Interstate 369

[Anthony_JK]

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 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".




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.

[sparker]

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 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".




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!"   

[dariusb]

I can only imagine how bad traffic will be in Texarkana in the next 2 decades.

[sparker]

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! 

[Bobby5280]

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.

[sparker]

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!

[dariusb]

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 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".




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.

[dvferyance]

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?

[sparker]

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.   

[O Tamandua]

The 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.

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/

[sparker]

The 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.

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. 

[Anthony_JK]

The 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.

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.

[edwaleni]

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.

[NE2]

Actually Laredo-Texarkana was only of the original HPCs. It's the bullshit from Tenaha to Memphis that was tacked on.

[sparker]

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. 

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.             

[edwaleni]

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. 

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?

[Bobby5280]

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).

[sparker]

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.

[dariusb]

The 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.
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/

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
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!   

[Bobby5280]

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.

[dariusb]

^^^^^^^^
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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[sparker]

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.