Interstate 369

[MaxConcrete]

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

[sparker]

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

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"! 

[sprjus4]

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

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.

[Bobby5280]

How 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.

[sprjus4]

How 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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
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.   

[dariusb]

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/

[O Tamandua]

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...

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/

[O Tamandua]

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...

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".:

Making 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/

[The Ghostbuster]

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!

[sparker]

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!

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Revive 755]

^

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.

[sprjus4]

^

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.

[sparker]

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.

[O Tamandua]

Here's a man who's looking ahead, and apparently he made a convincing case to his new constituency:

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/

[sparker]

Here's a man who's looking ahead, and apparently he made a convincing case to his new constituency:

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. 

[sprjus4]

Here's a man who's looking ahead, and apparently he made a convincing case to his new constituency:

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.

[sparker]

Here's a man who's looking ahead, and apparently he made a convincing case to his new constituency:

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!

[O Tamandua]

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 (enlargable)

[dariusb]

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?

[sprjus4]

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.

[sparker]

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.     

[dariusb]

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.