 section of the Texarkana Loop. I suspect that, if and when the new terrain western routing is built, the present-day I-369 will either be decommissioned as an interstate or redesignated (along with TX 151 and AR 151) as an even first-digit I-x30 or I-x49.
Hmmm.....so, they wouldn't consider upgrading US 59 between where the Western Loop would veer off and the existing US 59/TX 151/AR 151 freeway? That would be unfortunate, since that could potentially create a nice southern bypass connection between I-369, I-49, and I-30...not to mention, provide a direct freeway connection into the heart of Texarkana. Maybe a parallel freeway connection between there and where AR 151 bends as a compromise??
Will any more of Interstate 369 be constructed in the near future? I don't think they should have signed that orphaned section in Texarkana.
Quote from: Grzrd on March 03, 2015, 01:27:39 PM
Google Earth has posted January 25, 2015 imagery of the US 59/ Future I-369 main lane overpass construction (and associated frontage road work) at FM 3129 in Cass County ....Google Maps has now updated its imagery (which includes a labelled U.S. 59 Frontage Road) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Domino,+TX/@33.2627792,-94.1529258,434m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x86343c4c16520c93:0x6545557ee2fb06ec), as well.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 09, 2016, 05:15:45 PM
Will any more of Interstate 369 be constructed in the near future?
This April 15, 2015 Interstate 69 Talking Points presentation (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/2.Projects%20by%20Congress%20Dist%20Apr15.pdf) shows both a southbound US 59 concrete overlay project that includes the above grade separation and a northbound US 59 concrete overlay project (I'm guessing the overlay is on current mainlanes that will one day be the frontage roads) (p. 4/21 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAnbxtTj.png&hash=5f68445bdadb76b1adac844bf1865ee24ed80b6a)
In comparing the January 3-9 TxDOT roadwork report (http://mix933fm.com/weekly-roadwork-report-for-january-3-9-from-txdot/) to the week of March 13 TxDOT roadwork report (http://www.news-journal.com/news/2016/mar/13/txdot-roadwork-report-for-week-of-march-13/), it appears that the concrete overlay work, as well as the interchange, have been completed. Incremental construction progress, but construction progress nonetheless.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 08, 2016, 06:23:46 PM
Hmmm.....so, they wouldn't consider upgrading US 59 between where the Western Loop would veer off and the existing US 59/TX 151/AR 151 freeway? That would be unfortunate, since that could potentially create a nice southern bypass connection between I-369, I-49, and I-30...not to mention, provide a direct freeway connection into the heart of Texarkana. Maybe a parallel freeway connection between there and where AR 151 bends as a compromise??
Similarly, I have also thought that a "southern connection" to I-49 might make sense if the West Loop and a US 59 upgrade are both impracticable:
Quote from: Grzrd on November 10, 2010, 10:39:08 AM
With the lake & neighborhoods as obstacles, I wonder if they will ultimately consider routing the I-69 Spur eastward south of Texarkana & approach AHTD about an interchange with I-49 in Arkansas south of the Texarkana Loop?
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg82814#msg82814) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on June 01, 2013, 10:19:27 PM
This excerpt from the map on page 19 (page 25/30 of pdf) of the I-69 Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/advisory_committee_report.pdf) demonstrates that both the I-369 designation for US 59 and development of the West Loop relief route are Priorities for the Segment One Committee:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYq4SDHU.jpg&hash=5218cccdab014517b4d9336ce2e592fafff33592)
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg224820#msg224820) thread)[/quote]
Quote from: Grzrd on February 08, 2016, 05:47:17 PM
I finally got around to taking a look at the September 17, 2014 Final Texarkana Urban Transportation Study ("TUTS") 2015-2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan ("MTP") (http://texarkanampo.com/documents/Tuts/TUTS%202040%20Plan.pdf) and it does contain some information about an envisioned new terrain I-369 routing and an I-369 connection to I-49. In discussing the results of April 24, 2014 stakeholder meetings, the following comments were noted about roadway capacity (p. 62/126 of pdf; p. 55 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRY8dlKM.png&hash=94b094ab160c800c11dfabc6b4155ff4844172fb)
This April 11
Texarkana Gazette article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana-region/story/2016/apr/11/bowie-county-reports-53-million-surplus/420685/) reports that Bowie County will seek state grant money to fund a preliminary study to locate the I-30/ I-369 interchange closer to TexAmericas Center, and that TexAmericas Center will provide a 50% match for the grant:
Quote
Bowie County commissioners listened to a presentation from the Waco-based Patillo, Brown and Hill auditing firm Monday regarding the county's 2015 annual financial report.
During his presentation, one of the firm's accountants, Todd Pruitt, said the county now has $5.3 million in surplus in its general fund ....
In other business, commissioners approved plans to apply for state grant money, which will pay for a study on a preliminary plan to have the Interstate 30 and Interstate 369 West Loop interchange run closer to the TexAmericas Center. This could include a possible frontage roadway access to the center.
Scott Norton, TexAmericas Center executive director and chief executive officer, said the study will likely cost between $75,000 and $100,000, but he added the center will contribute a 50 percent match to the grant.
The West Loop dream is still alive.
But will it remain a dream, or will it actually be constructed eventually?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 13, 2016, 03:51:32 PM
But will it remain a dream, or will it actually be constructed eventually?
That's the million-dollar question!
As mentioned in the I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2145012#msg2145012) thread, TxDOT has posted a 73 page March 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy Report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/implementation-strategy-report.pdf) that provides the current status of each I-69 project in Texas, including I-369.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 22, 2015, 01:32:16 PM
This June 17, 2015 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%206.17.15%20marshall.html) reports that three regional planning groups in East Texas have joined in a resolution supporting the work of the I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Working Group:
Quote
Three regional planning groups in East Texas have joined in a resolution supporting the work of the I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Working Group ....
Because of highway funding constraints it is likely that the proposed loop option would be built over time as a series of construction projects that would each improve traffic flow and safety and would eventually connected to new freeway sections extending north and south from Marshall ....
The Implementation Strategy Report includes an estimated letting date of January 1, 2020 for the section of the Marshall loop from I-20 to US 80 (p. 24/73 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpNjFsZj.png&hash=d0765416a9e398a9763e2591a4aba76afcd35c8e)
Quote from: Grzrd on June 01, 2013, 10:19:27 PM
This excerpt from the map on page 19 (page 25/30 of pdf) of the I-69 Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/advisory_committee_report.pdf) demonstrates that both the I-369 designation for US 59 and development of the West Loop relief route are Priorities for the Segment One Committee:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYq4SDHU.jpg&hash=5218cccdab014517b4d9336ce2e592fafff33592)
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg224820#msg224820) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on February 08, 2016, 05:47:17 PM
I finally got around to taking a look at the September 17, 2014 Final Texarkana Urban Transportation Study ("TUTS") 2015-2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan ("MTP") (http://texarkanampo.com/documents/Tuts/TUTS%202040%20Plan.pdf) ....
The tentative western, new terrain I-369 routing is within the MPO boundary, which I believe the MPO felt obligated to do for this purpose ....
Also, the map does not reflect any intention to upgrade the US 59 corridor from where the new terrain western routing leaves US 59 to the current US 59/ I-369 section of the Texarkana Loop ....
Quote from: Grzrd on April 13, 2016, 10:04:26 AM
This April 11 Texarkana Gazette article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana-region/story/2016/apr/11/bowie-county-reports-53-million-surplus/420685/) reports that Bowie County will seek state grant money to fund a preliminary study to locate the I-30/ I-369 interchange closer to TexAmericas Center, and that TexAmericas Center will provide a 50% match for the grant
In taking a brief look at the Implementation Strategy Report, I did not see any reference to a West Loop relief route and an upgrade of US 59 from Loop 151 to Randall Road is included, but as "not aligned with I-69 System Committee Priorities" (p. 23/73 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFd49qAO.png&hash=bd19eb2811f7a7b0fb16095b6403ac710fa7b893)
Sifting through it all, it seems that a West Loop relief route will not be included in an Implementation Strategy Report as a priority until if and when a Working Group recommends a routing (as has been done in Marshall).
I think they should have left it "Future Interstate 369" until the route actually connected with Interstate 69. Then again, it will probably be decades before that happens.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 09, 2016, 05:15:45 PM
Will any more of Interstate 369 be constructed in the near future? I don't think they should have signed that orphaned section in Texarkana.
Texas does whatever they want, it seems, like 69E and 69W
Quote from: Grzrd on May 16, 2016, 01:22:48 PM
As mentioned in the I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2145012#msg2145012) thread, TxDOT has posted a 73 page March 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy Report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/implementation-strategy-report.pdf) that provides the current status of each I-69 project in Texas, including I-369.
[...]
In taking a brief look at the Implementation Strategy Report, I did not see any reference to a West Loop relief route and an upgrade of US 59 from Loop 151 to Randall Road is included, but as "not aligned with I-69 System Committee Priorities" (p. 23/73 of pdf):
[...]
Sifting through it all, it seems that a West Loop relief route will not be included in an Implementation Strategy Report as a priority until if and when a Working Group recommends a routing (as has been done in Marshall).
Could it be possible that they might do both a West Loop AND a full upgrade of US 59 to Loop 151? That would make for a nice connection to the future Tex-Americas Center AND a good direct bypass to I-30 East via Loop 151 and I-49.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 18, 2016, 01:13:36 AM
Could it be possible that they might do both a West Loop AND a full upgrade of US 59 to Loop 151? That would make for a nice connection to the future Tex-Americas Center AND a good direct bypass to I-30 East via Loop 151 and I-49.
To restate your question, could it be possible to have an I-369W and an I-369E, with each having its own terminus at I-49,
and the current I-369 redesignated as I-369C, with its termini at I-30 and I-369E? What state would do something silly like have three suffixed prongs? :awesomeface:
Seriously, with enough money, it
could be possible.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 18, 2016, 09:12:57 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 18, 2016, 01:13:36 AM
Could it be possible that they might do both a West Loop AND a full upgrade of US 59 to Loop 151? That would make for a nice connection to the future Tex-Americas Center AND a good direct bypass to I-30 East via Loop 151 and I-49.
To restate your question, could it be possible to have an I-369W and an I-369E, with each having its own terminus at I-49, and the current I-369 redesignated as I-369C, with its termini at I-30 and I-369E? What state would do something silly like have three suffixed prongs? :happy:
Seriously, with enough money, it could be possible.
I was thinking more of an I-369 routing along US 59 and the eastern portion of Loop 151; a short I-x30 connector designation for the rest of Loop 151, and an I-669 or I-649 designation for the Western Loop. No more suffices.
[Note: Modded by me to clear up the quote nesting.]
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 18, 2016, 10:15:20 AM
I was thinking more of an I-369 routing along US 59 and the eastern portion of Loop 151; a short I-x30 connector designation for the rest of Loop 151, and an I-669 or I-649 designation for the Western Loop. No more suffices.
I was just being silly. At the risk of straying into Fictional territory, I think a relocated US 59 would be part of a West Loop: Congressional designation would probably have I-369 follow the relocated US 59. I would then consider I-249 for the "southern" connection of I-369 and I-49. Finally, I would redesignate the current I-369 as I-130. Each of the three 2dis gets its own 3di: less potential confusion for the public.
I better hop back to the real world now .........
Welcome back, Grzrd.
Quote from: Grzrd on March 14, 2016, 05:19:01 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 03, 2015, 01:27:39 PM
Google Earth has posted January 25, 2015 imagery of the US 59/ Future I-369 main lane overpass construction (and associated frontage road work) at FM 3129 in Cass County ....Google Maps has now updated its imagery (which includes a labelled U.S. 59 Frontage Road) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Domino,+TX/@33.2627792,-94.1529258,434m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x86343c4c16520c93:0x6545557ee2fb06ec), as well.
This April 15, 2015 Interstate 69 Talking Points presentation (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/2.Projects%20by%20Congress%20Dist%20Apr15.pdf) shows both a southbound US 59 concrete overlay project that includes the above grade separation and a northbound US 59 concrete overlay project (I'm guessing the overlay is on current mainlanes that will one day be the frontage roads) (p. 4/21 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAnbxtTj.png&hash=5f68445bdadb76b1adac844bf1865ee24ed80b6a)
This Sept. 12 article (http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/local-news/future-i-69-extension-set-to-run-through-northeast-texas) does mention work in Cass County, but does not provide much detail:
Quote
In Cass County, plans are underway to develop a future corridor through Northeast Texas.
State and local officials are in the planning and development stages of extending Interstate 69 up to Texarkana.
It will run from the Texas and Mexico border and follow alongside the path of U.S. 59 through Atlanta.
Officials say it's needed to met the state's growing population and to transport freight between businesses.
They want add bypasses in smaller towns to make the least impact.
"If you go through towns on the existing route you will have to do away with a lot of business and homes and we don't want to do that," said Marcus Sandifer, public information officer of the Atlanta district of the Texas Department of Transportation.
Sandifer says a future interstate corridor will boost local economies by attracting more industries.
They also say it will be safer for 18-wheelers driving long distances.
The project does not yet have funding and will be developed over the course of decades through towns across Texas.
The Texas Department of Transportation says the future Interstate 69 won't be completed for at least 20 to 30 years.
So for the next 20 or 30 years (or longer), Interstate 369 will be an orphaned Interstate. I think they should have waited until the freeway between Texarkana and Tenaha was completed, and connected to Future Interstate 69 before giving any part of the road the Interstate 369 designation.
The road wouldn't take another 20 or 30 years to complete if the United States was more on the ball with infrastructure development. Instead, our nation has allowed greed and good ole boy network growth of bureaucracy to stifle America's ability to do big things.
Most of the original Interstate system, which spanned somewhere between 30,000 to 40,000 miles, was built between the 1950's and 1970's. That's basically a pace of more than 1,000 miles of freeway per year. Today, despite advances in technology, we can't match that pace. That's thanks to very high price inflation of road projects and regulatory bureaucracy that radically delays and further balloons the cost of road projects (in part because of the never ending high rate of inflation).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 20, 2016, 07:00:52 PM
That's thanks to very high price inflation of road projects and regulatory bureaucracy that radically delays and further balloons the cost of road projects (in part because of the never ending high rate of inflation).
What I've also found fascinating about the explosion in the cost of projects over the past few decades is that it also coincides with DOTs contracting out more and more work rather than maintaining in-house crews. Although there are certainly additional regulations that increase the cost of a project (e.g., NEPA), the mantra that privatization results in lower costs hasn't seemed to have panned out.
I used to laugh at the extremely high prices of mass transit projects. It has been typical for something as modest as a simple light rail line to cost in the billions of dollars. Add in various corruption scandals to tarnish the image further. I laughed at this with disdain since the United States had around 200,000 miles worth of rail and a whole lot of passenger rail coverage nearly a century ago when the nation was far more primitive.
The same disease infecting mass transit projects has moved into road. We can't get big things done because too many greedy people gotta get paid big dollars.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 21, 2016, 01:43:20 PM
I used to laugh at the extremely high prices of mass transit projects. It has been typical for something as modest as a simple light rail line to cost in the billions of dollars. Add in various corruption scandals to tarnish the image further. I laughed at this with disdain since the United States had around 200,000 miles worth of rail and a whole lot of passenger rail coverage nearly a century ago when the nation was far more primitive.
The same disease infecting mass transit projects has moved into road. We can't get big things done because too many greedy people gotta get paid big dollars.
Would that it were that easy; you've already got a scarcity of materials (China has 30 supertalls built or under construction and 100 more planned, plus building out a 3500-mile limited access system, the Middle East is also throwing up buildings like no one's business [see the Dubai waterfront]), then add in the fluctuations in currency, the lack of a stable funding source and the extensive environmental regulations (which doesn't always involve nature, see East End bridge and the Drummond Estate) and you should not wonder why.
Actually, a lot of the construction binges going on in China and the Middle East have slowed way down. The oil glut and price war between the Saudis and Iran made a lot of building activity come to a screeching stop in places like Dubai. There's a huge amount of unoccupied real estate there. All that Dubai waterfront activity was going full throttle 10 years ago. They're not breaking ground on much of anything new now. The Saudi government is cutting back on a lot of subsidies. The middle class there is going through a financial squeeze they've never felt before. The Chinese economy is in a fairly deep recession -fallout from the larger global recession and far less consumer spending. The Chinese even have a glut of steel on hand.
Even with all that said, the prices of concrete and steel have not come down much at all.
The paperwork side of road construction is just as maddening and only seeming to get worse. The federal government and states don't seem interested at all in making the regulatory process more efficient. They just want to bleed away even more time. But we do have a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers. So anything that can inflate the amount of billable hours is seen as a good thing to them I suppose.
I remember how things were with infrastructure when I was a kid. I would have thought 30+ years later that government agencies, engineering firms, etc. would get a whole lot more advanced, efficient and much faster at the process of designing and building big things. If anything it has gone in the reverse direction and done so to an extreme.
A long time ago I kind of laughed at how far fetched some of structures were in science fiction movies, such as Bladerunner. Now I think the stuff is even more ridiculous. Here's a futuristic thought: an America that prices itself out of being able to afford driving cars and paving streets. We might be back to riding horses in the future. :-P
Quote from: DeaconG on September 22, 2016, 09:19:50 PMChina ... building out a 3500-mile limited access system
Do you mean 3500-miles per year? That's about right for Chinese expressway construction (the national network is over 50000 miles, which is bigger than the interstate network).
Quote from: english si on September 24, 2016, 04:22:46 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on September 22, 2016, 09:19:50 PMChina ... building out a 3500-mile limited access system
Do you mean 3500-miles per year? That's about right for Chinese expressway construction (the national network is over 50000 miles, which is bigger than the interstate network).
Now that I did not know, the sources I remembered said 3500 miles in total. That's a lot of expressway...
3500 miles of freeway or tollway per year or whatever? It makes no difference. China is not doing that now. Their economy is in the toilet. Whatever extra money the Communist party has they're blowing it on creating artificial islands off the coasts of Australia, Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia -all for military power projection. They're tip toeing more and more to a World War III confrontation. Meanwhile us idiotic, hair-brained Americans are more concerned about the Chinese making our Apple® iPhones™ fast enough. We don't care about how many political prisoners they execute every year. Or how many endangered species they put ever closer to extinction due to the perversions in their culture. I mean, really, what are they doing with those black rhino horns? Jamming them in their backsides?
Quote from: Grzrd on April 13, 2016, 10:04:26 AM
This April 11 Texarkana Gazette article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana-region/story/2016/apr/11/bowie-county-reports-53-million-surplus/420685/) reports that Bowie County will seek state grant money to fund a preliminary study to locate the I-30/ I-369 interchange closer to TexAmericas Center, and that TexAmericas Center will provide a 50% match for the grant:
Quote
In other business, commissioners approved plans to apply for state grant money, which will pay for a study on a preliminary plan to have the Interstate 30 and Interstate 369 West Loop interchange run closer to the TexAmericas Center. This could include a possible frontage roadway access to the center.
This Sept. 28 article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2016/sep/29/texamericas-center-boasts-105m-budget-8th-year-operation/642482/) reports that TexAmericas Center is still interested in I-369 and that it is actively engaged in the I-30 Corridor Study:
Quote
Scott Norton, the center's executive director and chief executive officer ....
added that he also attended an Interstate 69 annual meeting in Houston and secured the center's membership on the Interstate 30 Corridor Study Committee.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas held an I-69 Day March 1 to, among other things, provide an update on the progress of I-69 (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/i69.%20Eco%20Workshop%20Slides%20Mar%202017.pdf). Of interest is that that they now include the Texarkana Northwest Loop as part of I-369 (p. 15/15 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_13_03_17_1_30_33.png)
Elsewhere in the presentation, they play up the connection to I-49 (p. 14/15 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_13_03_17_1_41_26.png)
At least they seem to be making progress on the marketing end.
Quote from: Grzrd on March 13, 2017, 01:47:15 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas held an I-69 Day March 1 to, among other things, provide an update on the progress of I-69 (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/i69.%20Eco%20Workshop%20Slides%20Mar%202017.pdf). Of interest is that that they now include the Texarkana Northwest Loop as part of I-369 (p. 15/15 of pdf):
Elsewhere in the presentation, they play up the connection to I-49 (p. 14/15 of pdf):
At least they seem to be making progress on the marketing end.
The I-69-related powers that be in TX (TXDOT + the Alliance for I-69), as I've averred elsewhere, would likely be more than satisfied if the I-69 mainline were completed north to the Tenaha area, subsequently emptying out onto I-369. The HPC (#20) connecting Laredo with Texarkana was their "baby" from the beginning; the other one (#18) addressing the rest of the I-69 corridor was a joint venture with (mostly) Indiana figures to cobble up a corridor that would serve their localized interests but also garner support from the interim areas through which the corridor passed (Memphis, etc.). The TX interests managed to get the 69E/C "trident" through vetting under the HPC 18 aegis -- but as far as LA (or even AR) mileage is concerned -- it
isn't a pressing matter for TX that those segments not directly benefiting or serving the state be developed in any sort of timely fashion. So look for the 69/369 continuum to see some level of progress (even in bits and pieces) while anything going into LA is put on the back burner, so to speak.
This article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2017/mar/29/chamber-planning-trip-nations-capital-plead-i-69-funding/667471/) reports that the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce is still actively looking for funds for I-369:
Quote
Texarkana Chamber of Commerce officials, members and associates continue to meet with policy makers on all levels to advocate for local and regional interests, as covered in the chamber's March meeting .... Cory Floyd, chamber board chairman, spoke of the I-69 Fly-In, a trip scheduled for May that involves chamber members going to Washington, D.C., to plead for funding to complete Interstate 69. The emphasis will include completion of I-369 leading to Texarkana. Anyone is welcome to join the chamber on this trip at their own expense ....
Quote from: Grzrd on April 04, 2017, 02:59:23 PM
This article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2017/mar/29/chamber-planning-trip-nations-capital-plead-i-69-funding/667471/) reports that the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce is still actively looking for funds for I-369:
Quote
Texarkana Chamber of Commerce officials, members and associates continue to meet with policy makers on all levels to advocate for local and regional interests, as covered in the chamber's March meeting .... Cory Floyd, chamber board chairman, spoke of the I-69 Fly-In, a trip scheduled for May that involves chamber members going to Washington, D.C., to plead for funding to complete Interstate 69. The emphasis will include completion of I-369 leading to Texarkana. Anyone is welcome to join the chamber on this trip at their own expense ....
Hmm....Texarkana wants I-369 completed -- about as surprising as finding out the sky is blue and bears purportedly shit in the woods. One would surmise that it's likely that the currently signed I-369 will be eventually bypassed by a wider-radius loop west and north of town directly hooking into I-49 well north of I-30. Because of its relatively strategic location -- and with a 5-pronged present/future Interstate egress network -- it could also be predicted that Texarkana will actively seek out warehousing and/or logistics/fulfillment facilities to locate along one or another of the Interstate facilities in the area. And since the current I-369 freeway segues (via TX Loop 151 and the remainder of AR 245) seamlessly into I-49 south of town, there might be a push for that loop section as a 2nd regional 3di based on I-30 or I-49. Since two states would be competing for facility location, it'll be interesting to see how local and state politics plays out regarding I-369's eventual alignment and the above 3di concept!
Does anyone agree with my opinion that maybe more of the proposed freeway should have been constructed before signing the road as Interstate 369? Especially when the portion signed is at the northern end.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2017, 04:40:19 PM
Does anyone agree with my opinion that maybe more of the proposed freeway should have been constructed before signing the road as Interstate 369? Especially when the portion signed is at the northern end.
It seems that Texarkana local interests had TXDOT's ear in regards to getting a "placeholder" I-369 designation applied to the N-S US 59 freeway in the west part of town. They likely subscribe to the "nose through the door" notion that once a portion of the road is signed, then other segments will inevitably follow (regardless, in this case, of alternate alignment plans). Just like with the couple of miles of I-69W near Laredo and I-69C in the lower Rio Grande valley, the current I-369 signage is intended to convey seriousness about the corridor's development -- i.e., it's more for show than a real indicator regarding the final route.
This April 6 article (https://www.ktbs.com/news/texarkana-mpo-solicits-comments-on-transportation-plan/article_686ba6eb-0fbc-51db-a6e5-02f59bfad32b.html) lists some proposed additions to the highway projects listed in Texarkana's 2015-2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, including an I-69 Route Study from Texarkana to Atlanta:
Quote
Proposed projects include: ....
Route Study for I69 from Texarkana to Atlanta
The Texarkana MPO recently posted the May 17, 2017 Amendment #1 to the 2015-2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and it included the Route Study for I-69 from Texarkana to Atlanta in the 2020 to 2024 Fiscally Constrained Project List (p. 92/131 of pdf; p. 84 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_02_10.jpeg)
....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_09_08.jpeg)
Since the prior route study ran into NIMBY opposition, the choice of Atlanta as the southern terminus of the study presents the possibility of going around the western end of Wright Patman Lake, or maybe using the the SH 8 bridge as a basis for an interstate upgrade, before heading up to TexAmericas Center, thereby avoiding the NIMBYs. It will be interesting to see as details come forth about the study.
Also, in the unfunded "wish list" of projects, there is an upgrade of the current US 59 to interstate standards from the current I-369 to the Cass County line, with a price tag of approximately $200 million (p. 95/131 of pdf; p. 87 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_29_29.jpeg)
....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_38_07.jpeg)
With that price tag, it would make sense to explore the "western" option. And, as would be expected, the route for I-369 would need to be determined before the route for the Northern Loop could be studied.
Yes, the freeway needs to go further west around Texarkana. Cross Sulphur River just east of the lake and then head mostly north. Probably slap through the middle of TexAmerica center (East) probably run near the current SPUR74. This said, that is common sense. It misses almost all of the current homes and businesses AND neatly dovetails with the proposed I49 crossing of the Red River and adds great access to TexAmericas center.
The problem is much of this runs through a neo-governmental non-profit (TexAmericas Center). No one gets rich on the frontage. I hate sounding skeptical, but that is how it plays. Not here: Everywhere.
Frankly, if we worried about the loops around the towns US59 currently goes through, it would actually make the traffic better.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 11, 2017, 02:44:54 PM
This April 6 article (https://www.ktbs.com/news/texarkana-mpo-solicits-comments-on-transportation-plan/article_686ba6eb-0fbc-51db-a6e5-02f59bfad32b.html) lists some proposed additions to the highway projects listed in Texarkana's 2015-2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, including an I-69 Route Study from Texarkana to Atlanta
This July 12 article (https://www.atlantacitizensjournal.com/news/council-votes-repair-pd-communications) reports that the Atlanta City Council approved a resolution asking TxDOT to study the I-369 alignment near Atlanta:
Quote
.... City Manager David Cockrell ....
The council also approved a resolution supporting the Texas Department of Transportation's efforts to study future route alignments of Interstate 369, which will connect Interstate 30 in Texarkana to Interstate 69, which extends to the border with Mexico.
According to information on the TxDOT website, "I-69 is a proposed national interstate that extends from Texas to Michigan. The Texas route includes several existing roads: U.S. 59, U.S. 84, U.S. 77 and U.S. 281.
"In 2011, the first section on I-69 was established. Since then, TxDOT has been using the recommendations of the I-69 Citizen Committees to further plan and develop I-69 Texas."
Cockrell said, "The Metropolitan Planning Organization up in Texarkana has already passed a resolution asking for an alignment study for the future IH 369 corridor."
He later added, "How's it going to get around Atlanta? This resolution is going to be business that you would rather take care of sooner rather than later. Once we get a route defined, we can say, "ËœOK, we're going to reach out and touch that thing as a community so that if it's not in our corporate limits, we're going to want it -- unless it's way far out -- we're going to want to serve that with utilities."
Atlanta officials want to have input in the process, Cockrell emphasized.
"I communicated with the mayor of Queen City and the city manager of Linden ... It's my understanding that everybody is going to try to get very similar resolutions passed."
This July 26 article (https://www.atlantacitizensjournal.com/news/ultimately-citizen-input-will-precede-i-69-corridor-work-here) reports that the Cass County Commissioners Court also passed a resolution in support of TxDOT studying potential routes for I-369, but any action is probably years away:
Quote
Both the Atlanta City Council and Cass County Commissioners Court recently passed resolutions supporting the Texas Department of Transportation's study of potential routes for Interstate Highway 369, which will facilitate traffic through northeast Texas as part of the planned Interstate 69 corridor ....
Much of the corridor through this area will follow an upgraded U.S. 59, but because of interstate specifications that must be met -- roadway width, the installation of frontage roads -- the corridor must go around towns like Atlanta and Linden, most likely through the use of relief routes.
One of the reasons for the recent local resolutions is to reserve a seat at the table for Cass County communities once planning of those routes gets underway -- something which could still be years away ....
"They (transportation officials) will look at several different routes, they'll look at environmental, historical, churches, homes. Different things. Cemeteries. There are certain things you have to miss, have to go around," said Marcus Sandifer, public information officer with TxDOT's Atlanta District.
"Once the study is complete, it will be presented in a public meeting. We'll have it open to the public, and they can come in and talk about it and look at the different studies and ... voice their opinion on which route they prefer." ....
Segments of I-69 corridor are being constructed as funding becomes available, and there's no set timeframe yet for work through Cass County.
Less traffic flows along the route through our area than some other communities along the corridor, and those areas have been higher priorities.
TxDOT will hold a public meeting this Fall about the route selected for Marshall:
Quote
Marshall, also along the I-69 corridor, has been engaged in such a process for years now, Sandifer pointed out.
Another public meeting for that area is scheduled for the fall.
There, a number of routes were looked at before a preferred route was chosen. The next meeting will focus on that route.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 11, 2017, 02:44:54 PM
The Texarkana MPO recently posted the May 17, 2017 Amendment #1 to the 2015-2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and it included the Route Study for I-69 from Texarkana to Atlanta in the 2020 to 2024 Fiscally Constrained Project List (p. 92/131 of pdf; p. 84 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_02_10.jpeg)
....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_09_08.jpeg)
This article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2017/nov/08/bowie-county-judge-james-carlow-announces-bid-re-election/699099/) indicates that the route study began on Sept. 1, 2017 and that it should last about a year:
Quote
Judge Carlow has also continued his efforts to advance regional transportation projects such as Interstate 69/Interstate 369, Highway 82 and the widening of Interstate 30 in Texarkana.
"We were successful in securing funds for the final route study for the segment of I-69/I-369 from Texarkana to Queen City. The study formally began Sept. 1, 2017, and is expected to take about a year. It's great to see the progress continue," Judge Carlow said.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 04, 2015, 01:23:37 PM
The I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg1_final.pdf) contains an interesting map which shows the Northern Loop as an "I-69 connecting route", as well as showing the West Loop as the eventual primary I-369 corridor (and doing a horrible job of showing both I-49 in Arkansas and the I-49/ I-369 interchange location) ... (page 21/155 of pdf; page 15 of document)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FogSTEcN.png&hash=6b0ee55e89fc5904b2e56118f2f45746765c0425)
Quote from: Grzrd on June 11, 2017, 02:44:54 PM
Also, in the unfunded "wish list" of projects, there is an upgrade of the current US 59 to interstate standards from the current I-369 to the Cass County line, with a price tag of approximately $200 million (p. 95/131 of pdf; p. 87 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_29_29.jpeg)
....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_38_07.jpeg)
With that price tag, it would make sense to explore the "western" option.
This November 15 article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2017/nov/15/officials-hear-updates-area-transportation-road-projects/699988/) provides an update about the Texarkana-Queen City "I-69" route study, and it strongly suggests that they will study the Texarkana/ US 59 corridor instead of a new terrain TexAmericas Center Corridor:
Quote
Officials from both Texarkanas heard an update on various transportation projects from local, regional and state experts on Tuesday.
Widening Interstate 30 west of town, constructing part of the Interstate 69 corridor between Texarkana and Queen City, Texas, and resurfacing State Line Avenue all came up during the quarterly meeting of the Joint Texarkana Community Committee, which focused on transportation.
Glenn Green of Texas Department of Transportation ....
Green also announced that building I-69 southward from Texarkana is "in the project development funnel," not yet funded but beginning to be studied.
"If you've heard about 369 or the I-69 corridor, you know TxDOT has developed it from each end, from the south and from the north. We here in Texarkana are considered the north bookend. And so we are starting. We have a study that has been initiated last month that will look at the I-69 corridor from this point to Queen City. We'll be taking public input and establishing the I-69 corridor through our public involvement process and environmental process. That gets this project under development," he said.
That section of the interstate probably would follow U.S. Highway 59 but could deviate from that route, Green said. Any sections of U.S. 59 used would be upgraded to interstate highway construction standards if necessary.
By saying that it could deviate from US 59 leaves them the option to study the TexAmericas Center route, but I am surprised that they haven't mentioned the TexAmericas Center route at the beginning of the study. Time will tell.
I must admit, I'm fascinated by the I-369 development. Admittedly, this is mostly because I have family that lives near Beckville, not far from Carthage, and I wonder how all of this is going to affect my regular trips down there to visit them. I saw that one of the "Committee Suggested I-69 Connecting Routes" basically follows SH 149 from Longview to Carthage; my current route takes I-20 east from Dallas, then heads down 149. It also looked like there was a route that was more direct from Dallas to Carthage shown in the suggested connecting routes. I don't imagine I-369 itself would be faster than taking SH 149; that's too far of a detour to the east, but an upgraded direct route from Dallas to Carthage would be a significant time-saver
Obviously this isn't going to be done tomorrow, or 5 years from now, or even 10, but what kind of timetable are we looking at here, realistically? 15 years? 20?
Growing up, I certainly never imagined Carthage would have an Interstate of its own, even a 3di. Of course, that was back before its loop was built; it's grown quite a bit since then.
I have my doubts that this will ever be useful to me, simply because I don't know that I'll still be making those trips by the time it's done (I certainly hope to have reason to for a long time to come, but...). Even so, as someone who's loved roads and travel since I was a child, it's pretty cool to see this unfold.
From today's Texarkana Gazette:
QuoteSpeaker tells how I-69 will speed local economic growth
Capt. Bill Diehl, president of the Greater Houston Port Bureau, said Texarkana will see a greater volume of cargo traffic when Interstate 69 opens, clearing another direct way from Houston northward.
Diehl, who was the featured speaker at the 2018 Economic Outlook Dinner, sponsored by Texas A&M University-Texarkana's College of Business, Engineering and Technology, also worked at the Panama Canal from 2004-06 and explained how ports work.
"It's cheaper for a company to ship a container from the Panama Canal to Texarkana through the Port of Los Angeles than it is through the Port of Houston," he said.
That's about to change, he said, as companies further north are now filling empty containers with plastic pellets made from ethane before they return to the port.
"It is expanding the market," he said. "Companies can get the boxes better, faster, cheaper."
Diehl predicts that more containers will come from the Port of Houston to Dallas and then be transported via truck or railroad to their final destinations.
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/feb/07/speaker-tells-how-i-69-will-speed-local-economic-growth/712338/
Quote from: Grzrd on June 11, 2017, 02:44:54 PM
The Texarkana MPO recently posted the May 17, 2017 Amendment #1 to the 2015-2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and it included the Route Study for I-69 from Texarkana to Atlanta in the 2020 to 2024 Fiscally Constrained Project List (p. 92/131 of pdf; p. 84 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_02_10.jpeg)
....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_09_08.jpeg)
Since the prior route study ran into NIMBY opposition, the choice of Atlanta as the southern terminus of the study presents the possibility of going around the western end of Wright Patman Lake, or maybe using the the SH 8 bridge as a basis for an interstate upgrade, before heading up to TexAmericas Center, thereby avoiding the NIMBYs. It will be interesting to see as details come forth about the study.
Also, in the unfunded "wish list" of projects, there is an upgrade of the current US 59 to interstate standards from the current I-369 to the Cass County line, with a price tag of approximately $200 million (p. 95/131 of pdf; p. 87 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_29_29.jpeg)
....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_38_07.jpeg)
With that price tag, it would make sense to explore the "western" option. And, as would be expected, the route for I-369 would need to be determined before the route for the Northern Loop could be studied.
This article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/may/16/study-will-look-highway-feasibility/726451/) reports that some money has been allocated for a study of a "spur" off of U.S. 59/Future I-369 that would run through TexAmericas Center:
Quote
Regional transportation officials have begun a process they hope someday will result in a new Bowie County highway.
The Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority last week allocated $350,000 toward studying the feasibility of a spur from the future Interstate 369–now U.S. Highway 59–west and north through Red River Army Depot and TexAmericas Center to Interstate 30.
The Texarkana, Texas, City Council voted Monday to contribute $25,000 toward $100,000 in matching funds for the study. NET RMA is asking Bowie County, TexAmericas and other stakeholders for the remainder of the matching funds, Andrea Williams-McCoy told the council. Last year, Bowie County Judge James Carlow appointed Williams-McCoy and Cory Floyd to be the county's representatives on the NET RMA board of directors.
"This will be the first solid step of getting engineers to look at the environmentals, the costs, acquisition of right of way and all the things that go into it," city Economic Developer Jerry Sparks told the council.
The Texarkana region should act now to accommodate an increase in freight traffic anticipated once U.S. 59 becomes I-369, Williams-McCoy said. Once complete, I-369 will connect the future Interstate 69 in Shelby County to Texarkana along the U.S. 59 corridor. Construction of I-369 is in the planning and development stage.
"Because U.S. 59 has such an organic amount of very heavy freight traffic–we have timber and a number of other industries that have used that forever–we have a really high portion of traffic on U.S. 59 before it ever becomes part of 69.
"Then when you add in factors like TexAmericas and the depot and other industries around here, there's no question that we're going to see a tremendous amount of (freight traffic), and planning for that can't happen, you know, a year before you start having a problem," Williams-McCoy said.
Carlow agreed that the time is right to begin studying the project, as the next segment of I-369 to be planned is between Queen City and Texarkana, where the proposed northwestward spur would originate. The concept is for the county to eventually donate to the state the land on which the spur would be built.
Carlow gave his comments while accepting from Mayor Bob Bruggeman a certificate that recognized his decades-long work on regional transportation and economic development.
Local cooperation will be key to achieving the spur's construction, Floyd said.
"When we're able to go to the NET RMA and tell them that we have a project that has both retail significance, state and national significance, but also local support from individuals such as yourself, it really increases our level of success," he said.
Regional Mobility Authorities are transportation agencies in Texas meant to give local governments more control over planning and project construction. One or more counties may form an RMA. The state legislature first authorized RMAs in 2001.
NET RMA formed in 2004, and Bowie County joined in 2007. NET RMA's 12 counties are Bowie, Cherokee, Gregg, Harrison, Kaufman, Panola, Rusk, Smith, Titus, Upshur, Van Zandt and Wood.
NET RMA collects revenues from a toll road around Tyler, Texas, called Toll 49, and those revenues funded the feasibility study, Williams-McCoy said.
I don't know how much significance, if any, should be placed on the "spur" language. However, it sounds like they intend to connect to the current I-369 in Texarkana
and build out to TexAmericas Center.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 16, 2018, 11:36:07 AM
I don't know how much significance, if any, should be placed on the "spur" language. However, it sounds like they intend to connect to the current I-369 in Texarkana and build out to TexAmericas Center.
Not particularly surprising; the presently signed I-369/US 59 has independent utility as the western leg of the south metro Texarkana bypass that also includes MSR/Loop 151 and part of I-49. It's likely that regardless of the final path of I-369 that includes a connector to the unbuilt I-49 section within TX north of I-30 there will be an eventual push for another 3di either heading east from I-369 (the connector described above) or using the existing loop as currently situated; whether that would be an x30, x49, or even a x69 is too early to speculate. Texarkana and its promoters seem to have an outsized view of themselves as the centerpiece of regional commerce; using planned and speculative alignments to cobble up a type of conceptual metro beltway seems like something that would be undertaken or at least promoted as a matter of course.
Quote from: sparker on May 16, 2018, 04:28:53 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 16, 2018, 11:36:07 AM
I don't know how much significance, if any, should be placed on the "spur" language. However, it sounds like they intend to connect to the current I-369 in Texarkana and build out to TexAmericas Center.
Not particularly surprising; the presently signed I-369/US 59 has independent utility as the western leg of the south metro Texarkana bypass that also includes MSR/Loop 151 and part of I-49. It's likely that regardless of the final path of I-369 that includes a connector to the unbuilt I-49 section within TX north of I-30 there will be an eventual push for another 3di either heading east from I-369 (the connector described above) or using the existing loop as currently situated; whether that would be an x30, x49, or even a x69 is too early to speculate. Texarkana and its promoters seem to have an outsized view of themselves as the centerpiece of regional commerce; using planned and speculative alignments to cobble up a type of conceptual metro beltway seems like something that would be undertaken or at least promoted as a matter of course.
My recollection is that at least the Arkansas portion of the Texarkana loop at one time carried the unsigned designation of I-130. Not sure if that designation still exists, but could I-130 take over the Texas portion of the Texarkana loop if I-369 is rerouted onto a new terrain alignment further west? Just food for thought.
Under the current funding arrangement with the federal government I wouldn't hold my breath for any new Interstate designation on what is currently signed as Texas Loop 151. The "I-130" thing is dead and gone. If the I-369 designation was removed from its portion of Loop 151 it might be possible Loop 151 between I-49 and I-30 could be re-signed as either "I-230" or "I-249." However, Texas is obviously is no rush whatsoever to obtain Interstate designations for quite a few existing freeways (and toll roads) carrying Texas state highway or even Farm to Market designations. Loop 151 will probably just remain as Loop 151 for decades into the future unless some radical changes are made to how the United States plans and funds highway infrastructure projects.
That's probably a correct assessment; the only thing that would get a stand-along 3di established on Loop 151 and existing I-369/US 59 would be heavy and continuous political pressure from Texarkana-area interests toward that end -- but, of course, any such effort would have to be abetted by ARDOT, since the tail end of the loop lies within their jurisdiction. In any case, if it ever occurs, it'll be a long, long way down the line; nothing to hold one's breath over.
I'm thinking that it's still up in the air whether whatever becomes I-369 even makes it to the existing Loop 151, or is displaced westward to miss the loop altogether. If they decide the latter, then wouldn't that create a situation where most of Texarkana would be shut out of 369 entirely unless they decided to either upgrade the rest of US 59 to Loop 151 or build a separate connector to I-49 a bit south of the existing loop?
If it was up to me and I had unlimited bank, I'd upgrade 59 all the way to the Loop 151, and build the Western Loop from I-49 north of Texarkana to I-30 and back down as a separate corridor.
If you really want to splurge, you could also extend the Western Loop east to reconnect with I-49 south of Texarkana. Make the whole "Outer Loop" I-249, keep the upgraded US 59 to the "Inner Loop" as I-369, and keep the small connector of Loop 151 between 59/369 and I-49 as 151.
All that's missing is the money, of course.
The really odd thing is the I-369 route some planners fancy does not line up with the existing loop highway in Texarkana. It just runs farther west thru the TexAmericas Center and does not connect into the existing Texarkana loop at all. Basically it was a silly ploy for TxDOT to apply an I-369 designation to the existing loop at all.
IMHO the existing loop around the South side of Texarkana should be designated at a I-x49 route, such as I-249. The I-369 thing is its own deal, but it is cribbing on what would be the "I-249" route around the immediate area of Texarkana. I-369 would be farther West serving other purposes, legit purposes at that.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 16, 2018, 11:36:07 AM
This article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/may/16/study-will-look-highway-feasibility/726451/) reports that some money has been allocated for a study of a "spur" off of U.S. 59/Future I-369 that would run through TexAmericas Center
This article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/may/27/spurring-growth-texamericas-lands-450k-push-link-center-i-30-future-i-69-corridors/728032/) also discusses the funding for the study, but it includes the additional detail that interstate rigth-of-way has been set aside for the "spur" along Bowie Parkway in TexAmericas Center:
Quote
... Scott Norton, TexAmericas executive director and CEO ....
The spur will help to increase TexAmericas' and RRAD's transportation infrastructure in the area. Which will increase the value of both entities.
"We've been working with the Texas Department of Transportation, Jerry Sparks and (County) Judge James Carlow to figure out the next step. As a part of the I-69 corridor study, this spur is to be the link-up in our area, running through the 9,000 acres of the former Lone Star property.
"The TexAmericas Center board set aside a 600-foot right of way along Bowie Parkway, in anticipation of a future interstate corridor," he said. "Among the things the feasibility study will examine will be this route and it eventually linking up to I-30."
Here is a view of Bowie Parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4018382,-94.2269113,434m/data=!3m1!1e3):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_28_05_18_11_15_30.jpeg)
The designation of I-369 over the existing US 59 portion of the Texarkana SW loop was little more than a PR ploy; the corridor's backers thought that by getting a foothold in the Texarkana area they could marshal increased regional support for completion of the corridor -- that corridor's final routing notwithstanding. Part of it was getting the I-369 shield on the approaches from I-30 to potentially extend that support to commercial users of the E-W Interstate -- along with publicizing the fact that eventually I-369 would be the direct route from I-30 to Houston. Much of the I-69 corridor in East Texas is predicated upon the longstanding need for a direct Interstate-grade corridor to serve commercial traffic between Houston (and the rest of the "Chemical Coast"), I-369, being an in-state segment, is an integral part of that rationale -- since I-30 is arguably the most efficient present egress from Texas to all points northeast, finishing that portion of the corridor that will serve state interests while maintaining control of the progress of that corridor (no need to coordinate with LA, AR, or any other state on the basic connection). Situations such as this predicated the division of the I-69 corridor into almost 30 SIU's; the rationale was to build the ones with tangible short-term benefit first and then move on to the less "vital" segments more or less at leisure. If and when the I-69/369 continuum is completed, that will have fulfilled much of the TX "wish list" -- and the political figures at the center of the process can point to the route and state "see what I did for you". Some may refer to it as "just more pork" -- but in this case it's pork with a modicum of nutritive value! So the present I-369 signage will likely remain on its current freeway segment until it it's no longer of use.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 24, 2018, 01:38:11 AM
The really odd thing is the I-369 route some planners fancy does not line up with the existing loop highway in Texarkana. It just runs farther west thru the TexAmericas Center and does not connect into the existing Texarkana loop at all. Basically it was a silly ploy for TxDOT to apply an I-369 designation to the existing loop at all.
IMHO the existing loop around the South side of Texarkana should be designated at a I-x49 route, such as I-249. The I-369 thing is its own deal, but it is cribbing on what would be the "I-249" route around the immediate area of Texarkana. I-369 would be farther West serving other purposes, legit purposes at that.
The problem is, though, that if you reroute I-369 along the Western Loop to the TAC to I-30, you completely bypass Texarkana freeway-wise; the only connection would be through existing US 59, which is an arterial surface highway.
Would TXDOT be willing to fund an upgrade of US 59 to freeway standards from the split of I-369 and Western Loop to the current "inner" Texarkana Loop (US 59/TX151/AR 151/AR 225)? Or, would ARDOT fund a connector between I-369 and I-49 to the south of Texarkana to link the two and give traffic on I-369 access to downtown?
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 28, 2018, 10:00:12 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 24, 2018, 01:38:11 AM
The really odd thing is the I-369 route some planners fancy does not line up with the existing loop highway in Texarkana. It just runs farther west thru the TexAmericas Center and does not connect into the existing Texarkana loop at all. Basically it was a silly ploy for TxDOT to apply an I-369 designation to the existing loop at all.
IMHO the existing loop around the South side of Texarkana should be designated at a I-x49 route, such as I-249. The I-369 thing is its own deal, but it is cribbing on what would be the "I-249" route around the immediate area of Texarkana. I-369 would be farther West serving other purposes, legit purposes at that.
The problem is, though, that if you reroute I-369 along the Western Loop to the TAC to I-30, you completely bypass Texarkana freeway-wise; the only connection would be through existing US 59, which is an arterial surface highway.
Would TXDOT be willing to fund an upgrade of US 59 to freeway standards from the split of I-369 and Western Loop to the current "inner" Texarkana Loop (US 59/TX151/AR 151/AR 225)? Or, would ARDOT fund a connector between I-369 and I-49 to the south of Texarkana to link the two and give traffic on I-369 access to downtown?
It seems that the TexAmericas Center just west of town is considered by locals to be inexorably connected with Texarkana itself and part & parcel of its commercial-center ambitions; routing I-369 through there rather than sticking to the present US 59 alignment would satisfy local interests, since from there it would loop around the NW side of the metro area to meet I-49 west of the Arkansas state line. Texarkana is staking its future on new commercial development around its periphery rather than concentrating on downtown revival; the planned freeway network reflects that. There are/will be 5 individual Interstate "arms" radiating out from the general area; taking advantage of that
is the centerpiece of local development. Even I-49 doesn't pierce the city center in either half of greater Texarkana but uses the east side of the inner loop to skirt the denser metro core; that in itself is an indicator of the region's priorities re development of both the commercial potential of the region
and the freeway network serving it.
It's a small step, but TxDOT is holding an Open House on June 26 (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/atlanta/062618.html) for an interstate-grade grade separation at the intersection of US 59 and FM 1794 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2820204,-94.350731,878m/data=!3m1!1e3), preseumably part of Future I-369:
Quote
The purpose of this open house is to discuss the proposed construction of a grade separation that would meet interstate standards at the intersection of US 59 and FM 1794 in Panola County.
Here is a snip of the project area:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_12_06_18_7_50_36.jpeg)
Quote from: Grzrd on June 12, 2018, 07:53:25 PM
It's a small step, but TxDOT is holding an Open House on June 26 (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/atlanta/062618.html) for an interstate-grade grade separation at the intersection of US 59 and FM 1794 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2820204,-94.350731,878m/data=!3m1!1e3), preseumably part of Future I-369:
Quote
The purpose of this open house is to discuss the proposed construction of a grade separation that would meet interstate standards at the intersection of US 59 and FM 1794 in Panola County.
Here is a snip of the project area:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_12_06_18_7_50_36.jpeg)
Hmmm...the way those left turn lanes are transferred to the opposite carriageways is kind of like a partial CFI.
From the looks of the ROW, it looks like they will convert the existing southbound carriageway into the southbound frontage road; the existing northbound carriageway will become the new southbound freeway mainline overpassing the cross road; and new roadways will be built on the east side of the ROW for the northbound freeway mainline and the northbound frontage road/ramps. Without seeing the plans, am I correct?
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 12, 2018, 10:29:19 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 12, 2018, 07:53:25 PM
It's a small step, but TxDOT is holding an Open House on June 26 (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/atlanta/062618.html) for an interstate-grade grade separation at the intersection of US 59 and FM 1794 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2820204,-94.350731,878m/data=!3m1!1e3), preseumably part of Future I-369:
Quote
The purpose of this open house is to discuss the proposed construction of a grade separation that would meet interstate standards at the intersection of US 59 and FM 1794 in Panola County.
Here is a snip of the project area:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_12_06_18_7_50_36.jpeg)
Hmmm...the way those left turn lanes are transferred to the opposite carriageways is kind of like a partial CFI.
Texas has been doing those in places for the last 5-6 years, I think. Not every intersection is like this
Hallsville has one controlled by a traffic signal https://goo.gl/maps/avWRzGLvGy12
Whenever the planned inland port opens in TexAmericas Center, I wonder how big it's impact will be as far as jobs and population growth are concerned.
Quote from: dariusb on July 08, 2018, 01:25:11 PM
Whenever the planned inland port opens in TexAmericas Center, I wonder how big it's impact will be as far as jobs and population growth are concerned.
Initially, it'll have some marginal effect. Texarkana is already a "crossroads" of sorts with major UP RR lines tracing I-30 from SW to NE; these are heavily-used lines taking Texas products -- primarily petroleum-based products such as plastics and chemical compounds to distribution centers in the Midwest (mainly Chicago, but with E. St. Louis and Toledo, OH being major transfer points as well); the KCS N-S main line (S. Texas/up the Gulf and New Orleans; the lines merge at Shreveport) to Kansas City crosses and interchanges with the U.P lines here as well. What the TexAmericas Center is intended to do is add containerized cargo to the mix; it is intended to be a local "holding tank" for containers (primarily coming in from the West Coast through Fort Worth) before transfer to trucks or local-service trains. However, its impact won't be fully felt until I-49 is completed between Texarkana and Fort Smith to the north -- and I-369 is completed as a conduit to the main I-69 trunk. The
Alliance for I-69/Texas, which has been the major in-state driver for completing the I-69 corridor cluster as planned, has made no bones about the relative importance of I-369 versus the short eastern segment of I-69 going into LA from the division point of Tenaha, near Carthage -- getting a continuous corridor from Houston north to Texarkana is "job one", enabling traffic to segue onto eastward I-30 at that point and thus to Memphis and points north and east of there. The TexAmericas facility is simply "piggybacking" on that prioritization, being essentially situated at the 30/369 junction places it in a position to establish "spoke & hub" service centered on that location -- bring containers in via rail or truck from Fort Worth (where most of the regional container facilities are presently located) or containers loaded with "Chemical Coast" products brought up by UP or KCS trains or trucks coming up the I-69/369 continuum, which can "dwell" at TexAmericas until ready to be transported elsewhere. Virtual cargo "holding tanks" such as this can provide employment at least in the high hundreds if not in the low/middle thousands when fully operational; TexAmericas, being situated at a logical collection point for both container cargo originating elsewhere and TX production, will likely start off slow but eventually will pick up in total cargo volume once the accessways are completed. The Panama Canal enlargement (Panamax -- no relation to the power-conditioning products), while speculative, might enhance the prospects for collection/distribution centers like TexAmericas if traffic now originating at West Coast ports is shifted to Corpus Christi, Houston, Port Arthur, or other Gulf facilities -- and that's more than likely one of the arguments forwarded regarding development of those centers. Like all ventures, it's something of a crapshoot -- but like with similar concepts, it comes down to location -- and Texarkana seems to be one of the better-situated places for this sort of activity. Now -- how that translates to enhancement of local growth patterns remains to be seen -- but it certainly will result in
some level of growth in the not-too-distant future.
Thanks for the explanation and making it all clearer. Just wondering since you have knowledge of the area, have you ever lived or spent time here Sparker?
Lots of family in the area; mostly in OK and spread out along US 70 from Durant east to Broken Bow (the vast majority live in McCurtain County). My late dad's side; he was born in De Queen, AR and moved to Broken Bow when he was 6. Before WWII he used to work for the Texas, Oklahoma, and Eastern railroad (owned by the Dierks lumber firm, now part of Weyerhaeuser), which was a hardwood conduit to the mills along its length -- my grandfather managed the one in Broken Bow for many years. I do have an aunt in New Boston, but I barely maintain contact (her husband is one of the world's premier assholes! -- most of the family avoids him like the plague) except when she comes to Broken Bow alone for family get-togethers. Since my grandmother died back in the early 30's and my grandfather remarried and had kids into his late '50's, a lot of my (half) aunts & uncles are only a few years older than myself -- so while technically a previous generation, they're relatively close in age and mostly still around. I'm actually right between that generation and their oldest kids (they tended to marry and have kids at a very early age -- I'm 68, my youngest aunt is 77, and her oldest son just turned 60!).
I used to do rail photography as a hobby; before the '96 takeover of SP by UP, Texarkana was a great place to find vintage diesel power on the old Cotton Belt (SP subsidiary) main line through town. I invariably made side trips down there during family visits. So yes, I'm reasonably familiar with the region. Haven't been there in several years because of health issues (mine); planning a trip to Broken Bow for Christmas 2019 unless the situation changes.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 10, 2017, 07:54:27 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 11, 2017, 02:44:54 PM
The Texarkana MPO recently posted the May 17, 2017 Amendment #1 to the 2015-2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and it included the Route Study for I-69 from Texarkana to Atlanta in the 2020 to 2024 Fiscally Constrained Project List (p. 92/131 of pdf; p. 84 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_02_10.jpeg)
....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_17_2_09_08.jpeg)
This article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2017/nov/08/bowie-county-judge-james-carlow-announces-bid-re-election/699099/) indicates that the route study began on Sept. 1, 2017 and that it should last about a year:
Quote
Judge Carlow has also continued his efforts to advance regional transportation projects such as Interstate 69/Interstate 369, Highway 82 and the widening of Interstate 30 in Texarkana.
"We were successful in securing funds for the final route study for the segment of I-69/I-369 from Texarkana to Queen City. The study formally began Sept. 1, 2017, and is expected to take about a year. It's great to see the progress continue," Judge Carlow said.
TxDOT is holding an Open House on July 24 for the US 59 Texarkana-Queen City Route Study (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/atlanta/072418.html), which is described as follows:
Quote
TxDOT is conducting a planning study to develop and evaluate potential route options to extend Interstate 369 (I-369) from I-369/State Loop 151 southwest of Texarkana (Bowie County) to Farm to Market (FM) Road 2327 north of Queen City (Cass County). This section of US 59 in Bowie and Cass Counties will become part of the Interstate 69 system and be designated as I-369 upon meeting interstate standards and connecting to existing I-369. US 59 in this area does not currently meet interstate standards.
With the "spur" to TexAmericas Center also being studied, the following language in this May 30 article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/may/30/security-post-returning-bowie-county-courthouse/728311/) jumped out at me:
Quote
In other business, commissioners agreed to authorize the county to make a $50,000 contribution, as the county's share of matching funds, for a $350,000 grant recently extended to the county from the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority. The grant money will be used to finance a feasibility study that focuses on an Interstate 369 West Spur project connecting existing major roadways....
Does "Interstate 369 West Spur" raise the possibility of a "369W" shield? Also, since they are currently planning on extending I-369 to TX 151, will they rename TX 151/AR 151 an I-x49, since presumably a lot of freight traffic will follow I-49 to I-30 in carrying freight from I-369 to Little Rock and points beyond? More questions than answers.
I think it would just be another 3-digit I-x69 route. It is not necessary for every 3di Interstate route to originate from, connect to or cross the original 2di parent route.
Some Examples:
I-990 in Buffalo,
I-590 in Rochester,
I-278 & I-678 in New York City,
I-175 & I-375 in St Petersburg,
I-235 in Wichita
I-380 in San Francisco
I-980 in Oakland
I-238 in Ashland, CA
None of those routes make any contact directly with the parent 2di route.
We sure don't need any "I-369W" shields. The lettering would be even more badly, revoltingly squeezed than the characters on I-H201 shields. It would be disgusting, but more important: the lettering would be far less legible than usual.
And all of the above raises one more question: there seem to be no plans to extend the current I-369/US 59 alignment north and east to intersect I-49 NW of central Texarkana -- that was ostensibly to have been accomplished by the TexAmericas realignment (leaving the present alignment simply the N-S component of the entire SW Texarkana loop including 151). Is that still the plan -- but here, I-369 simply terminates at I-30 while the "spur" heads clockwise around the periphery to the aforementioned I-49 junction? At that point it could be designated as an x49 as well as an x69 -- but this being a part of the HPC 20 corridor and thus connected to the Alliance for I-69/Texas, which is responsible for the push to have everything (so far save I-2) reflect the "69" familiar logo, the "fix" would likely be in for a 69 derivative -- unfortunately, if past history with that group indicates a pattern, this would include the 3di+suffix (yecch!). Hell -- back in 2011, I emailed them a suggestion that the then-Northeast Branch, now I-369, be designated as I-47 (it's close to 120 miles long), but they shot me down in short order with the claim that all routes legally designated under HPC 18 and HPC 20 must be I-69 or a derivative (US 83 was never formally within that corridor definition, so they had no objections to I-2 for that facility). They're very protective of their projects and their "brand"! But, ironically, when I emailed a reply stating that section #28 of HPC 18, the Pine Bluff spur, was to eventually become an I-530 extension, they replied that anything outside of Texas was beyond their control (and, obviously, interest!).
What's wrong with naming the TexAmericas corridor alignment something like "I-569" if it's a spur route that dead ends or "I-669" if it ties into I-30 or goes farther to connect with I-49 North of Texarkana? The route could potentially have any even or odd numbered 3-digit I-x69 designation not already reserved by other projects. Aside from I-369 the only other one I can think of off-hand is the TX-550 toll road for the Port of Brownsville; I've heard that one bandied about as I-169. Are any others reserved already?
While the TexAmericas thing could technically be called "I-47" it would be a big waste of a 2di designation, especially if I-369 end up going directly into Texarkana (and meet up with the existing segment signed as I-369). The TexAmericas alignment is sparsely populated and does not directly serve metro Texarkana. I'm not a big fan of other ridiculously short 2di corridors, such as I-97. I can give I-2 a pass because of its location, the potential of its NW extension to Laredo and the fact it serves a pretty huge population (around 1.5 million people live in the Rio Grand Valley cluster of cities).
Quote from: Grzrd on July 09, 2018, 02:56:27 PM
[...]
TxDOT is holding an Open House on July 24 for the US 59 Texarkana-Queen City Route Study (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/atlanta/072418.html), which is described as follows:
Quote
TxDOT is conducting a planning study to develop and evaluate potential route options to extend Interstate 369 (I-369) from I-369/State Loop 151 southwest of Texarkana (Bowie County) to Farm to Market (FM) Road 2327 north of Queen City (Cass County). This section of US 59 in Bowie and Cass Counties will become part of the Interstate 69 system and be designated as I-369 upon meeting interstate standards and connecting to existing I-369. US 59 in this area does not currently meet interstate standards.
That makes absolute perfect sense, since upgrading US 59 to TX/AR 151 would provide direct access to central Texarkana and provide a direct link to I-49 and I-30. I figured that TXDOT wasn't going to bypass Texarkana merely using the Western Loop.
Quote
With the "spur" to TexAmericas Center also being studied, the following language in this May 30 article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/may/30/security-post-returning-bowie-county-courthouse/728311/) jumped out at me:
Quote
In other business, commissioners agreed to authorize the county to make a $50,000 contribution, as the county's share of matching funds, for a $350,000 grant recently extended to the county from the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority. The grant money will be used to finance a feasibility study that focuses on an Interstate 369 West Spur project connecting existing major roadways....
Does "Interstate 369 West Spur" raise the possibility of a "369W" shield? Also, since they are currently planning on extending I-369 to TX 151, will they rename TX 151/AR 151 an I-x49, since presumably a lot of freight traffic will follow I-49 to I-30 in carrying freight from I-369 to Little Rock and points beyond? More questions than answers.
If they would consider expanding the Western Loop to go north of I-30 to link with I-49 across the TX/AR border, and then extend it east at its southern terminus to hook up with I-49 south of Texarkana, that would create a nice I-x49 loop.
Quote from: sparker on July 09, 2018, 12:25:34 AM
Lots of family in the area; mostly in OK and spread out along US 70 from Durant east to Broken Bow (the vast majority live in McCurtain County). My late dad's side; he was born in De Queen, AR and moved to Broken Bow when he was 6. Before WWII he used to work for the Texas, Oklahoma, and Eastern railroad (owned by the Dierks lumber firm, now part of Weyerhaeuser), which was a hardwood conduit to the mills along its length -- my grandfather managed the one in Broken Bow for many years. I do have an aunt in New Boston, but I barely maintain contact (her husband is one of the world's premier assholes! -- most of the family avoids him like the plague) except when she comes to Broken Bow alone for family get-togethers. Since my grandmother died back in the early 30's and my grandfather remarried and had kids into his late '50's, a lot of my (half) aunts & uncles are only a few years older than myself -- so while technically a previous generation, they're relatively close in age and mostly still around. I'm actually right between that generation and their oldest kids (they tended to marry and have kids at a very early age -- I'm 68, my youngest aunt is 77, and her oldest son just turned 60!).
I used to do rail photography as a hobby; before the '96 takeover of SP by UP, Texarkana was a great place to find vintage diesel power on the old Cotton Belt (SP subsidiary) main line through town. I invariably made side trips down there during family visits. So yes, I'm reasonably familiar with the region. Haven't been there in several years because of health issues (mine); planning a trip to Broken Bow for Christmas 2019 unless the situation changes.
Cool. Back in the early 90s I lived in Lawton, Ok. Nice city at the time. Don't know what it's like now.
Quote from: dariusb on July 09, 2018, 10:50:43 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 09, 2018, 12:25:34 AM
Lots of family in the area; mostly in OK and spread out along US 70 from Durant east to Broken Bow (the vast majority live in McCurtain County). My late dad's side; he was born in De Queen, AR and moved to Broken Bow when he was 6. Before WWII he used to work for the Texas, Oklahoma, and Eastern railroad (owned by the Dierks lumber firm, now part of Weyerhaeuser), which was a hardwood conduit to the mills along its length -- my grandfather managed the one in Broken Bow for many years. I do have an aunt in New Boston, but I barely maintain contact (her husband is one of the world's premier assholes! -- most of the family avoids him like the plague) except when she comes to Broken Bow alone for family get-togethers. Since my grandmother died back in the early 30's and my grandfather remarried and had kids into his late '50's, a lot of my (half) aunts & uncles are only a few years older than myself -- so while technically a previous generation, they're relatively close in age and mostly still around. I'm actually right between that generation and their oldest kids (they tended to marry and have kids at a very early age -- I'm 68, my youngest aunt is 77, and her oldest son just turned 60!).
I used to do rail photography as a hobby; before the '96 takeover of SP by UP, Texarkana was a great place to find vintage diesel power on the old Cotton Belt (SP subsidiary) main line through town. I invariably made side trips down there during family visits. So yes, I'm reasonably familiar with the region. Haven't been there in several years because of health issues (mine); planning a trip to Broken Bow for Christmas 2019 unless the situation changes.
Cool. Back in the early 90s I lived in Lawton, Ok. Nice city at the time. Don't know what it's like now.
Ask Bobby 5280 -- he lives there and is chapter & verse about it (and all things OK!).
Lawton has improved a bit from how it was in the early 1990's. I moved here in '93. It's pretty "clean" compared to how it was back then.
A bunch of the topless bars and massage parlors that were operating along Fort Sill Blvd, Cache Road and a few other spots are all gone now. Some of that was courtesy of Commanding Generals aboard Fort Sill marking those places off limits and some of it was due to action by the city council. The town is down to just one topless bar West of town not far from the Goodyear plant. Another one farther West on Old Cache Road goes in and out of business. There's still a decent number of pawn shops and dollar stores though.
Bar-S, Republic Paperboard and Silverline Plastics all built plants out West near the huge Goodyear tire factory in the late 1990's. I remember it being kind of a big deal with Applebee's built a location on the West side of town. Since then lots of other chain restaurants came to town. I laughed when we finally got an Olive Garden location. I spent 5 years in New York City and had some pretty great Italian food there; I didn't understand the locals' obsession with getting an Olive Garden.
I'm a movie buff and know movie theaters. The old theaters that were operating in the early 1990's are gone. The Video Triple was converted into a hardware store (Locke Supply). Back when I was just a kid I watched The Empire Strikes Back at the Showcase Twin in 1980. That theater closed in the mid 1990's not long after the Carmike 8 opened (in Dec 1994). It was turned into a Blockbuster Video location. When Blockbuster went bust that building was razed. There's a different small shopping plaza on that site now. The Carmike 8 was closed by AMC just recently. The main theater in town is the AMC Patriot 13. Carmike originally opened it in 2012. It has an IMAX-branded screen. Central Mall has a small 12-plex movie theater that has changed hands a few times. Dickinson Theaters opened it in 2001. AMC was the last owner, but spun it off when AMC bought Carmike. Now "New Vision Theaters" has it. I don't think that theater is going to last. And Central Mall itself is struggling. The Sears location shut down not too long ago. JCPenney is struggling. I'm surprised they stayed in Central Mall after a water line break flooded part of the store last year (causing a bunch of renovation work and the store to be closed for a few months). Some out of town company owns Central Mall and is charging outrageous rent prices. It's as if they want this mall to go under.
Lawton is still largely a military town. I've heard buzz the Army wants to do a bunch more expansion work on Fort Sill, moving missions from other posts to Oklahoma. I think a big part of that has to do with controlling cost. Oklahoma, and Lawton in particular, has a lower than average cost of living. The difference is pretty extreme when comparing living costs to highly populated coastal areas. Housing is by no means cheap, but it's a bargain compared to a bunch of other places. Our utility costs are low. Water supply is good.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 10, 2018, 12:53:54 AM
Lawton has improved a bit from how it was in the early 1990's. I moved here in '93. It's pretty "clean" compared to how it was back then.
A bunch of the topless bars and massage parlors that were operating along Fort Sill Blvd, Cache Road and a few other spots are all gone now. Some of that was courtesy of Commanding Generals aboard Fort Sill marking those places off limits and some of it was due to action by the city council. The town is down to just one topless bar West of town not far from the Goodyear plant. Another one farther West on Old Cache Road goes in and out of business. There's still a decent number of pawn shops and dollar stores though.
Bar-S, Republic Paperboard and Silverline Plastics all built plants out West near the huge Goodyear tire factory in the late 1990's. I remember it being kind of a big deal with Applebee's built a location on the West side of town. Since then lots of other chain restaurants came to town. I laughed when we finally got an Olive Garden location. I spent 5 years in New York City and had some pretty great Italian food there; I didn't understand the locals' obsession with getting an Olive Garden.
I'm a movie buff and know movie theaters. The old theaters that were operating in the early 1990's are gone. The Video Triple was converted into a hardware store (Locke Supply). Back when I was just a kid I watched The Empire Strikes Back at the Showcase Twin in 1980. That theater closed in the mid 1990's not long after the Carmike 8 opened (in Dec 1994). It was turned into a Blockbuster Video location. When Blockbuster went bust that building was razed. There's a different small shopping plaza on that site now. The Carmike 8 was closed by AMC just recently. The main theater in town is the AMC Patriot 13. Carmike originally opened it in 2012. It has an IMAX-branded screen. Central Mall has a small 12-plex movie theater that has changed hands a few times. Dickinson Theaters opened it in 2001. AMC was the last owner, but spun it off when AMC bought Carmike. Now "New Vision Theaters" has it. I don't think that theater is going to last. And Central Mall itself is struggling. The Sears location shut down not too long ago. JCPenney is struggling. I'm surprised they stayed in Central Mall after a water line break flooded part of the store last year (causing a bunch of renovation work and the store to be closed for a few months). Some out of town company owns Central Mall and it charging outrageous rent prices. It's as if they want this mall to go under.
Lawton is still largely a military town. I've heard buzz the Army wants to do a bunch more expansion work on Fort Sill, moving missions from other posts to Oklahoma. I think a big part of that has to do with controlling cost. Oklahoma, and Lawton in particular, has a lower than average cost of living. The difference is pretty extreme when comparing living costs to highly populated coastal areas. Housing is by no means cheap, but it's a bargain compared to a bunch of other places. Our utility costs are low. Water supply is good.
Good to know. I remember how some people went down to Wichita Falls for entertainment and shopping. I'm sure some of that has changed now that Lawton has over 90,000 people now.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 09, 2018, 08:57:46 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 09, 2018, 02:56:27 PM
[...]
TxDOT is holding an Open House on July 24 for the US 59 Texarkana-Queen City Route Study (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/atlanta/072418.html), which is described as follows:
Quote
TxDOT is conducting a planning study to develop and evaluate potential route options to extend Interstate 369 (I-369) from I-369/State Loop 151 southwest of Texarkana (Bowie County) to Farm to Market (FM) Road 2327 north of Queen City (Cass County). This section of US 59 in Bowie and Cass Counties will become part of the Interstate 69 system and be designated as I-369 upon meeting interstate standards and connecting to existing I-369. US 59 in this area does not currently meet interstate standards.
That makes absolute perfect sense, since upgrading US 59 to TX/AR 151 would provide direct access to central Texarkana and provide a direct link to I-49 and I-30. I figured that TXDOT wasn't going to bypass Texarkana merely using the Western Loop.
Quote
With the "spur" to TexAmericas Center also being studied, the following language in this May 30 article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/may/30/security-post-returning-bowie-county-courthouse/728311/) jumped out at me:
Quote
In other business, commissioners agreed to authorize the county to make a $50,000 contribution, as the county's share of matching funds, for a $350,000 grant recently extended to the county from the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority. The grant money will be used to finance a feasibility study that focuses on an Interstate 369 West Spur project connecting existing major roadways....
Does "Interstate 369 West Spur" raise the possibility of a "369W" shield? Also, since they are currently planning on extending I-369 to TX 151, will they rename TX 151/AR 151 an I-x49, since presumably a lot of freight traffic will follow I-49 to I-30 in carrying freight from I-369 to Little Rock and points beyond? More questions than answers.
If they would consider expanding the Western Loop to go north of I-30 to link with I-49 across the TX/AR border, and then extend it east at its southern terminus to hook up with I-49 south of Texarkana, that would create a nice I-x49 loop.
I remember when 369 was first proposed and the original plan was to build it to connect with the loop in Texarkana and loop around the north side of Texarkana and tie into I-49 but was abandoned because some many homes and businesses were built in the northern part of town. Now after other alternative routes were discussed they're once again proposing building up 59 to meet the loop on the south side of Texarkana. If they do that a lot of homes and businesses would have to be moved pushing back construction for God knows how long. If they do that as well as build the spur to TexAmericas Center, I'm quite sure the spur section would be built first since the plans for the inland port and work on rail lines to Houston are moving forward.
If it is eventually decided to simply utilize the present signed I-369/US 59 up to I-30, it would, IMO, be prudent to simply bring Loop 151 into the Interstate system as a x49 (no need to sign it as another x69, as it isn't an integral part of HPC #20's statutory designation). That would provide an Interstate-signed connection between the two corridors and still maintain the aim of TX backers -- the direct segue from the greater I-69 corridor complex to the northeast outlet that I-30 provides. While it certainly would be efficient to have a 2nd "segue" corridor from 369 to I-49 north of town, for the time being that isn't really necessary; a Loop 151 routing would not only serve as a direct 369>49 connection but also provide a south bypass route around Texarkana to avoid potential congestion on the E-W I-30 corridor through the central city. The TexAmericas western loop project could be added to the network later as funding permits. The idea here is to maximize the potential for what's presently "on the ground" and operational.
I would be surprised if any planners are still having any serious thoughts of extending Loop 151/I-369 in Texarkana North of its current I-30 terminus. There is a large strip shopping center, a cluster of restaurants and a big church on the North side of the interchange. A bunch of that property would have to be cleared to make room for flyover ramps and allow the Interstate to proceed North (presumably to meet I-49). The situation with property doesn't get any easier going farther North. There are some expensive homes, churches, a golf ranch and other obstacles along the way.
It's going to be difficult enough linking the existing I-369 stub in Texarkana with the other parts of I-369 along the US-59 corridor. A new terrain alignment looks likely considering all the development hugging close to existing US-59 just South of Loop 151.
There's still a chance US-59 could be re-aligned starting from where it runs just East of Wright Patman Lake Dam, going North to cross I-30 farther West of Texarkana and not connect to Loop 151 at all.
If having a I-69 system segment going through the TexAmericas Center is really a serious proposal why don't they get the ball rolling on that already? It's former Army post property, not something with a bunch of residential housing and other things that could stand in the way of a superhighway. From the way it looks that part, and a link to I-49 North of Texarkana would be significantly easier than the projects in/near Texarkana itself.
Plus, the more they fart around wasting time the more the project costs are going to rise. The emerging trade war could make a serious impact on construction materials costs for some time to come.
Something tells me that the TexAmericas project, which appears to be largely dependent upon private financing, might not be on as solid financial ground as its public-sector partners originally thought (not an uncommon occurrence by any means), with scheduling being likely a very "gray" zone. So those partners are hedging their bets by reconfiguring I-369 to fit a more "restrained" set of plans, including utilizing existing facilities. I've been on US 59 from Marshall to Texarkana and agree that the segment just south of the 59/151 junction isn't directly amenable to Interstate upgrades; a parallel (slightly) new-terrain alignment is the most likely course of action. But, like I've always said, the clear goal of TX's I-69 backers is a corridor that connects Houston to I-30; those folks are intending on accomplishing that by the clearest path from point "A" to point "B"; right now the existing/signed I-369 route up the US 59 portion of the Texarkana south loop is part of that path. If and when the TexAmerica project gets off the ground and/or "stabilizes", a secondary loop via that facility will likely be planned -- probably one that, like other plans before it, hooks into I-49 somewhere along its short stint within TX. But the "sure thing" will likely prevail initially.
Sparky and Bobby, you both make very good points. People made so much noise about I-49 bringing so many jobs and commerce to Texarkana but little to nothing has happened since it opened. They're saying the same thing about 369 once it gets here. I know things take time but I really think the population and economic growth in the area will be minimal. Then again 49 still has a huge gap between Texarkana and Fort Smith. So who knows. What do you guys think?
Quote from: dariusb on July 11, 2018, 10:51:44 PM
Sparky and Bobby, you both make very good points. People made so much noise about I-49 bringing so many jobs and commerce to Texarkana but little to nothing has happened since it opened. They're saying the same thing about 369 once it gets here. I know things take time but I really think the population and economic growth in the area will be minimal. Then again 49 still has a huge gap between Texarkana and Fort Smith. So who knows. What do you guys think?
I'd venture that
both the I-369/69 combination and I-49 north to Fort Smith will have to be finished before any substantial economic increase to the area is realized. Because of its location, the area has good potential -- but for the time being that's largely unfulfilled. It may be that the backers of
TexAmericas themselves may be the ones holding back on development -- largely because the prospects for public projects such as the two unfinished Interstate corridors are so uncertain due to funding vagaries. Quite likely it's a matter of "your move" between the private and public entities -- one is waiting for the other to make a significant move such as funding a sizeable stretch of either Interstate corridor or, in the inverse, actually starting to construct facilities on their reserved properties. With ARDot displaying ongoing issues with getting key missing segments of I-49 off the ground, it becomes difficult for a private venture with stakeholders to satisfy to justify speculative physical investment absent some degree of certainty from the public partners. It's quite possible that if activity picks up on the TX part of the equation and consistent progress is made on I-369 and I-69 to the south, there will be
two southern access corridors to Texarkana while the northern one is still in the planning stage. That might prove sufficient for the
TexAmericas folks to phase in some sort of rail/truck transfer facility in order to "prime the pump", so to speak, for further development along those lines. We'll just have to keep an eye on the situation!
Yeah, traffic levels on I-49 are not going to increase noticeably until the gap between Fort Smith and Texarkana is filled. When enough of I-49 is sufficiently complete it will draw a lot of commercial traffic from Mid-America and points farther North destined for Louisiana ports. The I-69 system will add even more growth. Getting into fictional territory, I'd like to see a diagonal Interstate built from Limon, CO down to Oklahoma City and continue to the slant down to Texarkana. That would fill a pretty obvious gap in the national system and make Texarkana into an even more important crossroads point.
Regarding the TexAmericas center, if that development project is not getting a lot of commercial interest I can't say I'm surprised. Wasn't this supposed to be some kind of staging area for imports & exports? Such businesses need fast/efficient access to ports. I-69 and I-369 in Texas are pretty far away from being completed. The problem is the TexAmericas center kind of depends on I-69 in East Texas being finished already. Interest in that place may be pretty tepid until then.
The TexAmericas center has a decent amount of existing rail infrastructure, due to the Army ammunition depot that previously operated there. But much of that infrastructure is really old. And it empties out on an East-West route. Rail traffic has to go to Texarkana for any lines going South toward the coast.
Ooh -- an Interstate right down OK 3: My family in the Broken Bow/Idabel area would quake with excitement at the prospect of acquiring one or another food or fuel franchise (collectively we own about 9-10 square miles SE of Broken Bow, most of it forested).
Getting back to reality -- the TexAmericas center sits on a secondary UP (former Missouri Pacific) branch that previously, as cited above, served the ammo depot; the main UP line (also ex-MP and hosting the Amtrak "Texas Eagle", tracks I-30 northeast of town but shifts SW more or less along US 59 to Marshall; that by far is the most trafficked of the rail lines except for the N-S KCS line, which essentially follows the I-49 corridor. The 3rd line is the old Cotton Belt line, which come up from Dallas and Mt. Pleasant and leaves town to the east following US 82 before turning northeast to follow US 79 up to Pine Bluff. For the most part, the old MP and Cotton Belt lines paralleled each other from SE MO all the way down to the DFW area, crossing each other occasionally. Today, UP uses them largely as a one-way couplet, with the old MP line via Little Rock handling northeast-bound freight traffic heading toward Chicago or the East Coast (including some containers passing through DFW but mostly bulk cargo from the "Chemical Coast"), while the Cotton Belt line through Pine Bluff handles traffic returning southwest, including empty container and tank cars. But neither has directly served the TexAmericas former ammo-depot site; that was along a secondary old MP line that followed US 82 through Paris and Sherman; it diverged from the main line in Texarkana, essentially right at the state line. It's likely a new "loop" track extending to the main line southwest of town along US 59 would have to be constructed as a southern access route to TexAmericas; the existing trackage would function adequately from the other direction. But with these transfer/holding facilities, efficiency of egress is vital; having to back trains up a former branch line to get to the facility wouldn't be conducive to attracting customers. And that in itself may be a reason why the facility's development hasn't progressed rapidly; UP and possibly KCS likely realize that they're going to have to lay out bucks to retrofit an efficient access system from their main lines to the site -- in addition to getting FRA approval to construct such a network, convincing their boards of directors to do so without the various Interstate access corridors being fully operational may be problematic. Probably a case of, as I stated before, one party waiting for the other to make a definitive move before doing anything themselves.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 12, 2018, 02:35:34 PM
Yeah, traffic levels on I-49 are not going to increase noticeably until the gap between Fort Smith and Texarkana is filled. When enough of I-49 is sufficiently complete it will draw a lot of commercial traffic from Mid-America and points farther North destined for Louisiana ports. The I-69 system will add even more growth. Getting into fictional territory, I'd like to see a diagonal Interstate built from Limon, CO down to Oklahoma City and continue to the slant down to Texarkana. That would fill a pretty obvious gap in the national system and make Texarkana into an even more important crossroads point.
Regarding the TexAmericas center, if that development project is not getting a lot of commercial interest I can't say I'm surprised. Wasn't this supposed to be some kind of staging area for imports & exports? Such businesses need fast/efficient access to ports. I-69 and I-369 in Texas are pretty far away from being completed. The problem is the TexAmericas center kind of depends on I-69 in East Texas being finished already. Interest in that place may be pretty tepid until then.
The TexAmericas center has a decent amount of existing rail infrastructure, due to the Army ammunition depot that previously operated there. But much of that infrastructure is really old. And it empties out on an East-West route. Rail traffic has to go to Texarkana for any lines going South toward the coast.
7up
I don't know if you've heard about it, but at one time hwy. 82 between Texarkana and Wichita Falls was to be upgraded into an interstate but the plan fell through. It was part of former Texas governor Rick Perry's Trans Texas Corridor. I-44 may one day be extended from Wichita Falls to Fort Worth. Since you live in Lawton, is there still talk about that project?
If I-44 was going to be extended it would most likely go down to Abilene (and then maybe San Angelo; Del Rio is quite a reach). Over the past 20 years TX DOT has done a series of upgrades on US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene. The entire route is now a 4-lane facility. Several towns along the way have Interstate quality or near-Interstate quality bypasses. From OKC I-44 is already pointing toward the Southwest. It wouldn't make any sense at all for I-44 to suddenly make a hard left turn to go to Fort Worth and meet the I-35 corridor again. I would absolutely hate seeing that on a map.
US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo is worthy of an Interstate quality upgrade. I've heard the I-32 designation thrown around a good bit and that would make sense. The US-82 corridor is a tougher sell, although as gigantic as the Dallas-Fort Worth megapolis has become building an "I-34" route along that corridor may become a necessity. I certainly think US-82 needs to be fully Interstate quality between I-35 and US-75. Development from DFW is growing in that direction. The Lake Texoma region is very popular for leisure activity. There's some big casinos just across the river.
The Trans Texas Corridor thing was just a big pipe dream and not in touch with the financial realities of building super highways, much less the really high costs of high speed rail. Also high speed rail should NEVER be confined to run parallel with a highway. Any cutting edge rail line with trains running near 200mph would require track geometry with far more smooth, gradual turns than that of any Interstate highway in existence. Just check how the high speed rail lines in Europe or a Maglev line in China look via satellite in Google Earth. Highways aren't built that smooth. Texas is a big state and has a decent amount of money. But big highways and big cutting edge rail lines require a nationally focused big picture approach. We're not getting that at all, not in the slightest, from the federal government these days. The idiot policy makers up there now think roads and railroads can be built with pocket change.
Let's just say I'm in full agreement with Bobby's assessment of the situation -- although I'd just make the US 287 corridor an I-30 western extension (save 32 or 34 for a bypass of DFW along US 82, which, trust me, will be needed sooner than later!) Back in the mid '00's, it was actually humorous to watch Rick Perry pompously unveil his "Trans-Texas Corridor" plans for half-mile-width toll facilities crisscrossing the state, with everything from intercity HS rail to pipelines, fiber optics, and electrical transmission lines down the middle! It was almost immediately excoriated from all political fronts -- from rural landowners on the right rightfully pissed off about the property acquisition that would be required to urban activists on the left who, well, tend to get upset about any roadway expansion efforts whatsoever (the so-called "BANANAS"). I don't think I've ever seen a state administration back away from something as fast as the Perry folks did with Trans-Texas; first they presented a "scaled-down" version of the previous plans but confined to existing planned corridors -- then the whole thing seemed to vanish into nothingness; by 2010-11 it was like the grandiose plans had never existed!
As I've related previously, the lack of a national transportation "vision" started back in Nixon's day, when one of his administration's goals was to render the possibility of broad national programs all but impossible by dissipating funding through "block grants". He was able to get the more conservative southern Democrats (yes, folks, those did exist a generation or two ago!) to go along with his plans (they were still smarting from the 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act) and got the plan through Congress with only a few votes to spare. Of course, besides stymieing nationwide funding for social purposes, such things as infrastructure were brought to their knees more or less as collateral damage. Combine that with the "black eye" the Interstate concept was sustaining in the '70's from urban backlash, and progress on the remainder of the system faded from the limelight -- the goal became the completion of the original system with as little fuss -- and PR problems -- as feasible.
Thanks for the input guys. I read not long about expanding I-30 to 6 lanes between Texarkana and New Boston because of the increase in traffic especially truck traffic. Another reason cited was to handle traffic from 369 when it's completed. I'm sure by then much of the I-30 corridor in Texas will be widened like I-35 between DFW and Austin.
Quote from: sparkerAs I've related previously, the lack of a national transportation "vision" started back in Nixon's day, when one of his administration's goals was to render the possibility of broad national programs all but impossible by dissipating funding through "block grants". He was able to get the more conservative southern Democrats (yes, folks, those did exist a generation or two ago!) to go along with his plans (they were still smarting from the 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act) and got the plan through Congress with only a few votes to spare. Of course, besides stymieing nationwide funding for social purposes, such things as infrastructure were brought to their knees more or less as collateral damage. Combine that with the "black eye" the Interstate concept was sustaining in the '70's from urban backlash, and progress on the remainder of the system faded from the limelight -- the goal became the completion of the original system with as little fuss -- and PR problems -- as feasible.
I have a pretty grim view of our nation's current long term trajectory, especially involving things like highways and other important elements of infrastructure that provide a foundation for our modern society. From the selfish perspective it has me fairly worried what could be happening in 20 years when I'm eligible to retire. Americans love waving the flag and going on how "patriotic" they may be, but there are very very few willing to give up any money to support it. The institutions that flag represents suddenly become an "overbearing enemy."
All while we're busy patting ourselves on the back about our perceived greatness (insert loud chants of "we're number one"), other nations are not standing still. China is doing all sorts of things in an attempt to make its nation the biggest focus on the globe rather than the United States. They're building super highways at a pace the US hasn't come close to matching in over 50 years. They're building lots of high speed rail lines, hydroelectric dams, artificial islands (with military installations) and so many other things that it's scary. Over here we don't have the tax revenue needed to fix many crumbling parts of our nation's infrastructure. And we have no big picture view to modernize it. The only big ideas our policy makers have now is dreaming up new tax cuts as a means to pander to us fools so they can be re-elected. The only thing really keeping the United States afloat is our nation's ability to innovate. But we're doing our best to undermine that too.
What kind of future will the United States have when a fundamental thing like starting a family is being turned into an unaffordable luxury lifestyle? Many young couples just can't do it. I don't see any 50-year old recruits going thru basic training at Fort Sill. 20 years from they may be desperate for any new recruits. Gripe as I may about short-sighted tax cuts, there has been so much price gouging taking place in key economic areas (housing, health care, higher education, etc) that it's almost impossible to roll back those cuts. The savings from those cuts are being eaten by price hikes in other areas.
In the end our neglected infrastructure is stuck. The matter is made worse by various groups of people with their own agendas of getting paid via some slick angle. It can be contractors taking taxpayers for a ride. It can be anti-roads crowds pitching the dream of Americans riding bicycles everywhere, but really it's some law firms making a lot of money off keeping infrastructure projects bottled up in court for decades.
Regarding I-30, I know it sucks that a major route ending in a zero travels for such a relatively short distance. However I don't like the idea of I-30 terminating at both ends at I-40. I don't like the "V" shape of such a route either. I also think the best candidates for I-32 and I-34 are in North Texas. Of course we also have the issue of some route numbers being duplicated in different parts of the country (I-84, I-76, I-74, etc with more on the way like I-87).
I recently went to Atlanta, Tx and noticed a full interchange at Domino. I wonder what the next project in the area to converting hwy 59 into 369 will be?
Just saw this on the news: TxDot will have public meetings in Queen City and Texarkana concerning upgrading U. S. Hwy 59 to interstate standards. They will be on July 24th and 26th respectively. .
Am I wrong for saying this: it looks to me as though TxDOT may be setting themselves up to be carrying the I-69 shield...not right now, but sometime in the future... the entire way from Houston to Texarkana.
I saw 2 FUTURE I-69 CORRIDOR signs between Marshall & Nacogdoches last month. Also with TxDOT's major lack of interest in performing the EIS study into Louisiana (for which I don't blame them for not wanting to work on "foreign soil"), it just looks as though Texas is planning/steering/preparing for I-69 to be multiplexed with I-40 at Memphis & I-30 at Little Rock.
Thoughts?
I'm guessing Texas is trying to get their part done as quickly as they can especially since it's such a large area mileage wise.
Quote from: cjk374 on July 19, 2018, 07:36:56 PM
Am I wrong for saying this: it looks to me as though TxDOT may be setting themselves up to be carrying the I-69 shield...not right now, but sometime in the future... the entire way from Houston to Texarkana.
I saw 2 FUTURE I-69 CORRIDOR signs between Marshall & Nacogdoches last month. Also with TxDOT's major lack of interest in performing the EIS study into Louisiana (for which I don't blame them for not wanting to work on "foreign soil"), it just looks as though Texas is planning/steering/preparing for I-69 to be multiplexed with I-40 at Memphis & I-30 at Little Rock.
Thoughts?
Doubt whether I-69 itself will ever multiplex with I-30 & I-40, despite the naysayers dismissing the central (Tenaha-Tunica) segment; too much support in AR (maybe not duplicated in MS) for that to happen. For certain, they'll take their own damn time to complete it, but eventually it'll happen (most of us probably will have been long gone). The TX backers are perfectly content to have both I-69 and I-369 signed on the portion north of Houston, as long as
that connection is made in reasonably short order. The lack of a TX-originated push for an EIS for the segment extending into LA is simply a matter of priorities; and those lie squarely with I-369. Once
that corridor segment is well under way, then you may find a change of heart regarding the I-69 trunk across the state line -- or maybe they're just waiting for LA to take the reins and do the whole damn study on
their dime, including the TX mileage. Either way, it's in no one's best interest to hold their breath for this one!
I wouldn't doubt if 369 becomes just as busy as it's parent 69. At least where they split.
Quote from: cjk374 on July 19, 2018, 07:36:56 PM
Am I wrong for saying this: it looks to me as though TxDOT may be setting themselves up to be carrying the I-69 shield...not right now, but sometime in the future... the entire way from Houston to Texarkana.
I saw 2 FUTURE I-69 CORRIDOR signs between Marshall & Nacogdoches last month. Also with TxDOT's major lack of interest in performing the EIS study into Louisiana (for which I don't blame them for not wanting to work on "foreign soil"), it just looks as though Texas is planning/steering/preparing for I-69 to be multiplexed with I-40 at Memphis & I-30 at Little Rock.
Thoughts?
I think not.
Louisiana needs the Tenada-Memphis segments of I-69 to complete the freeway loop in South Shreveport-Bossier and connect the Port of Shreveport-Bossier to the Interstate system there. Texas is only balking at funding studies of SIU 13 because their priorities are right now focused on US 59, and they would prefer LADOTD to become the lead for funding the Tenaha-Logansport-Shreveport segment. This is only a delay, not a total rejection, of the presumed I-69 corridor through LA and AR.
I just can't see TXDOT running I-69 through Texarkana and then ARDOT rerouting it through concurrencies with I-30 and I-40, or Memphis accepting anything that bypasses their central core completely.
Quote from: dariusb on July 20, 2018, 01:02:08 AM
I wouldn't doubt if 369 becomes just as busy as it's parent 69. At least where they split.
If I-369 is completed prior to the segment of I-69 crossing the state line (which I don't doubt in the least!) it will, of course, retain close to all of the NB traffic on I-69 out of Houston; Shreveport traffic, for the interim, will simply turn east onto I-20. Since the Shreveport bypass section, which partially includes the SIU crossing the line, is a major local project, it'll probably be the first part of the central I-69 segment to connect to an Interstate on both ends (itself in TX and I-20 near Barksdale). Except for the Mississippi River bridge (whose can keeps being kicked down the road), it's likely that the I-69 segment from I-20 to I-530 near Monticello, AR will be the last to see full development -- until the whole Tenaha-Tunica section is completed, it has limited value as a SIU (Shreveport-Little Rock traffic already has the 49/30 corridor to use).
Bottom line -- even if I-69 crosses the line and serves Shreveport, commercial traffic heading northeast will continue to shoot straight up I-369 to I-30 and then NE to their various destinations, at least until the section to Memphis is opened. Once that is done, I would expect Memphis traffic to largely shift to I-69 to avoid congestion in and around Little Rock as well as I-40 between there and Memphis. Won't speculate on traffic bound for St. Louis and the Great Lakes (including, of course, Chicago) until a schedule for completion of I-57 in AR and MO is forthcoming in order to see how
that corridor fits into the overall regional picture.
There is no way I-69 would be routed up to Texarkana and multiplexed with I-30.
OTOH, I absolutely expect TX DOT to heavily prioritize building out I-369 to Tenaha and I-69 up from Houston to the same point. Why wouldn't they do that? As long as the federal government leaves it up to individual states to complete their own segments of the I-69 system as they can scrounge money for it each state is going to build the segments that serve it best, other states be damned.
Regarding Louisiana and its section of I-69, the only way I see LA convincing TX DOT to build that 15 mile segment of I-69 from Tenaha over to Logansport any time soon is if LADOTD builds much of its own portion of I-69 first. LADOTD already has other costly and arguably higher priorities like finishing I-49 South and building the I-49 ICC within Shreveport. I think those two projects will help LA more than finishing I-69.
The federal government will have to go through a major change in philosophy/ideology for some of the segments of I-69 to get built within the next 30 or so years. I sure don't see Mississippi completing their part of I-69 and the Great River Bridge without a great deal of federal funding help.
Regarding shifts of commercial traffic if/when I-69 is completed between Houston and Memphis, we'll just have to see how the mileage of routes compares once that comes to pass. The proposed path of I-69 through Arkansas and Mississippi is pretty crooked. There may be little if any mileage savings taking that route versus I-369 up to Texarkana and then I-30 and I-40 over to Memphis.
Completion of I-57 between Little Rock and Sikeston would definitely make I-369 a more attractive route for port traffic headed to places like Chicago.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 20, 2018, 03:11:36 PM
Regarding shifts of commercial traffic if/when I-69 is completed between Houston and Memphis, we'll just have to see how the mileage of routes compares once that comes to pass. The proposed path of I-69 through Arkansas and Mississippi is pretty crooked. There may be little if any mileage savings taking that route versus I-369 up to Texarkana and then I-30 and I-40 over to Memphis.
Completion of I-57 between Little Rock and Sikeston would definitely make I-369 a more attractive route for port traffic headed to places like Chicago.
It's not the admittedly marginal mileage differential of I-69 versus a Texarkana-Little Rock/I-30/40 routing that's going to be the deciding factor of what route is taken, it's the chokepoints presented by Little Rock; although the presence of I-440 helps a bit -- although it's starting to be a problem in and of itself because, well, just about
every trucker in the region uses it from point A to point B (why wouldn't they!). And once beyond there is encountered the oppressively heavy traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55; that's not going to go away anytime soon even if 6-laned! I-69 won't become the main Texas-Memphis corridor overnight; it'll simply be a viable alternative to what's out there today.
TxDOT has posted maps and other materials from the Texarkana-Queen City public meeting (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/atlanta/texarkana-queen-city.html). Included are maps of the four options being considered for Texarkana (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us-59-queen-city/072418-boards.pdf) (p. 8/13 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_25_07_18_4_34_46.png)
Looks as if the new-terrain alignment west of the existing I-369 segment and passing by the TexAmericas facility is no longer being considered for this segment of the route -- at least for now (always the potential for being added later as an outer loop). Since it won't be practical to extend the current I-369/US 59 freeway north to meet I-49, that function would naturally be shifted to I-30 or Loop 151; wouldn't be surprised if I-status for that loop is sought in the next few years. With the Marshall bypass slated for near-term development and the other "spot" projects along the route, it looks like the I-69 corridor backers aren't letting up on the pressure!
Sparker, I remember when the north loop was to be signed as I-249. Now that 369 is not following the TexAmericas route and more likely to follow hwy 59 into Texarkana, wouldn't that be more expensive to build with all of the homes and businesses in that parti of the city?
Quote from: dariusb on July 29, 2018, 02:35:00 AM
Sparker, I remember when the north loop was to be signed as I-249. Now that 369 is not following the TexAmericas route and more likely to follow hwy 59 into Texarkana, wouldn't that be more expensive to build with all of the homes and businesses in that parti of the city?
At this point in time, it's unlikely that the presently signed I-369/US 59 freeway will be extended north of I-30; there's just too much in the way of development in any conceivable pathway to make it politically and financially feasible. For the time being, the two ways for I-369 traffic to get over to I-49 are Loop 151 and, of course, I-30. It's not inconceivable that the
TexAmericas corridor around the west side of town and looping east to meet I-49 during its brief time in TX may be developed somewhat later, probably well after the I-49 trunk north of town is up and running. In the meantime, traffic will simply have to utilize one of the two existing area E-W freeways to get to I-49; in my estimation, TXDOT and ARDOT will at some point jointly request Interstate designation for Loop 151. If not, that route could always be prominently "trailblazered" as "TO I-369" and "TO I-49" respectively.
How about building 369 south from the loop toward Atlanta? The portion from the loop down 59 through the southern side of town has homes and businesses as well. I wonder could they elevate the main lanes like they did with I-44/287 in Wichita Falls?
Quote from: dariusb on July 30, 2018, 09:29:47 PM
How about building 369 south from the loop toward Atlanta? The portion from the loop down 59 through the southern side of town has homes and businesses as well. I wonder could they elevate the main lanes like they did with I-44/287 in Wichita Falls?
There's going to be
some property taking no matter what south-of-the-loop option is selected. What you seem to be suggesting is a further extension of the "east route" (orange line) concept to well past Atlanta. Any concept not along the present US 59 alignment would have its pros and cons; in favor would be the lower expense, in this case, of a new-terrain route, whereas anything along the current route would require multiple structures and, likely, the provision of frontage roads to serve as access points to the current businesses and residences adjacent to US 59. The choice of facility type would depend upon preliminary exposition and subsequent feedback from local property owners -- in other words, the usual vetting process for such things. But an elevated structure such as found in Wichita Falls is unlikely -- there was little other choice in the case of WF without razing multiple blocks; here, there are viable options along and away from the existing highway.
Ok. The only reason I brought that particular route is because from some of what I've read there is interest in using the existing 369 and the only way I see that happening is to go up 59 to the loop or go through the Liberty Eylau neighborhood. Just out of curiosity, since you have a knowledge of this project, if you had to pick any route for this leg of the project which would you pick?
Quote from: dariusb on July 31, 2018, 09:33:13 PM
Ok. The only reason I brought that particular route is because from some of what I've read there is interest in using the existing 369 and the only way I see that happening is to go up 59 to the loop or go through the Liberty Eylau neighborhood. Just out of curiosity, since you have a knowledge of this project, if you had to pick any route for this leg of the project which would you pick?
Simple. Build I-369 up to somewhere near the present junction of US 59, Loop 151, and existing I-369 as in all iterations of the current plan. Then I'd get MSR Loop 151 re-designated as something like I-449. And then I'd let I-49 be developed north of Texarkana as ARDOT has the funding to do so. I wouldn't worry about a northern I-369 extension; let it terminate at I-30 as it presently does; for the time being, that'll be the most used facility. The new "I-449" along present 151 would serve as the route to shunt traffic over directly to I-49 without having to overload I-30 with such traffic (not that any of that will occur until I-49 is completed north to Fort Smith).
Now -- if and when an outer loop passing near the TexAmericas facility to the west is planned and constructed, it can serve as an I-369 to I-49 connector while avoiding much of Texarkana itself. But the presently-doable arrangement outlined above should be more than adequate for the near term.
I don't think Interstate 369 should have been designated in Texarkana until work on the freeway connection towards its future junction with Interstate 69 was well underway. Signing existing 369 in Texarkana was very premature, in my opinion.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 01, 2018, 08:09:27 PM
I don't think Interstate 369 should have been designated in Texarkana until work on the freeway connection towards its future junction with Interstate 69 was well underway. Signing existing 369 in Texarkana was very premature, in my opinion.
That seems to be an opinion shared by numerous posters, including myself; the fact that the signed portion doesn't lend itself to a readily-developed northern connection to the future I-49 corridor should have caused it to be dropped from consideration early on. But the I-69 conceptual backers -- by now we all know who they are --
really wanted to establish their I-369 foothold in the area, and the N-S US 59 portion of the Texarkana southern loop was just sitting there waiting for them. But right now that's "water under the bridge"; further development will have to use what's available -- and that's the existing Texarkana freeway "network". The powers that be made their bed, and now whoever uses the various corridors will endure the consequences. Currently there's not enough traffic on I-49 and Loop 151 to make the local situation problematic -- but we'll certainly see once I-49 north of Shreveport is functionally completed and starts carrying substantial traffic bound for eastward I-30. If Texarkana becomes a congested "chokepoint", TXDOT and the
Alliance for I-69/Texas will only have themselves to blame, especially if that occurs well prior to the completion of the I-69/369 composite corridor north of Houston. When I-49 is completed north to Fort Smith and beyond (which will likely happen after I-369 is in full operation), Texarkana may well become one of the most congested smaller cities in the lower Midwest unless that "relief" bypass to the west and north is planned and built.
The congestion at least on the I-30 corridor in the Texarkana area is already starting to occur with plans to expand the freeway to 6 lanes between Texarkana and TexAmericas. Don't know when this will happen.
Quote from: dariusb on August 07, 2018, 10:47:59 PM
The congestion at least on the I-30 corridor in the Texarkana area is already starting to occur with plans to expand the freeway to 6 lanes between Texarkana and TexAmericas. Don't know when this will happen.
Frankly,
all of I-30 should be brought out to 6 lanes -- along with I-40 from Little Rock to Memphis.
That is the principal egress from TX -- except for Houston, hence the emphasis on the 69/369 corridor; as soon as that's completed, I-30 in AR, if not expanded, will be a hell of a mess until the Shreveport-Memphis portion of I-69 comes on line. If & when I-57 is finished in AR and MO, that'll relieve I-40 somewhat -- but overall traffic won't do anything but increase over time from Dallas to Memphis. Ever since BNSF set up their container terminal in Fort Worth about 17 years ago, I-30 truck traffic has increased dramatically as truck-bound container cargo finds its way east. Once cargo from Houston and the Gulf Coast, dominated by plastics and other petrochemical products, mixes in any quantity with the containerized "conveyor belt", a recipe for congestion will be complete, and AR is "ground zero" for that occurrence. It would certainly be ironic if all the naysayers about the central I-69 segment were to undergo an attitudinal sea change when confronted with bumper-to-bumper traffic between Little Rock and I-55! Since the completion of the 69/369 corridor is at least 15-20 years away, it'll be interesting to see how the AADT of I-40 at, say, Brinkley, "naturally" increases over that period of time -- and what happens when the Houston traffic is put into the mix!
I know what you say is the truth. Bad thing is people will wait until it's too late to remedy the problem. If you drive 30 between Texarkana and New Boston you'll see all kinds of truck stops/restaurants that have sprung up. Have heard for years that Texarkana's future is logistics/warehousing. Looks to be starting to happen already.
Quote from: dariusb on August 09, 2018, 01:05:02 AM
I know what you say is the truth. Bad thing is people will wait until it's too late to remedy the problem. If you drive 30 between Texarkana and New Boston you'll see all kinds of truck stops/restaurants that have sprung up. Have heard for years that Texarkana's future is logistics/warehousing. Looks to be starting to happen already.
Yeah, I guess that's better than just supplying truckloads of Coors for Nascar parties in Atlanta!
(if that reference doesn't date me, then nothing will!)
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2018, 01:38:50 AM
Quote from: dariusb on August 09, 2018, 01:05:02 AM
I know what you say is the truth. Bad thing is people will wait until it's too late to remedy the problem. If you drive 30 between Texarkana and New Boston you'll see all kinds of truck stops/restaurants that have sprung up. Have heard for years that Texarkana's future is logistics/warehousing. Looks to be starting to happen already.
Yeah, I guess that's better than just supplying truckloads of Coors for Nascar parties in Atlanta!
(if that reference doesn't date me, then nothing will!)
Wow...it dates me too! Hilarious !
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2018, 01:38:50 AM
Quote from: dariusb on August 09, 2018, 01:05:02 AM
I know what you say is the truth. Bad thing is people will wait until it's too late to remedy the problem. If you drive 30 between Texarkana and New Boston you'll see all kinds of truck stops/restaurants that have sprung up. Have heard for years that Texarkana's future is logistics/warehousing. Looks to be starting to happen already.
Yeah, I guess that's better than just supplying truckloads of Coors for Nascar parties in Atlanta!
(if that reference doesn't date me, then nothing will!)
Send bill to Big Enos Burdett...
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2018, 02:58:35 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 01, 2018, 08:09:27 PM
I don't think Interstate 369 should have been designated in Texarkana until work on the freeway connection towards its future junction with Interstate 69 was well underway. Signing existing 369 in Texarkana was very premature, in my opinion.
That seems to be an opinion shared by numerous posters, including myself; the fact that the signed portion doesn't lend itself to a readily-developed northern connection to the future I-49 corridor should have caused it to be dropped from consideration early on. But the I-69 conceptual backers -- by now we all know who they are -- really wanted to establish their I-369 foothold in the area, and the N-S US 59 portion of the Texarkana southern loop was just sitting there waiting for them. But right now that's "water under the bridge"; further development will have to use what's available -- and that's the existing Texarkana freeway "network". The powers that be made their bed, and now whoever uses the various corridors will endure the consequences. Currently there's not enough traffic on I-49 and Loop 151 to make the local situation problematic -- but we'll certainly see once I-49 north of Shreveport is functionally completed and starts carrying substantial traffic bound for eastward I-30. If Texarkana becomes a congested "chokepoint", TXDOT and the Alliance for I-69/Texas will only have themselves to blame, especially if that occurs well prior to the completion of the I-69/369 composite corridor north of Houston. When I-49 is completed north to Fort Smith and beyond (which will likely happen after I-369 is in full operation), Texarkana may well become one of the most congested smaller cities in the lower Midwest unless that "relief" bypass to the west and north is planned and built.
South of Memphis, TX is the only state that has gotten serious about building I-69, and don't be surprised if in a decade or two, I-69 reaches Nacogdoches, or Tenaha, or wherever I-369's southern end is supposed to be. While signing it in Texarkana may sound premature, at least there's a good excuse for that. If and when they build I-69 up to Shreveport, then the spur will be a more plausible route.
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 09, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2018, 01:38:50 AM
Quote from: dariusb on August 09, 2018, 01:05:02 AM
I know what you say is the truth. Bad thing is people will wait until it's too late to remedy the problem. If you drive 30 between Texarkana and New Boston you'll see all kinds of truck stops/restaurants that have sprung up. Have heard for years that Texarkana's future is logistics/warehousing. Looks to be starting to happen already.
Yeah, I guess that's better than just supplying truckloads of Coors for Nascar parties in Atlanta!
(if that reference doesn't date me, then nothing will!)
Send bill to Big Enos Burdett...
Look out for a mustachioed man wearing a cowboy hat and driving a black Trans Am! He'll be accompanied by an 18-wheeler hauling the beer.
............and followed closely by an out-of-his-jurisdiction sheriff who looks suspiciously like Minnesota Fats!
Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2018, 03:50:49 AM
............and followed closely by an out-of-his-jurisdiction sheriff who looks suspiciously like Minnesota Fats!
(How ol' Burt didn't cripple himself in the "beer warehouse" scene with that fall he took is beyond me, unless it was his stunt double...)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 01, 2018, 08:09:27 PM
I don't think Interstate 369 should have been designated in Texarkana until work on the freeway connection towards its future junction with Interstate 69 was well underway. Signing existing 369 in Texarkana was very premature, in my opinion.
It's not unusual. I-675 in Ohio was a short stub off of I-70 around Fairborn, Ohio for about 10 years (1975-1985) before construction was started on the rest of the freeway.
This article (http://txktoday.com/news/feasibility-study-seeks-find-local-route-i69/) reports that, in addition to the TxDOT study of a route into Texarkana and a Bowie County feasibility study of a western spur to TexAmericas Center, a small group of Texarkana citizens think the solution is to build a crosstown freeway roughly from the US 59/TX 151 interchange to the airport on the Arkansas side and to build the spur to TexAmericas Center, but not make it part of "I-69":
Quote
Despite the immense amount of effort by the individuals who contributed to writing and supporting the grant, their initiatives are being disrupted by a smaller group of citizens in the community who are advocating for a crosstown freeway in lieu of one that is directed towards the West.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_14_08_18_2_48_08.png)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_14_08_18_2_57_21.png)
These folks aren't thinking with their brains.
A crosstown expressway that would duplicate Loop 151 and I-49, and assumes that the Tenaha-Shreveport-Monticello-Greenwood-Tunica segment of I-69 isn't built? Really?
If the idea is to lessen the burden on I-30 and serve the Tex-Americas Center, then a better idea is an outer loop using the proposed Western Loop serving the Tex-Americas from Future I-369 to I-30, extended east to connect with I-49 south of Texarkana, and extended north to meet existing I-49 north of Texarkana. Call it I-449 if you may.
This is EXACTLY why the Tenaha to Memphis segment of I-69 is legitimately needed.
It should also be noted that the main promoter of the crosstown freeway concept for I-369/I-69, a Texarkana resident named David Mallette, has posted this graphic at his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/david.mallette.355) of a "split" I-69 using both the originally approved route (Tenaha-Shreveport-Monticello-Lake Village-Greenwood-Tunica, which would become "I-69W") and the Crosstown/I-30/I-440/I-40 route which would become "I-69E".
(https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMuEkmhR63Xe6Ivr-fljuHloEVkaIy2oeqPkADxLZZZV3j6weYcV0wS5YwSjA6PCA/photo/AF1QipMwzHeJM8M1dlMSDbT4UVf8C0oM7KxJMd9vA_jS?key=WHlydXRKZ1BwN0J2bVZnaDNMUkJsTEh5V3ZxUVdB)
Apparently he wants more traffic to go through downtown Texarkana, as if extending I-49 to Fort Smith and beyond can't do the trick.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 14, 2018, 03:54:17 PM
It should also be noted that the main promoter of the crosstown freeway concept for I-369/I-69, a Texarkana resident named David Mallette, has posted this graphic at his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/david.mallette.355) of a "split" I-69 using both the originally approved route (Tenaha-Shreveport-Monticello-Lake Village-Greenwood-Tunica, which would become "I-69W") and the Crosstown/I-30/I-440/I-40 route which would become "I-69E".
(https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMuEkmhR63Xe6Ivr-fljuHloEVkaIy2oeqPkADxLZZZV3j6weYcV0wS5YwSjA6PCA/photo/AF1QipMwzHeJM8M1dlMSDbT4UVf8C0oM7KxJMd9vA_jS?key=WHlydXRKZ1BwN0J2bVZnaDNMUkJsTEh5V3ZxUVdB)
Apparently he wants more traffic to go through downtown Texarkana, as if extending I-49 to Fort Smith and beyond can't do the trick.
Not quite the "Dickey Split" revisited, but a close relative thereof! Co-signing any "branch" of I-69 over I-30 and I-40, considering the traffic now carried by that continuous corridor, is -- well -- just plain dumb! Over in another thread I recently elucidated why I-69 should be considered a "relief route" for the current corridor (which will worsen once the I-369 connection to Houston is completed). But somehow logic escapes local promoters; they'd suggest routing a dozen Interstate corridors through their towns/regions if they thought they could scrape out some extra business from them! Now regarding Texarkana itself -- since the TexAmericas/western loop seems to be kicked down the road for the time being, the best bet would, as suggested upthread, be to simply designate Loop 151 a x49 and shunt traffic over to it (although this wouldn't really be necessary until most if not all of the Texarkana-Fort Smith segment is completed). When and if I-369 and I-69 are up and running as a continuous corridor north of Houston, until that northerly section of I-49 is done most of the traffic will simply turn northeast onto I-30 from the present north end of I-369 -- which is the interim & immediate goal of the corridor promoters.
As the
Alliance for I-69/Texas might crow:
"Love it when a plan comes together!" :D
I can only imagine how bad traffic will be in Texarkana in the next 2 decades.
Quote from: dariusb on August 24, 2018, 03:19:05 PM
I can only imagine how bad traffic will be in Texarkana in the next 2 decades.
Until I-369 is finished as part of the full Houston-Texarkana corridor, most of the traffic in the Texarkana area will be either self-generated or simply part of incremental increases on I-30 itself. Right now I-49 isn't supplying a lot of traffic to or through the area. That could change over the course of the next decade, as traffic from Houston slogging up US 59 simply hangs a right at Marshall and uses the I-20/220/49 routing to reach I-30 rather that continue up US 59 through Atlanta and the other towns along the NE TX reaches of that route. But since the 30/49 interchange is east of town, that won't substantially affect traffic
through the center of Texarkana itself;
that will happen after the full I-69/369 is done. But once I-49 is completed north to Fort Smith (probably after the TX Interstate corridors are in operation), all hell might descend on the area as traffic shunts from one artery to the other; at that point, the west/north bypass loop might be very high on the priority list!
It's all but guaranteed a great deal of traffic coming from the Houston area heading to points in the North and Northeast would happily use any high quality route to bypass the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Right now US-59 going North out of Houston just isn't a good enough alternative. A completed I-49 in Arkansas and a completed I-69 & I-369 in East Texas would pull quite a bit of traffic off I-45.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 25, 2018, 01:34:14 PM
It's all but guaranteed a great deal of traffic coming from the Houston area heading to points in the North and Northeast would happily use any high quality route to bypass the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Right now US-59 going North out of Houston just isn't a good enough alternative. A completed I-49 in Arkansas and a completed I-69 & I-369 in East Texas would pull quite a bit of traffic off I-45.
That seems to be part & parcel of the aim of groups like the
Alliance for I-69/Texas, seemingly dominated by business folks from the Houston area. Getting an Interstate corridor up to I-30 is "Job One"; tying in to a I-49 northward extension will be simply icing on that particular cake: jobs 2-infinity inclusively. Unless DFW
is the destination, no Houston-originating shipper in his or her right mind would want to even come close to that metro area!
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 14, 2018, 03:54:17 PM
It should also be noted that the main promoter of the crosstown freeway concept for I-369/I-69, a Texarkana resident named David Mallette, has posted this graphic at his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/david.mallette.355) of a "split" I-69 using both the originally approved route (Tenaha-Shreveport-Monticello-Lake Village-Greenwood-Tunica, which would become "I-69W") and the Crosstown/I-30/I-440/I-40 route which would become "I-69E".
(https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMuEkmhR63Xe6Ivr-fljuHloEVkaIy2oeqPkADxLZZZV3j6weYcV0wS5YwSjA6PCA/photo/AF1QipMwzHeJM8M1dlMSDbT4UVf8C0oM7KxJMd9vA_jS?key=WHlydXRKZ1BwN0J2bVZnaDNMUkJsTEh5V3ZxUVdB)
Apparently he wants more traffic to go through downtown Texarkana, as if extending I-49 to Fort Smith and beyond can't do the trick.
Texarkana business leaders don't even know what's best for this city much less the best plan for routing a freeway through here, smh.
I was wondering so this interstate isn't a goof it really is I-369. So we have another I-238 situation unlike I-38 I-69 exist but not through there. Why in the world is this not I-349?
Quote from: dvferyance on August 29, 2018, 04:42:44 PM
I was wondering so this interstate isn't a goof it really is I-369. So we have another I-238 situation unlike I-38 I-69 exist but not through there. Why in the world is this not I-349?
Because funding for that portion of corridor is funneled through HPC-20 (one of two corridors that authorized the total I-69 package) channels, TXDOT, at the insistence of the original corridor promoters, the
Alliance for I-69/Texas, sought a designation of the Tenaha-Texarkana portion that was a derivative of the "69" family; in this case I-369. So far the only other completed project is a diamond interchange north of Marshall; a N-S I-369 bypass of Marshall is presently programmed. As iterated previously, "Job #1" to those promoters is a complete corridor from Houston to Texarkana regardless of the fact that I-69 itself is slated to eventually head NE into LA from the Tenaha area.
And if this
were a x49, it would likely be an even number (249, 449) utilizing Loop 151 to access the I-49 main line in AR.
QuoteThe Texas Department of Transportation has concluded a study of where to route Interstate 369 in Cass and Bowie counties, concluding that upgrading U.S. Highway 59 is the best option.
The TxDOT report can be found here (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us-59-queen-city/101118-route-study-report.pdf).
TxDOT found that improving U.S. 59 to interstate standards would be the best way to achieve priorities expressed by the public during a pair of open houses in July. Public comments and surveys showed a consensus to optimize the use of existing roads while minimizing the effects of construction, according to the study report.
"Consequently, without new information or further public involvement, TxDOT recommends moving forward with utilizing and upgrading the existing US 59 corridor as much as possible to meet interstate standards," the study report states.
Construction of most of I-369 is in the planning and development stage, though a segment of highway between U.S. 59 and Interstate 30 in Texarkana has already been designated I-369. Once complete, I-369 will connect the future Interstate 69 in Shelby County to Texarkana.
Further study will look at the cost-effectiveness of elevating a segment of the U.S 59 upgrade between I-369 and County Road 1325/Rock School Road.
Advantages of the elevated upgrade option include that it would have few environmental effects and accommodate mobility of local traffic. Drawbacks include substantial traffic delays during construction and high cost.
Next steps include conducting a formal environmental study, developing more detailed plans and providing further opportunity for public involvement, none of which has yet been funded, said Marcus Sandifer, public information officer for TxDOT's Atlanta District.
"This process is expected to take three to four years once it begins, but no funding has yet been identified to move forward," he said in an email introducing the study report.
Planning for other highway construction based on the eventual presence of I-369 is under way.
In May, the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority announced it would study the feasibility of building a spur from the future I-369 in Bowie County west and north through Red River Army Depot and TexAmericas Center to I-30.
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/oct/31/i-369-route-study-completed/750229/
Quote from: O Tamandua on October 31, 2018, 03:46:04 PM
QuoteThe Texas Department of Transportation has concluded a study of where to route Interstate 369 in Cass and Bowie counties, concluding that upgrading U.S. Highway 59 is the best option.
The TxDOT report can be found here (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us-59-queen-city/101118-route-study-report.pdf).
TxDOT found that improving U.S. 59 to interstate standards would be the best way to achieve priorities expressed by the public during a pair of open houses in July. Public comments and surveys showed a consensus to optimize the use of existing roads while minimizing the effects of construction, according to the study report.
"Consequently, without new information or further public involvement, TxDOT recommends moving forward with utilizing and upgrading the existing US 59 corridor as much as possible to meet interstate standards," the study report states.
Construction of most of I-369 is in the planning and development stage, though a segment of highway between U.S. 59 and Interstate 30 in Texarkana has already been designated I-369. Once complete, I-369 will connect the future Interstate 69 in Shelby County to Texarkana.
Further study will look at the cost-effectiveness of elevating a segment of the U.S 59 upgrade between I-369 and County Road 1325/Rock School Road.
Advantages of the elevated upgrade option include that it would have few environmental effects and accommodate mobility of local traffic. Drawbacks include substantial traffic delays during construction and high cost.
Next steps include conducting a formal environmental study, developing more detailed plans and providing further opportunity for public involvement, none of which has yet been funded, said Marcus Sandifer, public information officer for TxDOT's Atlanta District.
"This process is expected to take three to four years once it begins, but no funding has yet been identified to move forward," he said in an email introducing the study report.
Planning for other highway construction based on the eventual presence of I-369 is under way.
In May, the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority announced it would study the feasibility of building a spur from the future I-369 in Bowie County west and north through Red River Army Depot and TexAmericas Center to I-30.
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/oct/31/i-369-route-study-completed/750229/
Obviously this doesn't address any extension of I-369 past I-30 to merge with I-49 north of Texarkana. If that concept has been shelved for the present in favor of the simpler and more direct routing via the current co-signed I-369/US 59, the idea of designating Loop 151 as a 3di (I-249 or 449?) to serve as a direct connector to I-49 and avoiding a trip over I-30 (and the cloverleaf 30/369 interchange) might be the logical next step in regional plans.
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2018, 04:53:05 PM
Quote from: O Tamandua on October 31, 2018, 03:46:04 PM
QuoteThe Texas Department of Transportation has concluded a study of where to route Interstate 369 in Cass and Bowie counties, concluding that upgrading U.S. Highway 59 is the best option.
The TxDOT report can be found here (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us-59-queen-city/101118-route-study-report.pdf).
TxDOT found that improving U.S. 59 to interstate standards would be the best way to achieve priorities expressed by the public during a pair of open houses in July. Public comments and surveys showed a consensus to optimize the use of existing roads while minimizing the effects of construction, according to the study report.
"Consequently, without new information or further public involvement, TxDOT recommends moving forward with utilizing and upgrading the existing US 59 corridor as much as possible to meet interstate standards," the study report states.
Construction of most of I-369 is in the planning and development stage, though a segment of highway between U.S. 59 and Interstate 30 in Texarkana has already been designated I-369. Once complete, I-369 will connect the future Interstate 69 in Shelby County to Texarkana.
Further study will look at the cost-effectiveness of elevating a segment of the U.S 59 upgrade between I-369 and County Road 1325/Rock School Road.
Advantages of the elevated upgrade option include that it would have few environmental effects and accommodate mobility of local traffic. Drawbacks include substantial traffic delays during construction and high cost.
Next steps include conducting a formal environmental study, developing more detailed plans and providing further opportunity for public involvement, none of which has yet been funded, said Marcus Sandifer, public information officer for TxDOT's Atlanta District.
"This process is expected to take three to four years once it begins, but no funding has yet been identified to move forward," he said in an email introducing the study report.
Planning for other highway construction based on the eventual presence of I-369 is under way.
In May, the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority announced it would study the feasibility of building a spur from the future I-369 in Bowie County west and north through Red River Army Depot and TexAmericas Center to I-30.
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/oct/31/i-369-route-study-completed/750229/
Obviously this doesn't address any extension of I-369 past I-30 to merge with I-49 north of Texarkana. If that concept has been shelved for the present in favor of the simpler and more direct routing via the current co-signed I-369/US 59, the idea of designating Loop 151 as a 3di (I-249 or 449?) to serve as a direct connector to I-49 and avoiding a trip over I-30 (and the cloverleaf 30/369 interchange) might be the logical next step in regional plans.
I figured that they would ultimately go with upgrading existing US 59 all the way to Loop 151....it makes the most sense if you want the direct link to I-30 in Texarkana.
It also justifies my idea of having the proposed Western Loop to the Tex-Americas Center be extended north from I-30 to connect with Future I-49 North to Fort Smith AND also be extended east of I-369 to connect with I-49 going south towards Shreveport. This would both give I-49 traffic better access to the TAC, as well as give I-369/I-69 traffic from Houston more direct access to Future I-49 towards Fort Smith while bypassing central Texarkana. That expanded Texarkana loop could get an I-449 designation, while the segment of Loop 151 not covered by I-369 between US 59 and I-49 could get either an I-649 designation, or remain TX/AR 151.
I just read the studies on this I-369 in Texas from Tenaha to Texarkana.
Kind of ridiculous honestly. This has absolutely no relationship to anything physically to I-69 except it was tacked on an amendment to an ISTEA bill in Congress.
The fact they even named the bypass up in Texarkana I-369 is a kind of joke. Who names a highway as an affiliated bypass of a town 250 miles from the primary route that hasn't even been built yet?
This is no different than Arkansas tagging their designs of I-530/AR-530 to Monticello a "I-69 Connector".
I-69 is already bending/breaking a lot of highway designation standards, but calling this a "spur" is a laugh and a half when the town is already served by 2 interstate routes.
While Tennessee tries to deny I-69 existence as much as possible, especially around Memphis at least they are on the main route. Texarkana is not.
This road should be called I-47.
This is what happens when road funding becomes scarce nationally, and state delegations get desperate and try to tag along on something else that doesn't fit.
Actually Laredo-Texarkana was only of the original HPCs. It's the bullshit from Tenaha to Memphis that was tacked on.
Quote from: edwaleni on November 04, 2018, 04:52:44 PM
I just read the studies on this I-369 in Texas from Tenaha to Texarkana.
Kind of ridiculous honestly. This has absolutely no relationship to anything physically to I-69 except it was tacked on an amendment to an ISTEA bill in Congress.
The fact they even named the bypass up in Texarkana I-369 is a kind of joke. Who names a highway as an affiliated bypass of a town 250 miles from the primary route that hasn't even been built yet?
This is no different than Arkansas tagging their designs of I-530/AR-530 to Monticello a "I-69 Connector".
I-69 is already bending/breaking a lot of highway designation standards, but calling this a "spur" is a laugh and a half when the town is already served by 2 interstate routes.
While Tennessee tries to deny I-69 existence as much as possible, especially around Memphis at least they are on the main route. Texarkana is not.
This road should be called I-47.
This is what happens when road funding becomes scarce nationally, and state delegations get desperate and try to tag along on something else that doesn't fit.
Tenaha is about 115 miles south of Texarkana, not 250 as stated above. The I/AR-530 connector -- at least the portion still under development south of Pine Bluff -- is SIU #28 of HPC #18, the legislation that covers most of the full I-69 corridor; the principal impetus for that corridor's enactment and what development has occurred so far has come from the Houston area, the Rio Grande Valley, and boosters from southwest Indiana; almost every other region is simply "along for the ride" -- although KY seems to be doing all they can to deliver their portion, although they're -- in a relative sense, of course -- electing to "cheap out" by deploying all but a couple of miles within their state on existing limited access facilities -- which IMO is a smart move on their part -- get it done as quickly and painlessly as possible and stay ahead of the consistent inflation factor that affects such development these days.
Interstate "designation standards" are like the English language -- for every "hard & fast" rule, there are numerous exceptions. Topology, the actual shape of the country, and other factors tend to make adherence to a strict grid policy unlikely if not functionally impossible -- we can grouse about things that have arbitrarily caused issues (we're looking at you, IL and WI!), but getting overly anal about them says as much about the critic(s) than the designators.
Quote from: NE2 on November 04, 2018, 06:30:16 PM
Actually Laredo-Texarkana was only of the original HPCs. It's the bullshit from Tenaha to Memphis that was tacked on.
Laredo-Texarkana was actually the definition of HPC #20; its backers, primarily from the Houston area, wanted a diagonal corridor to expedite goods in and out of their area. It was subsumed within the overall I-69 corridor by functionally merging it with HPC #18, which was the corridor from Indianapolis south to the border crossings at Brownsville and McAllen, TX. The backers of each concept pooled their efforts; within TX they "morphed" into
The Alliance for I-69/Texas, based in Houston, which functions as a multipartite liaison among TXDOT, the Congressional backers of the corridor, and local agencies to keep the various corridor development projects on track. The original Shreveport-Memphis segment was to simply head up US 79 through Pine Bluff; but local boosters from SE AR as well as Tunica (MS) area recreational interests were able to get the corridor rerouted to serve their regions.
AR is likely on board with the present I-69 plans to placate political figures from that part of the state, as well as provide an alternate route to the present I-30/40 composite routing, particularly if TX finishes their I-69/369 (HPC 20) corridor, which would in all likelihood greatly increase commercial truck traffic on the existing route via Little Rock. The alternative would be massive expansion of the already crowded I-30 and I-40 -- which would be both expensive and disruptive; planning and deploying I-69 essentially kills two birds with one stone.
Quote from: sparker on November 05, 2018, 02:43:54 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on November 04, 2018, 04:52:44 PM
I just read the studies on this I-369 in Texas from Tenaha to Texarkana.
Kind of ridiculous honestly. This has absolutely no relationship to anything physically to I-69 except it was tacked on an amendment to an ISTEA bill in Congress.
The fact they even named the bypass up in Texarkana I-369 is a kind of joke. Who names a highway as an affiliated bypass of a town 250 miles from the primary route that hasn't even been built yet?
This is no different than Arkansas tagging their designs of I-530/AR-530 to Monticello a "I-69 Connector".
I-69 is already bending/breaking a lot of highway designation standards, but calling this a "spur" is a laugh and a half when the town is already served by 2 interstate routes.
While Tennessee tries to deny I-69 existence as much as possible, especially around Memphis at least they are on the main route. Texarkana is not.
This road should be called I-47.
This is what happens when road funding becomes scarce nationally, and state delegations get desperate and try to tag along on something else that doesn't fit.
Tenaha is about 115 miles south of Texarkana, not 250 as stated above. The I/AR-530 connector -- at least the portion still under development south of Pine Bluff -- is SIU #28 of HPC #18, the legislation that covers most of the full I-69 corridor; the principal impetus for that corridor's enactment and what development has occurred so far has come from the Houston area, the Rio Grande Valley, and boosters from southwest Indiana; almost every other region is simply "along for the ride" -- although KY seems to be doing all they can to deliver their portion, although they're -- in a relative sense, of course -- electing to "cheap out" by deploying all but a couple of miles within their state on existing limited access facilities -- which IMO is a smart move on their part -- get it done as quickly and painlessly as possible and stay ahead of the consistent inflation factor that affects such development these days.
Interstate "designation standards" are like the English language -- for every "hard & fast" rule, there are numerous exceptions. Topology, the actual shape of the country, and other factors tend to make adherence to a strict grid policy unlikely if not functionally impossible -- we can grouse about things that have arbitrarily caused issues (we're looking at you, IL and WI!), but getting overly anal about them says as much about the critic(s) than the designators.
Quote from: NE2 on November 04, 2018, 06:30:16 PM
Actually Laredo-Texarkana was only of the original HPCs. It's the bullshit from Tenaha to Memphis that was tacked on.
Laredo-Texarkana was actually the definition of HPC #20; its backers, primarily from the Houston area, wanted a diagonal corridor to expedite goods in and out of their area. It was subsumed within the overall I-69 corridor by functionally merging it with HPC #18, which was the corridor from Indianapolis south to the border crossings at Brownsville and McAllen, TX. The backers of each concept pooled their efforts; within TX they "morphed" into The Alliance for I-69/Texas, based in Houston, which functions as a multipartite liaison among TXDOT, the Congressional backers of the corridor, and local agencies to keep the various corridor development projects on track. The original Shreveport-Memphis segment was to simply head up US 79 through Pine Bluff; but local boosters from SE AR as well as Tunica (MS) area recreational interests were able to get the corridor rerouted to serve their regions.
AR is likely on board with the present I-69 plans to placate political figures from that part of the state, as well as provide an alternate route to the present I-30/40 composite routing, particularly if TX finishes their I-69/369 (HPC 20) corridor, which would in all likelihood greatly increase commercial truck traffic on the existing route via Little Rock. The alternative would be massive expansion of the already crowded I-30 and I-40 -- which would be both expensive and disruptive; planning and deploying I-69 essentially kills two birds with one stone.
I don't doubt the need for a Laredo-Texarkana route. I doubt the numbering that is being used to try to associate it with a funded activity. But it wouldn't be the first time manipulation of highway funding had been done since Congress washed their hands of the National Road in 1848 and gave it to the states.
I agree with the I-30/40 reliever approach, but expediting yet more traffic via Texarkana seems counter productive. TxDOT expediting Houston to Shreveport seems more productive, but who said politics had to make sense?
I'm skeptical I-69 would work well as a long distance traffic reliever route for I-30 & I-40. The planned route for I-69 from Tehana to Memphis is really crooked, which negates any mileage savings over going to up to Texarkana to pick up I-30 and then I-40.
And then there's the Great River Bridge. The project still seems to be going nowhere. If that very expensive bridge can ever be funded and built I think there's a pretty good chance it may carry a substantial toll (especially for truckers). The state of Mississippi's finances aren't great, which makes it unlikely from them to cover their share of the bridge's cost any time soon. Arkansas has lots of other mouths to feed in terms of major road projects. NW Arkansas is the fastest growing area in that state. That puts more stress on I-49 projects. I-57 is getting thrown into the mix too. I could see a good amount of push from the Little Rock region to concentrate on that route to bring more commerce through the area and "keep up with the Joneses" up in NWA.
I'm not optimistic at all about I-69 getting completed between Shreveport and Memphis within the next 20-30 years. Not as long as the federal government continues doing as little as possible, forcing states to scrounge on these corridors in very piece-meal fashion. There's no overall national "big picture" coordination going on with this stuff. There may be associations and what not, but there's little if anything going on where it counts.
Maybe 50 years from now a completed I-69 will emerge, basically as a hodge-podge of lots of local bypasses and overlays of existing routes (like that giant L-shaped path nonsense in Kentucky).
Quote from: edwaleni on November 05, 2018, 09:55:05 PM
I agree with the I-30/40 reliever approach, but expediting yet more traffic via Texarkana seems counter productive. TxDOT expediting Houston to Shreveport seems more productive, but who said politics had to make sense?
The Texarkana aspect of all this is not
only to expedite Houston-area traffic onto I-30 toward Little Rock and points beyond, but also to tie in with I-49 -- the fact that the Texarkana-Fort Smith segment may well still be decades away notwithstanding. At the pace that the I-69/369 continuum from Houston to Texarkana is being built, it just may "dovetail" -- time-wise -- with the completion of that last segment of I-49. But the Shreveport-Memphis I-69 segment is likely to lag behind all of the other projects; AR may build their segment incrementally as, first, a 2-lane expressway (which is what's initially planned in the Monticello/McGehee area) with the full facility to come later. Besides that big old bridge project, the big question mark remains Mississippi -- and whether they're going to be willing to readily part with in-state funds to construct a road that only benefits the upper Delta region, never the focus of major projects (the 2006-constructed E-W I-69/MS 304 segment is a locally-instigated anomaly at best). We'll all just have to see what transpires down the line -- but I-69 completion in AR and MS will undoubtedly occur decades after all the connecting corridors are in service.
Quote from: O Tamandua on October 31, 2018, 03:46:04 PM
QuoteThe Texas Department of Transportation has concluded a study of where to route Interstate 369 in Cass and Bowie counties, concluding that upgrading U.S. Highway 59 is the best option.
The TxDOT report can be found here (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us-59-queen-city/101118-route-study-report.pdf).
Elevating it makes sense especially with all of the businesses and homes in it's path. Kind of like what they did in Wichita Falls with I-44 through downtown.
TxDOT found that improving U.S. 59 to interstate standards would be the best way to achieve priorities expressed by the public during a pair of open houses in July. Public comments and surveys showed a consensus to optimize the use of existing roads while minimizing the effects of construction, according to the study report.
"Consequently, without new information or further public involvement, TxDOT recommends moving forward with utilizing and upgrading the existing US 59 corridor as much as possible to meet interstate standards," the study report states.
Construction of most of I-369 is in the planning and development stage, though a segment of highway between U.S. 59 and Interstate 30 in Texarkana has already been designated I-369. Once complete, I-369 will connect the future Interstate 69 in Shelby County to Texarkana.
Further study will look at the cost-effectiveness of elevating a segment of the U.S 59 upgrade between I-369 and County Road 1325/Rock School Road.
Advantages of the elevated upgrade option include that it would have few environmental effects and accommodate mobility of local traffic. Drawbacks include substantial traffic delays during construction and high cost.
Next steps include conducting a formal environmental study, developing more detailed plans and providing further opportunity for public involvement, none of which has yet been funded, said Marcus Sandifer, public information officer for TxDOT's Atlanta District.
"This process is expected to take three to four years once it begins, but no funding has yet been identified to move forward," he said in an email introducing the study report.
Planning for other highway construction based on the eventual presence of I-369 is under way.
In May, the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority announced it would study the feasibility of building a spur from the future I-369 in Bowie County west and north through Red River Army Depot and TexAmericas Center to I-30.
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/oct/31/i-369-route-study-completed/750229/
^^^^^^^^
Looking at the GSV/GE of the area, the concept of an elevated I-369 right over the US 59 alignment SW of the present merge with the I-369 freeway seems to be a bit overkill. There must be a hellacious NIMBY factor in the Texarkana 'burbs to provoke a conclusion like that; the original path shown upthread that takes I-369 essentially due south from the bend in Loop 151 just south of the US 59 split would seem to be the more optimal, as it avoids developed properties to a reasonable extent while allowing a bypass of the roadside businesses and housing existing along US 59 just south of the interchange, while allowing the new freeway alignment to merge with it south of that more developed zone. It also would tie in more efficiently with Loop 151, enhancing that route's prospects for being part of a I-369-to-I-49 "transfer" route, as well as a method of removing some traffic from I-30 between the two Interstate junctions.
The plans cited above are at least somewhat optimal regarding a separate west bypass that could eventually curve NE to a junction with I-49 somewhere within its TX mileage -- essentially replicating the original "alternate" I-369 plans that took it off its current signed section, except for relocating the merge with I-369 south of US 59's developed zone -- which indicates that that same NIMBY factor was at work!
When it comes to the NIMBY factor it seems like elevated freeway structures provoke the most outrage.
It's a little over 5 miles from the intersection of US-59 with the TX-151/I-369 loop down to where US-59 expands into a divided 4-lane highway by Wright Patman Lake Dam. The big question is how much of that upgraded 5 mile segment would be elevated? There's a mix of homes and businesses scattered along what looks like a relatively narrow corridor.
It's geometrically possible to build a pair of elevated freeway bridges along that stretch of US-59. The Holliday & Broad Street overheads were built in Wichita Falls with single bridge support pylons that don't eat a lot of space at ground level. A good part of the elevated freeway is cantilevered over the surface street. TX DOT could take a similar approach in Texarkana. They could even design the bridge piers so the freeway lanes stay directly over surface US-59 and not extend out over front yards or business parking lots.
The project would still be pretty expensive. At some point the elevated freeway has to be brought down to grade level. They have to balance out the cost of buying & removing properties adjacent to US-59 versus extending the elevated highway farther. It goes without saying that a residential home might be tougher to sell with a freeway bridge going over the front yard. On the other hand, a new Interstate connection through that area would likely sprout up a whole lot of new commercial business.
If the effort turns out to be successful it might lead to re-evaluation and fixing of other annoying dead ends, such as Lamar Avenue between I-240 and I-22 in Memphis.
Quote from: sparker on November 11, 2018, 03:41:16 AM
^^^^^^^^
Looking at the GSV/GE of the area, the concept of an elevated I-369 right over the US 59 alignment SW of the present merge with the I-369 freeway seems to be a bit overkill. There must be a hellacious NIMBY factor in the Texarkana 'burbs to provoke a conclusion like that; the original path shown upthread that takes I-369 essentially due south from the bend in Loop 151 just south of the US 59 split would seem to be the more optimal, as it avoids developed properties to a reasonable extent while allowing a bypass of the roadside businesses and housing existing along US 59 just south of the interchange, while allowing the new freeway alignment to merge with it south of that more developed zone. It also would tie in more efficiently with Loop 151, enhancing that route's prospects for being part of a I-369-to-I-49 "transfer" route, as well as a method of removing some traffic from I-30 between the two Interstate junctions.
The plans cited above are at least somewhat optimal regarding a separate west bypass that could eventually curve NE to a junction with I-49 somewhere within its TX mileage -- essentially replicating the original "alternate" I-369 plans that took it off its current signed section, except for relocating the merge with I-369 south of US 59's developed zone -- which indicates that that same NIMBY factor was at work!
Other than elevating or double decking the highway, I don't see any other way to build this road in that section between the existing 369 and Kings Highway or FM 989. So many homes and businesses in that area that'd otherwise have to be knocked down. Seems to me that the alignment through TexAmericas Center is the cheaper and better option. All of this hopscotching back and forth between different alignments is just wasting time.
Does an Interstate really need to be built along the US 59 corridor between Texarkana and Tenaha? Maybe existing US 59 could be upgraded instead. Or if a freeway needs to be built, they could just leave it US 59, at least until the entire freeway is completed.
Existing US-59 goes through Tenaha (and then turns North toward Texarkana). I think the I-69 system route from Tenaha up to Texarkana is obviously a fall back plan of sorts to properly connect Texas' I-69 routes into other major routes of the Interstate system. I-369 lets them do that without having to depend on Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi to get their segments of I-69 built to create a "thru" corridor instead of one with expensive (and perpetually unfunded) dead ends such as the Great River Bridge. It's going to be decades before the Tenaha to Memphis stretch of I-69 is finished. In the meantime Texas can concentrate on its own I-69 projects and finish those at their own pace. If Texas finishes their parts of I-69 & I-369 ahead of the other states they'll benefit from the finished corridor while the other states scrounge to finish their portions.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 13, 2018, 03:43:10 PM
Existing US-59 goes through Tenaha (and then turns North toward Texarkana). I think the I-69 system route from Tenaha up to Texarkana is obviously a fall back plan of sorts to properly connect Texas' I-69 routes into other major routes of the Interstate system. I-369 lets them do that without having to depend on Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi to get their segments of I-69 built to create a "thru" corridor instead of one with expensive (and perpetually unfunded) dead ends such as the Great River Bridge. It's going to be decades before the Tenaha to Memphis stretch of I-69 is finished. In the meantime Texas can concentrate on its own I-69 projects and finish those at their own pace. If Texas finishes their parts of I-69 & I-369 ahead of the other states they'll benefit from the finished corridor while the other states scrounge to finish their portions.
Like I said earlier, getting a Houston-Texarkana link was "job 1" of the Houston-based backers of the I-69 Texas cluster. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the eventual 69/369 interchange features I-69 on a TOTSO, with 369 occupying the through lanes.
A TOTSO for I-69 in Tehana wouldn't surprise me either. In the end it's all going to depend on the alignment I-69 and I-369 take thru or around Tehana. Proposed I-69 is almost running West-to-East thru Tehana (along the US-59 corridor before Tehana and US-84 after). I-369 takes a turn to the left (North) from there. If I-369 were to keep the main thru lanes with that turn and I-69 was given a TOTSO in that interchange it would be quite a statement.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 13, 2018, 09:38:47 PM
A TOTSO for I-69 in Tehana wouldn't surprise me either. In the end it's all going to depend on the alignment I-69 and I-369 take thru or around Tehana. Proposed I-69 is almost running West-to-East thru Tehana (along the US-59 corridor before Tehana and US-84 after). I-369 takes a turn to the left (North) from there. If I-369 were to keep the main thru lanes with that turn and I-69 was given a TOTSO in that interchange it would be quite a statement.
I-69's not likely to go directly east along US 84; every projection I've seen bypasses Tenaha to the north and takes a pretty straight shot toward Stonewall (LA), going around the top end of the lake, which makes sense from an economic standpoint (smaller bridge = lower cost). If those projections hold, then a semi-directional "Y" interchange might just be a part of the plans (build the flyover bridge when TX and LA can agree on a developmental timetable). Out here in CA we're pretty accustomed to TOTSO's (NB I-5 at CA 99, Wheeler Ridge; NB I-5 at I-580, Westley; EB I-80, West Sacramento); so they're not necessarily perceived as egregious as some may claim.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 13, 2018, 03:11:44 PM
Does an Interstate really need to be built along the US 59 corridor between Texarkana and Tenaha? Maybe existing US 59 could be upgraded instead. Or if a freeway needs to be built, they could just leave it US 59, at least until the entire freeway is completed.
From what I've heard over the years, there's been long desire on the part of many (locals and state level) to make US 59 in east TX into an interstate. I'm sure, if there had only been the I-69 -going-into-LA plan originally, there would have certainly been movements afoot to add a later extra Tenaha-Texarkana interstate component of some kind. Now the real unnecessary-ness comes with that ridiculous tie-in between Tyler's Loop 49, a future Longview outer loop, and I-369. Absolutely superfluous, when I-20 is already there and is plenty of existing W-E connection to Tyler and Longview from I-369.
Quote from: sparkerI-69's not likely to go directly east along US 84; every projection I've seen bypasses Tenaha to the north and takes a pretty straight shot toward Stonewall (LA), going around the top end of the lake, which makes sense from an economic standpoint (smaller bridge = lower cost).
What map are you looking at? There's no lake just to the South of Stonewall, LA. But the Sabine River feeds into the huge Toldeo Bend Reservoir just South of Logansport. Logansport is where I-69 is currently proposed to cross into Louisiana from Texas. This PDF map from TX DOT (along with a US-84 notation) shows it pretty clearly:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/i-69/i69-status-map.pdfHow they get I-69 thru or around Logansport is another matter. A new 2-lane bridge over the Sabine was recently finished. But that new ROW for US-84 isn't nearly wide enough to squeeze I-69 thru it. So it's likely the freeway would be built a few blocks North. I-69 can't go far at all North of Logansport since there is a bunch of swamp land both North and South of town.
Stonewall, LA may be one of the towns I-69 passes through to get to the outskirts of Shreveport.
Quote from: txstateendsNow the real unnecessary-ness comes with that ridiculous tie-in between Tyler's Loop 49, a future Longview outer loop, and I-369. Absolutely superfluous, when I-20 is already there and is plenty of existing W-E connection to Tyler and Longview from I-369.
I'm not sure if they'll ever get that that TX-49 turnpike fully built out. Currently TX-49 is just a 2 lane toll road that functions as a bypass for US-69 traffic to get around Tyler. I have no idea when or if they'll build the second carriageway just for the partial loop around Tyler, much less extend it farther East to Longview. Attaching it into I-369 just seems like wishful thinking. I-20 shoots a far more straight path through that region, and it has no toll gates.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 14, 2018, 01:56:25 PM
What map are you looking at? There's no lake just to the South of Stonewall, LA. But the Sabine River feeds into the huge Toldeo Bend Reservoir just South of Logansport. Logansport is where I-69 is currently proposed to cross into Louisiana from Texas. This PDF map from TX DOT (along with a US-84 notation) shows it pretty clearly:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/i-69/i69-status-map.pdf
The 2019 McNally standard-variety atlas shows a lake north of US 84/Logansport along the upper Sabine River; it's "pinched" at Logansport; the map makes it look like a northern arm of Toledo Bend. If that's inaccurate, then so be it; that detail notwithstanding, most of the projections I've seen shoot 69 northeast from a point on US 59 a few miles west of Tenaha and making a reasonably straight shot toward Stonewall rather than tracing US 84 east from there into LA.
Is I-69 in doubt? Louisiana thinks I-369 will drain off the need and get I-69 cancelled in LA and AR by setting up traffic through I-30.
http://bossierpress.com/is-i-69-in-doubt/ (http://bossierpress.com/is-i-69-in-doubt/)
Complaints about Texas and I-369.
Is the future I-69 that could run through Bossier and Caddo Parishes now in doubt of bypassing the area altogether? Bossier City Mayor Lorenz "Lo" Walker said it's a possibility.
Walker is the VP for Louisiana, and previous president, for the I-69 Coalition. He said that if the route does skip Louisiana, it would be down to some upgrades made across the border in the state's neighbor.
The project was divided up into what are known as SIU (segments of independent utility) that can be built by states individually to link up with the overall project. The current segments that run through Louisiana, specifically in Bossier and Caddo Parishes, are SIU-14, from the Arkansas state line to Haughton, SIU-15, from Haughton to Stonewall, and SIU 16, from Stonewall to Tenaha, Texas.
These segments are the priority corridor outlined by the I-69 coalition.
But Texas is ignoring SIU 16 and instead is upgrading I-59, which could prove to be an alternative that could be then designated as the route for I-69.
"My concern is no work is being done on SIU 16 from Stonewall to Tenaha, Texas," said Walker. "Texas is doing great work but they're not getting the environmental study done on that section."
Walker noted that although the last segment starts at Stonewall and runs to the state line, it is Texas' responsibility. "They have a committee, but they're not paying attention to that one segment that connects them with the Arkansas and Louisiana segment," Walker said.
He is also concerned of a developing pattern where commercial traffic is bypassing the approved corridor. Memphis, Tenn., is a major transportation center for freight with traffic coming out of there along I-30 straight into US Hwy. 59 in Texas.
"If that pattern keeps going then it is established and they'll bypass southeast Arkansas and Louisiana," Walker explained. "Credit to Texas, they're putting their money where their mouth is by upgrading to interstate standards."
"There are signs up in Texarkana that say "ËœI-69' right now," Walker said.
Moreover, Walker said he fears that the cost of a new bridge over the Mississippi River could cause the route to change.
"The cost of that bridge is $1.2 billion and I can see in the future where, politically, because of the expense, that bridge won't be built. And then the Arkansas links would be bypassed and it would mess up the Louisiana links," he explained.
So what can be done to try and ensure Louisiana isn't frozen out? Walker said the best option would be to build a segment. Specifically, one that would be of use until it can be tied into the project at-large.
He recommended SIU-15 that would run from Haughton to the Port of Caddo-Bossier, saying, "If we could come up with the construction money, we could build SIU-15 from Haughton through the Port, and that segment would be another bridge over the Red River, which would also provide us a tie-in to I-49."
Mayor Walker sent a letter to Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Secretary Dr. Shawn Wilson on June 14 requesting a Record of Decision on SIU-16. Walker also noted the state has completed records of decision for SIU-14 and -15.
However, he noted that the area is fortunate to be included on the corridor. He noted that the state only has to fund 20 percent of the cost, and while vital to the area, the portion is only 95 miles.
"It's a lot less expensive because we have such a small portion and it still keeps us tied in," Walker said. With the much discussed infrastructure bill of President Donald Trump's administration, Walker notes it could help make the project a reality. But he said ominously that the money is a waste if that last segment isn't given attention.
"No doubt it could benefit the whole program. But if we don't get our records of decision and environmental studies done, there's no construction. If we get that done, then we can get some of the money our president is talking about."
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nlep.org%2Fgetattachment%2FCompetitive-Advantages%2FTransportation-Logistics%2FInterstates-Federal-Highways%2FMap-Highways-%28Closer%29.jpg.aspx%3B%3B%3Fwidth%3D500%26amp%3Bheight%3D385&hash=b961c12a44e151d6c2b13f0dfad13b22a9ee13f3)
^^^^^^^^^
You mean it's taken LA I-69 supporters this long to realize that TX interests are concentrating on the I-69/369 composite corridor and "back-burnering" the mainline connector into LA? Mayor Walker is certainly in the "glass half empty" crowd on this one; fearful that once that all-TX section is in operation, Memphis-bound traffic will simply use it and the existing I-30/40 corridor. Actually, that possibility -- and the additional traffic poured onto those extant E-W routes -- is what will likely be the "last straw" that finally gets the midsection of I-69 built, bridge and all. Just about everyone here on this forum has posited that Shreveport-Memphis was the least vital and most tenuous segment of the full corridor -- and for good and obvious reasons. But congestion on the route through Little Rock -- and the dearth of efficient alternatives that don't require through-town slogs on surface facilities -- are and will be the driving forces behind the eventual development of the LA/AR/MS section of I-69.
What LA corridor backers need to do is make a little trip down to Houston and meet with their TX counterparts, assure them that they do understand why TX is prioritizing completion of 369 over the LA "crossover" SIU -- but also be steadfast in holding them to not only the concept of that SIU but also a timetable to at least submit plans to build such -- that LA plans for at least the Shreveport bypass depend upon some action on TXDOT's part. In short, LA interests, including LADOT, need to hold TX's feet to the fire on this one -- no wimping out -- but also no whining and finger-pointing if they don't assertively pursue their interests. It's not a bridge game -- they know exactly what cards the other party holds -- but LA (or AR, for that matter) needs to remind the TX folks that a I-30/40/Texarkana routing is simply a stop-gap; eventually it'll be LOS D or F along most of the route -- and that the full I-69 corridor is a way for them to hedge their bets -- for the low, low price of planning 15-20 miles of corridor from Tenaha to the state line.
While the Tehana to Logansport segment of I-69 may be relatively easy to build compared to many other segments, it won't carry a "low low price." Per mile cost of new Interstate is pretty ridiculous these days. As long as the federal government continues to take a fairly hands-off approach, letting states plan and build out these corridors only as they can manage, the individual states will make the needs of cities within their borders the top priority.
Movers and shakers in Louisiana can try to hold their Texas counterparts' feet to the fire. But what leverage do they have to force Texas to build the Tehana to Logansport segment before building I-369 up to Texarkana? This situation is exactly why the federal government needs to be more involved with I-69 and prioritizing where federal money will be spent. Another good question is how much of Texas' own taxpayer money is having to be spent on their segments of I-69 versus federal money? The greater a percentage Texas has to fund on these projects equates to Texas doing more to prioritize its own needs than that of other states.
As far as Arkansas goes I think the state is already split on which road projects should be a greater priority. I think the folks up in the booming Northwest Arkansas region might rather see I-369 to Texarkana finished first. It would create a greater push to get I-49 finished between Texarkana and Fort Smith.
IMHO, if the planners in Louisiana are going to raise hell over I-69 system projects happening outside their state (like I-369) I think they ought to direct their hell raising toward getting the Great River Bridge funded and built ASAP. As each year passes the cost of building the Great River Bridge will keep creeping up and up and up. I really think the Shreveport to Memphis segment of I-69 is dead in the water as long as that bridge remains an issue. And if they want that corridor to be a reliever route for I-30 and I-40 it will be critical for the bridge NOT to have tolls on it. If it costs a trucker $20 or $30 to cross that bridge he'll just stick with using I-40 to cross the Mississippi.
^^^^^^^^
"Low, low price" was simply rhetorical, referring to the relatively short distance between Tenaha and the LA state line in comparison with the remainder of the TX portion of I-69 (and including the I-369 "spur"). Interstate-grade facilities never have been the cheapest to construct and never will be! And of course TX doesn't have to accede to entreaties from other states -- but it's in their best long-term interest to do so. Also, internally AR has to balance the political interests from the relatively prosperous NWA region (which, if I-49 were to exhibit progress between Texarkana and Fort Smith, would surely benefit from a completed I-369) and the long-neglected "flatlands" in the southern portion of the state -- one of the longstanding driving factors regarding the routing of the I-69 corridor.
I am in complete agreement with Bobby regarding the Great River bridge; it needs to be planned & funded before much else along the I-69 midsection occurs. While AR is gradually completing initial 2-lane segments of their corridor segment -- seemingly aimed more toward local service than anything else -- any such activity in MS has been conspicuous by its absence -- not even upgrades of US 61 in anticipation of actual I-69 construction. My guess is that besides the state's seemingly perpetual funding crisis the official stance is to wait until here's a compelling reason to actually build their segment -- likely the presence of the new bridge -- or at least concrete plans accompanied by a schedule to build it.
Unless the federal government steps in with a major infrastructure program, funds 90% or more of the Great River Bridge project and puts it on a development fast track, I don't see the bridge being built for decades to come. I don't see much hope for the feds stepping in, regardless of which political party is running things. One party can only seem to think about selling tax cuts (along with cuts to government, services, etc). The other party might be keen on an infrastructure program, but given many of those representatives are from more urban districts they might not actually like highways and choose to divert attention to mass transit and other more seemingly environmental friendly efforts.
I don't remember the details on how much the states of Arkansas and Mississippi are each expected to contribute to fund the bridge (in addition to the federal government), but each carry an equal burden worth hundreds of millions. Mississippi doesn't have that kind of money to spend on a new bridge. The state's growth outlook isn't great. In 2017 its economic growth ranked 46th in the nation. The population growth rate there is only .3%, one of the slowest in the nation. Mississippi has the highest percentage of African American residents in the country (37%). Over 1 in 5 people in Mississippi live in poverty. Meanwhile the state government is cutting all kinds of services, like public education. It's not exactly a great environment to attract and retain skilled workers planning to raise families or people looking at starting small businesses.
Quote from: sparkerAnd of course TX doesn't have to accede to entreaties from other states -- but it's in their best long-term interest to do so.
As long as the Great River Bridge remains at a dead end I think it's in Texas' best interest to prioritize building out I-369. With no bridge a choice by TX DOT to prioritize the Tenaha to Logansport segment would effectively be TX DOT favoring Shreveport over in-state cities along US-59 like Carthage, Marshall, Atlanta and Texarkana. The only thing the Tenaha to Logansport segment has going for it at all is a relatively short distance, roughly 15 miles. Compare that to a distance of 110-120 miles for I-369 from Tenaha to Texarkana. But 15 miles is still significant. It's about 15 miles from Tenaha to Carthage.
A bunch of this is all academic though. The reality is TX DOT has hundreds of miles worth of I-69 elsewhere in the state to build. I-69E and I-69C have to be important priorities of their own, given the huge population down in the Rio Grande Valley. Laredo is a very important trade crossing, making I-69W a priority too. Then there's the situation around metro Houston.
^^^^^^^^
Agreed in general. The Alliance for I-69/Texas and TXDOT, the prime conjoined movers regarding anything on any I-69 & related corridors within the state, have their priorities -- and the one thing they have going for them regarding I-369 is the fact that they can solely control the agenda -- that extended corridor is totally within their jurisdiction -- they can make unilateral decisions without having to coordinate or even consult anyone else. Of course they're going to carry "Job One" -- a northeast outlet from Houston to as many other routes (in this case, either I-20 or I-30) as possible in-state. And the potential to hook up with I-49 at (hopefully, for them) about the time that Texarkana-Fort Smith comes "on line", so to speak, is icing on that particular cake. I have no illusions that any player within TX will continue to prioritize the Texarkana connection -- you play the cards you're dealt!
But -- OTOH -- the I-69 corridor isn't the only "borderline" issue TX will have to deal with in the not-too-distant term. They're having to negotiate subsidies from AR regarding the portion of I-49 that lies within their state (but has little service use for them unless the west Texarkana loop becomes reality); eventually (probably not in my lifetime, though) they'll have to deal with LADOT and the various LA-based interests regarding I-14. At least engaging with their LA counterparts regarding the relatively short portion of I-69 east of I-369 -- maybe just to ascertain the location of the projected facility so LA can start preliminary work on their section in earnest. That'll keep relations between TX entities at those of the adjoining states at least north of cordial for the time being. In other words, all TX has to do is pick a location -- but not lift a single fucking shovel; let LA get the Shreveport bypass SIU under way -- and maybe do property acquisition and possibly grubbing down to the state line for the SIU shared with TX. And after I-369 is busy carrying trucks to and from I-20 and I-30, then TXDOT might well consider actually building their segment (Job 2 -- or 3 -- or 4?!). But the inevitable "I-69 ENDS/BEGIN I-369" BGS or discrete sign cluster (and its SB counterpart) will probably be in service for several years before that happens.
Quote from: sparker on November 16, 2018, 06:10:16 PMBut the inevitable "I-69 ENDS/BEGIN I-369" BGS or discrete sign cluster (and its SB counterpart) will probably be in service for several years before that happens.
Given that this is TxDOT that we're talking about, the 69 signs will just disappear and you'll get a reassurance marker and/or a pull-through sign informing you that you're now on 369 (or vice-versa).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nlep.org%2Fgetattachment%2FCompetitive-Advantages%2FTransportation-Logistics%2FInterstates-Federal-Highways%2FMap-Highways-%28Closer%29.jpg.aspx%3B%3B%3Fwidth%3D500%26amp%3Bheight%3D385&hash=b961c12a44e151d6c2b13f0dfad13b22a9ee13f3)
I think this image is a good example to show how far off the rails the United States has become at planning new super highway corridors. Check out just how CROOKED the proposed path of I-69 is through Louisiana. Then check out how STRAIGHT all the other highways are around it. I-20 takes a fairly direct East-West path across Northern Louisiana. Most of the other non-Interstate routes have reasonably direct routes unless they're dodging something due to topography. The I-69 route looks like a bunch of bypass loops all strung together. I'm not sure if my intestines have that many turns! When you add the mileage of this crooked route to the crooked ones planned in Arkansas and Mississippi it would be very lucky if the Tenaha-Memphis segment of I-69 had any mileage savings at all versus the I-369/I-30/I-40 route from Tenaha to Memphis. The I-69 route might actually be substantially longer. And then there's the possibility of an expensive toll bridge over the Mississippi being thrown into the mix.
^^^^^^^^
I can see the rationale for some of the I-69 twists and turns around the developed areas south of Shreveport, as well as how it snakes around the east end of Barksdale AFB -- but the portion north of I-20 does appear to be a bit gratuitous -- as if the corridor is being manipulated to either (a) serve specific towns or subregions or, alternately (b) avoid specific areas. Without engaging in conspiracy theory, I for one smell political influence wielding quite a bit of influence here; considering the maneuvering that has gone on elsewhere regarding the layout of this corridor (e.g. the Tunica service in MS; shifting the IN portion to go through Bloomington; the very existence of I-69C) such things are certainly not surprising. But the saving grace is that since that portion will likely be among the last to see development, what is presently posited may well be more preliminary than final -- and that some economically-oriented "straightening out" might well be in the cards down the line. Only time will tell.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 27, 2018, 11:02:12 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nlep.org%2Fgetattachment%2FCompetitive-Advantages%2FTransportation-Logistics%2FInterstates-Federal-Highways%2FMap-Highways-%28Closer%29.jpg.aspx%3B%3B%3Fwidth%3D500%26amp%3Bheight%3D385&hash=b961c12a44e151d6c2b13f0dfad13b22a9ee13f3)
I think this image is a good example to show how far off the rails the United States has become at planning new super highway corridors. Check out just how CROOKED the proposed path of I-69 is through Louisiana. Then check out how STRAIGHT all the other highways are around it. I-20 takes a fairly direct East-West path across Northern Louisiana. Most of the other non-Interstate routes have reasonably direct routes unless they're dodging something due to topography. The I-69 route looks like a bunch of bypass loops all strung together. I'm not sure if my intestines have that many turns! When you add the mileage of this crooked route to the crooked ones planned in Arkansas and Mississippi it would be very lucky if the Tenaha-Memphis segment of I-69 had any mileage savings at all versus the I-369/I-30/I-40 route from Tenaha to Memphis. The I-69 route might actually be substantially longer. And then there's the possibility of an expensive toll bridge over the Mississippi being thrown into the mix.
Since the ROW hasn't been acquired yet, this map is a somewhat generalized view of where they expect the road to go.
Also the width of the red hash is very out of scale to the map itself, so any directional changes will appear somewhat distorted.
The Arkansas planning maps show I-69 going east and south around El Dorado, not west, so that just tells you how approximate these things are.
This document shows it going to the west of El Dorado. https://www.arkansashighways.com/FastLane/2016/I69/FASTLANE%20I-69%20PROJECT%202016%20FINAL.pdf
Do you have a link for a map showing it to the east? I would love to see all the possibilities.
Quote from: dcharlie on November 30, 2018, 11:28:27 AM
This document shows it going to the west of El Dorado. https://www.arkansashighways.com/FastLane/2016/I69/FASTLANE%20I-69%20PROJECT%202016%20FINAL.pdf
Do you have a link for a map showing it to the east? I would love to see all the possibilities.
In the ArDOT EIS for I-69, 4 corridors were identified for SIU 13.
http://www.arkansashighways.com/environmental/environmental_studies/020471/AR%20I-69%20Final%20EIS.pdf
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4852/45402130544_e82d8be451_c.jpg)
2 go north of El Dorado, 2 go south. Corridor C is the one I see in the planning docs because it aligns with the Monticello Bypass, which ArDOT has committed to back to McGehee for I-69 funding in 2020.
I know all the wikis and highway sites all say SIU 13 will go north of El Dorado, but per this document, ArDOT committed to the southern route when they tied it directly to the Monticello Bypass.
They could change their minds and tie C to A south of Warren as part of the AR-530 extension and still take it north of El Dorado.
But I imagine it will be another 10 years before they actually make a decision on it.
^^^^^^^^
With the emphasis on Monticello-McGehee, a choice promulgated by local interests, it's become pretty obvious that anything along I-69 SW of the AR 530 junction won't see development in the near term; the section from Monticello down to I-20 is probably in a dead heat with the Great River bridge for the last section of the corridor to ever see development. With less local impact and/or benefit than any other of the corridor's SIU's, there's little regional support for timely deployment.
Geez, all those corridors are so jagged! I'm amazed that not a single one of those alternatives is something close to a straight line.
Quote from: compdude787 on December 01, 2018, 08:41:27 PM
Geez, all those corridors are so jagged! I'm amazed that not a single one of those alternatives is something close to a straight line.
Local politics affecting planning efforts; trying to please any number of folks/constituents who, alternately,
want an Interstate freeway in their area, primarily for potential economic benefits
or don't want it for one or more of many reasons.
Is a "straight-line route" even possible for any new route nowadays minus anything political? With all of the new environmental rules on the books that never existed in the 50s & 60s, I'm not sure a new route would be able to be straight-shot anymore.
Environmental restrictions are one thing. I think the real thing making new Interstate routes so wastefully jagged is mostly politics. It's the combination of NIMBY's blocking the highway from certain areas and other sweetheart deals bending the route in illogical directions.
We also can't forget planners looking for the cheapest alignments to build, trying to avoid having to buy up and demolish properties along the proposed ROW. And then we really have to add piss poor planning and developers taking advantage of that. Want to build a new super highway corridor along a specific path advertised to the public, yet take decades to get the job done? Well, there's lots of real estate developers all too happy to build new crap all over that corridor, creating a very expensive situation for the government.
One example I love to trash repeatedly (because it absolutely deserves it) is the Kilpatrick Turnpike extension in the Oklahoma City metro. The turnpike should have been extended directly South along S Sara Rd thru Mustang back in the late 1990's when the rest of the Kilpatrick was being built to I-40. Either that or the ROW should have been bought and reserved. Plenty of space was available then. Instead the state and local governments did NOTHING to plan for the future. They let developers build all sorts of new housing additions, schools and other retail businesses all over that very obvious corridor. So now we have an "extension" of the Kilpatrick that will only be of use to people living right along its path rather than any regional drivers. The road is 100% garbage for anyone who doesn't live in Mustang. And I'm sure its AADT counts when completed will be crap. The numbers sure won't compare to the volume of the Kilpatrick North of I-40. The Kilpatrick Turnpike should have been a large outer loop going from Edmond, down thru Yukon and Mustang and then over to Norman. Now such a thing will be all but impossible to build. Not unless the ODOT or the OTA want to spend a crazy fortune buying and demolishing a bunch of property to build the road through.
Selfishness and lack of any big picture view on things is why new Interstate corridors are so crooked. We have these same no-big-picture issues affecting a bunch of other things in the United States as well. I am really pessimistic about where this country is headed over the next 20 years if these trends are not stopped. As long as we have a bunch of rich old farts twisting everything to benefit only them we will see our future get more and more bleak.
I think new Interstate corridors should be implemented ONLY in places where there is sufficient traffic demand. Otherwise, it is likely just wasteful pork.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 03, 2018, 04:10:43 PM
I think new Interstate corridors should be implemented ONLY in places where there is sufficient traffic demand. Otherwise, it is likely just wasteful pork.
The Catch-22 is that, where there is high traffic demand, the route will likely be like threading a needle to minimize the impacts to all the environmental resources and populated areas, if it is even possible. Unless an undisturbed corridor has been preserved, which is relatively rare.
Quote from: Rick Powell on December 03, 2018, 05:34:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 03, 2018, 04:10:43 PM
I think new Interstate corridors should be implemented ONLY in places where there is sufficient traffic demand. Otherwise, it is likely just wasteful pork.
The Catch-22 is that, where there is high traffic demand, the route will likely be like threading a needle to minimize the impacts to all the environmental resources and populated areas, if it is even possible. Unless an undisturbed corridor has been preserved, which is relatively rare.
Aside from that, many newer Interstate corridors have been predicated on projected rather than current demand, with the idea that deploying the corridors before there's no room for them -- if there's sufficient probability that the areas served will eventually yield high traffic volumes -- can not only be built relatively efficiently but keep ahead of inflationary forces. That's the rationale behind I-11 in general; the fact that, at least with the original 2012-designated section, it connects & serves two large metro areas which ostensibly will supply the requisite traffic over time. With only a few exceptions (e.g., parts of the nascent I-42 corridor in NC) there is rarely enough present-day traffic to warrant -- beyond criticism -- an Interstate facility over most of the currently planned corridors. But considering the influx into certain areas of the country (N. NV as a residential alternative to high CA costs; NW Arkansas, the Rio Grande Valley), state and local planners (and their political backers) are simply betting on themselves via these new corridors. And yes, it's to some degree pork -- until such time that it actually provides efficient transportation to the growing area(s). But the naysayers to this type of speculation have one thing on their side -- there's only so much $$ to go around, so at any time such corridors will only number in the low single digits.
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 03, 2018, 10:16:34 PM
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................. :hmmm:
Quote from: sparkerWhich 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.
Quote from: sparkerOne 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.
^^^^^^^^
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 04, 2018, 01:28:18 PM
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.
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.
^^^^^^^^
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.
At the end of January, TxDOT held an Open House (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/atlanta/013119.html) 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:
Quote
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 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/sl390/013119-exhibit-1.pdf) for west-bound I-20 traffic to access Future I-369:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_19_07_19_2_23_07.png)
^^^^^^^^^^
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.
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.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2019, 06:38:16 PM
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.
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.
^^^^^^^^
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.
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 27, 2019, 11:42:22 AM
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 27, 2019, 11:42:22 AM
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.
Quote from: seicer on August 27, 2019, 02:25:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 27, 2019, 11:42:22 AM
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.
Quote from: sparker on August 27, 2019, 06:03:34 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Quote from: roadman65 on August 28, 2019, 09:32:14 AM
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
Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2019, 03:47:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 28, 2019, 09:32:14 AM
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.
Quote from: sparker on August 27, 2019, 06:03:34 PM
Quote from: seicer on August 27, 2019, 02:25:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 27, 2019, 11:42:22 AM
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.
Quote from: motorola870 on August 29, 2019, 05:30:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 27, 2019, 06:03:34 PM
Quote from: seicer on August 27, 2019, 02:25:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 27, 2019, 11:42:22 AM
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 20, 2019, 02:35:31 PM
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.
When you mentioned cities letting developers build too close to the proposed road, that's exactly what happened concerning where I-369 terminates at I-30. The northern loop was supposed to start from there but because so much development was allowed there a whole new I-30 interchange had to be found.
Quote from: dariusb on September 06, 2019, 08:54:31 PM
When you mentioned cities letting developers build too close to the proposed road, that's exactly what happened concerning where I-369 terminates at I-30. The northern loop was supposed to start from there but because so much development was allowed there a whole new I-30 interchange had to be found.
IIRC, the north loop and any western TX-based bypass of Texarkana west of the currently designated I-369 along US 59 has been shelved for the time being, with I-369 simply terminating where it does now at I-30 (at least it has an appropriate interchange for doing so!). Whether that loop will be revived down the line is yet TBD; it's assumed that I-369 traffic to and from I-30 will follow the current route, while traffic intended for northward I-49 -- whenever
that facility becomes a reality -- will have a choice of using I-30 or, more simply, Loop 151 (which may gain Interstate status at some point if brought up to standard). The development situated in the path north of the current 30/369 interchange was there well prior to the 1991 establishment of the I-69 family of corridors; while part of the original regional "brief" was to shunt traffic to both I-30 and I-49, it's become clear that providing I-369 access to the former has been given priority over the latter, particularly since the former actually exists and the latter is at best indefinitely tentative -- and out of the developmental hands of the I-69 TX backers. So for the time being the I-369 construction emphasis will be from Tenaha to SW Texarkana so as to complete that 115-mile corridor; a direct and more efficient connection to I-49 north of town will have to be in the form of a future revived west/north loop, which may or may not carry the I-369 designation -- but in reality no one will even be thinking about that until the main I-49 trunk is at least let and underway. And as far as ROW preservation in TX is concerned, a lot of that is complicated by the fact that most zoning and developmental decisions occur at the county-by-county level, so TxDOT has to put up with longstanding and varying local structure and idiom when it comes to the decision to upgrade the existing route or bypass it with new-terrain construction. So far -- at least to the south along the I-69 trunk, the results have been mixed, with some new-terrain planning combined with
in situ improvements. Again, to reiterate a cliche', in TX all politics
is local -- and it shows!
Since there are a lot of businesses in the SW portion of the city construction through there will be challenging. I wonder will that section be elevated? I read that traffic counts on I-30 will triple in the coming years, no doubt increased by the addition of traffic from I-369. Plans are to make I-30 six lanes between New Boston and Texarkana in anticipation of increased traffic. Traffic counts on I-30 through Texarkana are 85,000. Over the next 10-15 years counts are expected to triple which is crazy to me.
Quote from: dariusb on September 08, 2019, 03:19:08 AM
Since there are a lot of businesses in the SW portion of the city construction through there will be challenging. I wonder will that section be elevated? I read that traffic counts on I-30 will triple in the coming years, no doubt increased by the addition of traffic from I-369. Plans are to make I-30 six lanes between New Boston and Texarkana in anticipation of increased traffic. Traffic counts on I-30 through Texarkana are 85,000. Over the next 10-15 years counts are expected to triple which is crazy to me.
Since it'll probably be at least 20-25 years until the composite 69/369 corridor in TX is substantially complete, there's ample time for plans for dispersing traffic through the Texarkana area to gel. The optimal plan, of course, would be a west/north bypass intersecting 369 SW of town and heading north past I-30 and then east to meet I-49 similar to previously explored plans. But even if that doesn't come together, it would be a relatively simple matter to improve Loop 151 to Interstate standards and use that as a bypass (likely designated a x49 by that time) for traffic intended for either I-49 or EB I-30 to circumnavigate central Texarkana -- the I-30 access part of which would be utilized regardless of whether the west/north bypass were ever built; its main purpose would be to get to NB I-49.
Quote from: dariusbSince there are a lot of businesses in the SW portion of the city construction through there will be challenging. I wonder will that section be elevated?
TX DOT finished the I-369 route study for the junction between US-59 and the existing Texarkana loop:
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/oct/31/i-369-route-study-completed/750229/http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us-59-queen-city/101118-route-study-report.pdfThe recommendation, based in part on public input, is to upgrade the existing US-59 corridor. East and West bypass options around existing US-59 were studied. Those options were rejected. If/when the I-369 upgrade along existing US-59 is built some of the freeway will be built at grade, which will require removal of a bunch of properties. The segment joining the existing loop will likely be elevated.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 09, 2019, 11:37:46 AM
Quote from: dariusbSince there are a lot of businesses in the SW portion of the city construction through there will be challenging. I wonder will that section be elevated?
TX DOT finished the I-369 route study for the junction between US-59 and the existing Texarkana loop:
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/oct/31/i-369-route-study-completed/750229/
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us-59-queen-city/101118-route-study-report.pdf
The recommendation, based in part on public input, is to upgrade the existing US-59 corridor. East and West bypass options around existing US-59 were studied. Those options were rejected. If/when the I-369 upgrade along existing US-59 is built some of the freeway will be built at grade, which will require removal of a bunch of properties. The segment joining the existing loop will likely be elevated.
Has the method of elevating I-369 been broached as of yet? Obviously 2 options: continuous bridge or berm with periodic bridge breaks. I wonder just what local opinion will favor -- either option will require
major physical changes to the immediate area.
The decision hasn't been made final yet. But the preliminary recommendation is to elevate I-369 for 1.5 miles over the top of existing US-59 from I-369/Loop-151 down to Rock School Road (CR-1325). The elevated bridge structure would end just South of Liberty-Eylau Elementary School. The existing US-59 road is an undivided 4-lane road with a center turn lane. The ROW is about 150' wide (measuring from the utility easements). That's enough room to build an elevated 4-lane freeway bridge. The only question really is the design of the bridge structure. Will it have bridge piers built in place of the existing center turn lane or have piers built to the outside of the existing highway? The design may end up a bit similar to how the Grand Parkway in the Houston area is being planned to squeeze through the town of Kemah.
The I-369 upgrade for the next 3.5 miles farther South along US-59 would be built at-grade, likely with frontage roads. I'm guessing TX DOT would clear the properties adjacent to existing US-59 on the West side of the road since there are fewer properties on that side. As US-59 reaches Wright Patman Lake Dam the road widens into a divided 4-lane highway with considerably more ROW. Interstate upgrades from there down to the new FM-3129 exit and farther South to Queen City should be fairly easy. The Queen City/Atlanta, TX area is another ball of wax.
The US-59 upgrade into I-369 going into the existing Texarkana loop will be more expensive and require removal of more properties (particularly where the road is built at grade and expands outward with frontage roads). But, as you can see in the route study report, there was actually far more opposition to the East Route and West Route new terrain options.
Quote from: sparker on September 09, 2019, 10:45:35 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 09, 2019, 11:37:46 AM
Quote from: dariusbSince there are a lot of businesses in the SW portion of the city construction through there will be challenging. I wonder will that section be elevated?
TX DOT finished the I-369 route study for the junction between US-59 and the existing Texarkana loop:
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/oct/31/i-369-route-study-completed/750229/
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us-59-queen-city/101118-route-study-report.pdf
The recommendation, based in part on public input, is to upgrade the existing US-59 corridor. East and West bypass options around existing US-59 were studied. Those options were rejected. If/when the I-369 upgrade along existing US-59 is built some of the freeway will be built at grade, which will require removal of a bunch of properties. The segment joining the existing loop will likely be elevated.
Has the method of elevating I-369 been broached as of yet? Obviously 2 options: continuous bridge or berm with periodic bridge breaks. I wonder just what local opinion will favor -- either option will require major physical changes to the immediate area.
Do you think the elevated route would take longer to build than the at grade west side route or about the same amount of time?
I followed US 59 from Texarkana to north of Houston in Google Maps, and there isn't a whole lot of US 59 that could be upgraded to interstate standards. Much of it is 4 or 5 lane undivided and there is a lot of build up along the highway. There are a bunch of driveways that would have to be dealt with, necessitating long frontage roads and bridges over the highway. They could build the new highway right next to the current one but they would have to build 3 new carriageways for most of the way. There is a section a few miles south of Texarkana that has two carriageways that are separated, but there is only room for one carriageway in the middle, so if they upgraded the existing road they would have to build a carriageway in the middle and one next to one set of the sets of lanes.
^^^^^^^^^
A few years ago a proposed new-terrain I-69 alignment paralleling US 59 (and switching around between the east and west sides of the existing route) in the Nacogdoches area was published; since then it doesn't appear that any further news regarding this has been forthcoming. IIRC, the north end of this particular proposal was in the vicinity of where the 69/369 interchange would be located. If any posters have any updates on plans for that area, please enlighten us all, since progress north of the Cleveland area seems to be either stalled or on hold.
We've seen plans and discussion for I-369 around Marshall, Atlanta/Queen City and Texarkana. Though Marion County will be one of if not the shortest of the Texas I-69 county segments, I wonder what kind of issues they'll have building it around Jefferson?
Texarkana already has a pretty good freeway network for a city it's size but when 369 is fully built along with the northern loop it'll by far be the largest, most impressive freeway system in all of east Texas. I've heard for awhile that the reason for this is that when the inland port at TexAmericas Center and the Red River is made navigable from Shreveport up to east of Texarkana at Fulton, there will be a monstrous amount of traffic coming through there pretty much tripling the current traffic count of 88,000 to over 275,000! Could you imagine? That's nuts!
I heard a rumor that I-49 may be built to DeQueen next as part of the long gap between Texarkana and Fort Smith. I do not know how valid that rumor is, but if that gets started maybe this I-369 extension will as well.
Quote from: dariusb on September 25, 2019, 10:31:07 PM
Texarkana already has a pretty good freeway network for a city it's size but when 369 is fully built along with the northern loop it'll by far be the largest, most impressive freeway system in all of east Texas. I've heard for awhile that the reason for this is that when the inland port at TexAmericas Center and the Red River is made navigable from Shreveport up to east of Texarkana at Fulton, there will be a monstrous amount of traffic coming through there pretty much tripling the current traffic count of 88,000 to over 275,000! Could you imagine? That's nuts!
Wow. And I thought the six-laning of I-30 was just because of the current traffic. But you're right...Texarkana is going to become the gateway to Texas, with a vengeance.
Texarkana (and the state of Texas to some extent) is trying to position that region as a possible major distribution hub. A complete I-69/I-369 from Houston as well as a fully complete I-49 from Texarkana to Fort Smith might make that possible. Otherwise cities elsewhere in this region, such as Memphis or Oklahoma City, are going to be better positioned for that kind of business growth. Amazon just opened a giant fulfillment center in Oklahoma City near Will Rogers Airport. It dwarfs the huge FedEx facility that recently opened just up the road from it.
Regarding I-49 and DeQueen: that town is along the proposed path of I-49. There's no telling when I-49 will be extended North from Texarkana up to Ashdown and then DeQueen. Texas has to build that little leg of I-49 running through that corner of the state (and contribute to a Red River bridge crossing). Arkansas has other priorities with I-49. Completing the Bentonville Bypass up to the MO state line is the #1 priority by far. Then there's the big project from Alma to Barling in the Fort Smith area. After that AR DOT will probably build bypasses around towns along the route (like DeQueen). But it could be decades before I-49 is 100% complete between Texarkana and Fort Smith, especially as long as the federal government takes a back seat to this kind of highway development.
Quote from: O Tamandua on September 25, 2019, 11:36:44 PM
Quote from: dariusb on September 25, 2019, 10:31:07 PM
Texarkana already has a pretty good freeway network for a city it's size but when 369 is fully built along with the northern loop it'll by far be the largest, most impressive freeway system in all of east Texas. I've heard for awhile that the reason for this is that when the inland port at TexAmericas Center and the Red River is made navigable from Shreveport up to east of Texarkana at Fulton, there will be a monstrous amount of traffic coming through there pretty much tripling the current traffic count of 88,000 to over 275,000! Could you imagine? That's nuts!
Wow. And I thought the six-laning of I-30 was just because of the current traffic. But you're right...Texarkana is going to become the gateway to Texas, with a vengeance.
It is rumored that TxDOT has long range plans to six-lane I-30 the entire length from the Hunt/Rockwall county line to Texarkana.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 25, 2019, 11:56:35 PM
Texarkana (and the state of Texas to some extent) is trying to position that region is a possible major distribution hub. A complete I-69/I-369 from Houston as well as a fully complete I-49 from Texarkana to Fort Smith might make that possible. Otherwise cities elsewhere in this region, such as Memphis or Oklahoma City, are going to be better positioned for that kind of business growth. Amazon just opened a giant fulfillment center in Oklahoma City near Will Rogers Airport. It dwarfs the huge FedEx facility that recently opened just up the road from it.
Regarding I-49 and DeQueen: that town is along the proposed path of I-49. There's no telling when I-49 will be extended North from Texarkana up to Ashdown and then DeQueen. Texas has to build that little leg of I-49 running through that corner of the state (and contribute to a Red River bridge crossing). Arkansas has other priorities with I-49. Completing the Bentonville Bypass up to the MO state line is the #1 priority by far. Then there's the big project from Alma to Barling in the Fort Smith area. After that AR DOT will probably build bypasses around towns along the route (like DeQueen). But it could be decades before I-49 is 100% complete between Texarkana and Fort Smith, especially as long as the federal government takes a back seat to this kind of highway development.
Bella Vista Bypass, not Bentonville.
When you look at it, it's interesting how significant of a hub Texarkana already is in the commercial bus transportation world (Greyhound and Jefferson Lines maps included here, if this is successful). Moving humans is different than moving freight, but if they're not on rails (of which TXK also is the prime gateway to from most of the eastern US) they're on the highways, and ours aren't finished yet.: :D
(https://www.rome2rio.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/US_Greyhound_lines_bus_route_map-1200x765.png)
...and the southern terminus of this midwestern carrier:
(https://2qwuxr33v1ei2x0kjw27ngl7-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/All-States_Udated-4.23.18-01-1.jpg)
Quote from: GreybearIt is rumored that TxDOT has long range plans to six-lane I-30 the entire length from the Hunt/Rockwall county line to Texarkana.
6-laning I-30 to the AR state line would probably be a pretty good idea considering the continued growth of the DFW metroplex and possibility of other new regional freeways/toll roads connecting into I-30.
As for the forecast of I-369 attracting 275,000 AADT levels, that seems like a very tall order. I-95 in Springfield, VA approaching the Capital Beltway has a AADT level of 256,000 at its busiest point (according to a VA DOT PDF of Fairfax County AADT levels). I-95 is a monster size highway there. Nothing like that is being proposed in the Texarkana area.
Katy Freeway at its most busy point, just East of Beltway 8 is 387,144 vehicles per day. Even if Texarkana can turn into a major distribution hub I don't see traffic levels on I-369 reaching 2/3 of Katy Freeway's levels. I also doubt it will be the "largest, most impressive freeway system in all of East Texas." Katy Freeway clearly has that title currently. And Katy Freeway would only potentially be surpassed by the massive I-45 re-routing project around downtown Houston.
QuoteBella Vista Bypass, not Bentonville.
They should have called it the Walmart Bypass.
:)
Quote from: O Tamandua on September 26, 2019, 03:18:22 PM
When you look at it, it's interesting how significant of a hub Texarkana already is in the commercial bus transportation world (Greyhound and Jefferson Lines maps included here, if this is successful). Moving humans is different than moving freight, but if they're not on rails (of which TXK also is the prime gateway to from most of the eastern US) they're on the highways, and ours aren't finished yet.: :D
(https://www.rome2rio.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/US_Greyhound_lines_bus_route_map-1200x765.png)
...and the southern terminus of this midwestern carrier:
(https://2qwuxr33v1ei2x0kjw27ngl7-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/All-States_Udated-4.23.18-01-1.jpg)
In 2020 plans are supposed to move forward to build a new $13 million dollar passenger terminal in hopes of attracting other airlines.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 27, 2019, 12:48:48 AM
Quote from: GreybearIt is rumored that TxDOT has long range plans to six-lane I-30 the entire length from the Hunt/Rockwall county line to Texarkana.
6-laning I-30 to the AR state line would probably be a pretty good idea considering the continued growth of the DFW metroplex and possibility of other new regional freeways/toll roads connecting into I-30.
As for the forecast of I-369 attracting 275,000 AADT levels, that seems like a very tall order. I-95 in Springfield, VA approaching the Capital Beltway has a AADT level of 256,000 at its busiest point (according to a VA DOT PDF of Fairfax County AADT levels). I-95 is a monster size highway there. Nothing like that is being proposed in the Texarkana area.
Katy Freeway at its most busy point, just East of Beltway 8 is 387,144 vehicles per day. Even if Texarkana can turn into a major distribution hub I don't see traffic levels on I-369 reaching 2/3 of Katy Freeway's levels. I also doubt it will be the "largest, most impressive freeway system in all of East Texas." Katy Freeway clearly has that title currently. And Katy Freeway would only potentially be surpassed by the massive I-45 re-routing project around downtown Houston.
QuoteBella Vista Bypass, not Bentonville.
They should have called it the Walmart Bypass.
:)
I agree those Texarkana traffic projections are a bit much but I'm glad that they're at least thinking ahead. Now if they follow through with making the highway expansions/improvements is another story altogether. As for Texarkana's current highway/freeway system, I can't think of any east Texas City that matches it unless you add Beaumont which I don't count since it's in the southeast.
Houston is an East Texas city. There's not actually any real Southeast part of Texas. The actual South part of Texas is down in Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen and the rest of that huge cluster of small cities that make up the Rio Grande Valley. Both Texarkana and Houston are East Texas cities. Any "Southeast" portion would be a point down in the Gulf of Mexico.
The way I-369 is shaping up going into Texarkana will probably be no more than a divided 4-lane configuration. 2 lanes in each direction. Look at the configuration of the completed freeway exit of US-59 at FM-3129 a few miles East of Wright Patman Lake on the Southern outskirts of Texarkana. The thru lanes of US-59 are in a narrow 2-2 configuration, separated by a concrete Jersey barrier. I strongly doubt that existing exit will be modified when I-369 is routed thru that spot. Chances are good I-369 will be built through that area as a narrow OK Turnpike style 2-2 road with only a Jersey barrier separating the traffic movements. It's not going to be built to hold a quarter million vehicles per day levels of traffic.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 28, 2019, 02:08:59 AM
Houston is an East Texas city. There's not actually any real Southeast part of Texas. The actual South part of Texas is down in Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen and the rest of that huge cluster of small cities that make up the Rio Grande Valley. Both Texarkana and Houston are East Texas cities. Any "Southeast" portion would be a point down in the Gulf of Mexico.
The way I-369 is shaping up going into Texarkana will probably be no more than a divided 4-lane configuration. 2 lanes in each direction. Look at the configuration of the completed freeway exit of US-59 at FM-3129 a few miles East of Wright Patman Lake on the Southern outskirts of Texarkana. The thru lanes of US-59 are in a narrow 2-2 configuration, separated by a concrete Jersey barrier. I strongly doubt that existing exit will be modified when I-369 is routed thru that spot. Chances are good I-369 will be built through that area as a narrow OK Turnpike style 2-2 road with only a Jersey barrier separating the traffic movements. It's not going to be built to hold a quarter million vehicles per day levels of traffic.
Initially, that's probably an accurate forecast; due to both the NIMBY factor and the concurrent desire to preserve roadside commerce as much as possible, either the format described here or some sort of elevated (berm, bridge) but narrow facility is likely to be the one deployed. But down the line, if the principal
raison d'etre of the I-369 corridor -- a conduit between Houston and I-30 -- fully plays out, traffic, particularly if dominated by large commercial vehicles, may eventually overwhelm a minimalist facility such as described. But by that time the concept of a west/north Texarkana bypass, likely connecting directly to I-49 north of town, might be a viable renewed prospect that if built would serve to divert a portion of the traffic away from the US 59-based route. For the sake of simple economics as well as local realities, doing a "bare bones" freeway for I-369 in the short term is probably the best choice; that allows sufficient time for outer "ring" or "arc" plans to gel without rushing development of a suboptimal freeway. And if the original route displays congestion affecting both local and long-distance travel, that situation may well prompt more serious consideration of those longer-term alternatives.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 28, 2019, 02:08:59 AM
Houston is an East Texas city. There's not actually any real Southeast part of Texas. The actual South part of Texas is down in Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen and the rest of that huge cluster of small cities that make up the Rio Grande Valley. Both Texarkana and Houston are East Texas cities. Any "Southeast" portion would be a point down in the Gulf of Mexico.
Maybe on the map it is east Texas, but Texans do not consider Houston as East Texas. If East Texas were a state, Tyler would be the capital. As you go further southeast from Tyler, Lufkin and Nacogdoches to the Louisiana border are considered Deep East Texas. I don't know what Houston is considered, but I would think Southeast would be correct. The area where Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen is called The Valley to Texans.
Quote from: wtd67 on September 28, 2019, 05:18:01 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 28, 2019, 02:08:59 AM
Houston is an East Texas city. There's not actually any real Southeast part of Texas. The actual South part of Texas is down in Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen and the rest of that huge cluster of small cities that make up the Rio Grande Valley. Both Texarkana and Houston are East Texas cities. Any "Southeast" portion would be a point down in the Gulf of Mexico.
Maybe on the map it is east Texas, but Texans do not consider Houston as East Texas. If East Texas were a state, Tyler would be the capital. As you go further southeast from Tyler, Lufkin and Nacogdoches to the Louisiana border are considered Deep East Texas. I don't know what Houston is considered, but I would think Southeast would be correct. The area where Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen is called The Valley to Texans.
FWIW: https://rvtexasyall.com/texas-regions
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 28, 2019, 02:08:59 AM
Look at the configuration of the completed freeway exit of US-59 at FM-3129 a few miles East of Wright Patman Lake on the Southern outskirts of Texarkana. The thru lanes of US-59 are in a narrow 2-2 configuration, separated by a concrete Jersey barrier. I strongly doubt that existing exit will be modified when I-369 is routed thru that spot. Chances are good I-369 will be built through that area as a narrow OK Turnpike style 2-2 road with only a Jersey barrier separating the traffic movements.
A lot of I-69 segments - and other newer freeways in Texas - are being built like that - even continuous freeway segments - 2 lanes in each direction divided by a concrete barrier. Narrower footprint, less impacts, etc.
One difference is most of the time they build in a 10 foot left shoulder to provide some "wiggle" room, but this particular interchange only has a 4 foot left shoulder.
Nonetheless, concrete barrier or 100 foot grassy median, still the same amount of capacity, still a 75 mph speed limit, still Interstate 69, etc.
The US-75 freeway (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4836783,-96.6200908,3a,75y,185.02h,82.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrJz-0sN8Pai_tN9GYDZ8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) northeast of Dallas has a long stretch with that narrow design - to give an example of what a typical I-69 rural section will look like for a lot of its distance in Texas.
Parts of recently-completed I-69 continuous freeway segments (not individual interchanges) have been built with this design - such as around Bishop (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.5744594,-97.7896194,3a,75y,205.39h,79.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4_dEwVdUHdj2WY70cVttoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and Robstown (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7802409,-97.6595557,3a,75y,264.68h,80.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssosynFJcMOrgiC_XE26jMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
A 30 mile stretch southeast of Houston between El Campo and Kendleton that's going to be under construction in ~5 years has this continuous barrier design - same with a 40 stretch on US-281 between the current north end of I-69C and Falfurrius.
Quote from: wtd67 on September 28, 2019, 05:18:01 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 28, 2019, 02:08:59 AM
Houston is an East Texas city. There's not actually any real Southeast part of Texas. The actual South part of Texas is down in Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen and the rest of that huge cluster of small cities that make up the Rio Grande Valley. Both Texarkana and Houston are East Texas cities. Any "Southeast" portion would be a point down in the Gulf of Mexico.
Maybe on the map it is east Texas, but Texans do not consider Houston as East Texas. If East Texas were a state, Tyler would be the capital. As you go further southeast from Tyler, Lufkin and Nacogdoches to the Louisiana border are considered Deep East Texas. I don't know what Houston is considered, but I would think Southeast would be correct. The area where Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen is called The Valley to Texans.
the
Exactly!
Whatever. Split hairs about region names in Texas all you like. It's still pure fantasy for anyone to suggest I-369 going into Texarkana is going to carry a 250,000 VPD load.
Quote from: sparkerInitially, that's probably an accurate forecast; due to both the NIMBY factor and the concurrent desire to preserve roadside commerce as much as possible, either the format described here or some sort of elevated (berm, bridge) but narrow facility is likely to be the one deployed. But down the line, if the principal raison d'etre of the I-369 corridor -- a conduit between Houston and I-30 -- fully plays out, traffic, particularly if dominated by large commercial vehicles, may eventually overwhelm a minimalist facility such as described.
The last 1.5 miles of I-369 before it reaches the existing Loop 151 freeway around the Southern half of Texarkana will be elevated above the existing US-59 roadway. South of Liberty-Eylau Elementary School and N Eylau School Road I-369 will probably spread out into a
narrow 4-lane Interstate closely flanked by frontage roads.
Since it looks very much like TX DOT is going to go to the trouble of routing I-369 into Texarkana along the existing US-59 alignment, hopefully they'll at least
over-build the last 3 or 4 miles of the approach in a configuration of 3 lanes in both directions. That goes especially for the expensive, elevated segment. Texarkana is a not a huge city. Existing I-30, I-49 and Loop 151 are all merely 2 lanes in each direction. If a 250,000 VPD number on I-369 was realistic at all then all of the freeways in Texarkana would have to be radically expanded to handle the traffic burden. IMHO, 3 lanes in both directions is probably going to be enough. Much of I-35 between Austin and DFW has been rebuilt. And I-35 is the main import route coming in from Laredo, the nation's busiest inland commercial border crossing. Yet the new portions are in a 3-3 configuration. I-369 into Texarkana is not going to out-do the activity on I-35, especially with I-49 not built between Texarkana and Fort Smith. Maybe when all of that is done, as well as I-69 thru East Texas down to the Rio Grande Valley then I-369 might be seen as a good alternative to I-35. How many decades will pass before that happens? Even then I-369 as a 3-3 road into Texarkana might suffice just fine.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 27, 2019, 12:48:48 AM
Quote from: GreybearIt is rumored that TxDOT has long range plans to six-lane I-30 the entire length from the Hunt/Rockwall county line to Texarkana.
6-laning I-30 to the AR state line would probably be a pretty good idea considering the continued growth of the DFW metroplex and possibility of other new regional freeways/toll roads connecting into I-30.
As for the forecast of I-369 attracting 275,000 AADT levels, that seems like a very tall order. I-95 in Springfield, VA approaching the Capital Beltway has a AADT level of 256,000 at its busiest point (according to a VA DOT PDF of Fairfax County AADT levels). I-95 is a monster size highway there. Nothing like that is being proposed in the Texarkana area.
Katy Freeway at its most busy point, just East of Beltway 8 is 387,144 vehicles per day. Even if Texarkana can turn into a major distribution hub I don't see traffic levels on I-369 reaching 2/3 of Katy Freeway's levels. I also doubt it will be the "largest, most impressive freeway system in all of East Texas." Katy Freeway clearly has that title currently. And Katy Freeway would only potentially be surpassed by the massive I-45 re-routing project around downtown Houston.
QuoteBella Vista Bypass, not Bentonville.
They should have called it the Walmart Bypass.
:)
Off topic but I love reading about highways especially the busiest ones. I read that the 3 busiest as far as traffic counts are concerned were LA's I-405, Chicago's I-290 and Toronto's 401. Recently Modesto, Merced and Stockton were added to San Francisco-Oakland_San Jose's CSA based off of commuting patterns. I can only imagine what traffic in that region's like. I read a big reason so many people are commuting from the aforementioned cities to the Bay area is because a lot of people who used to live there had to move to outlying cities because they could no longer afford to live there. Sparked probably could add more to this since he lives there. Sorry about the book report. I can get long winded and even random at times.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 28, 2019, 09:50:11 PM
Whatever. Split hairs about region names in Texas all you like. It's still pure fantasy for anyone to suggest I-369 going into Texarkana is going to carry a 250,000 VPD load.
Quote from: sparkerInitially, that's probably an accurate forecast; due to both the NIMBY factor and the concurrent desire to preserve roadside commerce as much as possible, either the format described here or some sort of elevated (berm, bridge) but narrow facility is likely to be the one deployed. But down the line, if the principal raison d'etre of the I-369 corridor -- a conduit between Houston and I-30 -- fully plays out, traffic, particularly if dominated by large commercial vehicles, may eventually overwhelm a minimalist facility such as described.
The last 1.5 miles of I-369 before it reaches the existing Loop 151 freeway around the Southern half of Texarkana will be elevated above the existing US-59 roadway. South of Liberty-Eylau Elementary School and N Eylau School Road I-369 will probably spread out into a narrow 4-lane Interstate closely flanked by frontage roads.
Since it looks very much like TX DOT is going to go to the trouble of routing I-369 into Texarkana along the existing US-59 alignment, hopefully they'll at least over-build the last 3 or 4 miles of the approach in a configuration of 3 lanes in both directions. That goes especially for the expensive, elevated segment. Texarkana is a not a huge city. Existing I-30, I-49 and Loop 151 are all merely 2 lanes in each direction. If a 250,000 VPD number on I-369 was realistic at all then all of the freeways in Texarkana would have to be radically expanded to handle the traffic burden. IMHO, 3 lanes in both directions is probably going to be enough. Much of I-35 between Austin and DFW has been rebuilt. And I-35 is the main import route coming in from Laredo, the nation's busiest inland commercial border crossing. Yet the new portions are in a 3-3 configuration. I-369 into Texarkana is not going to out-do the activity on I-35, especially with I-49 not built between Texarkana and Fort Smith. Maybe when all of that is done, as well as I-69 thru East Texas down to the Rio Grande Valley then I-369 might be seen as a good alternative to I-35. How many decades will pass before that happens? Even then I-369 as a 3-3 road into Texarkana might suffice just fine.
No one knows for sure what the traffic counts on Texarkana's freeways will be in the future, that's why it's called a projection because they're just guessing based off how much they THINK Texarkana will grow. For all we know Texarkana will stay a small townI. I'd rather them aim a little higher than too low and have a mountain of future transportation issues. I just hope that it gets built without too much procrastinating. You're right I-35 is something else from DFW to San Antonio. I live in Killeen so believe me I know.
Quote from: dariusbOff topic but I love reading about highways especially the busiest ones. I read that the 3 busiest as far as traffic counts are concerned were LA's I-405, Chicago's I-290 and Toronto's 401.
Just recently I did some research on that topic, mainly about a claim involving route 401 in Ontario. Portions of it in the metro Toronto area do have the greatest daily traffic loads in all of North America, ranging betwen 400,000 and 500,000 vehicles per day.
In the US the knee-jerk assumption is to credit I-405 in LA as the busiest road in the US or even in that metro area. But a recent look of Caltrans AADT figures actually showed greater VPD loads on some parts of I-10 than any counts on I-405. I-10 was the only route in the LA metro that had any portions surpassing the 350,000 VPD level. Meanwhile, farther East, parts of I-10 along Katy Freeway on the West side of Houston has VPD figures peaking at 387,000 VPD. Feel free to correct me on this, but that's a greater traffic level than anything I've seen elsewhere in the US. That includes I-95 in metro NYC and the greater Chicago area. I was all but certain I-95 going through Springfield, VA would have a AADT figure of at least 400,000 VPD, but it's only around the 250,000 level.
Quote from: dariusbRecently Modesto, Merced and Stockton were added to San Francisco-Oakland_San Jose's CSA based off of commuting patterns. I can only imagine what traffic in that region's like. I read a big reason so many people are commuting from the aforementioned cities to the Bay area is because a lot of people who used to live there had to move to outlying cities because they could no longer afford to live there.
There is actually a pretty significant out-flow of people leaving California entirely because living costs have grown so hatefully absurd. The same goes for the Eastern Seaboard region (DC, NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, etc). Big cities in Texas have been a huge beneficiary of all this migration. The front range cities in Colorado have also seen a lot of growth from that migration. But living costs in those cities are also getting very stupid.
Meanwhile, the hillbillies running the state government here in Oklahoma are doing their best to keep this state backwards as much as possible. Oklahoma has a relatively warm climate and relatively very affordable living costs. But you have to think twice if you want to raise a family here since our cheapskate electorate doesn't believe in things like public schools or even making parenthood affordable at all. So if you can't afford to land somewhere in Texas, better keep going East.
I can definitely believe that about Houston's I-10. Southwest freeway(I-69) has in excess of 300,000 also. Could some of the disparity in Toronto's 401 vpd have something to do with frontage roads. Do they even have those up there?
Not nearly as impressive as some of these numbers, but I-35 in Downtown Austin handles 219k VPD on a three-lane highway. It peaks at 239k in North Central Austin but the highway is 4 lanes out there. Even in the far-flung suburbs I-35 still manages ~190k VPD.
Right. I'd imagine even around Temple the vpd exceeds 100,000.
Quote from: Echostatic on September 29, 2019, 10:18:56 AM
I-35 in Downtown Austin handles 219k VPD on a three-lane highway. It peaks at 239k in North Central Austin but the highway is 4 lanes out there. Even in the far-flung suburbs I-35 still manages ~190k VPD.
I-95 gets around 205,000 AADT in Northern Virginia where it's only 6-lanes (3 each way). A segment north of there has around 260,000 AADT, and until a few years ago, was only 6-lanes (3 each way). It has since been widened to 8-lanes (4 each way).
VDOT refuses to expand the portion where it's only 6-lanes (3 each way) because of the privately owned & operated reversible HO/T lanes in the median that prevent any general purpose expansion. As you could imagine, that stretch of I-95 is horrible, similar to I-35 which is no better. At least Austin has a bypass for thru traffic, TX-130.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 29, 2019, 12:59:19 AM
Meanwhile, farther East, parts of I-10 along Katy Freeway on the West side of Houston has VPD figures peaking at 387,000 VPD.
The peak on the Katy Freeway dropped to 369K vpd in 2018. I was hoping it could break through 400K since it was so close in 2017. But another oil boom may be needed to break the 400K barrier.
Looking at the map, the value on the West Loop between I-10 and US 290 looks suspiciously low at 197K vpd. That must not count the traffic on the two connectors, which have four lanes each.
http://txdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=75e148d784554d99bea6e8602986bfd2 (http://txdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=75e148d784554d99bea6e8602986bfd2)
Quote from: MaxConcreteThe peak on the Katy Freeway dropped to 369K vpd in 2018. I was hoping it could break through 400K since it was so close in 2017. But another oil boom may be needed to break the 400K barrier.
The first In-N-Out Burger location in the Houston area is fixing to open in Katy near I-10. Maybe that will put the VPD figures over the top.
As Houston keeps growing and more big road expansion projects happen in Houston (like the big I-45/I-69/I-10 thing downtown) it may only be a matter of time before that 400,000 VPD barrier is broken.
Quote from: MaxConcreteLooking at the map, the value on the West Loop between I-10 and US 290 looks suspiciously low at 197K vpd. That must not count the traffic on the two connectors, which have four lanes each.
That would be my guess as well. The I97K figure has to be just the thru lanes of I-610 in that staggering combo interchange between US-290, I-10 and I-610. Some of the ramp lengths are crazy. The exit ramp from I-610 to I-10 starts before I-610 even gets through the US-290 interchange.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 01, 2019, 12:28:31 AM
Quote from: MaxConcreteThe peak on the Katy Freeway dropped to 369K vpd in 2018. I was hoping it could break through 400K since it was so close in 2017. But another oil boom may be needed to break the 400K barrier.
The first In-N-Out Burger location in the Houston area is fixing to open in Katy near I-10. Maybe that will put the VPD figures over the top.
As Houston keeps growing and more big road expansion projects happen in Houston (like the big I-45/I-69/I-10 thing downtown) it may only be a matter of time before that 400,000 VPD barrier is broken.
Quote from: MaxConcreteLooking at the map, the value on the West Loop between I-10 and US 290 looks suspiciously low at 197K vpd. That must not count the traffic on the two connectors, which have four lanes each.
That would be my guess as well. The I97K figure has to be just the thru lanes of I-610 in that staggering combo interchange between US-290, I-10 and I-610. Some of the ramp lengths are crazy. The exit ramp from I-610 to I-10 starts before I-610 even gets through the US-290 interchange.
Considering the short distance on I-610 between I-10 and US 290 and the traffic volumes involved, long interweaving ramps are both inevitable and necessary. More of the same will in all likelihood crop up just east of there when the rerouting of I-45 and I-69 around the downtown area is completed. Complex structures such as this are S.O.P. for urban interchanges these days; out here in northern CA the 80/580/880 interchange is the most visible example -- and it actually was somewhat
simplified after the '89 earthquake leveled I-880 south of there by rerouting the ramps from 880 to westbound 80 out of the original interchange's footprint.
How long do you think it will take before all of Interstates 69 and 369 are completed in Texas? A minimum of 25 years maybe?
Under the current model of federal involvement and funding (along with the current model of legal, environmental and regulatory hell) it will probably take at least 50 years for I-69 and I-369 to get completed in Texas. If those highways are ever completed. Some major breakthroughs will be needed in all aspects of highway development and construction (cost being a big one) for the time table to be sped up at all.
By comparison, it took almost 20 years for I-49 (1977 to 1996) to be approved and built between Lafayette and Shreveport. This was back when the highway building process was much faster, less expensive and less suffocated with red tape. The rural segments were finished by the early 1990's. The section through Alexandria was one of the last segments to open. The process of building I-49 South from Lafayette towards New Orleans is going much slower.
Quote from: dariusb on October 04, 2019, 10:29:42 PM
How long do you think it will take before all of Interstates 69 and 369 are completed in Texas? A minimum of 25 years maybe?
I'll give it at least 2050 or later. Granted, sections like I-69"W", I can't see every really happening. That road as a rural 2-lane highway posted at 75 mph with very light traffic. I've driven it a few times in full length, and asides from the towns, have really never had an issue with it. The most that needs to be done (and is completed in a few areas) is dualizing the highway to 4-lanes with town bypasses. Until traffic counts grow to interstate volumes (like the proposed I-69C, I-69E, and I-69 routes have), a 4-lane highway with a 75 mph speed limit will be adequate. I think the highest priorities for I-69 need to be upgrading US-281, US-77, and US-59 (north of Victoria) to interstate highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 05, 2019, 08:59:03 AM
Quote from: dariusb on October 04, 2019, 10:29:42 PM
How long do you think it will take before all of Interstates 69 and 369 are completed in Texas? A minimum of 25 years maybe?
I'll give it at least 2050 or later. Granted, sections like I-69"W", I can't see every really happening. That road as a rural 2-lane highway posted at 75 mph with very light traffic. I've driven it a few times in full length, and asides from the towns, have really never had an issue with it. The most that needs to be done (and is completed in a few areas) is dualizing the highway to 4-lanes with town bypasses. Until traffic counts grow to interstate volumes (like the proposed I-69C, I-69E, and I-69 routes have), a 4-lane highway with a 75 mph speed limit will be adequate. I think the highest priorities for I-69 need to be upgrading US-281, US-77, and US-59 (north of Victoria) to interstate highway.
Re the proposed I-69W: it's likely that the section from Laredo to Freer will be constructed first as part of the Laredo-Corpus "branch", the portion along TX 44 often touted as a potential "I-6". If that occurs, I for one wouldn't be surprised if that was actually signed as I-69W, with the portion between Freer and George West being shelved (and possibly I-69C north of TX 44 assuming the main I-69 label). Laredo has always been an "anchor" of the I-69 network; chances are it won't be abandoned, just accessed in a different way.
Off topic but I wonder what states complete road projects (new freeways) fastest?
Quote from: dariusb on October 05, 2019, 08:45:34 PM
Off topic but I wonder what states complete road projects (new freeways) fastest?
North Carolina built hundreds of miles of freeways not apart of the 56 & 68 interstate systems from the 80s - early 2000s. Things have slowed down since then, but there still getting built one by one, and the state plans to upgrade & construct hundreds of miles of freeway over the next couple of decades as funding allows.
Urban beltways have been the latest major focus. Raleigh, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and Fayetteville all still not completed / underway. Charlotte and Wilmington are now completed, but were only finished in the last 5 years.
I know this is just a small thing, all, but here is a link I just posted on the "Texas I-69" forum:
https://www.ktre.com/2019/10/03/city-state-dignitaries-celebrate-groundbreaking-nacogdoches-i-flyover-project/
To read the article and hear residents comments, the arrival of I-69 to Nacogdoches almost seems like the greatest thing since, well, sliced bread. But that being said, note the picture atop the article. At first, from the angle the dignitaries with shovels are photographed at it looks like they're sinking in the east Texas red clay. But when I got past that I noticed the "Texarkana" green highway side in the distance beyond their shoulders.
Texarkana is 6 counties away. One would think that Marshall, much closer on U S 59 and a relatively populous destination, would have its name up there. TXK, however, gets that honor.
Again, just a small thing. I've no clue about future traffic counts and may not live long enough to see this come to fruition. Yet bits and piece like this convince me ever further that Texarkana is going to become a far more significant transit point than anyone realizes.
Quote from: O Tamandua on October 05, 2019, 11:47:20 PM
I know this is just a small thing, all, but here is a link I just posted on the "Texas I-69" forum:
https://www.ktre.com/2019/10/03/city-state-dignitaries-celebrate-groundbreaking-nacogdoches-i-flyover-project/
To read the article and hear residents comments, the arrival of I-69 to Nacogdoches almost seems like the greatest thing since, well, sliced bread. But that being said, note the picture atop the article. At first, from the angle the dignitaries with shovels are photographed at it looks like they're sinking in the east Texas red clay. But when I got past that I noticed the "Texarkana" green highway side in the distance beyond their shoulders.
Texarkana is 6 counties away. One would think that Marshall, much closer on U S 59 and a relatively populous destination, would have its name up there. TXK, however, gets that honor.
Again, just a small thing. I've no clue about future traffic counts and may not live long enough to see this come to fruition. Yet bits and piece like this convince me ever further that Texarkana is going to become a far more significant transit point than anyone realizes.
As iterated previously, a Houston-Texarkana Interstate corridor is and always has been the hearts' desire of the main backers of the I-69 "group" (the
Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts within TxDOT); to that end it's no surprise that Texarkana is prominently mentioned as a destination. OTOH, there's no singular present signed route between Houston and Shreveport; rather a myriad of segueing highways (I-69 would be the first such facility), so featuring Texarkana (which, after all,
does lie along US 59) rather than Shreveport on existing surface roads would be a "natural". And for all its importance as a local commerce center, Marshall just doesn't have the cachet that Texarkana has managed to muster.
And, after all, there's
beer in Texarkana....Marshall has yet to be part of a widespread iconic idiom!
(.....apologies to the late Jerry Reed!) :D
Quote from: O Tamandua on October 05, 2019, 11:47:20 PM
I know this is just a small thing, all, but here is a link I just posted on the "Texas I-69" forum:
https://www.ktre.com/2019/10/03/city-state-dignitaries-celebrate-groundbreaking-nacogdoches-i-flyover-project/
To read the article and hear residents comments, the arrival of I-69 to Nacogdoches almost seems like the greatest thing since, well, sliced bread. But that being said, note the picture atop the article. At first, from the angle the dignitaries with shovels are photographed at it looks like they're sinking in the east Texas red clay. But when I got past that I noticed the "Texarkana" green highway side in the distance beyond their shoulders.
Texarkana is 6 counties away. One would think that Marshall, much closer on U S 59 and a relatively populous destination, would have its name up there. TXK, however, gets that honor.
Again, just a small thing. I've no clue about future traffic counts and may not live long enough to see this come to fruition. Yet bits and piece like this convince me ever further that Texarkana is going to become a far more significant transit point than anyone realizes.
I must say I love the progress of I-69 through Lufkin and Nacogdoches.
Quote from: sparker on October 06, 2019, 01:40:00 AM
Quote from: O Tamandua on October 05, 2019, 11:47:20 PM
I know this is just a small thing, all, but here is a link I just posted on the "Texas I-69" forum:
https://www.ktre.com/2019/10/03/city-state-dignitaries-celebrate-groundbreaking-nacogdoches-i-flyover-project/
To read the article and hear residents comments, the arrival of I-69 to Nacogdoches almost seems like the greatest thing since, well, sliced bread. But that being said, note the picture atop the article. At first, from the angle the dignitaries with shovels are photographed at it looks like they're sinking in the east Texas red clay. But when I got past that I noticed the "Texarkana" green highway side in the distance beyond their shoulders.
Texarkana is 6 counties away. One would think that Marshall, much closer on U S 59 and a relatively populous destination, would have its name up there. TXK, however, gets that honor.
Again, just a small thing. I've no clue about future traffic counts and may not live long enough to see this come to fruition. Yet bits and piece like this convince me ever further that Texarkana is going to become a far more significant transit point than anyone realizes.
As iterated previously, a Houston-Texarkana Interstate corridor is and always has been the hearts' desire of the main backers of the I-69 "group" (the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts within TxDOT); to that end it's no surprise that Texarkana is prominently mentioned as a destination. OTOH, there's no singular present signed route between Houston and Shreveport; rather a myriad of segueing highways (I-69 would be the first such facility), so featuring Texarkana (which, after all, does lie along US 59) rather than Shreveport on existing surface roads would be a "natural". And for all its importance as a local commerce center, Marshall just doesn't have the cachet that Texarkana has managed to muster.
And, after all, there's beer in Texarkana....Marshall has yet to be part of a widespread iconic idiom!
(.....apologies to the late Jerry Reed!) :D
It does seem like there's a push to make Texarkana the transportation hub of the Ark-La-Tex instead of Shreveport which is the largest city.
Quote from: sparker on October 06, 2019, 01:40:00 AM
Quote from: O Tamandua on October 05, 2019, 11:47:20 PM
I know this is just a small thing, all, but here is a link I just posted on the "Texas I-69" forum:
https://www.ktre.com/2019/10/03/city-state-dignitaries-celebrate-groundbreaking-nacogdoches-i-flyover-project/
To read the article and hear residents comments, the arrival of I-69 to Nacogdoches almost seems like the greatest thing since, well, sliced bread. But that being said, note the picture atop the article. At first, from the angle the dignitaries with shovels are photographed at it looks like they're sinking in the east Texas red clay. But when I got past that I noticed the "Texarkana" green highway side in the distance beyond their shoulders.
Texarkana is 6 counties away. One would think that Marshall, much closer on U S 59 and a relatively populous destination, would have its name up there. TXK, however, gets that honor.
Again, just a small thing. I've no clue about future traffic counts and may not live long enough to see this come to fruition. Yet bits and piece like this convince me ever further that Texarkana is going to become a far more significant transit point than anyone realizes.
As iterated previously, a Houston-Texarkana Interstate corridor is and always has been the hearts' desire of the main backers of the I-69 "group" (the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts within TxDOT); to that end it's no surprise that Texarkana is prominently mentioned as a destination. OTOH, there's no singular present signed route between Houston and Shreveport; rather a myriad of segueing highways (I-69 would be the first such facility), so featuring Texarkana (which, after all, does lie along US 59) rather than Shreveport on existing surface roads would be a "natural". And for all its importance as a local commerce center, Marshall just doesn't have the cachet that Texarkana has managed to muster.
And, after all, there's beer in Texarkana....Marshall has yet to be part of a widespread iconic idiom!
(.....apologies to the late Jerry Reed!) :D
With that said, sparker:
- If memory serves, the same principle is in effect in Dallas when one finally gets at the northeast edge of the Metroplex beltway(s) to I-30 and the big overhead green signs point to Texarkana as well (rather than Greenville or (less likely) Sulphur Springs). Cachet, indeed. ">)
- Though I'm a teetotaller, interesting you should mention the beer (as the "Smokey and the Bandit" reference) given that 10 days from today the Arkansas side of Texarkana will launch the "Railyard Entertainment District", from the area of the Virtual Railfan live-24/7 "TexarCamera" (link below) to several blocks north. I guess among other things they'll allow open carry of alcohol between bars and restaurants in the district. Mixed emotions on that, but as the camera below shows, there's ample police presence around this area, so I hope it works out well for those involved:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDeQhmyKvYo
Quote from: dariusb on October 06, 2019, 02:49:00 AM
It does seem like there's a push to make Texarkana the transportation hub of the Ark-La-Tex instead of Shreveport which is the largest city.
A push no doubt originating on the TX side of the line; any enhancement in Shreveport tends to concentrate resultant benefits to that area with little spillover into TX (or AR for that matter). It's simply a matter of TX doing what TX does best: ensuring benefits remain within the state boundaries (hence prioritization of I-369 over the main I-69 trunk east of the division point). Also -- since expansion east/NE from Texarkana is limited by the Red River floodplain, most developmental activities extend west along I-30 and/or US 82. Finally, the multitude of rail lines converging on Texarkana certainly hasn't hurt its prospects as a distribution hub.
I hope that their plans for the city translate into real job opportunities and not just more restaurants. The city leaders have a history of saying/talking big plans and getting people's hopes up only to dash those hopes but only time will tell. I-69 will take I don't know how long to build through Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi especially since those states are some of the poorest in the nation.
Quote from: sparker on October 06, 2019, 08:06:18 PM
Quote from: dariusb on October 06, 2019, 02:49:00 AM
It does seem like there's a push to make Texarkana the transportation hub of the Ark-La-Tex instead of Shreveport which is the largest city.
A push no doubt originating on the TX side of the line; any enhancement in Shreveport tends to concentrate resultant benefits to that area with little spillover into TX (or AR for that matter). It's simply a matter of TX doing what TX does best: ensuring benefits remain within the state boundaries (hence prioritization of I-369 over the main I-69 trunk east of the division point). Also -- since expansion east/NE from Texarkana is limited by the Red River floodplain, most developmental activities extend west along I-30 and/or US 82. Finally, the multitude of rail lines converging on Texarkana certainly hasn't hurt its prospects as a distribution hub.
Very true. I would submit that SHV and TXK, sister cities in the same TV market (which used to be called "Shreveport/Texarkana" but is now just "Shreveport" in Nielsen) will always have a rivalry that neither can fully best. I'd mentioned on the previous page that the commercial bus lines, which have to pretend there's a completed I-49 and I-69, have made Texarkana a slightly bigger hub. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10684.msg2446173#msg2446173) In fact, in Texas only Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Amarillo appear to have more bus connections than TXK. Amtrak, always tenuous, still brings the "Texas Eagle" rail passenger service to Texarkana with it having been (tragically) long gone in Shreveport/Bossier*. Then again, SHV has the huge Kansas City Southern Deramus railway yard and some significant UP ones, as well as key mainlines, though TXK will always be the quickest way to America's industrial midwest, midsouth and northeast from the Lone Star State unless state boundaries are changed. Being the much bigger city, Shreveport has better airport connections as well (and maybe always will), though as Dariusb noted earlier here, TXK is trying to expand its modest airport service.
I-69 and I-49, and which gets to what city first (if at all) are the wild cards in all this.
*There's talk of extending the Amtrak "Southern Crescent" line between NYC and NO at Meridian (kind of like I-69 W and C ;-) ) to extend to Marshall, TX (meeting the "Texas Eagle") through Shreveport, giving D/FW and Texas customers the option to head east. It would be nice, but I won't hold my breath on it. :-(
Texarkana is home to a decent rail junction, perhaps one that can be expanded. But currently it ranks down the list in terms of activity compared to more major regional hubs, such as Fort Worth and Amarillo. Even Oklahoma City has more going on there in terms of rail infrastructure. For any location the true key to growth isn't about landing a new highway. It's all about landing new major employers. For instance, I mentioned OKC. With that city being at the intersection of I-35 & I-40 it's arguably the central point of the Interstate highway system in the contiguous 48 states. Amazon just opened a 2 million+ sq ft fulfillment center there. Texarkana could attract ventures like that, but I don't think it will happen until I-369 and I-49 are fully completed through there.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 06, 2019, 10:10:56 PM
Texarkana is home to a decent rail junction, perhaps one that can be expanded. But currently it ranks down the list in terms of activity compared to more major regional hubs, such as Fort Worth and Amarillo. Even Oklahoma City has more going on there in terms of rail infrastructure. For any location the true key to growth isn't about landing a new highway. It's all about landing new major employers. For instance, I mentioned OKC. With that city being at the intersection of I-35 & I-40 it's arguably the central point of the Interstate highway system in the contiguous 48 states. Amazon just opened a 2 million+ sq ft fulfillment center there. Texarkana could attract ventures like that, but I don't think it will happen until I-369 and I-49 are fully completed through there.
It'll certainly be interesting to see which of the two corridors: I-369 and its Houston connection via I-69, or I-49 north to Fort Smith/I-40, will be completed first. The strategy for each of the corridors looks to be similar -- incremental development, with one project being completed prior to commencement on the next one (although TX arguably has more in the way of resources to "bite off" bigger chunks of construction in one sitting, there's enough on their plate statewide to render a concentration on one particular corridor unlikely). In the case of AR, there's just not enough funds to address more than one smallish section at a time; the Arkansas River crossing -- the most costly pending segment -- will likely suck up much of the short-term funding, particularly since it's not only part of the overall I-49 corridor but also an effective "SIU" regarding its bypass function for Fort Smith (with corresponding localized political importance). The remainder of the I-49 corridor will likely be a matter of "bits & pieces", with the most difficult segment -- the overlay of US 71 through the Ouachita ridgeline -- being the last to be attacked. I'd "guesstimate" a horizon of 25-30 years for completion; compared with I-69/369, which if the Livingston, Nacogdoches, and Marshall segments come in, timewise, at anything approaching their planned schedule, will have much more completed mileage in the short haul. In purely technical terms -- and with no navigable rivers to cross -- it's difficult to see how 69/369 wouldn't reach the finish line first -- but maybe not by much, depending upon how AR and TX can work out their joint section north of Texarkana and exactly where the stretch from there north to De Queen (before they encounter serious mountains) will be located (preliminary indications show the corridor cutting across open territory north of the Little River); if the TX/AR sticking points are ironed out, this will probably be the first segment, aside from a possible Mena bypass, to be developed. It's probably safe to presume that once the Arkansas is bridged, the rush will be on to complete as much mileage as possible to "kickstart" the entire project; doing so in the relative flatlands would be the natural approach. If this is done, a probable 30-35-year timeline would be a fair projection; unless unforeseen obstacles occur in TX, the Houston-Texarkana corridor will be done a few years before I-49. But we shall see -- the political and fiscal environment might mitigate in one direction or the other in that period of time.
I-49 in Texarkana has pretty light traffic despite recently being connected to Shreveport via I-220. I'm sure it'll probably stay that way until being built to Ft. Smith. I-369 already has nice traffic counts nearing 65,000 vpd. Of course it being completely in Texarkana is why. It's too early to tell right now but I'm guessing the leg of 369 between Texarkana and Marshall will probably have higher traffic volumes than the Shreveport to Texarkana leg of 49 for awhile.
Quote from: O Tamandua on October 06, 2019, 09:40:34 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 06, 2019, 08:06:18 PM
Quote from: dariusb on October 06, 2019, 02:49:00 AM
It does seem like there's a push to make Texarkana the transportation hub of the Ark-La-Tex instead of Shreveport which is the largest city.
A push no doubt originating on the TX side of the line; any enhancement in Shreveport tends to concentrate resultant benefits to that area with little spillover into TX (or AR for that matter). It's simply a matter of TX doing what TX does best: ensuring benefits remain within the state boundaries (hence prioritization of I-369 over the main I-69 trunk east of the division point). Also -- since expansion east/NE from Texarkana is limited by the Red River floodplain, most developmental activities extend west along I-30 and/or US 82. Finally, the multitude of rail lines converging on Texarkana certainly hasn't hurt its prospects as a distribution hub.
Very true. I would submit that SHV and TXK, sister cities in the same TV market (which used to be called "Shreveport/Texarkana" but is now just "Shreveport" in Nielsen) will always have a rivalry that neither can fully best. I'd mentioned on the previous page that the commercial bus lines, which have to pretend there's a completed I-49 and I-69, have made Texarkana a slightly bigger hub. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10684.msg2446173#msg2446173) In fact, in Texas only Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Amarillo appear to have more bus connections than TXK. Amtrak, always tenuous, still brings the "Texas Eagle" rail passenger service to Texarkana with it having been (tragically) long gone in Shreveport/Bossier*. Then again, SHV has the huge Kansas City Southern Deramus railway yard and some significant UP ones, as well as key mainlines, though TXK will always be the quickest way to America's industrial midwest, midsouth and northeast from the Lone Star State unless state boundaries are changed. Being the much bigger city, Shreveport has better airport connections as well (and maybe always will), though as Dariusb noted earlier here, TXK is trying to expand its modest airport service.
I-69 and I-49, and which gets to what city first (if at all) are the wild cards in all this.
*There's talk of extending the Amtrak "Southern Crescent" line between NYC and NO at Meridian (kind of like I-69 W and C ;-) ) to extend to Marshall, TX (meeting the "Texas Eagle") through Shreveport, giving D/FW and Texas customers the option to head east. It would be nice, but I won't hold my breath on it. :-(
They both have something the other has. Shreveport has a better airport and larger population. Texarkana is a much safer city to do business.
This is kind of connected to what we were talking about concerning transportation in Texarkana:
https://txktoday.com/news/texarkana-regional-airports-second-terminal-is-set-for-construction/
Quote from: O Tamandua on October 06, 2019, 02:19:50 PM
- If memory serves, the same principle is in effect in Dallas when one finally gets at the northeast edge of the Metroplex beltway(s) to I-30 and the big overhead green signs point to Texarkana as well (rather than Greenville or (less likely) Sulphur Springs). Cachet, indeed. ">)
Your memory does indeed serve. The signs say Texarkana at both the US-80 split and the I-635 interchange.
When more sections of Interstate 369 are completed between Tenaha and Texarkana, does anyone think they will be fully signed as Interstate 369/US 59 from the get-go? Or might Texas just sign the completed portions solely as US 59, considering Interstate 69 is nowhere near completed between Cleveland and Tenaha?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 10, 2019, 02:07:41 PM
When more sections of Interstate 369 are completed between Tenaha and Texarkana, does anyone think they will be fully signed as Interstate 369/US 59 from the get-go? Or might Texas just sign the completed portions solely as US 59, considering Interstate 69 is nowhere near completed between Cleveland and Tenaha?
Seeing as how they were pretty quick on the draw with the singular signed portion of I-369, portions that are completed stand a good chance of receiving signage. But it's also equally likely that major projects, such as the Marshall bypass and its I-20 interchange will be the ones to be signed; single small projects such as isolated interchanges with intersecting highways probably won't get the shields until they're connected to other completed segments.
Quote from: sparker on October 10, 2019, 04:35:51 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 10, 2019, 02:07:41 PM
When more sections of Interstate 369 are completed between Tenaha and Texarkana, does anyone think they will be fully signed as Interstate 369/US 59 from the get-go? Or might Texas just sign the completed portions solely as US 59, considering Interstate 69 is nowhere near completed between Cleveland and Tenaha?
Seeing as how they were pretty quick on the draw with the singular signed portion of I-369, portions that are completed stand a good chance of receiving signage. But it's also equally likely that major projects, such as the Marshall bypass and its I-20 interchange will be the ones to be signed; single small projects such as isolated interchanges with intersecting highways probably won't get the shields until they're connected to other completed segments.
The only segments that can be signed are those that connect to another interstate highway. The currently signed portion of I-369 in Texarkana connects to I-30, and the Marshall Bypass segment could also get signage once linked to I-20. Any extensions of the existing I-369 designated roadways (currently only Texarkana) can also be signed.
I-69 followed a similar process. It's signed in the Houston area as it connects to I-45, and I-10, and the Robstown - Kingsville area outside of Corpus Christi as it connects to I-37. Currently both segments are getting the freeway extended southward
(Robstown to Kingsville under construction, Kendleton to Rosenburg under construction), and they are going to get I-69 shields as they link to another interstate highway. Meanwhile, isolated freeway segments don't receive signage until linked.
The Valley interstates are weird... it's almost like they gamed the system. They all technically link to another interstate - I-69E links with I-2, I-2 links with I-69E and I-69C, I-69C links with I-2. etc. but they actually don't connect to the rest of the network... at least for now until one of the I-69s is completed up to I-37.
Quote from: debragga on October 09, 2019, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: O Tamandua on October 06, 2019, 02:19:50 PM
- If memory serves, the same principle is in effect in Dallas when one finally gets at the northeast edge of the Metroplex beltway(s) to I-30 and the big overhead green signs point to Texarkana as well (rather than Greenville or (less likely) Sulphur Springs). Cachet, indeed. ">)
Your memory does indeed serve. The signs say Texarkana at both the US-80 split and the I-635 interchange.
Thanks, Debragga!
Quote from: sprjus4The Valley interstates are weird... it's almost like they gamed the system. They all technically link to another interstate - I-69E links with I-2, I-2 links with I-69E and I-69C, I-69C links with I-2. etc. but they actually don't connect to the rest of the network... at least for now until one of the I-69s is completed up to I-37.
This situation is not much different from the early years of the Interstate highway system in the 1960's and 70's when many isolated, disconnected segments existed, but were still signed as Interstate highways.
IMHO, if the segment of freeway only consists of a single limited access highway segment hopping an intersection then that certainly does not need to be signed as an Interstate. But if the isolated freeway segment goes on for a pretty good chunk of miles (such as 10, 20 or more) I don't think there should be any issue for signing that as an Interstate, especially if more progress is pending along that corridor. In the end the Interstate signs serve as a form of advertising campaigning to get the entire job finished.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 10, 2019, 11:56:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4The Valley interstates are weird... it's almost like they gamed the system. They all technically link to another interstate - I-69E links with I-2, I-2 links with I-69E and I-69C, I-69C links with I-2. etc. but they actually don't connect to the rest of the network... at least for now until one of the I-69s is completed up to I-37.
This situation is not much different from the early years of the Interstate highway system in the 1960's and 70's when many isolated, disconnected segments existed, but were still signed as Interstate highways.
IMHO, if the segment of freeway only consists of a single limited access highway segment hopping an intersection then that certainly does not need to be signed as an Interstate. But if the isolated freeway segment goes on for a pretty good chunk of miles (such as 10, 20 or more) I don't think there should be any issue for signing that as an Interstate, especially if more progress is pending along that corridor. In the end the Interstate signs serve as a form of advertising campaigning to get the entire job finished.
Essentially the
raison d'etre for the existing I-14 segment; the "camel's nose through the tent opening" type of approach -- publicize and celebrate the signage enough that folks start wondering where and when the next section will be deployed. While the presently signed I-369 is only a small fraction of I-14's current length, when the Marshall bypass is completed, the aggregate signable mileage will be similar. And if the under-planning Nacogdoches segment of I-69 gets built in short order, the push to get the rest of the TX-based corridor north to Texarkana underway may well gain additional traction.
Interesting article about area highway projects: http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2019/nov/29/20-years-texarkana-will-really-be-moving-arkansas-texas-have-local-portions-i-30-planned-six-lanes-future/806067/
Quote from: dariusb on November 30, 2019, 01:51:01 AM
Interesting article about area highway projects: http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2019/nov/29/20-years-texarkana-will-really-be-moving-arkansas-texas-have-local-portions-i-30-planned-six-lanes-future/806067/
While the addition of a fully completed I-49 would certainly make Texarkana a true "crossroads" in the historic sense of the term, it's also clear that TxDOT would be more than satisfied to make that city a merge point for traffic coming north from Houston on the 69/369 composite corridor; they're certainly not going to wait around for AR to substantially build out the Texarkana-Ft. Smith portion of 49, but treat
their in state N-S corridor as an independent project with the near-term goal of expediting Houston-originated traffic up to I-30. The plans for 6-laning the latter route merely emphasize those agency priorities -- and the likelihood that I-69 through AR won't be a functional corridor for decades means that commercial traffic on I-30 will continue to increase. That'll likely be enough to prompt ADOT to extend the 6-laning of 30 as far as available funds will take it just to keep up with the demands on that facility.
Right, I agree. Do you think I-69 through Arkansas and Louisiana is needed or basically a wasted project?
Quote from: dariusb on December 02, 2019, 10:31:38 PM
Right, I agree. Do you think I-69 through Arkansas and Louisiana is needed or basically a wasted project?
Personal opinion, but I think that the route will technically be complete when I-69 is finished between Canada and I-155 in Tennessee, and I-69/369 is finished between Marshall and Houston. The rest of the route is already served by I-155, I-55, I-40, I-30, I-49, and I-20, north to south.
Quote from: X99 on December 03, 2019, 12:57:21 AM
Quote from: dariusb on December 02, 2019, 10:31:38 PM
Right, I agree. Do you think I-69 through Arkansas and Louisiana is needed or basically a wasted project?
Personal opinion, but I think that the route will technically be complete when I-69 is finished between Canada and I-155 in Tennessee, and I-69/369 is finished between Marshall and Houston. The rest of the route is already served by I-155, I-55, I-40, I-30, I-49, and I-20, north to south.
The
route won't be technically complete; that particular SIU will be functionally complete -- but only if one considers Shreveport rather than I-30 as the immediate "goal". Sure, one could head east on I-20 then north on I-49 (with a stint on I-220) to get to Shreveport -- but that would be a detour through an additional metro area -- which is what the entirety of I-369 is intended to avoid. The segment between Marshall and Texarkana is, at least to those promoting the corridor, as vital to their aims as the section south of there. The short-term goal is to get commercial traffic up to I-30, where it can head northeast to Midwest/Great Lakes distribution zones. Stopping short at I-20 won't be considered even adequate, much less optimal.
As far as the "central" section (Tenaha-Memphis) section of I-69 is concerned, its completion is less immediately important than the remainder of the system --
including that section along US 51 between Memphis and Dyersburg! Sorry, but just because an out-of-the-way freeway facility requiring a substantial amount of backtracking is technically available (the 155/55 alternative is analogous to the 20/49 Shreveport "detour") doesn't indicate the functional completion of a corridor. It's like ordering salmon and getting a tuna sandwich instead! Once the I-69 corridor in TX segues seamlessly onto I-369 and the latter route is finished to I-30 -- and I-69 north of Memphis is completed, the higher-value sections of that whole corridor are done. The interim section was designated in the first place to (a) tie those two sections together into a project with national implications, and (b) to provide Interstate service to areas of Arkansas and Mississippi previously neglected by national system planning -- and providing political cover to parties hailing from those areas. Actually, it's possible that I-69's shorter-term plans may yet include a Shreveport bypass -- at least to the proposed I-69/20 interchange east of town -- but that concept will likely have to wait until the inner-city portion of I-49 is in the rear view mirror.
Aside from the arguably valid perception that the central I-69 segment has diminished value compared to the remainder of the corridor, the major obstacle to full realization is the Great River Bridge -- a concept that will need to be "resold" to both the public and political actors again and again until it eventually is either developed or deleted. It has gone through many iterations in the 28 years since the corridor's inception, including whether or not to include freight rail capacity. But all options are ultra-expensive -- it needs to cross miles of floodplain in addition to a main channel with sufficient clearance for commercial ships. But, unlike many I-69 segments, it has limited SIU value -- there's a nice new 4-lane crossing at US 82 about 20 miles south of the proposed crossing site that adequately handles local/regional traffic needs. So the prospect of having to fund an expensive structure has resulted in (and, in all likelihood, will continue as) the project being the object of procrastination on the part of the responsible jurisdictions. While AR has the initial couple of lanes of their I-69 stretch planned as a "placeholder" for an eventual freeway not too far west of the bridge, the designated I-69 SIU that
does include the bridge hasn't been acted upon except for a few conceptual drawings released to the public; MS hasn't sunk a penny into anything beyond the study stage south of Tunica (not that they have the available funds to do so). So with the bridge in effective "limbo", the entire central I-69 segment's short-term future is uncertain. AR "hedged their bet" a bit with the adjunct AR 530 freeway (which so far appears to have been prioritized above the main 69 trunk); they may build their share of initial mileage -- possibly as a 2-lane expressway or even Super 2 -- simply to provide a feeder to 530 (although IMO they may as well simply take the 530 concept straight down US 425 to the state line on their own). Otherwise, only halting activity toward development of the segment will be the norm in AR, and MS will likely wait until either (a) the bridge concept is actively resuscitated or (b) their segment along US 61 is somehow justified by regional economic development (unlikely).
Bottom line: who knows? With the I-57 project being the recipient of much of AR attention in the eastern "flatlands" part of the state, any in-state development of the I-69 corridor is likely to progress at the snails' pace currently seen. There's just so much to go around in a relatively low-tax state, and ADOT certainly has bigger fish to fry. It's likely the 69 concept will continue to exist on paper and will be included within planning efforts -- but substantial progress will be highly limited for the next few decades.
Quote from: dariusb on December 02, 2019, 10:31:38 PM
Right, I agree. Do you think I-69 through Arkansas and Louisiana is needed or basically a wasted project?
Wasted project. Just spend money on signage to duplex I-69 onto I-30 & I-40 through Arkansas & save both LA & AR billions of dollars. Call the project done.
Quote from: cjk374 on December 14, 2019, 03:26:27 PM
Quote from: dariusb on December 02, 2019, 10:31:38 PM
Right, I agree. Do you think I-69 through Arkansas and Louisiana is needed or basically a wasted project?
Wasted project. Just spend money on signage to duplex I-69 onto I-30 & I-40 through Arkansas & save both LA & AR billions of dollars. Call the project done.
Not quite that easy for meeting long-term traffic needs. It's either build I-69, or widen all of I-30 and I-40 to 6-lanes. You could theoretically just slap the signs on, but it wouldn't accomplish the goal of building I-69 - to provide traffic relief to I-30 and I-40 and provide an alternate route.
If I-30 and I-40 East of Little Rock was meant to pick up the traffic load from a completed I-69 and I-369 in Texas I'm sure those Interstate would need more than 3 lanes in each direction. More like 4 or even 5 in some spots. And then there's the bottle neck of the two Mississippi River bridges going into Memphis. IMHO the I-55 crossing is ancient and puny narrow; it needs to be replaced ASAP anyway.
Yeah, I don't see NWLA wanting to abandon the Tenaha-Memphis section of I-69 any time soon, especially since they need that section to complete their extension of LA 3132 and create a new Red River Bridge serving the Port of Shreveport-Bossier. Indeed, NWLA politicos are already freaking out about what would happen if I-69 is rerouted along I-369 and then I-30, and Shreveport is bypassed completely.
I still say that I-69 as planned will be built ultimately, but the time frame will be delayed greatly due to funding. Right now, other priorities exist for Louisiana (I-10 bottleneck in BTR, I-49 South, I-49 ICC in Shreveport).
I'd hope that I-30 would be widened already but TxDot will wait until it gets worse before commencing with construction. I understand that everything hinges on available funding but still....
Quote from: dariusb on December 16, 2019, 01:02:13 AM
I'd hope that I-30 would be widened already but TxDot will wait until it gets worse before commencing with construction. I understand that everything hinges on available funding but still....
Sadly, most TxDOT route projects are reactive, not proactive. It would be great to see it the other way around, but there's that funding thing....
Quote from: dariusb on December 16, 2019, 01:02:13 AM
I'd hope that I-30 would be widened already but TxDot will wait until it gets worse before commencing with construction. I understand that everything hinges on available funding but still....
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/bowie.htm#061007113 (https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/bowie.htm#061007113)
Quote from: MaxConcrete on December 17, 2019, 10:20:40 PM
Quote from: dariusb on December 16, 2019, 01:02:13 AM
I'd hope that I-30 would be widened already but TxDot will wait until it gets worse before commencing with construction. I understand that everything hinges on available funding but still....
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/bowie.htm#061007113 (https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/bowie.htm#061007113)
Hmmm.....5.9 miles of extra lane west from the TX/AR line -- that would mean the project would include the I-369/US 59 interchange. Looks like they're getting ready to accommodate that additional traffic that would likely segue from the south once I-369 and its parent are completed. Simply another indication that 69-to-369-to-30 was the priority all along. Can't wait to see the plans for the Tenaha "split" to see just who gets the "straightlining"! :)
Quote from: sparker on December 18, 2019, 04:57:45 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on December 17, 2019, 10:20:40 PM
Quote from: dariusb on December 16, 2019, 01:02:13 AM
I'd hope that I-30 would be widened already but TxDot will wait until it gets worse before commencing with construction. I understand that everything hinges on available funding but still....
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/bowie.htm#061007113 (https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/bowie.htm#061007113)
Hmmm.....5.9 miles of extra lane west from the TX/AR line -- that would mean the project would include the I-369/US 59 interchange. Looks like they're getting ready to accommodate that additional traffic that would likely segue from the south once I-369 and its parent are completed. Simply another indication that 69-to-369-to-30 was the priority all along. Can't wait to see the plans for the Tenaha "split" to see just who gets the "straightlining"! :)
How would I-369 generate new traffic? It's an improvement to the existing connection between Texarkana and Houston, and ties in to I-30 the same way it does today.
That stretch of I-30 needs 6-lanes regardless of what happens with I-369.
Quote from: sprjus4How would I-369 generate new traffic?
Obviously it would draw more traffic simply by being an Interstate highway. No traffic lights, speed traps or driveways allowing people to suddenly whip out onto the highway in front of someone driving at highway speed. Lots of motorists on long distance road trips try sticking to the Interstate as much as they can, even if they have to drive way way out of the way. Anecdotal example: I know people who have driven from Lawton to Denver by taking I-44 to OKC, I-35 to Wichita and I-135 to Salina and I-70 across. They wasted all that extra time and fuel just to stay 100% on the Interstate.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 18, 2019, 12:46:24 PM
Quote from: sprjus4How would I-369 generate new traffic?
Obviously it would draw more traffic simply by being an Interstate highway. No traffic lights, speed traps or driveways allowing people to suddenly whip out onto the highway in front of someone driving at highway speed. Lots of motorists on long distance road trips try sticking to the Interstate as much as they can, even if they have to drive way way out of the way. Anecdotal example: I know people who have driven from Lawton to Denver by taking I-44 to OKC, I-35 to Wichita and I-135 to Salina and I-70 across. They wasted all that extra time and fuel just to stay 100% on the Interstate.
It may draw some new traffic, but not a large amount. Most of the future I-369 traffic is already there.
Most of the traffic on US-59 in East/Northeast Texas is local/regional traffic.
A complete I-369 (and I-69 farther South to Houston) will draw a good amount of traffic originating in Houston and heading to points North & Northeast away from the I-45 corridor. Dallas-Fort Worth is a major choke-point in the Texas highway system. I-35 is the only North-South Interstate in Texas that fully crosses the state and crosses into other states, which is pretty amazing when one examines the map to see how many North-South Interstates are spaced relatively close together in the East.
A completed I-69 system from South Texas on up to Texarkana would provide an alternative to I-35. Long distance traffic would still have to deal with Houston traffic to some degree. But I-35 gives drivers the experience of San Antonio, Austin and Dallas-Fort Worth. Likewise if the Ports to Plains Corridor is fully built-out the I-2/I-27 combo would provide a West alternative to I-35.
^^^^^^^^^^
There's a reason a fully realized Interstate corridor from Houston to I-30 at Texarkana is Job #1 for the backers of that corridor concept -- a more direct and efficient route in the one direction from Houston omitted from the original 41K Interstate network. These folks and their TxDOT compatriots are under relentless pressure, primarily from corporations arrayed along the Gulf coast as well as the trucking firms contracted to them, to get 69/369 completed ASAP. If you think "civilians" don't like tooling along a 2-lane road at 3 in the morning through a series of small-town streets, professional truckers not only echo that sentiment but are quite vocal about the pressing need for a remedy. And commercial traffic efficiency is the principal driver behind most of the "post-market" Interstate additions since the '70's (along with a helping of locally-grown "pork") -- it's more than just another set of dots to connect.
This is kind of connected to the conversation about the push to get 369 completed. This is an interesting article about possibly having cargo coming through Texarkana's airport. https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2019/dec/20/air-cargo-organization-visits-airport-board/809049/
This could just as well go on the Texas I-69 thread, but I'll put it here. Texarkana, Texas is the beneficiary of both, and if they think they need space
now...
Quote
TexAmericas' growth leads to plans for construction (Jan. 8, 2020, Texarkana Gazette):
...
TexAmericas Center now finds itself facing a new challenge – running out of building space.
"We started with over a million square feet of space when we began this," said Eric Voyles, executive vice president. "But we've been very successful in attracting clients to the center and now we are running out of existing building space and facilities. We are now looking at projects and clients at our campuses involving new buildings. We already have potential clients expressing interest. So this will involve new construction in 2020. It is a good challenge to have."
As for 2019, TexAmericas Center listed these as marking the year's accomplishments:
– More than 56% growth in non-RRAD jobs on TAC over the last five years;
– More than 30% net growth in tenants over the last five years;
– Nine new tenants in 2019;
– Added two new industries;
– Attracted companies from Michigan and Arizona;
– and more than 69% growth in total leased space over the last five years.
TexAmericas also finished making a $2.25m infrastructure improvements that:
– Made 1,500 acres shovel ready on TAC East Campus;
– Opened a 270,000 square foot complex of buildings for redevelopment;
– Leased more than 200,000 square feet of complex in six months in 2019;
– Signed contracts to perform $1.6m of improvements to occupied buildings;
– Won two federal grants to assess and remediate two buildings making way for future redevelopment;
– and added transload services to the property.
...
https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2020/jan/08/texamericas-growth-leads-plans-construction/811260/
Quote from: O Tamandua on January 08, 2020, 11:13:44 PM
This could just as well go on the Texas I-69 thread, but I'll put it here. Texarkana, Texas is the beneficiary of both, and if they think they need space now...
Quote
TexAmericas' growth leads to plans for construction (Jan. 8, 2020, Texarkana Gazette):
...
TexAmericas Center now finds itself facing a new challenge – running out of building space.
"We started with over a million square feet of space when we began this," said Eric Voyles, executive vice president. "But we've been very successful in attracting clients to the center and now we are running out of existing building space and facilities. We are now looking at projects and clients at our campuses involving new buildings. We already have potential clients expressing interest. So this will involve new construction in 2020. It is a good challenge to have."
As for 2019, TexAmericas Center listed these as marking the year's accomplishments:
– More than 56% growth in non-RRAD jobs on TAC over the last five years;
– More than 30% net growth in tenants over the last five years;
– Nine new tenants in 2019;
– Added two new industries;
– Attracted companies from Michigan and Arizona;
– and more than 69% growth in total leased space over the last five years.
TexAmericas also finished making a $2.25m infrastructure improvements that:
– Made 1,500 acres shovel ready on TAC East Campus;
– Opened a 270,000 square foot complex of buildings for redevelopment;
– Leased more than 200,000 square feet of complex in six months in 2019;
– Signed contracts to perform $1.6m of improvements to occupied buildings;
– Won two federal grants to assess and remediate two buildings making way for future redevelopment;
– and added transload services to the property.
...
https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2020/jan/08/texamericas-growth-leads-plans-construction/811260/
...and the highlit quote above dovetails with THIS article from May 19th of last year. Apparently, the TexAmericas Center has made their transload center "happen". BTW, one of the top 10 stories of 2019 for the
Texarkana Gazette was with the expansion of the FedEx center on the Arkansas side (not here) where the manager said they saw the confluence of routes building to Texarkana and "wanted to get here". The manager said, in the same article, that the FedEx Shreveport center is "at capacity".:
QuoteMaking Space for Intermodal (May 19th, 2019, Inbound Logistics)
...
TexAmericas Center, one of the largest rural industrial centers in the Americas, is located in an area that seems ideally suited for an intermodal facility. Situated in Northeast Texas, approximately 15 miles west of Texarkana, the park already offers ready access to Interstates 30 and 49 and sits in the immediate vicinity of the planned Interstate 69 corridor. In addition, the park owns 36 miles of rail, and Union Pacific, BNSF, Kansas City Southern, Texas Northeastern Railroad (a Genesee & Wyoming railroad), and Amtrak all run through the area.
TexAmericas Center so far lacks the facilities to support intermodal shipping, but the park's officials hope that will change soon.
"We've got tremendous logistics assets, but the intermodal market just isn't being served yet," says Eric Voyles, executive vice president and chief economic development officer for the park. "We see that as a big opportunity for our area. So, we're working to develop a multi-commodity transload facility for the Texarkana area on our property.
"Feasibility studies show there are more than 40,000 lifts annually that go unfulfilled in this market and are being forced to be handled by trucks," Voyles notes. "It would be a major economic boost for local companies that are transporting now by truck to have their commodities handled by rail."
...
Demand for intermodal capabilities in Texarkana is evident. A transload facility would drive down costs of operating in the park and "make us an even more attractive logistics location," he says.
"Just about every other month someone asks us if we can manage transload on our property," Voyles says. "And we have to tell them that we don't have the equipment. We get requests for steel, grain, plastic pellets, rock, timber, paper, agriculture, and building products. There is clearly a lot of interest."
...
https://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/making-space-for-intermodal/
I never liked the 369 designation since it will not connect with 69 for decades. At first, I thought it should have been an x-30 Interstate, but I have a new idea for what number the corridor should have been given: Interstate 47!
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 09, 2020, 06:18:15 PM
I never liked the 369 designation since it will not connect with 69 for decades. At first, I thought it should have been an x-30 Interstate, but I have a new idea for what number the corridor should have been given: Interstate 47!
I suggested exactly that back in late 2010 in a research paper I did for the
Alliance for I-69/Texas; the notion was summarily shot down; they wanted to retain all corridors contained within the language of HPC's 18 & 20 as referencing "69" in some fashion (apparently I-2, not being included in that legislation, was exempt). I'm just surprised 369 got a 3di rather than being designated as
"I-69N", given their deference to the suffixed notations within the legislation itself!
Just hair-splitting, but a "N" or "S" suffix letter applied to an Interstate route technically only works with East-West even-numbered routes. Past routes like I-80N (now I-84) in Oregon or I-70S (now I-270) in the DC metro are previous examples. If I-369 was going to be renamed as a I-69x suffixed route it would have to be another instance of I-69W to go with the one that already exists in South Texas. The rules already suggest we can't have 2 different instances of a specific 3-digit Interstate route in the same state. There can't be one I-169 near Brownsville and another I-169 farther North somewhere else in Texas. We probably can't do the same thing with suffixed Interstate routes either.
^
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 10, 2020, 11:42:52 PM
Just hair-splitting, but a "N" or "S" suffix letter applied to an Interstate route technically only works with East-West even-numbered routes. Past routes like I-80N (now I-84) in Oregon or I-70S (now I-270) in the DC metro are previous examples.
Except there was aparrently once an I-81S in Pennsylvania.
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 11, 2020, 12:38:40 AM
^Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 10, 2020, 11:42:52 PM
Just hair-splitting, but a "N" or "S" suffix letter applied to an Interstate route technically only works with East-West even-numbered routes. Past routes like I-80N (now I-84) in Oregon or I-70S (now I-270) in the DC metro are previous examples.
Except there was aparrently once an I-81S in Pennsylvania.
With that, there was I-81E and I-81N.
Part of my suffix reference was simply sarcasm regarding the Alliance's knee-jerk retention of the suffix format -- but the fact that the original Interstate connector from I-80 to I-81 in NE PA (now I-380, its 3rd iteration) was originally I-81S, but was changed to I-81E circa 1963 or so -- before finally getting its current designation when suffixed routes were changed en masse from 1976 to 1980. So strangeness -- or at least inconsistency -- has marked the world of Interstate designations since the beginning.
Here's a man who's looking ahead, and apparently he made a convincing case to his new constituency:
Quote
Davis wins position on Texarkana council
(Jay) Davis said he wants to make sure the city's primed for future growth. He added that today's decisions are so important because they'll impact future growth. "When people start talking about the completion of I-49 and I-69, if you look at some of the studies out there, some of the numbers that I hear, populations get close to 300,000 when you have three interstates ... neither side is ready for that type of growth. So, I definitely want to make sure that we've got plans in place to be able to anticipate being able to provide that much water to our citizens."
https://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/texarkana-news/davis-wins-position-on-texarkana-council/
Quote from: O Tamandua on January 30, 2020, 12:34:25 AM
Here's a man who's looking ahead, and apparently he made a convincing case to his new constituency:
Quote
Davis wins position on Texarkana council
(Jay) Davis said he wants to make sure the city's primed for future growth. He added that today's decisions are so important because they'll impact future growth. "When people start talking about the completion of I-49 and I-69, if you look at some of the studies out there, some of the numbers that I hear, populations get close to 300,000 when you have three interstates ... neither side is ready for that type of growth. So, I definitely want to make sure that we've got plans in place to be able to anticipate being able to provide that much water to our citizens."
https://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/texarkana-news/davis-wins-position-on-texarkana-council/
We've all heard local politicos talk -- both pro and con -- about the developmental potential connected with new Interstate development in a particular area -- but this is the first time -- at least to my knowledge -- that one has actually predicated significant population increase as a result of such activity. Of course that would be a logical/natural outcome if more and more firms requiring personnel would relocate to said area, although one would hope that firms coming into a metro area would first attempt to recruit local talent before casting a wider net. Warehousing/distribution development generally doesn't require the less common skill sets that might not characterize the local population; it's when tech firms establish outposts in smaller cities that large-scale "importation" of skilled workers seems to take place. But in the case of Texarkana, the confluence of corridors in that area -- not to mention the same situation in regards to rail service -- lends itself more toward the distribution-warehouse type of development, which holds more potential for local employment.
Quote from: sparker on January 30, 2020, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: O Tamandua on January 30, 2020, 12:34:25 AM
Here's a man who's looking ahead, and apparently he made a convincing case to his new constituency:
Quote
Davis wins position on Texarkana council
(Jay) Davis said he wants to make sure the city's primed for future growth. He added that today's decisions are so important because they'll impact future growth. "When people start talking about the completion of I-49 and I-69, if you look at some of the studies out there, some of the numbers that I hear, populations get close to 300,000 when you have three interstates ... neither side is ready for that type of growth. So, I definitely want to make sure that we've got plans in place to be able to anticipate being able to provide that much water to our citizens."
https://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/texarkana-news/davis-wins-position-on-texarkana-council/
We've all heard local politicos talk -- both pro and con -- about the developmental potential connected with new Interstate development in a particular area -- but this is the first time -- at least to my knowledge -- that one has actually predicated significant population increase as a result of such activity. Of course that would be a logical/natural outcome if more and more firms requiring personnel would relocate to said area, although one would hope that firms coming into a metro area would first attempt to recruit local talent before casting a wider net. Warehousing/distribution development generally doesn't require the less common skill sets that might not characterize the local population; it's when tech firms establish outposts in smaller cities that large-scale "importation" of skilled workers seems to take place. But in the case of Texarkana, the confluence of corridors in that area -- not to mention the same situation in regards to rail service -- lends itself more toward the distribution-warehouse type of development, which holds more potential for local employment.
The population of Wilmington, NC has tripled since the completion of I-40 in 1990. Granted, there are other factors that caused this, but having interstate highway access certainly helped.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 08:01:24 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 30, 2020, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: O Tamandua on January 30, 2020, 12:34:25 AM
Here's a man who's looking ahead, and apparently he made a convincing case to his new constituency:
Quote
Davis wins position on Texarkana council
(Jay) Davis said he wants to make sure the city's primed for future growth. He added that today's decisions are so important because they'll impact future growth. "When people start talking about the completion of I-49 and I-69, if you look at some of the studies out there, some of the numbers that I hear, populations get close to 300,000 when you have three interstates ... neither side is ready for that type of growth. So, I definitely want to make sure that we've got plans in place to be able to anticipate being able to provide that much water to our citizens."
https://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/texarkana-news/davis-wins-position-on-texarkana-council/
We've all heard local politicos talk -- both pro and con -- about the developmental potential connected with new Interstate development in a particular area -- but this is the first time -- at least to my knowledge -- that one has actually predicated significant population increase as a result of such activity. Of course that would be a logical/natural outcome if more and more firms requiring personnel would relocate to said area, although one would hope that firms coming into a metro area would first attempt to recruit local talent before casting a wider net. Warehousing/distribution development generally doesn't require the less common skill sets that might not characterize the local population; it's when tech firms establish outposts in smaller cities that large-scale "importation" of skilled workers seems to take place. But in the case of Texarkana, the confluence of corridors in that area -- not to mention the same situation in regards to rail service -- lends itself more toward the distribution-warehouse type of development, which holds more potential for local employment.
The population of Wilmington, NC has tripled since the completion of I-40 in 1990. Granted, there are other factors that caused this, but having interstate highway access certainly helped.
I-40 was definitely a contributing factor, along with the dredging of the Cape Fear River and the expansion of port facilities (giving those new residents places to work), abetted by CSX upgrading its RR line that intersects its main N-S lines at Lumberton and Hamlet (and then proceeds on to Atlanta). Also, Wilmington
has been able to successfully attract media business as a significant film/TV production site (tax breaks do help!). But it should be interesting to see if the city's growth spurt actually increases if additional Interstate corridors converge on it over time -- in a similar fashion to what's happening in Texarkana!
Somebody here at aaroads was kind enough to list all the cities with 3 or more interstates a few years ago, including the future ones like Shreveport. Attached is a link for a Reddit map of the interstate system (which is admittedly missing a few routes such as Texas I-369 :-/ ). It looks like the smallest 3-interstate metro area is "Chambana" (a.k.a. Champaign-Urbana, IL, also home of the University of Illinois flagship campus), which is about double the size of metro Texarkana right now. I don't want to belittle an interstate, but one of those interstates has as its western terminus Quincy, IL. I don't think this 3-interstate junction will see quite the traffic that Texarkana will (and maybe Shreveport, hopefully) when the systems are complete.
(https://i.redd.it/8gjt1jc0blt01.png)
https://i.redd.it/8gjt1jc0blt01.png (enlargable)
The last time I was in Texarkana, I noticed that on the section of 369 in Texarkana traffic seems to have increased. Even though I-30 will only be expanded for 6 miles, expanding lanes all the way to New Boston wouldn't be a bad idea. I-49 between Texarkana and Shreveport is still not heavily traveled. Quick question, do any of you see a big rise in traffic counts on I-49 between Texarkana and Shreveport?
Quote from: dariusb on January 31, 2020, 04:54:36 PM
Quick question, do any of you see a big rise in traffic counts on I-49 between Texarkana and Shreveport?
Yes, once the segment from Texarkana to Fort Smith is ever constructed. Currently, long-distance traffic can follow all 4-lane roadway through the eastern part of Arkansas to meet up with Little Rock and I-40 to avoid that 130 mile long 2-lane stretch north of Texarkana. If the interstate is ever built, much of this traffic will be re-routed onto the quicker, 4-lane interstate routing.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2020, 04:56:29 PM
Quote from: dariusb on January 31, 2020, 04:54:36 PM
Quick question, do any of you see a big rise in traffic counts on I-49 between Texarkana and Shreveport?
Yes, once the segment from Texarkana to Fort Smith is ever constructed. Currently, long-distance traffic can follow all 4-lane roadway through the eastern part of Arkansas to meet up with Little Rock and I-40 to avoid that 130 mile long 2-lane stretch north of Texarkana. If the interstate is ever built, much of this traffic will be re-routed onto the quicker, 4-lane interstate routing.
I think the viability of any alternate route through central AR would depend upon the origin point and destination of any trip. If the point of origin is, let's say, along the Gulf Coast east of Lafayette, then a direct shot up from Alexandria on US 165 (or even 425) ending up in Little Rock would be viable; the only way anything west from there on I-40 (and then ostensibly north on I-49 would be reasonably efficient would be if the destination were KC or points west from there. If one is actually around the Shreveport area -- or in Houston -- getting to Kansas City would likely entail going west and north (avoiding DFW like the plague!) via OK's INT to US 69, then north and east to the I-44/49 junction before turning north if one wished to avoid US 71 over the top of the Ouachitas. Making a big backward "C" around those mountains via Little Rock would likely not be in the cards for either commercial or recreational drivers. And destinations along the Mississippi River and east of there are already handled -- although hardly optimally -- by I-30 and I-40 across AR before turning north on I-55 (and eventually I-69); squeezing a little more efficiency out of that particular journey is the
raison d'etre of the I-57 extension.
But considering detours such as these are principally considered within the commercial realm; most individual private drivers coming up to Shreveport or Texarkana will probably just look at their GPS or map and simply slog right up US 71 before segueing onto I-49. Yeah, that mostly 2-lane road can be a bit harrowing when shared with semis, but it's more hassle than pure hell (I've done it over a dozen times). But the question about additional overall traffic on I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana will probably depend upon how TxDOT schedules the I-69/369 corridor construction; if they get most or all of Houston-to-I-20 done prior to completing 369 north to Texarkana, then it's likely a lot of traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, will shunt over 20 to 220/49 and up rather than slog through the towns along US 59. But that will of course change once 369 construction is in the rear-view mirror; Houston/Gulf traffic trying to reach I-30 will simply shift to that route.
Seems like when 369 and 49 are finally completed through Texarkana, there's no telling how bad the traffic will be. I hope they plan with that in mind or else it could be a future choke point.
I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that the future 3-interstate hub in Texakana may be one of the reasons Miller County (Arkansas side) is pitching land for this "opportunity of a lifetime" potential car manufacturing plant. Being at such a "hub" hasn't yet helped West Memphis/Marion in the same pursuit, but we shall see:
QuoteWith what appears to be the "opportunity of a lifetime," Miller County's Budget and Finance Committee will soon recommend the county contribute $1.25 million over five years to potentially land a car-manufacturing plant.
https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2020/feb/04/opportunity-lifetime-miller-county-officials-recommend-committing-125m-help-buy-secure-land-car-manufacturing-plant/815082/
Quote from: dariusb on February 02, 2020, 07:44:37 PM
Seems like when 369 and 49 are finally completed through Texarkana, there's no telling how bad the traffic will be. I hope they plan with that in mind or else it could be a future choke point.
The owners of road-related businesses located (or looking to locate) in the Texarkana area are probably looking forward to a useful-to-them bit of congestion -- with an eye toward drivers, both commercial and "civilian", electing to stop and patronize them as long as it's relatively slow going through the city center. Of course, a lot of that will depend upon the final configuration of the area freeway network; if 369 is indeed relocated at some point around the west side of town to meet up with 49 near the Red River crossing, then there will be a whole new set of local interchanges at which to locate the usual complement of restaurants, shops, and even truck stops. Otherwise -- if 369 stays where it is up to I-30 and not extended further, Loop 151 will likely be pressed into the connecting role, with a few appropriate businesses locating along its length.
Adding on to what you were saying about logistics and warehouse related industries in Texarkana, could this be the beginning of that: https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2020/feb/04/opportunity-lifetime-miller-county-officials-recommend-committing-125m-help-buy-secure-land-car-manufacturing-plant/815082/
Sorry. Didn't realize Tamandua had already posted this.
A completed I-369 from Houston to Texarkana will draw a lot of additional traffic onto the I-30 corridor.
I don't think I-49 is going to get a great deal more popular with long distance drivers until I-49 is completed between Texarkana and Fort Smith. Traffic coming from South Texas and going to points like Kansas City will likely stick with the I-35 corridor. Putting up with DFW traffic could be a "lesser evil" than dealing with a narrow, tree-lined 2-lane US-71 going through a bunch of hills.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 04, 2020, 04:43:46 PM
A completed I-369 from Houston to Texarkana will draw a lot of additional traffic onto the I-30 corridor.
I don't think I-49 is going to get a great deal more popular with long distance drivers until I-49 is completed between Texarkana and Fort Smith. Traffic coming from South Texas and going to points like Kansas City will likely stick with the I-35 corridor. Putting up with DFW traffic could be a "lesser evil" than dealing with a narrow, tree-lined 2-lane US-71 going through a bunch of hills.
That observation is probably correct regarding overall volume; until I-49 is fully complete down the west side of AR, traffic in the DFW>KC corridor will continue to use I-35 through OKC and Wichita, with US 75/69 used sparingly when mileage is an overriding factor. Still, US 71 through the "gap" will continue to see considerable traffic -- commercial stuff that needs to reach Ft. Smith or NWA from the south, and "civilian" traffic who simply see the shortest distance between two points and/or follow their GPS. It'll still be the corridor of choice for traffic originating in LA -- the current batch of Interstate-grade alternatives are either east of the Ozarks or very much out of their way to the west. That's probably why many regional proposals over in Fictional place a Conway-Springfield corridor along US 65; it provides a nice neat straight shot between metro areas with a clear path southward into LA. But for the time being much N-S traffic will continue to use US 71 despite its inadequacies just because it is where it is -- where I-49 should be!
Quote from: sparker on February 05, 2020, 02:26:47 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 04, 2020, 04:43:46 PM
A completed I-369 from Houston to Texarkana will draw a lot of additional traffic onto the I-30 corridor.
I don't think I-49 is going to get a great deal more popular with long distance drivers until I-49 is completed between Texarkana and Fort Smith. Traffic coming from South Texas and going to points like Kansas City will likely stick with the I-35 corridor. Putting up with DFW traffic could be a "lesser evil" than dealing with a narrow, tree-lined 2-lane US-71 going through a bunch of hills.
That observation is probably correct regarding overall volume; until I-49 is fully complete down the west side of AR, traffic in the DFW>KC corridor will continue to use I-35 through OKC and Wichita, with US 75/69 used sparingly when mileage is an overriding factor. Still, US 71 through the "gap" will continue to see considerable traffic -- commercial stuff that needs to reach Ft. Smith or NWA from the south, and "civilian" traffic who simply see the shortest distance between two points and/or follow their GPS. It'll still be the corridor of choice for traffic originating in LA -- the current batch of Interstate-grade alternatives are either east of the Ozarks or very much out of their way to the west. That's probably why many regional proposals over in Fictional place a Conway-Springfield corridor along US 65; it provides a nice neat straight shot between metro areas with a clear path southward into LA. But for the time being much N-S traffic will continue to use US 71 despite its inadequacies just because it is where it is -- where I-49 should be!
I've seen a couple proposals for a US 65 freeway between Springfield and Springdale on Fictional Highways (I made one of them), but not all the way to Conway.
Quote from: X99 on February 05, 2020, 10:31:58 AM
I've seen a couple proposals for a US 65 freeway between Springfield and Springdale on Fictional Highways (I made one of them), but not all the way to Conway.
Springdale? That's over on I-49 at US 412. A Springfield-Springdale connection via US 65 and US 412 would be duplicative of I-49 (when completed) up to I-44 and then east; really wouldn't save a significant amount of either distance nor time. Springfield-Conway (an effective proxy for greater Little Rock) would at least address a different traffic pattern -- particularly considering the I/AR 530 extension south (I'll stop here lest it become a bit too speculative). But getting back to I-369/Texarkana matters -- any other mishmash of highways around the Ouachitas and/or Ozarks is simply out of the way for the LA-KC corridor; the sole direct path (assuming OK continues to delay/avoid developing the "direct-ish" US 69 corridor)
is US 71/I-49, regardless of the timetable for fully upgrading that particular route.
Quote from: sparker on February 05, 2020, 01:41:50 PM
Quote from: X99 on February 05, 2020, 10:31:58 AM
I've seen a couple proposals for a US 65 freeway between Springfield and Springdale on Fictional Highways (I made one of them), but not all the way to Conway.
Springdale? That's over on I-49 at US 412. A Springfield-Springdale connection via US 65 and US 412 would be duplicative of I-49 (when completed) up to I-44 and then east; really wouldn't save a significant amount of either distance nor time. Springfield-Conway (an effective proxy for greater Little Rock) would at least address a different traffic pattern -- particularly considering the I/AR 530 extension south (I'll stop here lest it become a bit too speculative). But getting back to I-369/Texarkana matters -- any other mishmash of highways around the Ouachitas and/or Ozarks is simply out of the way for the LA-KC corridor; the sole direct path (assuming OK continues to delay/avoid developing the "direct-ish" US 69 corridor) is US 71/I-49, regardless of the timetable for fully upgrading that particular route.
In a way, it's the lengthened shadow of the dream of Arthur Stilwell, founder of the Kansas City Southern railroad, who knew this corridor was the best way to get from Kansas City to the Gulf of Mexico. That being said, Mr. Stilwell likely had no idea how big the Louisiana-Texas petrochemical complex would someday be, nor did he likely know that Texas would be America's second most populous state.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Kansas_city_south_lines_logo.svg/1200px-Kansas_city_south_lines_logo.svg.png)
Quote from: O Tamandua on February 05, 2020, 04:09:41 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 05, 2020, 01:41:50 PM
Quote from: X99 on February 05, 2020, 10:31:58 AM
I've seen a couple proposals for a US 65 freeway between Springfield and Springdale on Fictional Highways (I made one of them), but not all the way to Conway.
Springdale? That's over on I-49 at US 412. A Springfield-Springdale connection via US 65 and US 412 would be duplicative of I-49 (when completed) up to I-44 and then east; really wouldn't save a significant amount of either distance nor time. Springfield-Conway (an effective proxy for greater Little Rock) would at least address a different traffic pattern -- particularly considering the I/AR 530 extension south (I'll stop here lest it become a bit too speculative). But getting back to I-369/Texarkana matters -- any other mishmash of highways around the Ouachitas and/or Ozarks is simply out of the way for the LA-KC corridor; the sole direct path (assuming OK continues to delay/avoid developing the "direct-ish" US 69 corridor) is US 71/I-49, regardless of the timetable for fully upgrading that particular route.
In a way, it's the lengthened shadow of the dream of Arthur Stilwell, founder of the Kansas City Southern railroad, who knew this corridor was the best way to get from Kansas City to the Gulf of Mexico. That being said, Mr. Stilwell likely had no idea how big the Louisiana-Texas petrochemical complex would someday be, nor did he likely know that Texas would be America's second most populous state.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Kansas_city_south_lines_logo.svg/1200px-Kansas_city_south_lines_logo.svg.png)
And KCS is still an independent railroad after 120+ years of existence & operation. It's one of the remaining lines not on a coast with a decidedly N-S axis rather than a dominant E-W traffic flow. The other notable Midwestern line with similar characteristics, Illinois Central, was acquired by Canadian National decades ago (which is why one regularly finds CN locomotives down in New Orleans & Mobile).
Quote from: sparker on February 05, 2020, 04:56:23 PM
Quote from: O Tamandua on February 05, 2020, 04:09:41 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 05, 2020, 01:41:50 PM
Quote from: X99 on February 05, 2020, 10:31:58 AM
I've seen a couple proposals for a US 65 freeway between Springfield and Springdale on Fictional Highways (I made one of them), but not all the way to Conway.
Springdale? That's over on I-49 at US 412. A Springfield-Springdale connection via US 65 and US 412 would be duplicative of I-49 (when completed) up to I-44 and then east; really wouldn't save a significant amount of either distance nor time. Springfield-Conway (an effective proxy for greater Little Rock) would at least address a different traffic pattern -- particularly considering the I/AR 530 extension south (I'll stop here lest it become a bit too speculative). But getting back to I-369/Texarkana matters -- any other mishmash of highways around the Ouachitas and/or Ozarks is simply out of the way for the LA-KC corridor; the sole direct path (assuming OK continues to delay/avoid developing the "direct-ish" US 69 corridor) is US 71/I-49, regardless of the timetable for fully upgrading that particular route.
In a way, it's the lengthened shadow of the dream of Arthur Stilwell, founder of the Kansas City Southern railroad, who knew this corridor was the best way to get from Kansas City to the Gulf of Mexico. That being said, Mr. Stilwell likely had no idea how big the Louisiana-Texas petrochemical complex would someday be, nor did he likely know that Texas would be America's second most populous state.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Kansas_city_south_lines_logo.svg/1200px-Kansas_city_south_lines_logo.svg.png)
And KCS is still an independent railroad after 120+ years of existence & operation. It's one of the remaining lines not on a coast with a decidedly N-S axis rather than a dominant E-W traffic flow. The other notable Midwestern line with similar characteristics, Illinois Central, was acquired by Canadian National decades ago (which is why one regularly finds CN locomotives down in New Orleans & Mobile).
Excellent point, Sparker, and I think the main reason why KCS is still independent is because it took the OTHER part of Stilwell's vision (to build a railroad to the Pacific coast of Mexico) and acquired the railroad which is now the KCS de Mexico. That's been good for KCS but may have acted as a kind of "poison pill" for would-be acquisitors, at least up to now. Back to Mexico...likewise, Texas-I-69 will (technically) terminate at Texarkana to the north and in its "broken trident" shape terminate at Laredo (said right now to be North America's busiest international port), McAllen and Brownsville.
I'm still surprised that it has taken so long to build an interstate highway along this corridor yet again, the thinking has been "east-west" for railroads and, likely, interstates in mid-America west of Chicago for a long time. Until now.
^^^^^^^^^^
Hadn't really though of the dearth of N-S Interstate corridors in the Midwest -- and the historical heritage of that situation as regards the rail corridors that preceded even the US highway network -- until now! But that's basically true; the original approximately 30K mile system as envisioned in the '30's before Tom MacDonald and the Army Corps got involved were primarily E-W corridors west of the Mississippi -- probably a tip of the hat to the nation's population distribution back then. But the postwar 1950 census figures, the first to indicate significant demographic shifting south and west, prompted the addition of a select few N-S corridors to the mix to serve the growing metro areas there. Nevertheless, it took the type of "policy entrepreneurs" described by the political policy analyst John Kingdon -- and located in disparate parts of the country: Indiana and Texas -- to cobble up a reasonably useful diagonal national corridor concept (the Shreveport-Memphis segment notwithstanding) with, of course, enough locally-incited spurs and branches to garner regional support for its development. I-69 may well be the poster child for a "horse-designed-by-a-committee" type of concept -- but it'll still likely be well-"ridden", at least regarding its outer segments. The only thing holding back the Texas and Memphis-Indy segments is irregular identification and disbursement of funds.
Quote from: sparker on February 04, 2020, 02:21:12 AM
Quote from: dariusb on February 02, 2020, 07:44:37 PM
Seems like when 369 and 49 are finally completed through Texarkana, there's no telling how bad the traffic will be. I hope they plan with that in mind or else it could be a future choke point.
The owners of road-related businesses located (or looking to locate) in the Texarkana area are probably looking forward to a useful-to-them bit of congestion -- with an eye toward drivers, both commercial and "civilian", electing to stop and patronize them as long as it's relatively slow going through the city center. Of course, a lot of that will depend upon the final configuration of the area freeway network; if 369 is indeed relocated at some point around the west side of town to meet up with 49 near the Red River crossing, then there will be a whole new set of local interchanges at which to locate the usual complement of restaurants, shops, and even truck stops. Otherwise -- if 369 stays where it is up to I-30 and not extended further, Loop 151 will likely be pressed into the connecting role, with a few appropriate businesses locating along its length.
Texarkana looks to be not that congested. There seems to be a spread out idea in the not that distant future. I49 is planned to go into Texas then to west of Texarkana before crossing the Red River into Arkansas. 369 will probably head north and meet I49. 369 MAY actually come to the loop, but it may not. Texarkana is looking for manufacturing & distribution jobs; not retail and food service.
Quote from: O Tamandua on February 04, 2020, 02:09:25 AM
I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that the future 3-interstate hub in Texakana may be one of the reasons Miller County (Arkansas side) is pitching land for this "opportunity of a lifetime" potential car manufacturing plant. Being at such a "hub" hasn't yet helped West Memphis/Marion in the same pursuit, but we shall see:
QuoteWith what appears to be the "opportunity of a lifetime," Miller County's Budget and Finance Committee will soon recommend the county contribute $1.25 million over five years to potentially land a car-manufacturing plant.
https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2020/feb/04/opportunity-lifetime-miller-county-officials-recommend-committing-125m-help-buy-secure-land-car-manufacturing-plant/815082/
OK, to both give an update and add a bit more to what Bwana39 said just above:
- First, about the "opportunity of a lifetime" I mentioned earlier. There was a very favorable editorial about the story above in the
Texarkana Gazette a day or two after the link at the top was posted, essentially saying this was a venture the area should get behind. THEN, the Miller County (AR) Quorum Court met and, according to the
Gazette, added "a tidal wave of extra money" (https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2020/feb/11/court-makes-250k-available-help-lure-manufacturing-plant-miller-county/816081/?fbclid=IwAR2zWvkQEJsQu9G46PT4ELDn66gYPisx7n-M92pmmWe0UVD5wvgHd0fZy2c) to what was
already authorized!
- Then, I came across this article in the
Gazette posted a little over two months ago. It quotes both Arkansas- and Texas-side Texarkana city managers, as well as the director of Arkansas-Texas REDI, a special Texarkana joint economic effort which was officially launched by Gov. Gregg Abbott (TX) and Gov. Asa Hutchinson (AR (https://www.ksla.com/2018/09/05/texas-ark-governors-meet-texarkana-launch-ar-tx-redi/)) in late 2018. Now, I hope the REDI leader isn't playing Svengali to Texarkana's Trilby. Yet I think he sees (just like that city councilman who said last month that TXA has to prepare infrastructure to become a "three-interstate city") what the rest of us do with our own eyes: that Texarkana already is the prime rail gateway from the eastern U.S. both to America's second most populous state AND Mexico, and is going to be the same someday as an interstate highway junction point. Now, we wait and see.:
Quote
Robust, diverse economy forecast for city | AR-TX REDI's Sitterley: Auto manufacturing plant 'not too much to hope for'
A growing, diversified business landscape is in the forecast for Texarkana, according to key stakeholders involved in shaping the Twin Cities' future.
In recent interviews, Kenny Haskin, Arkansas-side city manager; David Orr, Texas-side director of planning; and Rob Sitterley, CEO of vanguard economic development organization AR-TX REDI, agreed that the Texarkana region's unique set of assets and advantages poises it for unprecedented success.
...
"Ultimately, our goal is to diversify the economy. In 10 or 20 years, I would see that this community would be home to a number of large manufacturing operations, would be home to a number of logistics/distribution companies. We are just in a prime spot in the country," Sitterley said.
A large auto manufacturing operation is a real possibility for Texarkana, he said.
"If you look on the map, all the major auto plants and auto-making parts producers are basically Memphis to San Antonio, and that vein runs literally right through here.
"So I don't see any reason in 20 years we couldn't be just a giant in manufacturing and a place where people want to go because it's close to their customers, the product can get in and out quickly, and again it all comes down to workforce," Sitterley said. A major car maker investing $750 million to $1 billion here and employing 2,000 people, for example, is not too much to hope for.
"There's no reason we can't play on that field. There just isn't," he said. "All those things are doable here, and I think for a lot of years there were people that maybe didn't dream as big or didn't think that it was possible here. But for sure, I see that it's possible." (NOTE: for "a lot of years", Texarkana didn't have a through interstate to Shreveport (and Louisiana I-49, with Arkansas taking notice) nor did it have the State of Texas furiously building the I-69 corridor.)
https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2019/dec/01/robust-diverse-economy-forecast-city-ar-tx-redis-sitterley-auto-manufacturing-plant-not-too-much-hope/806305/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
I hope all goes well for Texarkana not just regarding potentially getting this plant but for the city's future. As a native of that city, there's been many promises and proposals that didn't materialize and many there myself included have the attitude of yeah right I'll believe it when I see it. So I guess time will tell.
Quote from: dariusb on February 14, 2020, 09:32:06 PM
I hope all goes well for Texarkana not just regarding potentially getting this plant but for the city's future. As a native of that city, there's been many promises and proposals that didn't materialize and many there myself included have the attitude of yeah right I'll believe it when I see it. So I guess time will tell.
I hear you, brother. Watching ALL the auto, vehicle frame and auto parts trains that go through TXA on the Virtual Railfan "TexarCamera" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osndBt7BCxc) plus knowing the key location of this place does make me think these people have a point. I also think these individuals see what's preparing to happen here in terms of transportation where many in the past either couldn't or didn't have a reason to believe in it. We will see what happens.
I see what you're saying about the area having a future in manufacturing and distribution. Not only does Texarkana's location put it in a good spot but the city also serves all modes of transportation (rail, bus and air). A brand new airport terminal is scheduled to start construction next year to make room for any new airlines. Currently there's airline service to DFW. A lot of truck stops, gas stations and restaurants have broken ground over the last several years to service the growing number of trucks along I-30. All good but need jobs that pay the wages that manufacturing and distribution centers would pay. Most new jobs in Texarkana are either some sort of restaurant or retail which mostly pay minimum wage.
Quote from: dariusb on February 15, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
I see what you're saying about the area having a future in manufacturing and distribution. Not only does Texarkana's location put it in a good spot but the city also serves all modes of transportation (rail, bus and air). A brand new airport terminal is scheduled to start construction next year to make room for any new airlines. Currently there's airline service to DFW. A lot of truck stops, gas stations and restaurants have broken ground over the last several years to service the growing number of trucks along I-30. All good but need jobs that pay the wages that manufacturing and distribution centers would pay. Most new jobs in Texarkana are either some sort of restaurant or retail which mostly pay minimum wage.
(Moderators and friends, I'll get back to highways and highway-related things only on my next post.)
Dariusb, you know as well as I the issues facing Texarkana right now, and some of those have the potential to magnify with city growth. Yet even before these other interstates started sprouting up, around 1998 something started changing. Since that time, the three Texas-side schools have won a roomful of state high school championship trophies; apparently Texarkana is the only Texas city to have three high schools which have each won both a football and baseball state title. (Pleasant Grove h.s. just went to its third straight football championship game, and has won two of those. BTW, the Arkansas-side high school has a boatload of such trophies.) The Perot theatre was judged by Architectural Digest as the top performing arts venue in the state of Texas. The newest Miss Teen Texas is from TXA. The current top middle/high school administrator (as judged by his statewide peers) is from the TISD. There are other recent awards as well. When you're competing against D/FW, the Greater Houston area, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso and cities/towns from 253 other Texas counties, these achievements are far from easy. Don't know if this is just an "up/down" cycle, but I'm guessing there are a lot of other cities that would like the potential that Texarkana has when these three interstates are all complete (all catching up to an existing rail network that was part "ahead of its time" thinking, part unexpected blessing with being the natural prime eastern gateway to America's second biggest state on pretty much all fronts).
Anyway, it FEELS like this city, or people within it, are accomplishing or at least being recognized for same a lot more than when I first started coming there on business in 1984. There's some things Texarkana will likely never be, such as a financial capital. That's cool by me - I don't want TXA becoming NYC. Then again, the special things this city already has will probably make up for those perceived "shortcomings".
Back to I-369 for me. :popcorn:
Ok do I'm probably gonna get a lot of flag for this, but What is the point if I-369? I know it's a connection from Houston to Texarkana but I honestly believe that it's useless, I-49 i believe is 30-40 miles to the East? US 59 would've just been upgraded to 4 lanes instead of having a highway go through the towns.
Also, When I-69/I-369 gets done in Texas, wont US 59 be Truncated out of Texas and it's new Southern Terminus would be in Texarkana?
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 01:42:45 AM
Ok do I'm probably gonna get a lot of flag for this, but What is the point if I-369? I know it's a connection from Houston to Texarkana but I honestly believe that it's useless, I-49 i believe is 30-40 miles to the East? US 59 would've just been upgraded to 4 lanes instead of having a highway go through the towns.
Also, When I-69/I-369 gets done in Texas, wont US 59 be Truncated out of Texas and it's new Southern Terminus would be in Texarkana?
Just read a number of the previous 367 replies to the OP; I-369 itself is part of one of the two HPC's that comprise the I-69 cluster of corridors, HPC 20, which specifies an Interstate along US 59 from Laredo to Texarkana, passing through Houston. And it's long been the goal of Houston-area interests, voicing their collective opinions through the organization
Alliance for I-69/Texas, to have a direct outlet --
all-TX-if-at-all-possible -- to I-30 and thence to Chicago and other Great Lakes destinations. The chances are, given the level of in-state support for the composite 69/369 corridor, that it'll be up and running well before any LA sections are completed. While the entire I-69 "family" draws various levels of support from the other states it is intended to serve, parts of it are of particular importance to TX interests, as they (particularly the Brownsville-Houston-Texarkana continuum) fulfill longstanding regional "wish lists".
Re the potential truncation of US 59: TX is famous/notorious for truncating its US highways that have been subsumed by Interstate routes (e.g. US 75, US 80, US 81), but only if there are no independent sections of such routes that don't cross into other states or extend
very long distances (like US 90). What actually happens to US 59 (or the southernmost reaches of US 77 for that matter) will only be known in time once the I-69 corridor segments following those routes are substantially complete. Some speculation regarding US 59 has it replacing US 96 down to Beaumont and Port Arthur; IMO that's not a terribly bad idea at that.
I-369 seems to basically function as a Shreveport bypass for I-30-bound traffic.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 30, 2020, 04:09:47 AM
I-369 seems to basically function as a Shreveport bypass for I-30-bound traffic.
I all but agree with you BUT.
1) The traffic load on US 59 is already fairly high: higher than I-49 from Shreveport to Texarkana.
2) There is no good path between US 59 and I-49. Traffic chooses US-59 as it is.
A) US 79 is two lanes from Bethany to Greenwood (LA Section)
B) I-20 is near capacity from Marshall to Shreveport (Actually from Dallas to Monroe at least).
C) Other routes (Primarily US 84) are substandard.
I-49 was built to finish the northern Hurricane escape route. Prior to its completion, SHreveport would get inundated with evacuees. Now they can travel on an interstate directly from Layfayette to Texarkana, Little Rock and beyond if needed. Day-to day traffic needs seem beside the point.
I tend to agree with you that a 4-lane rural divided highway with controlled access loops around all of the towns and overpasses at all major intersections would PROBABLY be enough from Lufkin North. That said, it is a trade off. Take the route and profits from inside the small towns and get Interstate Access. While I disagree with the whole branding concept. When it comes to economic development, the INTERSTATE HIGHWAY brand is a selling point especially outside of major urban areas.
What is economic development? From one pov, it is bringing in jobs and construction to provide jobs and tax base to future generations so they can remain in their home communities.
Another way of looking at it is conversion of lower value assets (agricultural or low density usage land) to higher value assets (commercial / industrial land). While commercial / industrial real estate is a longer term investment, the payouts tend to be 10X the investments.
Without this premium brand being bestowed on a given community, why would they support the eventual losses of business in their inner city. (Think Corrigan or Diboll). Moving out to the freeway is a slow not painless proposition for the folks who own fixed assets along the old routing.
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2020, 03:58:27 AM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 01:42:45 AM
Ok do I'm probably gonna get a lot of flag for this, but What is the point if I-369? I know it's a connection from Houston to Texarkana but I honestly believe that it's useless, I-49 i believe is 30-40 miles to the East? US 59 would've just been upgraded to 4 lanes instead of having a highway go through the towns.
Also, When I-69/I-369 gets done in Texas, wont US 59 be Truncated out of Texas and it's new Southern Terminus would be in Texarkana?
Just read a number of the previous 367 replies to the OP; I-369 itself is part of one of the two HPC's that comprise the I-69 cluster of corridors, HPC 20, which specifies an Interstate along US 59 from Laredo to Texarkana, passing through Houston. And it's long been the goal of Houston-area interests, voicing their collective opinions through the organization Alliance for I-69/Texas, to have a direct outlet -- all-TX-if-at-all-possible -- to I-30 and thence to Chicago and other Great Lakes destinations. The chances are, given the level of in-state support for the composite 69/369 corridor, that it'll be up and running well before any LA sections are completed. While the entire I-69 "family" draws various levels of support from the other states it is intended to serve, parts of it are of particular importance to TX interests, as they (particularly the Brownsville-Houston-Texarkana continuum) fulfill longstanding regional "wish lists".
Re the potential truncation of US 59: TX is famous/notorious for truncating its US highways that have been subsumed by Interstate routes (e.g. US 75, US 80, US 81), but only if there are no independent sections of such routes that don't cross into other states or extend very long distances (like US 90). What actually happens to US 59 (or the southernmost reaches of US 77 for that matter) will only be known in time once the I-69 corridor segments following those routes are substantially complete. Some speculation regarding US 59 has it replacing US 96 down to Beaumont and Port Arthur; IMO that's not a terribly bad idea at that.
Yea because all of US 59 would be freeway sections in the matter of 20-30 Years, US 77 is Probably gonna get Truncated, and US 281 is probably gonna Get Truncated back to San Antonio
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 01:24:35 PM
Yea because all of US 59 would be freeway sections in the matter of 20-30 Years, US 77 is Probably gonna get Truncated, and US 281 is probably gonna Get Truncated back to San Antonio
Over the next 10 years, 60 miles of US-77 between Kingsville and Raymondville is programmed to be upgraded to interstate standards, which would complete I-69E between I-37 and Brownsville. The segment between I-37 and Victoria however isn't currently programmed.
Additionally, in that time frame, about 50 miles of US-281 between Edinburg and Falfurrias is also programmed to be upgraded to interstate standards, completing the route between two, but still leaving the 90 mile gap between Falfurrias and I-37 largely incomplete.
The odds of US-59 of getting improved between Victoria and Laredo are slim IMO, but I suppose we'll see. Largely 2-lane route, with very light traffic volumes. I suppose any 4-lane upgrades going forth will be completed to interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 01:33:40 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 01:24:35 PM
Yea because all of US 59 would be freeway sections in the matter of 20-30 Years, US 77 is Probably gonna get Truncated, and US 281 is probably gonna Get Truncated back to San Antonio
Over the next 10 years, 60 miles of US-77 between Kingsville and Raymondville is programmed to be upgraded to interstate standards, which would complete I-69E between I-37 and Brownsville. The segment between I-37 and Victoria however isn't currently programmed.
Additionally, in that time frame, about 50 miles of US-281 between Edinburg and Falfurrias is also programmed to be upgraded to interstate standards, completing the route between two, but still leaving the 90 mile gap between Falfurrias and I-37 largely incomplete.
The odds of US-59 of getting improved between Victoria and Laredo are slim IMO, but I suppose we'll see. Largely 2-lane route, with very light traffic volumes. I suppose any 4-lane upgrades going forth will be completed to interstate standards.
The method used in TX has been to address I-69 one of its SIU's at a time. I-37 south to the RGV is one unit programmed for short-term action, as is Victoria-Houston along US 59. The former has independent utility as, in conjunction with I-37, a San Antonio-Mexico "relief" routing as an alternative to the largely crowded (maybe not right now!) Laredo border crossing, while the latter is largely building out the sections between the existing freeway segments. I-37 to Victoria will come later -- but not that much later, as TxDOT and the corridor backers have prioritized the 69/69E continuum (probably because of the fact that most of the ROW is already in place).
While not presently programmed,
all of US 281 south of US 59 is becoming a priority because of the substantial level of commercial traffic using it as border access as an alternative to the oft-congested I-35. And if upgrading construction over on I-69E through the King Ranch area causes interim delays, expect 281 to host quite a bit of the diverted traffic. And it's an almost certainty that Freer-George West along US 59 will be the very last section of the corridor cluster to see development; if the branch along TX 44 west of Corpus doesn't attract programming attention terribly soon, that will likely extend west all the way to Laredo.
Quote from: sparker on February 04, 2020, 02:21:12 AM
Quote from: dariusb on February 02, 2020, 07:44:37 PM
Seems like when 369 and 49 are finally completed through Texarkana, there's no telling how bad the traffic will be. I hope they plan with that in mind or else it could be a future choke point.
The owners of road-related businesses located (or looking to locate) in the Texarkana area are probably looking forward to a useful-to-them bit of congestion -- with an eye toward drivers, both commercial and "civilian", electing to stop and patronize them as long as it's relatively slow going through the city center. Of course, a lot of that will depend upon the final configuration of the area freeway network; if 369 is indeed relocated at some point around the west side of town to meet up with 49 near the Red River crossing, then there will be a whole new set of local interchanges at which to locate the usual complement of restaurants, shops, and even truck stops. Otherwise -- if 369 stays where it is up to I-30 and not extended further, Loop 151 will likely be pressed into the connecting role, with a few appropriate businesses locating along its length.
The geography for the I -369 / I-49 Intersection with the westward reroute is in the Red River's flood plain. The frequent flood plain. The I-30 / I-369 intersection near Leary would probably be the place for all of that.
Quote from: bwana39 on March 30, 2020, 05:07:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 04, 2020, 02:21:12 AM
Quote from: dariusb on February 02, 2020, 07:44:37 PM
Seems like when 369 and 49 are finally completed through Texarkana, there's no telling how bad the traffic will be. I hope they plan with that in mind or else it could be a future choke point.
The owners of road-related businesses located (or looking to locate) in the Texarkana area are probably looking forward to a useful-to-them bit of congestion -- with an eye toward drivers, both commercial and "civilian", electing to stop and patronize them as long as it's relatively slow going through the city center. Of course, a lot of that will depend upon the final configuration of the area freeway network; if 369 is indeed relocated at some point around the west side of town to meet up with 49 near the Red River crossing, then there will be a whole new set of local interchanges at which to locate the usual complement of restaurants, shops, and even truck stops. Otherwise -- if 369 stays where it is up to I-30 and not extended further, Loop 151 will likely be pressed into the connecting role, with a few appropriate businesses locating along its length.
The geography for the I -369 / I-49 Intersection with the westward reroute is in the Red River's flood plain. The frequent flood plain. The I-30 / I-369 intersection near Leary would probably be the place for all of that.
I don't believe I-369/I-49 won't connect until the 2030s or 40s due to Arkansas having a low interest in the area of I-49 Between Fort Smith and Texarkana
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 05:42:47 PM
I don't believe I-369/I-49 won't connect until the 2030s or 40s due to Arkansas having a low interest in the area of I-49 Between Fort Smith and Texarkana
The mid-2030's would be a good informed guess. It's not a matter of low interest; it's a matter of AR funds being spread a bit thin on multiple projects, including the I-49 Arkansas River bridge, which is likely to be a budget-buster for the years it's being constructed. Then there's I-57 and other statewide improvement projects that require funding, so it's likely I-49 will see
some construction after, say, 2025 -- but likely one little section at a time. But without that bridge project, completion of the remainder south to Texarkana is, in the larger sense, a bit pointless.
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2020, 10:03:35 PM
But without that bridge project, completion of the remainder south to Texarkana is, in the larger sense, a bit pointless.
Can't say I would necessarily agree. I-540 could act as a "temporary" routing if the rest of I-49 is built south of Fort Smith while that bridge is still being worked out.
I say just build it as a toll bridge and call it a day.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 11:38:26 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2020, 10:03:35 PM
But without that bridge project, completion of the remainder south to Texarkana is, in the larger sense, a bit pointless.
Can't say I would necessarily agree. I-540 could act as a "temporary" routing if the rest of I-49 is built south of Fort Smith while that bridge is still being worked out.
I say just build it as a toll bridge and call it a day.
That's all this corridor needs -- to have US 71 between I-49 and I-540 become the western version of Breezewood! In all likelihood, though, the bridge will be done well before most of the route's remainder south to Texarkana is even let. The high level of regional need effectively renders that crossing it's own SIU independent of the full I-49 corridor -- even if it
is tolled.
Quote from: dariusb on February 15, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
I see what you're saying about the area having a future in manufacturing and distribution. Not only does Texarkana's location put it in a good spot but the city also serves all modes of transportation (rail, bus and air). A brand new airport terminal is scheduled to start construction next year to make room for any new airlines. Currently there's airline service to DFW. A lot of truck stops, gas stations and restaurants have broken ground over the last several years to service the growing number of trucks along I-30. All good but need jobs that pay the wages that manufacturing and distribution centers would pay. Most new jobs in Texarkana are either some sort of restaurant or retail which mostly pay minimum wage.
They're also gunning for the 4th mode of transportation along with northern LA in pulling together the money for a Corps of Engineering study to make the Red River navigable to the US-71 bridge. This one's a longer bet, but 3 more locks and dams on the river solve some flooding issues for LA as well, so that's why they're kicking some in. Of course, all this was pre-Covid-19, so who knows about timeframes at this point.
https://bossierpress.com/parish-commits-to-study-about-red-river-flooding-navigability-into-arkansas/ (https://bossierpress.com/parish-commits-to-study-about-red-river-flooding-navigability-into-arkansas/)
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 15, 2020, 03:53:06 PM
Quote from: dariusb on February 15, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
I see what you're saying about the area having a future in manufacturing and distribution. Not only does Texarkana's location put it in a good spot but the city also serves all modes of transportation (rail, bus and air). A brand new airport terminal is scheduled to start construction next year to make room for any new airlines. Currently there's airline service to DFW. A lot of truck stops, gas stations and restaurants have broken ground over the last several years to service the growing number of trucks along I-30. All good but need jobs that pay the wages that manufacturing and distribution centers would pay. Most new jobs in Texarkana are either some sort of restaurant or retail which mostly pay minimum wage.
They're also gunning for the 4th mode of transportation along with northern LA in pulling together the money for a Corps of Engineering study to make the Red River navigable to the US-71 bridge. This one's a longer bet, but 3 more locks and dams on the river solve some flooding issues for LA as well, so that's why they're kicking some in. Of course, all this was pre-Covid-19, so who knows about timeframes at this point.
https://bossierpress.com/parish-commits-to-study-about-red-river-flooding-navigability-into-arkansas/ (https://bossierpress.com/parish-commits-to-study-about-red-river-flooding-navigability-into-arkansas/)
Unless there's sufficient funds in play here to rebuild the I-30 and the adjacent UPRR Red River bridges so that tug/barge traffic can pass beneath (right now there's only about 12-15' clearance), it's likely a "Port of Texarkana" would be located east of town, likely along or near US 82. The UP/former Cotton Belt main line follows that highway, so rail access to a potential port (a must!) would be a relatively easy matter to address.
True. With Covid 19 in the way, no telling how long things will take.
Exit #s are added to the I-369 Freeway between Lake Dr (U.S. 59/TX 93 to I-30) in Texarkana The Exit #s are:
112-U.S. 67: 7th St
113-Westlawn Dr/Wake Village
(NB)114A-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd
(NB)114B-FM 559: Richmond Road
(sb)114-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd.
Quote from: KamKam on June 23, 2020, 04:59:05 PM
Exit #s are added to the I-369 Freeway between Lake Dr (U.S. 59/TX 93 to I-30) in Texarkana The Exit #s are:
112-U.S. 67: 7th St
113-Westlawn Dr/Wake Village
(NB)114A-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd
(NB)114B-FM 559: Richmond Road
(sb)114-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd.
Not surprising, since it's about 115 miles south to the projected Tenaha-area location of the 69/369 split. But it's an indicator that the existing US 59 freeway will remain, at least initially, the designated I-369 routing.
Quote from: KamKam on June 23, 2020, 04:59:05 PM
Exit #s are added to the I-369 Freeway between Lake Dr (U.S. 59/TX 93 to I-30) in Texarkana The Exit #s are:
112-U.S. 67: 7th St
113-Westlawn Dr/Wake Village
(NB)114A-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd
(NB)114B-FM 559: Richmond Road
(sb)114-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd.
These should be added to Wikipedia
Quote from: KamKam on June 23, 2020, 04:59:05 PM
Exit #s are added to the I-369 Freeway between Lake Dr (U.S. 59/TX 93 to I-30) in Texarkana The Exit #s are:
112-U.S. 67: 7th St
113-Westlawn Dr/Wake Village
(NB)114A-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd
(NB)114B-FM 559: Richmond Road
(sb)114-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd.
Took long enough. I was wondering why there was nothing posted yet last year.
Is there a SB exit number for the frontage road turnaround (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4090464,-94.0975804,3a,16.4y,188.52h,90.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sn9neEtCN0p38EWCm3msapw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dn9neEtCN0p38EWCm3msapw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D59.06891%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) just before the Pine Bluff Subdivision?
Or for the end itself at Loop 151?
No they haven't have an exit # for it yet.
Just wondering, do you think work on 369 will start first coming down from Texarkana or going up from Tenaha?
Quote from: dariusb on June 27, 2020, 03:23:02 PM
Just wondering, do you think work on 369 will start first coming down from Texarkana or going up from Tenaha?
Sounds like it will be a spotty mixture that might not favor 1 direction or the other. There was that work to create the grade-separation/exit south of Texarkana at Domino. The only other mentioned project has been the "east loop" work in Marshall. No other widenings or bypasses have been announced.
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on June 27, 2020, 04:57:14 PM
Quote from: dariusb on June 27, 2020, 03:23:02 PM
Just wondering, do you think work on 369 will start first coming down from Texarkana or going up from Tenaha?
Sounds like it will be a spotty mixture that might not favor 1 direction or the other. There was that work to create the grade-separation/exit south of Texarkana at Domino. The only other mentioned project has been the "east loop" work in Marshall. No other widenings or bypasses have been announced.
I think you will see work between Carthage and Texarkana progress one step after the previous one. The short term needs are
1) Marshall bypass (in progress)
2) Linden bypass
3) Jefferson bypass
4) Atlanta / Queen City bypass or improvements.
5) Carthage loop improvements (east or west...)
6) Atlanta to Texarkana (& / or Texarkana bypass) freeway
7) Atlanta to Marshall freeway
8)Carthage to Marshall freeway
9) Carthage to I-69 freeway
The Teneha to Carthage portion is subject to I-69 actually getting built to Teneha. There are shorter and less congested routes between Nacogdoches and Carthage. The thought is that there is some priority in the Atlanta TXDOT district, but the Lufkin District is focused further south . Part of the Teneha routing of I-369 have been to avoid Rusk County and the Tyler District.
Quote from: dariusb on June 27, 2020, 03:23:02 PM
Just wondering, do you think work on 369 will start first coming down from Texarkana or going up from Tenaha?
I want to say coming down from Texarkana because according the Texarkana Gazette, they are currently doing a environmental study on U.S. 59 (Lake Dr) and the Domino interchange (FM 3129 Exit) was completed and plans to create an East Bypass at Marshall
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on June 27, 2020, 04:57:14 PM
The Tenaha to Carthage portion is subject to I-69 actually getting built to Teneha. There are shorter and less congested routes between Nacogdoches and Carthage. The thought is that there is some priority in the Atlanta TXDOT district, but the Lufkin District is focused further south . Part of the Teneha routing of I-369 have been to avoid Rusk County and the Tyler District.
Much of the uncertainty as to the location of the I-69/369 junction stems from the fact that as of yet TX and LA have yet to agree on a place to cross the state line. Some have speculated that the I-69 path will simply follow US 84 east of Tenaha and cross into LA adjacent to the current bridge. The "classic" plan floated when I-69 was being proposed was to veer north from around Timpson, crossing US 59 north of Woods, avoiding the north end of Lake Toledo; it would essentially be as straight a line as possible between Timpson and Stonewall, LA. TxDOT has always preferred this route, as it would entail less costly bridge construction, crossing the Sabine at a narrow point rather than use a route straight down US 84 through Logansport, LA, which would cross more developed territory; it would also cut about 3-4 miles off of I-369 by moving the junction point north a bit. But nothing can be finalized until the basic I-69 alignment is selected. Also, it's likely that the Houston-based interest groups that have visualized as efficient a combination 69/369 arrangement as possible (prioritizing the Houston-Texarkana aspect of the corridor) would prefer a junction site that renders the angle at which 369 departs the main 69 pathway as small as feasible, creating as straight a line as possible for the all-TX route that includes I-369. As the selection of the main I-69 corridor has, and probably will be in the near term, been the subject of consistent procrastination by all parties, both routes in that vicinity will almost certainly be among the last to see development.
Presentation for consultant solicitation for Marshall bypass. Pages of interest start on page 23
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/062520/presentation.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/062520/presentation.pdf)
Overview sheet
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/062520/facts.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/062520/facts.pdf)
This is envisioned as a three-phase project
Middle section, IH 20 to US 80: scheduled bidding date is December 2023
North section, US 80 to north of Marshall: scheduled bidding date is August 2028
South section, from IH 20 to a point five miles south: scheduled bidding date is August 2031.
Unfortunately these are some long timelines, but as always it's a funding issue. The consultant contract alone is listed at $45 million on page 7. The $154 million currently funded is sufficient for only the middle section.
Quote from: sparker on June 29, 2020, 06:03:15 AM
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on June 27, 2020, 04:57:14 PM
The Tenaha to Carthage portion is subject to I-69 actually getting built to Teneha. There are shorter and less congested routes between Nacogdoches and Carthage. The thought is that there is some priority in the Atlanta TXDOT district, but the Lufkin District is focused further south . Part of the Teneha routing of I-369 have been to avoid Rusk County and the Tyler District.
Much of the uncertainty as to the location of the I-69/369 junction stems from the fact that as of yet TX and LA have yet to agree on a place to cross the state line. Some have speculated that the I-69 path will simply follow US 84 east of Tenaha and cross into LA adjacent to the current bridge. The "classic" plan floated when I-69 was being proposed was to veer north from around Timpson, crossing US 59 north of Woods, avoiding the north end of Lake Toledo; it would essentially be as straight a line as possible between Timpson and Stonewall, LA. TxDOT has always preferred this route, as it would entail less costly bridge construction, crossing the Sabine at a narrow point rather than use a route straight down US 84 through Logansport, LA, which would cross more developed territory; it would also cut about 3-4 miles off of I-369 by moving the junction point north a bit. But nothing can be finalized until the basic I-69 alignment is selected. Also, it's likely that the Houston-based interest groups that have visualized as efficient a combination 69/369 arrangement as possible (prioritizing the Houston-Texarkana aspect of the corridor) would prefer a junction site that renders the angle at which 369 departs the main 69 pathway as small as feasible, creating as straight a line as possible for the all-TX route that includes I-369. As the selection of the main I-69 corridor has, and probably will be in the near term, been the subject of consistent procrastination by all parties, both routes in that vicinity will almost certainly be among the last to see development.
Funny, although this is expected, what was the point of erecting mile posts on the existing I-369? If the 0 mile post is moving/movable, I see it as a waste of money. I know the real reason, give legitimacy to an interstate corridor without actually performing any construction (hey look at this interstate. It's been here all along but it has shiny new things.)
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 10, 2020, 01:20:35 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 29, 2020, 06:03:15 AM
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on June 27, 2020, 04:57:14 PM
The Tenaha to Carthage portion is subject to I-69 actually getting built to Teneha. There are shorter and less congested routes between Nacogdoches and Carthage. The thought is that there is some priority in the Atlanta TXDOT district, but the Lufkin District is focused further south . Part of the Teneha routing of I-369 have been to avoid Rusk County and the Tyler District.
Much of the uncertainty as to the location of the I-69/369 junction stems from the fact that as of yet TX and LA have yet to agree on a place to cross the state line. Some have speculated that the I-69 path will simply follow US 84 east of Tenaha and cross into LA adjacent to the current bridge. The "classic" plan floated when I-69 was being proposed was to veer north from around Timpson, crossing US 59 north of Woods, avoiding the north end of Lake Toledo; it would essentially be as straight a line as possible between Timpson and Stonewall, LA. TxDOT has always preferred this route, as it would entail less costly bridge construction, crossing the Sabine at a narrow point rather than use a route straight down US 84 through Logansport, LA, which would cross more developed territory; it would also cut about 3-4 miles off of I-369 by moving the junction point north a bit. But nothing can be finalized until the basic I-69 alignment is selected. Also, it's likely that the Houston-based interest groups that have visualized as efficient a combination 69/369 arrangement as possible (prioritizing the Houston-Texarkana aspect of the corridor) would prefer a junction site that renders the angle at which 369 departs the main 69 pathway as small as feasible, creating as straight a line as possible for the all-TX route that includes I-369. As the selection of the main I-69 corridor has, and probably will be in the near term, been the subject of consistent procrastination by all parties, both routes in that vicinity will almost certainly be among the last to see development.
Funny, although this is expected, what was the point of erecting mile posts on the existing I-369? If the 0 mile post is moving/movable, I see it as a waste of money. I know the real reason, give legitimacy to an interstate corridor without actually performing any construction (hey look at this interstate. It's been here all along but it has shiny new things.)
My guess is that the mileage figure as applied to the current I-369 exits at Texarkana are "guesstimates", likely accurate within a mile or two of where the actual southern I-369 terminus will lie. Later, it can be fudged a bit by making the terminal interchange with I-69 exit "0" or exit "1"; that allows a mile or so of slack. Of course, since the whole of I-369 won't likely be completed for 20+ years in any case, the exit numbers could always be changed to reflect the actual finalized mileage. There's a lot of ways a DOT can go about this -- but for the time being, they're simply estimating.
Quote from: sparker on July 10, 2020, 05:42:13 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 10, 2020, 01:20:35 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 29, 2020, 06:03:15 AM
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on June 27, 2020, 04:57:14 PM
The Tenaha to Carthage portion is subject to I-69 actually getting built to Teneha. There are shorter and less congested routes between Nacogdoches and Carthage. The thought is that there is some priority in the Atlanta TXDOT district, but the Lufkin District is focused further south . Part of the Teneha routing of I-369 have been to avoid Rusk County and the Tyler District.
Much of the uncertainty as to the location of the I-69/369 junction stems from the fact that as of yet TX and LA have yet to agree on a place to cross the state line. Some have speculated that the I-69 path will simply follow US 84 east of Tenaha and cross into LA adjacent to the current bridge. The "classic" plan floated when I-69 was being proposed was to veer north from around Timpson, crossing US 59 north of Woods, avoiding the north end of Lake Toledo; it would essentially be as straight a line as possible between Timpson and Stonewall, LA. TxDOT has always preferred this route, as it would entail less costly bridge construction, crossing the Sabine at a narrow point rather than use a route straight down US 84 through Logansport, LA, which would cross more developed territory; it would also cut about 3-4 miles off of I-369 by moving the junction point north a bit. But nothing can be finalized until the basic I-69 alignment is selected. Also, it's likely that the Houston-based interest groups that have visualized as efficient a combination 69/369 arrangement as possible (prioritizing the Houston-Texarkana aspect of the corridor) would prefer a junction site that renders the angle at which 369 departs the main 69 pathway as small as feasible, creating as straight a line as possible for the all-TX route that includes I-369. As the selection of the main I-69 corridor has, and probably will be in the near term, been the subject of consistent procrastination by all parties, both routes in that vicinity will almost certainly be among the last to see development.
Funny, although this is expected, what was the point of erecting mile posts on the existing I-369? If the 0 mile post is moving/movable, I see it as a waste of money. I know the real reason, give legitimacy to an interstate corridor without actually performing any construction (hey look at this interstate. It's been here all along but it has shiny new things.)
My guess is that the mileage figure as applied to the current I-369 exits at Texarkana are "guesstimates", likely accurate within a mile or two of where the actual southern I-369 terminus will lie. Later, it can be fudged a bit by making the terminal interchange with I-69 exit "0" or exit "1"; that allows a mile or so of slack. Of course, since the whole of I-369 won't likely be completed for 20+ years in any case, the exit numbers could always be changed to reflect the actual finalized mileage. There's a lot of ways a DOT can go about this -- but for the time being, they're simply estimating.
Yes, I know they are guessing. Still sucks that they (we) are paying people to go out there, dig holes and plant poles with mile posts attached to them that are most definitely going to move so that another crew can come out and move them in the future. Texas always marks mile 0 so they won't fudge it there. The exit numbers don't bother me a much as the placement of the mile markers. The exit numbers can be edited in the field or moved up an exit, but you still have to have someone go do that, which makes the process, again, foolish and a waste of money, but then again, someone go to work that day.
It's a lot like watching a sign placement or small pavement project start and get completed, only to have the whole thing ripped out by construction of the most anticipated freeway. These things don't spring up over night, everyone knows they are coming.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 07, 2016, 01:51:01 PM
July 2015 Google StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4416496,-94.0966756,3a,75y,1h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_DB_xZi761049_4KJVa_gQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) shows mile marker 108 just south of the I-369/ I-30 interchange:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNawlyTQ.jpg&hash=87e43a50159f9cf678ae99f7eac352f9d0c7f654)
Proceeding northward, the mile marker numbers decrease. Are these mile markers preexisting US 59 mile markers?
(above quote from " Texarkana; Future I-49, I-69 Spur" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg2125183#msg2125183) thread)
Quote from: lordsutch on February 08, 2016, 01:50:59 PM
... the mile marker numbering should be somewhere in the 200s if it's based on the Texas state system, so it's definitely based on I-369 mileage. If I had to guess, whoever installed the mile markers installed them backwards (north-to-south, according to the TxDOT rules, instead of south-to-north, according to the Interstate rules), not realizing the origin point is supposed to be Tenaha.
(above quote from " Texarkana; Future I-49, I-69 Spur" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg2125386#msg2125386) thread)
Quote from: KamKam on June 23, 2020, 04:59:05 PM
Exit #s are added to the I-369 Freeway between Lake Dr (U.S. 59/TX 93 to I-30) in Texarkana The Exit #s are:
112-U.S. 67: 7th St
113-Westlawn Dr/Wake Village
(NB)114A-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd
(NB)114B-FM 559: Richmond Road
(sb)114-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd.
Has TxDOT now placed the mile markers in the proper sequence to match the exit numbers?
Quote from: Grzrd on July 09, 2018, 02:56:27 PM
With the "spur" to TexAmericas Center also being studied, the following language in this May 30 article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/may/30/security-post-returning-bowie-county-courthouse/728311/) jumped out at me:
Quote
In other business, commissioners agreed to authorize the county to make a $50,000 contribution, as the county's share of matching funds, for a $350,000 grant recently extended to the county from the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority. The grant money will be used to finance a feasibility study that focuses on an Interstate 369 West Spur project connecting existing major roadways....
Since TxDOT decided to run I-369 along US 59 to I-30, I wondered how it impacted the plans for the Western Spur and the Northern Loop. The most recent information I found was in the 2045 Texarkana MTP, dated Sept.17,2019:
http://www.texarkanampo.org/documents/program-documents/CompleteDocumentResolution.pdf
It has a route study for the Western Spur in the Implementation Stage (pp. 198, 200 of 257) and a route study for the Northern Loop as an Illustrative Project (p. 212, 225 of 257) Has anyone seen any more recent information on these projects?
Quote from: Grzrd on August 15, 2020, 01:11:53 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 07, 2016, 01:51:01 PM
July 2015 Google StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4416496,-94.0966756,3a,75y,1h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_DB_xZi761049_4KJVa_gQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) shows mile marker 108 just south of the I-369/ I-30 interchange:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNawlyTQ.jpg&hash=87e43a50159f9cf678ae99f7eac352f9d0c7f654)
Proceeding northward, the mile marker numbers decrease. Are these mile markers preexisting US 59 mile markers?
(above quote from " Texarkana; Future I-49, I-69 Spur" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg2125183#msg2125183) thread)
Quote from: lordsutch on February 08, 2016, 01:50:59 PM
... the mile marker numbering should be somewhere in the 200s if it's based on the Texas state system, so it's definitely based on I-369 mileage. If I had to guess, whoever installed the mile markers installed them backwards (north-to-south, according to the TxDOT rules, instead of south-to-north, according to the Interstate rules), not realizing the origin point is supposed to be Tenaha.
(above quote from " Texarkana; Future I-49, I-69 Spur" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg2125386#msg2125386) thread)
Quote from: KamKam on June 23, 2020, 04:59:05 PM
Exit #s are added to the I-369 Freeway between Lake Dr (U.S. 59/TX 93 to I-30) in Texarkana The Exit #s are:
112-U.S. 67: 7th St
113-Westlawn Dr/Wake Village
(NB)114A-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd
(NB)114B-FM 559: Richmond Road
(sb)114-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd.
Has TxDOT now placed the mile markers in the proper sequence to match the exit numbers?
Yes, Mile Markers start at 111 once your enter I-369 from Lake Dr. (U.S. 59/TX 93) and increase to 114 as you would travel North to I-30, Also Southbound Frontage Road Exit # is 111B and U.S. 59/TX 93 Exit is 111A and the destination changed from Lake Dr to Houston. And instead of To U.S. 71 Shreveport, It now says To I-49 Shreveport
I wonder will the section of freeway I-369 and I-49 currently TX 151/AR 245 be renamed as a 3di of 49 or stay as it is?
Quote from: dariusb on August 18, 2020, 01:12:22 PM
I wonder will the section of freeway I-369 and I-49 currently TX 151/AR 245 be renamed as a 3di of 49 or stay as it is?
I have wondered that too. My gut says it won't, but I would love it to be a 3di.
I suspect it will probably stay as-is, but if it did get a 3di, I'd make it Interstate 249.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 18, 2020, 01:45:57 PM
I suspect it will probably stay as-is, but if it did get a 3di, I'd make it Interstate 249.
It will, but just for route continuity, I think it would be a fail to not have a 3di for it, so that drivers would know here is an interstate connection from the I-69 corridor to the I-49 corridor. I was driving on I-30 in Texarkana earlier this month and noticed the southbound control cities for the I-49 exits are Shreveport and Houston. It doesn't straight up mean that it would be a 3di, but you would think a 3di would help better facilitate that Houston control city by diverting them from I-49 to the I-x49 that connects to I-369.
Quote from: dariusb on August 18, 2020, 01:12:22 PM
I wonder will the section of freeway I-369 and I-49 currently TX 151/AR 245 be renamed as a 3di of 49 or stay as it is?
From the ARDOT perspective, I think they will ultimately go with an I-x49. They have
hinted at it in some of their documents:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg245870#msg245870
I believe it is inevitable in that traffic heading north on I-369 will probably use TX 151/AR 151 when heading toward Little Rock and points east.
* edit
Thanks to KamKam for answering my question.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 18, 2020, 03:29:36 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 18, 2020, 01:45:57 PM
I suspect it will probably stay as-is, but if it did get a 3di, I'd make it Interstate 249.
It will, but just for route continuity, I think it would be a fail to not have a 3di for it, so that drivers would know here is an interstate connection from the I-69 corridor to the I-49 corridor. I was driving on I-30 in Texarkana earlier this month and noticed the southbound control cities for the I-49 exits are Shreveport and Houston. It doesn't straight up mean that it would be a 3di, but you would think a 3di would help better facilitate that Houston control city by diverting them from I-49 to the I-x49 that connects to I-369.
Since the I-49 alignment around the east side of Texarkana arcs out well to the northeast before intersecting I-30 and turning back west toward US 71 and Texas, the continuum of I-369 and Loop 151/AR 245 is a considerably shorter path to SB I-49 toward Shreveport than staying on I-30 to I-49 and then turning south. In the event that I-369 is eventually relocated to a west/north loop (allowing direct access to I-49 north of town), I would hope that the current signed I-369 plus the E-W portion of the south loop is signed as something like I-449 or even I-230 as a useful Interstate-grade "shortcut".
Quote from: dariusb on August 18, 2020, 01:12:22 PM
I wonder will the section of freeway I-369 and I-49 currently TX 151/AR 245 be renamed as a 3di of 49 or stay as it is?
Actually the Arkansas stub is now numbered as AR-151 since the interstate numbering came to AR-549 and the East Loop.
You have to understand the local dynamics about that stretch of road. It originally was going to be I-130 on the Arkansas side and I-49 was going to go around west. Then I-49 would follow State Line from I-30 north.
THEN Texarkana Texas and Texarkana Arkansas fell out about EVERYTHING. There was a time in the eighties that there was basically one police force. They shared county jails, etc. Not any more. There is one water system and the Texas side city manager made jabs to his Arkansas counterpart about TA not having a water department. I can keep rumbling on. If it requires coordination between the two Texarkana-s it is going to be messy.
Texas has LOTS of non-interstate (US HWY, SH, SS, etc)freeways. Many, if not most of them, fully meet interstate standards. There is even at least one FM road that is freeway.
It is just the past month or so, that directional signs in Texarkana TX to I-49 S have been installed. Arkansas still has large signs at the I-49 junction with 151 directing you east to I-30.
Dallas / Houston US-59.
My guess is at least until the I-369 bypass ( some have called it a Western Spur) gets built it will remain as it is. Then the current West loop and the part going to I-49 might all become I-249 or maybe a repurposed I-549....
Quote from: bwana39 on August 18, 2020, 05:16:05 PM
Quote from: dariusb on August 18, 2020, 01:12:22 PM
I wonder will the section of freeway I-369 and I-49 currently TX 151/AR 245 be renamed as a 3di of 49 or stay as it is?
Actually the Arkansas stub is now numbered as AR-151 since the interstate numbering came to AR-549 and the East Loop.
You have to understand the local dynamics about that stretch of road. It originally was going to be I-130 on the Arkansas side and I-49 was going to go around west. Then I-49 would follow State Line from I-30 north.
THEN Texarkana Texas and Texarkana Arkansas fell out about EVERYTHING. There was a time in the eighties that there was basically one police force. They shared county jails, etc. Not any more. There is one water system and the Texas side city manager made jabs to his Arkansas counterpart about TA not having a water department. I can keep rumbling on. If it requires coordination between the two Texarkana-s it is going to be messy.
Texas has LOTS of non-interstate (US HWY, SH, SS, etc)freeways. Many, if not most of them, fully meet interstate standards. There is even at least one FM road that is freeway.
It is just the past month or so, that directional signs in Texarkana TX to I-49 S have been installed. Arkansas still has large signs at the I-49 junction with 151 directing you east to I-30.
Dallas / Houston US-59.
My guess is at least until the I-369 bypass ( some have called it a Western Spur) gets built it will remain as it is. Then the current West loop and the part going to I-49 might all become I-249 or maybe a repurposed I-549....
It needs to be I-28 :popcorn:
Quote from: bwana39 on August 18, 2020, 05:16:05 PM
Quote from: dariusb on August 18, 2020, 01:12:22 PM
I wonder will the section of freeway I-369 and I-49 currently TX 151/AR 245 be renamed as a 3di of 49 or stay as it is?
Actually the Arkansas stub is now numbered as AR-151 since the interstate numbering came to AR-549 and the East Loop.
You have to understand the local dynamics about that stretch of road. It originally was going to be I-130 on the Arkansas side and I-49 was going to go around west. Then I-49 would follow State Line from I-30 north.
THEN Texarkana Texas and Texarkana Arkansas fell out about EVERYTHING. There was a time in the eighties that there was basically one police force. They shared county jails, etc. Not any more. There is one water system and the Texas side city manager made jabs to his Arkansas counterpart about TA not having a water department. I can keep rumbling on. If it requires coordination between the two Texarkana-s it is going to be messy.
Texas has LOTS of non-interstate (US HWY, SH, SS, etc)freeways. Many, if not most of them, fully meet interstate standards. There is even at least one FM road that is freeway.
It is just the past month or so, that directional signs in Texarkana TX to I-49 S have been installed. Arkansas still has large signs at the I-49 junction with 151 directing you east to I-30.
Dallas / Houston US-59.
My guess is at least until the I-369 bypass ( some have called it a Western Spur) gets built it will remain as it is. Then the current West loop and the part going to I-49 might all become I-249 or maybe a repurposed I-549....
I used to live in Texarkana so I know all too well about the 2 dueling Texarkana's. Don't get me started on the water park/convention center fiasco. Why each city needed their own convention center is beyond me. One large center would be good enough.
QuoteI used to live in Texarkana so I know all too well about the 2 dueling Texarkana's. Don't get me started on the water park/convention center fiasco. Why each city needed their own convention center is beyond me. One large center would be good enough.
Two dueling brothers seeing who can pee farthest.
As an irony the Arkansas convention center, the water park, and some of the hotels wound up bankrupt (well before covid). The city of Texarkana Arkansas who had floated the bonds had to pick all the mess. All signs pointed to the more modest Texas convention Center doing better before covid. Who knows now.
As an aside for Texarkana, the motels seem to be a revolving door of brands. There was a Holiday Inn at 71 and I-30 that closed, then came back as Howard Johnson/Ramada (splitting the large building), but last I heard they closed.
Hotels changing brands is kind of a common thing. I think what happens is the hotel operators cut enough corners to eventually lose their franchise. Then they convert the hotel to another brand and/or change ownership.
I heard that I-30 in the Texarkana area will start the expansion from 4 to 6 lanes around October. Don't know how true that is because as you know dealing with road projects delays can strike without warning.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 22, 2020, 12:35:26 PM
Hotels changing brands is kind of a common thing. I think what happens is the hotel operators cut enough corners to eventually lose their franchise. Then they convert the hotel to another brand and/or change ownership.
That happened about 25 years ago when Red Roof decided to expand to the western U.S.; they found a number of Motel 6 franchisees that were either barely hanging on financially or having issues with quality control, and offered a "fire sale" buyout (including making a payment to the national M6 corporation) for about 20 of them. Then they did some perfunctory upgrades, including painting them to match the rest of their chain, and reopened them for business. AFAIK, about 14-15 of those are still in operation; the remainder just weren't able to provide the requisite income for continuance.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 22, 2020, 12:35:26 PM
Hotels changing brands is kind of a common thing. I think what happens is the hotel operators cut enough corners to eventually lose their franchise. Then they convert the hotel to another brand and/or change ownership.
Sometimes.
Comfort Inn in Van Buren changed to Quality a few years ago. We have a Holiday Inn from 30 years ago that changed to Ramada, then a No Tell Motel, then Motel 6 and is now a
"Stupor 8" Super 8.
I once worked for a Holiday Inn Express that "upgraded" to DoubleTree Club. We went from being a top of the lie HIE to a middle of the road DoubleTree.
Quote from: dariusb on August 22, 2020, 02:32:13 PM
I heard that I-30 in the Texarkana area will start the expansion from 4 to 6 lanes around October. Don't know how true that is because as you know dealing with road projects delays can strike without warning.
They started this project last week. The first stage is redoing the shoulders so the right 2/3rds of the road (including the shoulder) can be two narrow lanes and they will initially begin the widening on the inside.
This website is where we can keep up with the I-30 widening project. https://kygl.com/txdot-creates-website-to-keep-up-with-i-30-widening-in-texarkana/
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-center/local-news/atlanta/007-2020.html
Even with all the uncertainty about, the TexAmericas Center keeps growing. A new 150,000 square foot building to be completed in July of next year will add to their amenities available. Another piece in the future I-369/I-30/I-49 mix in TXA.:
https://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/texarkana-news/texamericas-center-breaks-ground-on-new-150000-sqft-building/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=socialflow
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 20, 2020, 02:30:08 PM
It needs to be I-28 :popcorn:
Just caught this now... Funny! Why not. It's twice I-14. Seriously though, I'd go with I-449 since it's "for" connecting to 49. Although, I-349 would be appropriately confusing!
Or how about "To" 49?
Quote from: yakra on November 21, 2020, 12:59:31 PM
Or how about "To" 49?
That particular "trailblazer" indication would probably show up in any case once I-369 is extended south of its current terminus at the US 59 divergence/exit. But since TX has no compunction about route duplication, how about
I-249 for the Loop 151/AR 245 connector -- i.e., phonetically,
"TO 49".
I'm sure it has changed by now, but in 2013, it was posted as North 59 / Texarkana TO West 30/Dallas where 59 met Loop 151. 369 was only mentioned along SB 59.
The other ramp was East 151 TO East 30 / Little Rock.
Quote from: US71 on November 21, 2020, 06:15:27 PM
I'm sure it has changed by now, but in 2013, it was posted as North 59 / Texarkana TO West 30/Dallas where 59 met Loop 151. 369 was only mentioned along SB 59.
The other ramp was East 151 TO East 30 / Little Rock.
Was 2013 prior to the completion of I-49 east and north of Texarkana, including the I-30 interchange -- as well as the full 2-state extension down to the Shreveport area? If so, the signage might well have changed to reflect the presence of that route. Can anyone confirm the current "trailblazer" configuration along 151/245?
The old AR549 @ AR245 signage came down in 2014 or 2015 and was replaced
Things pointing WB toward Texas. (TO 59 Houston / Dallas.)
The sign for I49 NB says "I49 / TO I30 Little Rock / Ft Smith"
https://goo.gl/maps/ZMLa7NPMpg9EzR1M9
At US59 at the loop (Lake drive exit SB) the signage is still the same as before that except it says "TO I49 - Shreveport" instead of to To US 71 Shreveport.
While the portion of the loop between I-49 and the state line is AR151 now, the trailblazers ignore that and only one sign on the EB at the state line exists on the mainlanes that uses AR151. The cross roads at US71 uses AR151 as a direction and the split ramp directs traffic to either I-49 or AR151.
QuoteKTBS Channel 3 Shreveport tonight:
1-30 project in Texarkana paves way for future economic growth (https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/i-30-project-in-texarkana-paves-way-for-future-economic-growth/article_5d6c4482-2b7a-11eb-a597-7bd15df26a69.html#utm_campaign=blox&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social)
Chamber President Mike Malone said the I-30 expansion project is not only in anticipation of more growth, but a reaction to growth already here. The population of Texarkana has grown 9.3% in just the last nine years.
"This is an excellent location for business here in the area, as far as, travel for the trucking industry coming up the coast, they can lay over here, before heading north and likewise going south. It's going to continue to grow, said Malone.
The average daily traffic count on I-30 at Stateline Avenue is about 76,000 vehicles per day. That number is expected to increase by 40% in the next 20 years.
...
Sandifer believes one of the driving factors behind the project is the economic growth. The transportation system in Texarkana is going to draw more industry to the area, which means more vehicles, both personal and commercial, he said.
"We're looking at more traffic coming into the area and the increase in freight between Canada and Mexico," said Sandifer.
With traffic expected to nearly double in the next two decades, Malone believes Texarkana will be ready.
"As we become a convergence of these other highway systems 49, 69* and 30 all coming together here. That's increased traffic, which means more business opportunities. We're building for the future," said Malone.
(*Yes, it's 369, but forgive him - I've met Mike...he's a great guy and a busy man.)
Quote from: bwana39 on November 22, 2020, 07:49:36 PM
The old AR549 @ AR245 signage came down in 2014 or 2015 and was replaced
Things pointing WB toward Texas. (TO 59 Houston / Dallas.)
The sign for I49 NB says "I49 / TO I30 Little Rock / Ft Smith"
https://goo.gl/maps/ZMLa7NPMpg9EzR1M9
At US59 at the loop (Lake drive exit SB) the signage is still the same as before that except it says "TO 149 - Shreveport" instead of to To US 71 Shreveport.
While the portion of the loop between I-49 and the state line is AR151 now, the trailblazers ignore that and only one sign on the EB at the state line exists on the mainlanes that uses AR151. The cross roads at US71 uses AR151 as a direction and the split ramp directs traffic to either I-49 or AR151.
So the entire E-W portion is numbered "151" in both states; that's in itself reasonable. If I-369 is completed -- and it extends no farther north than I-30 (i.e., no western loop), it wouldn' be surprising that MSR 151 is elevated to Interstate status (number TBD) as the de facto "shunt" between I-369 and I-49, keeping as much traffic away from I-30 as feasible.
Quote from: O Tamandua on November 23, 2020, 09:54:06 PM
QuoteKTBS Channel 3 Shreveport tonight:
1-30 project in Texarkana paves way for future economic growth (https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/i-30-project-in-texarkana-paves-way-for-future-economic-growth/article_5d6c4482-2b7a-11eb-a597-7bd15df26a69.html#utm_campaign=blox&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social)
Chamber President Mike Malone said the I-30 expansion project is not only in anticipation of more growth, but a reaction to growth already here. The population of Texarkana has grown 9.3% in just the last nine years.
"This is an excellent location for business here in the area, as far as, travel for the trucking industry coming up the coast, they can lay over here, before heading north and likewise going south. It's going to continue to grow, said Malone.
The average daily traffic count on I-30 at Stateline Avenue is about 76,000 vehicles per day. That number is expected to increase by 40% in the next 20 years.
...
Sandifer believes one of the driving factors behind the project is the economic growth. The transportation system in Texarkana is going to draw more industry to the area, which means more vehicles, both personal and commercial, he said.
"We're looking at more traffic coming into the area and the increase in freight between Canada and Mexico," said Sandifer.
With traffic expected to nearly double in the next two decades, Malone believes Texarkana will be ready.
"As we become a convergence of these other highway systems 49, 69* and 30 all coming together here. That's increased traffic, which means more business opportunities. We're building for the future," said Malone.
(*Yes, it's 369, but forgive him - I've met Mike...he's a great guy and a busy man.)
69, 369 -- to TX folks, it's all the same corridor -- the one they've been pressing for over the last three decades. Getting to I-30 as an outlet is Job #1; if I-49 is completed northward, it's icing on the cake for the I-69 corridor cluster backers.
It's crazy how fast traffic counts have risen along I-369 and 30 in just a decade.
TxDOT is having a public meeting for the removal of the Loop 369 project at Marshall from the current four-year construction plan due to "statewide fiscal constraint". Loop 369 is the future IH-369. The affected project is from IH 20 to US 80 and is listed at $220 million in the UTP. The US 82 projects have a total cost of $57.4 million.
These are the first official Covid project casualties that I've seen, but I'm thinking there will be more.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/atlanta/011221.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/atlanta/011221.html)
Quote from: MaxConcrete on December 31, 2020, 08:00:57 PM
TxDOT is having a public meeting for the removal of the Loop 369 project at Marshall from the current four-year construction plan due to "statewide fiscal constraint". Loop 369 is the future IH-369. The affected project is from IH 20 to US 80 and is listed at $220 million in the UTP. The US 82 projects have a total cost of $57.4 million.
These are the first official Covid project casualties that I've seen, but I'm thinking there will be more.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/atlanta/011221.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/atlanta/011221.html)
US259 from DeKalb to I-30 kind of needs the upgrade. I said Kind of. It already would have been done except there were misunderstandings on how the county could use the BRACC funds they had coupled with the abandoned railroad ROW / Rails to Trails coupled with TXDOT's design demands. I agree if there is any project in the Atlanta district that could be delayed, this is it.
The east loop around Marshall is badly needed. This said, Marshall is not the worst bottleneck on that road. Atlanta itself is worse. I think most of we in east Texas would agree. If you would get US-59 out of Diboll (in progress), Corrigan, Teneha, Marshall, Jefferson, Linden, Atlanta, and southern Texarkana, that the four lane rural highway in between would suffice in the present. I wish either loop around Carthage was completely freeway, but that is coming. It may be the west loop because that is what the Business community in Carthage wants. There is still discussion in CARTHAGE that the freeway should either follow TX-315 to Mount Enterprise and US-259 in Nacogdoches or go directly to just east of Lake Murval and catch US-59 near Timpson. The more direct route would be about 11 miles closer and would not have to go around either Timpson, or Teneha. If I-69 actually were to get built to near Logansport, then all except the mileage advantage would be moot.
Quote from: bwana39 on January 01, 2021, 04:17:45 PM
There is still discussion in CARTHAGE that the freeway should either follow TX-315 to Mount Enterprise and US-259 in Nacogdoches or go directly to just east of Lake Murval and catch US-59 near Timpson. The more direct route would be about 11 miles closer and would not have to go around either Timpson, or Teneha.
TxDOT's plan for $28 million in safety improvements to US 259 north of Nacogdoches seems to suggest that it is not in play as a I-369 candidate. On the other hand, the timelines for getting this section of I-369 built may be so far in the future that the $28 million would not be a waste of money if in fact the 259-315 alignment is ultimately recommended. The direct Timpson-Carthage alignment may have a better chance, but it would require a "greenfield" route, and new terrain routes are becoming increasingly difficult to build. I definitely agree that taking I-369 through Tenaha is an inefficient detour.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/101320.html
Quote from: MaxConcrete on January 01, 2021, 06:25:24 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on January 01, 2021, 04:17:45 PM
There is still discussion in CARTHAGE that the freeway should either follow TX-315 to Mount Enterprise and US-259 in Nacogdoches or go directly to just east of Lake Murval and catch US-59 near Timpson. The more direct route would be about 11 miles closer and would not have to go around either Timpson, or Teneha.
TxDOT's plan for $28 million in safety improvements to US 259 north of Nacogdoches seems to suggest that it is not in play as a I-369 candidate. On the other hand, the timelines for getting this section of I-369 built may be so far in the future that the $28 million would not be a waste of money if in fact the 259-315 alignment is ultimately recommended. The direct Timpson-Carthage alignment may have a better chance, but it would require a "greenfield" route, and new terrain routes are becoming increasingly difficult to build. I definitely agree that taking I-369 through Tenaha is an inefficient detour.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/101320.html
But, if they don't branch off I-369 until shortly before Tehana (or near Timpson), there are savings by not having to upgrade other roads to interstate standards, and that could be very significant savings.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on January 02, 2021, 02:49:55 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on January 01, 2021, 06:25:24 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on January 01, 2021, 04:17:45 PM
There is still discussion in CARTHAGE that the freeway should either follow TX-315 to Mount Enterprise and US-259 in Nacogdoches or go directly to just east of Lake Murval and catch US-59 near Timpson. The more direct route would be about 11 miles closer and would not have to go around either Timpson, or Teneha.
TxDOT's plan for $28 million in safety improvements to US 259 north of Nacogdoches seems to suggest that it is not in play as a I-369 candidate. On the other hand, the timelines for getting this section of I-369 built may be so far in the future that the $28 million would not be a waste of money if in fact the 259-315 alignment is ultimately recommended. The direct Timpson-Carthage alignment may have a better chance, but it would require a "greenfield" route, and new terrain routes are becoming increasingly difficult to build. I definitely agree that taking I-369 through Tenaha is an inefficient detour.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/101320.html
But, if they don't branch off I-369 until shortly before Tehana (or near Timpson), there are savings by not having to upgrade other roads to interstate standards, and that could be very significant savings.
IIRC, one of the longstanding options for the I-69 trunk was in fact to veer north from US 59 near Timpson, cross it again about halfway between Tenaha and Carthage, and then make a beeline toward Stonewall, LA; the US 84 state line crossing at Logansport, LA wasn't in that picture. If that new-terrain alignment were to be the one to make the cut, worrying about whether or not to upgrade existing facilities would be basically moot, as I-369 would likely simply branch off, itself on new alignment, as a Carthage bypass (whether west or east of the town TBD). It seems the Logansport crossing has been considered to be the preferred routing simply as a "default" due to TX and LA not having a meeting of the minds as to precisely where to cross the line. The town of Carthage seems to be attempting to get ahead of the curve by suggesting a more direct route to its vicinity than a simple but longer right-angle turn at Tenaha -- and the optional northern I-69 trunk alignment looks like it might be part of that calculus. Ironically, if that northern section into LA is eventually selected -- and I-369 has been prioritized, schedule-wise, by TxDOT, I-69 may well end up branching off I-369's Carthage "shortcut".
This may be a crazy idea (and possibly unneeded), but here it is: When Interstate 369 is completed between Tenaha and Texarkana (if that ever happens), what if, instead of ending in Tenaha, Interstate 369 were to continue further south along the US 96 corridor all the way to Port Arthur. US 96 could be decommissioned, US 287 could end in Woodville, and US 69 could end in Lumberton (or vice-versa).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 02, 2021, 08:04:53 PM
This may be a crazy idea (and possibly unneeded), but here it is: When Interstate 369 is completed between Tenaha and Texarkana (if that ever happens), what if, instead of ending in Tenaha, Interstate 369 were to continue further south along the US 96 corridor all the way to Port Arthur. US 96 could be decommissioned, US 287 could end in Woodville, and US 69 could end in Lumberton (or vice-versa).
2 of the 3 need to be truncated at the very least.
Quote from: sparker on January 02, 2021, 04:21:55 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on January 02, 2021, 02:49:55 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on January 01, 2021, 06:25:24 PM
TxDOT's plan for $28 million in safety improvements to US 259 north of Nacogdoches seems to suggest that it is not in play as a I-369 candidate. On the other hand, the timelines for getting this section of I-369 built may be so far in the future that the $28 million would not be a waste of money if in fact the 259-315 alignment is ultimately recommended. The direct Timpson-Carthage alignment may have a better chance, but it would require a "greenfield" route, and new terrain routes are becoming increasingly difficult to build. I definitely agree that taking I-369 through Tenaha is an inefficient detour.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/101320.html
But, if they don't branch off I-369 until shortly before Tehana (or near Timpson), there are savings by not having to upgrade other roads to interstate standards, and that could be very significant savings.
IIRC, one of the longstanding options for the I-69 trunk was in fact to veer north from US 59 near Timpson, cross it again about halfway between Tenaha and Carthage, and then make a beeline toward Stonewall, LA; the US 84 state line crossing at Logansport, LA wasn't in that picture. If that new-terrain alignment were to be the one to make the cut, worrying about whether or not to upgrade existing facilities would be basically moot, as I-369 would likely simply branch off, itself on new alignment, as a Carthage bypass (whether west or east of the town TBD). It seems the Logansport crossing has been considered to be the preferred routing simply as a "default" due to TX and LA not having a meeting of the minds as to precisely where to cross the line. The town of Carthage seems to be attempting to get ahead of the curve by suggesting a more direct route to its vicinity than a simple but longer right-angle turn at Tenaha -- and the optional northern I-69 trunk alignment looks like it might be part of that calculus. Ironically, if that northern section into LA is eventually selected -- and I-369 has been prioritized, schedule-wise, by TxDOT, I-69 may well end up branching off I-369's Carthage "shortcut".
As I remember, the I-69 route following US-84 as opposed to a veer further north was an outgoing state senator who hailed from Shelby county. He had fought to get it routed through Center. IE follow SH7 from Nacogdoches to Joaquin then go to Louisiana. When this was a non-starter, the compromise was to follow US-84 across the northern portion of Shelby County. This was before any significant discussion of I-369 even started. It has remained un-changed ever since.
There are several advantages to routing a bypass so to speak from east of Timpson to near Woods community in Panola County. It would be a better for I-69 too. For Louisiana, the benefits would be several. 1) They would not be involved in the expense of the bridges across the Sabine River. Louisiana will almost surely run their part of I-69 through a greenfield route. This routing could miss more developed properties. 2) Louisiana would have fewer miles to build.
For Shreveport / Bossier, the desirable part of this freeway is the part from I-49 to I-20.IE: Bridging the Red River at the port of Shreveport / Bossier to connect to both currently existing freeways.
The most ECONOMICAL to Louisiana Route is one they seem to have ZERO interest in would be to follow US-59 to Carthage, US-79 to around Deberry and then run nearly due east to Stonewall. The problem with this route is that when funds are tight, it MIGHT wind up following US-79 to I-20 and the port crossing left out altogether.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 02, 2021, 08:04:53 PM
This may be a crazy idea (and possibly unneeded), but here it is: When Interstate 369 is completed between Tenaha and Texarkana (if that ever happens), what if, instead of ending in Tenaha, Interstate 369 were to continue further south along the US 96 corridor all the way to Port Arthur. US 96 could be decommissioned, US 287 could end in Woodville, and US 69 could end in Lumberton (or vice-versa).
I hope they figure out what to do with US-69 well before this. US-69 should be truncated in Tyler or in Jacksonville. Perhaps even in Denison. It absolutely should not ever get to Lufkin and points past!
The probably best way to get rid of US-96 is US-59. IE swap them back.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on January 01, 2021, 06:25:24 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on January 01, 2021, 04:17:45 PM
There is still discussion in CARTHAGE that the freeway should either follow TX-315 to Mount Enterprise and US-259 in Nacogdoches or go directly to just east of Lake Murval and catch US-59 near Timpson. The more direct route would be about 11 miles closer and would not have to go around either Timpson, or Teneha.
TxDOT's plan for $28 million in safety improvements to US 259 north of Nacogdoches seems to suggest that it is not in play as a I-369 candidate. On the other hand, the timelines for getting this section of I-369 built may be so far in the future that the $28 million would not be a waste of money if in fact the 259-315 alignment is ultimately recommended. The direct Timpson-Carthage alignment may have a better chance, but it would require a "greenfield" route, and new terrain routes are becoming increasingly difficult to build. I definitely agree that taking I-369 through Tenaha is an inefficient detour.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/101320.html
I agree that it does not have any plans for anything beyond four lanes with shoulders and a left turn center lane. The part further south was done a few years back.
Does anyone else but me dislike that setup for rural 4-lane highways? I seem to prefer a median, even a narrow one with crossover cables or jersey barriers.
Don't know if this has anything to do with I-369 in Texarkana but I read somewhere that eventually I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock will be 6 lanes. Also TexAmericas Center right off I-30 is still adding tenants and plans will move forward to add more flights at the Texarkana airport and even possibly another airline. Looks like Texarkana is looking to grow in a way that it's never experienced before.
Quote from: dariusb on January 12, 2021, 02:22:28 AM
Don't know if this has anything to do with I-369 in Texarkana but I read somewhere that eventually I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock will be 6 lanes. Also TexAmericas Center right off I-30 is still adding tenants and plans will move forward to add more flights at the Texarkana airport and even possibly another airline. Looks like Texarkana is looking to grow in a way that it's never experienced before.
Texarkana,
3X3 on I-30. It would take the replacement of virtually EVERY bridge and overpass on the route. The new Red River Bridge is wide enough with a waiver (each side is 42' wide. that leaves a 2" inside shoulder and a 4' outside shoulder.) Six lanes seems to be the suggested model if I-69 does NOT get built. Someone said on here months ago that it would be nearly as inexpensive and far less disruptive to build I-69 than to widen I-30 and I-40 to 3X3. I may think the proposed routing to I-69 is asinine, but the need for the road is real. Either way, at least one new bridge is badly needed at Memphis.
Texarkana growing???? Sort of: not really? Texarkana can't keep from growing once the freeways all get built.
Just like virtually every small town around Texas, if you throw enough economic development money around, someone will bite. The jury is still out on whether it pays off in the long run. The question is more if no one used tax incentives what would happen?
Tex-Americas Center: They have a lot to work with. The visual doesn't always match the realities. Just remember, they are a not for profit organization. They have to spend when they make money. There still is more economic development outside TAC than within.
I have said this several times. The dynamics of I-30 will change when I-49 is finished to the north. South of Texarkana I-30 and US-59 (future I-369) will see the change. Ironically, I don't foresee SIGNIFICANT traffic increases from I-369's completion. US-59 is pretty busy as it is.
I agree, Texarkana cannot help but grow when the freeways get built out.
Land in Bowie and Miller Counties has outpriced the surrounding areas for decades. The reason is so much land is viewed as potential commercial property. The irony is the additional acreage available due to TAC has not reduced it any. Hunt County land is similar in price if not cheaper than Bowie County land. I think the point is the land is there if they come. Much of this commercial land has sat fallow for decades. Maybe it will finally be worth what the investors believe it is worth.
Quote from: bwana39 on January 12, 2021, 08:10:48 AM
The dynamics of I-30 will change when I-49 is finished to the north. South of Texarkana I-30 and US-59 (future I-369) will see the change. Ironically, I don't foresee SIGNIFICANT traffic increases from I-369's completion. US-59 is pretty busy as it is.
Not all the traffic on US 59 SW of Texarkana is through traffic; there are enough sizeable towns along or near 59 (Atlanta, Linden, etc.) to generate quite a few local trips to and from the Texarkana area. I would surmise that since the completion of I-49 south to the I-220 Shreveport bypass, that freeway, and I-20 as far as at least Marshall, is bearing quite a bit of the brunt of commercial traffic heading toward Houston from I-30 and US 71 to the north (saves quite a bit of in-town slogging for a few additional miles). But it
will be interesting to juxtapose the schedule for completion of I-369 with that of I-49 north toward Fort Smith; my "guesstimate" is that the facilities' completion (or near-completion) will come within a few years of each other. If the I-69/369 continuum precedes I-49/north completion, expect I-369 to be pretty well packed from the beginning -- especially if I-30 is fully 6-laned in AR. But by chance if I-49 gets done first, any traffic pattern shifts will depend upon whether I-369 north of I-20 is completed; if not, expect the current "detour" via the Shreveport area to continue. But once both the expansion of I-30 in AR and the construction of I-49 to the north are completed, it would be expected that whatever sections of I-69/369 that are completed to be pretty well packed -- KC-to-Houston commercial traffic that now utilizes I-35/35E/45 (or even US 69/75) will likely see a significant shift over to a 49/369/69 corridor as it's not only more direct but bypasses OKC and DFW. And as a result, Texarkana will be in the catbird seat regarding profiting from the overall increased pass-through traffic as well as positioning itself as a major transfer site for traffic from all directions.
Quote from: sparker on January 12, 2021, 06:00:49 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on January 12, 2021, 08:10:48 AM
The dynamics of I-30 will change when I-49 is finished to the north. South of Texarkana I-30 and US-59 (future I-369) will see the change. Ironically, I don't foresee SIGNIFICANT traffic increases from I-369's completion. US-59 is pretty busy as it is.
Not all the traffic on US 59 SW of Texarkana is through traffic; there are enough sizeable towns along or near 59 (Atlanta, Linden, etc.) to generate quite a few local trips to and from the Texarkana area. I would surmise that since the completion of I-49 south to the I-220 Shreveport bypass, that freeway, and I-20 as far as at least Marshall, is bearing quite a bit of the brunt of commercial traffic heading toward Houston from I-30 and US 71 to the north (saves quite a bit of in-town slogging for a few additional miles). But it will be interesting to juxtapose the schedule for completion of I-369 with that of I-49 north toward Fort Smith; my "guesstimate" is that the facilities' completion (or near-completion) will come within a few years of each other. If the I-69/369 continuum precedes I-49/north completion, expect I-369 to be pretty well packed from the beginning -- especially if I-30 is fully 6-laned in AR. But by chance if I-49 gets done first, any traffic pattern shifts will depend upon whether I-369 north of I-20 is completed; if not, expect the current "detour" via the Shreveport area to continue. But once both the expansion of I-30 in AR and the construction of I-49 to the north are completed, it would be expected that whatever sections of I-69/369 that are completed to be pretty well packed -- KC-to-Houston commercial traffic that now utilizes I-35/35E/45 (or even US 69/75) will likely see a significant shift over to a 49/369/69 corridor as it's not only more direct but bypasses OKC and DFW. And as a result, Texarkana will be in the catbird seat regarding profiting from the overall increased pass-through traffic as well as positioning itself as a major transfer site for traffic from all directions.
I tend to be guilty of conjecture a whole lot on here. I have lots of opinions.
This is NOT opinion. There is virtually no through traffic going to Marshall on US-59 then to Shreveport on I-20, then on to Texarkana.
There is very little following 79 from Carthage to Shreveport then on to Texarkana. Most if not virtually all of that is driven by fuel contracts and the truck stops in Greenwood.
The truck traffic on US-59 south of Texarkana is MUCH heavier than that on I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana period. Around half of the truck traffic on I-49 N is frac sand trucks originating in Miller County Ar or returning there. All-in-all I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana is a desert.
Yeah, there is significant local and inter-regional traffic between Marion, Cass, and Bowie counties JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER set of counties and small to medium sized towns almost anywhere. These do add to the traffic counts significantly, that said, ADD TO.
There is no significant Shreveport "DETOUR" I read it on here and am completely stumped. Look at the truck traffic in Jefferson versus Hosston.
Traffic is using 59 now in spite of the towns it goes through. It is shorter , faster, and less likely to have closures than any current alternative.
Quote from: bwana39 on January 13, 2021, 01:04:28 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 12, 2021, 06:00:49 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on January 12, 2021, 08:10:48 AM
The dynamics of I-30 will change when I-49 is finished to the north. South of Texarkana I-30 and US-59 (future I-369) will see the change. Ironically, I don't foresee SIGNIFICANT traffic increases from I-369's completion. US-59 is pretty busy as it is.
Not all the traffic on US 59 SW of Texarkana is through traffic; there are enough sizeable towns along or near 59 (Atlanta, Linden, etc.) to generate quite a few local trips to and from the Texarkana area. I would surmise that since the completion of I-49 south to the I-220 Shreveport bypass, that freeway, and I-20 as far as at least Marshall, is bearing quite a bit of the brunt of commercial traffic heading toward Houston from I-30 and US 71 to the north (saves quite a bit of in-town slogging for a few additional miles). But it will be interesting to juxtapose the schedule for completion of I-369 with that of I-49 north toward Fort Smith; my "guesstimate" is that the facilities' completion (or near-completion) will come within a few years of each other. If the I-69/369 continuum precedes I-49/north completion, expect I-369 to be pretty well packed from the beginning -- especially if I-30 is fully 6-laned in AR. But by chance if I-49 gets done first, any traffic pattern shifts will depend upon whether I-369 north of I-20 is completed; if not, expect the current "detour" via the Shreveport area to continue. But once both the expansion of I-30 in AR and the construction of I-49 to the north are completed, it would be expected that whatever sections of I-69/369 that are completed to be pretty well packed -- KC-to-Houston commercial traffic that now utilizes I-35/35E/45 (or even US 69/75) will likely see a significant shift over to a 49/369/69 corridor as it's not only more direct but bypasses OKC and DFW. And as a result, Texarkana will be in the catbird seat regarding profiting from the overall increased pass-through traffic as well as positioning itself as a major transfer site for traffic from all directions.
I tend to be guilty of conjecture a whole lot on here. I have lots of opinions.
This is NOT opinion. There is virtually no through traffic going to Marshall on US-59 then to Shreveport on I-20, then on to Texarkana.
There is very little following 79 from Carthage to Shreveport then on to Texarkana. Most if not virtually all of that is driven by fuel contracts and the truck stops in Greenwood.
The truck traffic on US-59 south of Texarkana is MUCH heavier than that on I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana period. Around half of the truck traffic on I-49 N is frac sand trucks originating in Miller County Ar or returning there. All-in-all I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana is a desert.
Yeah, there is significant local and inter-regional traffic between Marion, Cass, and Bowie counties JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER set of counties and small to medium sized towns almost anywhere. These do add to the traffic counts significantly, that said, ADD TO.
There is no significant Shreveport "DETOUR" I read it on here and am completely stumped. Look at the truck traffic in Jefferson versus Hosston.
Traffic is using 59 now in spite of the towns it goes through. It is shorter , faster, and less likely to have closures than any current alternative.
Upon further thought, you're probably more right than wrong about through traffic on US 59 surpassing that on a I-49/220/20 route from Texarkana to Marshall (or right down US 79 to cut off a few miles). IIRC there are commercial vehicle stations in LA on I-20; presumably there's one on I-49 somewhere south of the AR state line. If I were a trucker, I'd opt to stay in one state (here, TX) than do a short jaunt through another if that trip required additional stops near state lines. My view that traffic would have been shunting over to the all (or near) freeway route was based on traffic patterns in general -- but bolstered by my relatives in the area who have mentioned that on their trips from SE OK to Shreveport I-49 seems to be getting more truck traffic that it did right after the stretch opened several years back. If that anecdotal "evidence" doesn't tell the whole story, then my overall view was left a bit skewed. Maybe after COVID dissipates I may make a trek down to the area to visit my family -- and check out the traffic patterns for myself as long as I'm in the area!
An interesting comparison is found going into GoogleMaps and searching for directions from Hope AR to Carthage TX.
.
By its calculation, the 30-49-220-20-79 routing takes the same time as 30-369-59-43-59.
.
I think considering there are no small towns, traffic lights and it's 4 lanes all the way, that for passenger car traffic at least... 49 is definitely the better routing to choose. Commercial traffic would be adding passing through Louisiana which depending, might require an extra inspection or permits, etc. But in a car... 49, definitely the way to go.
I make this trip almost every week. ( I drive from Texarkana to Shreveport 3 or more times a week. I am in Marshall most weeks and in Carthage more than once a month.)
Point by point from Carthage.
Carthage to Marshall versus Carthage to the state line are similar.
From the State line to I-20 on US-79 is two lane and rough. The US-80 intersection is a mess.
If you take SH-43 like is suggested from Marshall, you skip part of Marshall and Jefferson and Linden completely. It is two lane, but most of it is 70 or 75 mph and there are 1 4-way stop between Marshall and Atlanta. You do come in to the side of Atlanta and either have to go all the way around town or through downtown. (downtown is shorter and faster)
There is a lot of traffic on I-20. There is a good bit on I-220. I-49 vehicle counts are low regardless of when.
If you go straight up 59 and skip SH-43, there is clearly more traffic than on I-49.
So what are the disadvantages of one over the other?
I-49 is farther. DOTD closes I-49 far too often, every time it freezes more or less. In spite of it being freeway, the traffic in west Shreveport is as bad as the small towns. US-79 in Louisiana is a terrible road.
US-59 and or SH-43 are not controlled access. If you are going toward Little Rock, you come in to the opposite side of town
I would definitely agree with the previous post that there is a lot of traffic on I-20 near Atlanta.
I'm wondering since I-30 is widening, is I-20 planning on doing that as well?
Quote from: dariusb on January 13, 2021, 06:27:46 PM
I'm wondering since I-30 is widening, is I-20 planning on doing that as well?
(I-20) Not any time soon. Louisiana is struggling with its plans to widen I-10.I-20 is an afterthought. Northwest Louisiana used to have some power in Baton Rouge because of how the legislature was gerrymandered. The power has been shifting south both as the gerrymandering has lessened and the population around Baton Rouge and Lafayette have increased while most of the rest of the state has shrunk.
As to I-30 widening, at this point it is just in and around Texarkana Texas and From Little Rock to Benton. Pretty much Metro Little Rock in Arkansas.
New funding for SL-390 from I-20 to US 80 and improvements to I-20 to bridge the gap is in the TxDOT 2023 plans.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/tpp/utp/utp-2023.pdf
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31785.0
Last summer, TXDOT started a rebuild of the US-59 bridge over I-20 in Marshall. A lot of the truck traffic has actually started following US-79 to Shreveport and I-49 to Texarkana. The delays in Marshall were to blame. One would wonder if it will shift back when this sieve situation is finished. Or will it remain this way until the SL-390 extension to I-20 is completed? This bridge is NOT part of the I-369 upgrades.
The traffic density on I-49 has increased notably.
Quote from: bwana39 on March 30, 2020, 09:40:45 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 30, 2020, 04:09:47 AM
I-369 seems to basically function as a Shreveport bypass for I-30-bound traffic.
I all but agree with you BUT.
1) The traffic load on US 59 is already fairly high: higher than I-49 from Shreveport to Texarkana.
2) There is no good path between US 59 and I-49. Traffic chooses US-59 as it is.
A) US 79 is two lanes from Bethany to Greenwood (LA Section)
B) I-20 is near capacity from Marshall to Shreveport (Actually from Dallas to Monroe at least).
C) Other routes (Primarily US 84) are substandard.
I-49 was built to finish the northern Hurricane escape route. Prior to its completion, SHreveport would get inundated with evacuees. Now they can travel on an interstate directly from Layfayette to Texarkana, Little Rock and beyond if needed. Day-to day traffic needs seem beside the point.
I tend to agree with you that a 4-lane rural divided highway with controlled access loops around all of the towns and overpasses at all major intersections would PROBABLY be enough from Lufkin North. That said, it is a trade off. Take the route and profits from inside the small towns and get Interstate Access. While I disagree with the whole branding concept. When it comes to economic development, the INTERSTATE HIGHWAY brand is a selling point especially outside of major urban areas.
What is economic development? From one pov, it is bringing in jobs and construction to provide jobs and tax base to future generations so they can remain in their home communities.
Another way of looking at it is conversion of lower value assets (agricultural or low density usage land) to higher value assets (commercial / industrial land). While commercial / industrial real estate is a longer term investment, the payouts tend to be 10X the investments.
Without this premium brand being bestowed on a given community, why would they support the eventual losses of business in their inner city. (Think Corrigan or Diboll). Moving out to the freeway is a slow not painless proposition for the folks who own fixed assets along the old routing.
I did notice that US 79 between Shreveport and Carthage had more trucks than I expected for a two-lane rural highway when I drove it about a month ago. I also find it interesting that you said traffic has increased on I-49 between Texarkana and Shreveport. Traffic must have been super-dead when it first opened!
Quote from: CoreySamson on January 10, 2023, 08:18:08 PM
I did notice that US 79 between Shreveport and Carthage had more trucks than I expected for a two-lane rural highway when I drove it about a month ago. I also find it interesting that you said traffic has increased on I-49 between Texarkana and Shreveport. Traffic must have been super-dead when it first opened!
Truck traffic has probably tripled on I-49 north of Shreveport in the past year. Auto traffic is up some. I can remember after it was completely open from Texarkana to I-220 never passing or getting passed all the way from Texarkana to N. Market. in the morning. It was a lot busier a year or so ago, but the increase in the past year is pretty significant.
That said, it really isn't very busy even now.
Quote from: bwana39 on January 10, 2023, 08:34:46 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on January 10, 2023, 08:18:08 PM
I did notice that US 79 between Shreveport and Carthage had more trucks than I expected for a two-lane rural highway when I drove it about a month ago. I also find it interesting that you said traffic has increased on I-49 between Texarkana and Shreveport. Traffic must have been super-dead when it first opened!
Truck traffic has probably tripled in the past year. Auto traffic is up some. I can remember after it was completely open from Texarkana to I-220 never passing or getting passed all the way from Texarkana to N. Market. in the morning. It was a lot busier a year or so ago, but the increase in the past year is pretty significant.
That said, it really isn't very busy even now.
The number of trucks leaving I-20 for US 79 (LA169) at Greenwood is insane.
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on January 10, 2023, 09:11:08 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on January 10, 2023, 08:34:46 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on January 10, 2023, 08:18:08 PM
I did notice that US 79 between Shreveport and Carthage had more trucks than I expected for a two-lane rural highway when I drove it about a month ago. I also find it interesting that you said traffic has increased on I-49 between Texarkana and Shreveport. Traffic must have been super-dead when it first opened!
Truck traffic has probably tripled in the past year. Auto traffic is up some. I can remember after it was completely open from Texarkana to I-220 never passing or getting passed all the way from Texarkana to N. Market. in the morning. It was a lot busier a year or so ago, but the increase in the past year is pretty significant.
That said, it really isn't very busy even now.
The number of trucks leaving I-20 for US 79 (LA169) at Greenwood is insane.
Yeah I got stuck behind two slow-turning trucks at that interchange and pretty much all the way to the LA/TX border. I guess it shows the need for I-69 in the area, which I had not considered to be important section in the past, but now I actually see why it will be necessary in the future. Maybe in 20-30 years we'll start seeing talks of building I-69 in LA.
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on January 10, 2023, 09:11:08 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on January 10, 2023, 08:34:46 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on January 10, 2023, 08:18:08 PM
I did notice that US 79 between Shreveport and Carthage had more trucks than I expected for a two-lane rural highway when I drove it about a month ago. I also find it interesting that you said traffic has increased on I-49 between Texarkana and Shreveport. Traffic must have been super-dead when it first opened!
Truck traffic has probably tripled in the past year. Auto traffic is up some. I can remember after it was completely open from Texarkana to I-220 never passing or getting passed all the way from Texarkana to N. Market. in the morning. It was a lot busier a year or so ago, but the increase in the past year is pretty significant.
That said, it really isn't very busy even now.
The number of trucks leaving I-20 for US 79 (LA169) at Greenwood is insane.
A lot of that is actually for the truck stops. Even 20 years ago when there was only Flying J and NO I-49 N there was crazy truck traffic for Flying J. Has to be even more with Love's there too. Much of this traffic is I-20 using the truck stops traffic; NOT US-79 traffic.
Have there been any Future Interstate 369 signs erected along the US 59 corridor between Texarkana and Tenaha, since it will likely be quite some time before the freeway is completed south of Texarkana? Also, does anyone know when the Interstate 369 northern extension to future Interstate 49 might be constructed?
I don't think there are any concrete plans at all for the segment of I-369 on the North side of Texarkana. AFAIK TX DOT still doesn't have plans yet for extending I-49 up across the Red River in Arkansas.
For now it seems like TX DOT is only concentrating on a couple segments of I-369 to the South of I-30. They're still trying to figure out how to get I-369 to depart from the TX-151 loop SW down the US-59 corridor. They done studies and reached a consensus to upgrade along the existing US-59 roadway, but that will mean buying and clearing a whole lot of properties. Extending I-369 North of I-30 appears to be an even more difficult problem. It looks like any Northern quadrant of a I-369 loop would have to extend North from I-30 out miles West of town.
Bypass plans in Marshall appear father along. Construction on that could begin in the next couple years.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 11, 2023, 01:31:45 PM
I don't think there are any concrete plans at all for the segment of I-369 on the North side of Texarkana. AFAIK TX DOT still doesn't have plans yet for extending I-49 up across the Red River in Arkansas.
For now it seems like TX DOT is only concentrating on a couple segments of I-369 to the South of I-30. They're still trying to figure out how to get I-369 to depart from the TX-151 loop SW down the US-59 corridor. They done studies and reached a consensus to upgrade along the existing US-59 roadway, but that will mean buying and clearing a whole lot of properties. Extending I-369 North of I-30 appears to be an even more difficult problem. It looks like any Northern quadrant of a I-369 loop would have to extend North from I-30 out miles West of town.
Bypass plans in Marshall appear father along. Construction on that could begin in the next couple years.
As I understand it, TXDOT has purchased the I-49 path north of Texarkana and is allowing the previous owners to continue using it for agricultural use until the time comes to build the road. That may be decades from now.
US-59 / Loop-390 around Marshall TXDOT looks to be planning to build from US-80 to IH-20 beginning, as you said, in the next couple of years. It initially would use a I-20 link to the existing US-59 near the south of town. The portion from IH-20 to the current US-59 probably would be farther down the line.
As to I-369 there are zero plans beyond I-30. Texarkana interests are firmly wanting it to come to LOOP-151 as 59 currently does. There is discussion for I-369 to extend slightly west of FM2148 to meet I-49 north of Texarkana Texas, but that is a non-starter until I-369 or I-X30 meets Loop 151.
As to extending I-369 directly north of I-30, that is not really feasible now. The original plan of I-49 (or the "NEW US-71" as it was called back then), was for it to follow the current Loop 151 from US-71 west around Texarkana Texas and then to continue to the currently identified Red River Crossing.
When Mike Huckabee was Arkansas governor, all of this changed. Huckabee had Arkansas start building I-49 around the East side of town. Any sense of cooperation between the two sides (which up until the late 90's shared a police force) soon dried up. Huckabee even had the ZIP codes changed in Miller County from "Texas based" 755XX numbers to "Arkansas based" 718XX ones. It got even worse when Former Texarkana (Texas) ISD Superintendent became the Texas side city manager. Today, The fire departments do not aid one another. Mutual aid from Nash or Wake Village goes to TA but the two Texarkanas do not provide mutual aid for fires. Arkansas side
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2023, 12:37:46 PM
Have there been any Future Interstate 369 signs erected along the US 59 corridor between Texarkana and Tenaha, since it will likely be quite some time before the freeway is completed south of Texarkana? Also, does anyone know when the Interstate 369 northern extension to future Interstate 49 might be constructed?
There are no "future I-369 signs." The last Future sign is for I-69 in Shelby county that is not even on the currently favored route.
Ironically the Texarkana part of I-369 was supposed to be "New US-71" (I-49) The current minute order for US-71 in Texas says so.
U. S. HIGHWAY NO. 71
Minute Order 016701, dated 09/26/1939
From the Texas/Arkansas State Line south of Index to Texarkana. General Redescription of Highway System.
Minute Order 100814, 04/28/1992; Des Ltr 03-1992, 09/14/1992
From the Texas/Arkansas S/L north of Texarkana, southward and concurrent with US 59 to IH 30; and then continuing southward on State Line Road to its junction with US 67/US 82, a distance of approximately 8.4 miles; and also on new location from the Texas/Arkansas S/L, northwest of Texarkana, southeastward to the intersection of IH 30/US 59; then southward and concurrent with US 59 to SH 93/SL 151; then southward, eastward and concurrent with SL 151 to State Line Road, a total distance of approximately 24.6 miles. (Bowie County) (New Description) Section on new location added from the Texas/Arkansas State Line, northwest of Texarkana, southeastward to State Line Rd in south Texarkana. Upon completion of the new location of US 71, the present designation of US 71 north of Texarkana, from the Texas/Arkansas State Line southward to IH 30 will be cancelled and retained as US 59; the present designation of US 71, from IH 30 southward to its junction with US 67/US 82 will be cancelled and redesignated in conjunction and cooperation with the State of Arkansas; the present designation of SL 151, from US 59.eastward to State Line Road will be cancelled and retained as US 71.
I wonder how much longer before anymore construction starts on the section between Texarkana and Marshall, Tx?
Possibly in 2025: https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-369-tx/.
https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/proposed-i-369-project-detailed-in-marshall/article_eb29bc58-4ce9-11ee-a81b-4fa39b5f3ee3.html
Looks like we won't see the Marshall bypass (via SL-390 for half of it) anytime soon, just early ROW acquisition for 2024-2026
(https://i.imgur.com/D57indP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/2NHf69I.jpg)
Construction won't start until 2028, meaning the private Texas Super-2 Tollway 49 would be extended by the early 2030s a decade from now