Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[US71]

US 59 was originally supposed to follow AR41 to DeQueen but temporarily routed through Texarkana because there was a bridge at Texarkana.  It initially followed the current TX8 from Linden to  Boston (New Boston) then followed US82 to Texarkana. Later it was shortened to skip New Boston and followed US67 directly to Texarkana. When Wright Patman Lake was built, it was redirected along SH47 from Linden to Atlanta to Texarkana (by then the District TXDOT office was in Atlanta).

As to I-49 in Oklahoma,  It would still be a fit to follow US59 to US271 then back to Ft Smith. That said, OK has as little money as Arkansas especially for Southeast Oklahoma.  This is the place where JFK came to open US259 where no real road had existed before. 

A good route for I49 would have been Texarkana to roughly Foreman AR to Idabel then roughly follow US259 to US59 Near Paige OK then to 271. (The distance would be little different than the proposed moutain route through Arkansas

It looks like I49 will stay entirely in Arkansas and probably will take 25 years or more to complete. I really don't see it taking any less anywhere else.

I saw a map a while back showing 49 will swing into Texas north of Texakana, re-entering Arkansas near Ashdown.  Remember: it all but does already.

[sparker]

US 59 was originally supposed to follow AR41 to DeQueen but temporarily routed through Texarkana because there was a bridge at Texarkana.  It initially followed the current TX8 from Linden to  Boston (New Boston) then followed US82 to Texarkana. Later it was shortened to skip New Boston and followed US67 directly to Texarkana. When Wright Patman Lake was built, it was redirected along SH47 from Linden to Atlanta to Texarkana (by then the District TXDOT office was in Atlanta).

As to I-49 in Oklahoma,  It would still be a fit to follow US59 to US271 then back to Ft Smith. That said, OK has as little money as Arkansas especially for Southeast Oklahoma.  This is the place where JFK came to open US259 where no real road had existed before. 

A good route for I49 would have been Texarkana to roughly Foreman AR to Idabel then roughly follow US259 to US59 Near Paige OK then to 271. (The distance would be little different than the proposed moutain route through Arkansas

It looks like I49 will stay entirely in Arkansas and probably will take 25 years or more to complete. I really don't see it taking any less anywhere else.

I saw a map a while back showing 49 will swing into Texas north of Texakana, re-entering Arkansas near Ashdown.  Remember: it all but does already.

And from the scuttlebutt I've heard, TxDOT is taking lead on the design of the I-49 Red River bridge.  No word on bridge format as of yet (I'd guess either a standard girder/prestressed concrete or a 4-lane+shoulders/median through truss). 

[Revive 755]

And from the scuttlebutt I've heard, TxDOT is taking lead on the design of the I-49 Red River bridge.  No word on bridge format as of yet (I'd guess either a standard girder/prestressed concrete or a 4-lane+shoulders/median through truss).

I go with a standard girder design given the downstream bridges use it.

[bwana39]

US 59 was originally supposed to follow AR41 to DeQueen but temporarily routed through Texarkana because there was a bridge at Texarkana.  It initially followed the current TX8 from Linden to  Boston (New Boston) then followed US82 to Texarkana. Later it was shortened to skip New Boston and followed US67 directly to Texarkana. When Wright Patman Lake was built, it was redirected along SH47 from Linden to Atlanta to Texarkana (by then the District TXDOT office was in Atlanta).

As to I-49 in Oklahoma,  It would still be a fit to follow US59 to US271 then back to Ft Smith. That said, OK has as little money as Arkansas especially for Southeast Oklahoma.  This is the place where JFK came to open US259 where no real road had existed before. 

A good route for I49 would have been Texarkana to roughly Foreman AR to Idabel then roughly follow US259 to US59 Near Paige OK then to 271. (The distance would be little different than the proposed moutain route through Arkansas

It looks like I49 will stay entirely in Arkansas and probably will take 25 years or more to complete. I really don't see it taking any less anywhere else.

I saw a map a while back showing 49 will swing into Texas north of Texakana, re-entering Arkansas near Ashdown.  Remember: it all but does already.

And from the scuttlebutt I've heard, TxDOT is taking lead on the design of the I-49 Red River bridge.  No word on bridge format as of yet (I'd guess either a standard girder/prestressed concrete or a 4-lane+shoulders/median through truss).

I think a girder type bridge. TXDOT is just finishing up the crossing on US259 and it is that type. The bridges on US 71 are that type. So is the I30 bridge(s) built in 2017 by ARDOT. No reason to think these would be any other type.  I don't think a truss bridge has been built on a highway in Texas or Arkansas since the sixties, Maybe earlier.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^^ why are Truss style bridges not built anymore?

[Rothman]

^^^^ why are Truss style bridges not built anymore?

Cost, both to build and to maintain.  Say "truss bridge" at NYSDOT and people start groaning.

[Revive 755]

^ Plus truss bridges have less redundancy/more issues with being fracture critical.

[sparker]

^^^  In retrospect, the only Interstate truss bridge that seems to have been deployed in the last quarter-century was the I-72 Mississippi River bridge at Hannibal, MO.  With cable-stay being the current favorite for longer spans and prestressed girder bridges for shorter/sectional spans, trusses seem to have fallen out of favor.  Oregon DOT replaced the Santiam River twin trusses on I-5 with a girder structure back in the early '90's, and CA did the same with the Cottonwood Creek bridges between Red Bluff and Redding on that same Interstate.  There are some remaining in WA, including the Columbia River I-90 crossing and half of the I-82 bridge over that river into OR, as well as a few along I-5.  Painted WashDOT green, they're actually pretty attractive (although it's likely the green masks any rust!).

[splashflash]

^^^  In retrospect, the only Interstate truss bridge that seems to have been deployed in the last quarter-century was the I-72 Mississippi River bridge at Hannibal, MO.  With cable-stay being the current favorite for longer spans and prestressed girder bridges for shorter/sectional spans, trusses seem to have fallen out of favor.  Oregon DOT replaced the Santiam River twin trusses on I-5 with a girder structure back in the early '90's, and CA did the same with the Cottonwood Creek bridges between Red Bluff and Redding on that same Interstate.  There are some remaining in WA, including the Columbia River I-90 crossing and half of the I-82 bridge over that river into OR, as well as a few along I-5.  Painted WashDOT green, they're actually pretty attractive (although it's likely the green masks any rust!).

The Columbia has some great truss bridges on US highways, 101,  the Megler-Astoria cantilever truss bridge, US 197, 97, and 395/I-82. 

On I-5 in 2013 at the Skagit River in Burlington, the lanes were closed because an over-height truck hitting the bridge cross-member resulted in the bridge collapsing.  "This steel through-truss bridge had a "fracture-critical" design with non-redundant load-bearing beams and joints that were each essential to the whole structure staying intact. An initial failure (perhaps by cracking) of a single essential part can sometimes overload other parts and make them fail, which quickly triggers a chain reaction of even more failures and causes the entire bridge span to collapse."

[In_Correct]

The only reason why Truss Bridges as well as Cantilever Bridges as well as Arch Bridges are not constructed so much any more is be cause of current trends.

I have yet to encounter a freight rail bridge that is the fancy cable stayed bridge or fancy suspension bridge that can be seen from very far away. They like to light up these fancy cable stayed bridges and these fancy suspension bridges at night also. 

While they did replace the metal Purcell Lexington Bridge in Oklahoma, on the basis of rewelding it,

Quite recently, there is now a rail truss bridge some where going over Interstate 35. I doubt that Oklahoma prefers Truss Bridges.

Despite the maintenance requirement of Truss Bridges, there must be some essential advantage to building them. Be cause they just did.

And some where else on Interstate 35 has a bridge containing in addition to the visible metal beams, also has V or Triangle Shaped metal bridge piers.

Do they need to be rewelded also?

[Revive 755]

^^^  In retrospect, the only Interstate truss bridge that seems to have been deployed in the last quarter-century was the I-72 Mississippi River bridge at Hannibal, MO.

Nitpick:  The superstructure replacement on the WB I-70/Blanchette Bridge over the Missouri River at St. Charles, MO was a truss, but that was due to wanting to match the design of the historic superstructure.

[sparker]

^^^  In retrospect, the only Interstate truss bridge that seems to have been deployed in the last quarter-century was the I-72 Mississippi River bridge at Hannibal, MO.

Nitpick:  The superstructure replacement on the WB I-70/Blanchette Bridge over the Missouri River at St. Charles, MO was a truss, but that was due to wanting to match the design of the historic superstructure.

Technically a "correct correction".  I should have specified a "new" Interstate bridge -- as opposed to a replacement for an existing structure. 

[In_Correct]

Interstate 235:

https://www.google.com/maps/search/I-35+Oklahoma+Rail+Truss+Bridge/@35.5208598,-97.5162306,17z

https://www.google.com/maps/search/I-35+Oklahoma+Rail+Truss+Bridge/@35.5208598,-97.5162306,284m/data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Railroad+bridge/@35.5217571,-97.5193993,284m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sI-35+Oklahoma+Rail+Truss+Bridge!3m4!1s0x87b219f3d4e9c54b:0xca7aaf46bc9c7c50!8m2!3d35.5217571!4d-97.5172106

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5225018,-97.5174782,3a,15.3y,160.3h,87.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdAIeLTy-vzQqwNdSTyOsOw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DdAIeLTy-vzQqwNdSTyOsOw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D356.1136%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

[sparker]

Interstate 235:

https://www.google.com/maps/search/I-35+Oklahoma+Rail+Truss+Bridge/@35.5208598,-97.5162306,17z

https://www.google.com/maps/search/I-35+Oklahoma+Rail+Truss+Bridge/@35.5208598,-97.5162306,284m/data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Railroad+bridge/@35.5217571,-97.5193993,284m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sI-35+Oklahoma+Rail+Truss+Bridge!3m4!1s0x87b219f3d4e9c54b:0xca7aaf46bc9c7c50!8m2!3d35.5217571!4d-97.5172106

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5225018,-97.5174782,3a,15.3y,160.3h,87.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdAIeLTy-vzQqwNdSTyOsOw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DdAIeLTy-vzQqwNdSTyOsOw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D356.1136%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Railroad trusses have never gone "out of style"; they're specifically designed to carry extremely heavy loads for extended periods of time (i.e. if a train needs to be "parked" over a bridge).  Pretty much every major RR serving CA employed trusses; there are several on UP's former SP "Coast Line" between L.A. and San Jose, presently the Amtrak "Coast Starlight" route.  But, as with the instances on I-5, the farther north one goes, the more RR truss bridges are seen.  Actually, in N CA there are two not immediately apparent truss bridges -- the first one, on I-5, is the Pit River bridge over Shasta Lake; I-5 rides on the top of the truss while the UP tracks sit below it through the truss structure.  The second example is on CA 70 northeast of the CA 191 junction; like the I-5/UP example, it too features a UP line (this time former Western Pacific) through the truss with the roadway atop the structure.  It was constructed as part of the 1963 bypass of Oroville Lake, with both the highway (at that time Alternate US 40) and RR realigned around the lake's perimeter pending the 1965 completion of Oroville Dam. 

But besides these two relative oddities, there are numerous "normal" through RR trusses north of Sacramento; the Amtrak line from that city north to Portland features at least a half-dozen along its length, several in the Sacramento River Canyon between Redding and Mt. Shasta.

[Bobby5280]

I would expect the I-49 bridge over the Red River from Texas back into Arkansas to be a "plain" design. It doesn't need any more clearance that just the extreme up and down cycles of the river itself. There isn't any barge traffic on that part of the river.

Barge traffic on the Red River goes no farther North than Shreveport. I don't know if the project is funded but the Army Corps of Engineers does have plans on the books to install locks and do other improvements to the Red River to allow barge traffic to reach the Texarkana area.

If the Red River is made navigable by barges up to the Texarkana area I would bet the last inland port would go no farther North than the US-82 crossing East of Texarkana. I sure wouldn't expect the navigable channel to reach as far as the US-71 crossing North of Texarkana. That would translate to a decent number of bridges needing replacement.

[Road Hog]

A couple of years ago there was a newspaper article discussing the possibility of making the Red River navigable all the way to Denison Dam. It’s probably pure speculation.

But if there’s anything to it at all, the span of this bridge will have to take it into account. Be a shame to build a bridge and have to tear it down 10-15 years later.

[sparker]

A couple of years ago there was a newspaper article discussing the possibility of making the Red River navigable all the way to Denison Dam. It’s probably pure speculation.

But if there’s anything to it at all, the span of this bridge will have to take it into account. Be a shame to build a bridge and have to tear it down 10-15 years later.

If such plans became reality, there would be at least six bridges upstream from the planned I-49 crossing that would have to be replaced by high-level structures.  The only reason for dredging the Red River to Denison would be if a DFW-serving "inland port" were planned for the Denison area (putting a canal/lock system bypassing the dam would likely be prohibitively expensive).  Nevertheless, with replacement bridges in six locations adding to the cost of such a project, it's probably permanently "back-burnered" if not completely dropped.  If DFW was actually adjacent to the river rather than 70 miles south, some sort of port facility would already be in place; but it's already a major distribution hub because of its siting at both rail and roadway junctions; adding barge traffic seventy miles distant from the metro hub  -- and requiring a secondary haulage leg -- to that mix likely wouldn't add substantial value to its current status.  An accurate and realistic C/B analysis would almost certainly affirm that conclusion; if I were TxDOT, I wouldn't be too concerned about providing high clearance for I-49 (or even the US 69/75 bridge)     

[bwana39]

A couple of years ago there was a newspaper article discussing the possibility of making the Red River navigable all the way to Denison Dam. It’s probably pure speculation.

But if there’s anything to it at all, the span of this bridge will have to take it into account. Be a shame to build a bridge and have to tear it down 10-15 years later.

If such plans became reality, there would be at least six bridges upstream from the planned I-49 crossing that would have to be replaced by high-level structures.  The only reason for dredging the Red River to Denison would be if a DFW-serving "inland port" were planned for the Denison area (putting a canal/lock system bypassing the dam would likely be prohibitively expensive).  Nevertheless, with replacement bridges in six locations adding to the cost of such a project, it's probably permanently "back-burnered" if not completely dropped.  If DFW was actually adjacent to the river rather than 70 miles south, some sort of port facility would already be in place; but it's already a major distribution hub because of its siting at both rail and roadway junctions; adding barge traffic seventy miles distant from the metro hub  -- and requiring a secondary haulage leg -- to that mix likely wouldn't add substantial value to its current status.  An accurate and realistic C/B analysis would almost certainly affirm that conclusion; if I were TxDOT, I wouldn't be too concerned about providing high clearance for I-49 (or even the US 69/75 bridge)   

Most if not all of the bridges past the Arkansas / Louisiana line are too low for routine barge traffic.  Especially the new KCS bridge North of Texarkana.  Downstream is as big a deterrent as upstream.

[Bobby5280]

Here's an article from March, 2019 about extending the barge channel up to Texarakana.
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/mar/10/barges-on-red-found-feasible-20190310/

The plan illustrated in the article shows the barge channel system going as far as the US-71 crossing North of Texarkana.

This article says there is indeed talk of extending the barge channel to Denison. No feasibility studies have been completed. I'm not sure how a barge channel along the TX/OK border to Denison can work. The Red River is pretty shallow and has a very crooked, swirly path. There's lots of sandbars and disconnected crescent shaped ponds that were formerly part of the river. If a pilot channel were built from Texarakana to Denison I would expect a considerably more straight path would be dredged.

There is a lot of environmental risk in altering a river system. Much of the coastal erosion taking place in Louisiana is the result of human intervention against river flow. We dredged the Mississippi River deeper. Over 100 years ago we removed the Great Red River Raft logjam. That allowed far more of Red River waters to flow direct into the Mississippi than into the Atchafalaya. The various dams and levees built in the following decades greatly reduced the amount of fresh water flowing through the swamp and marsh lands. Salt water is able to intrude and eventually kill the plant life helping hold dry and wetlands in place.

[rte66man]

Here's an article from March, 2019 about extending the barge channel up to Texarakana.
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/mar/10/barges-on-red-found-feasible-20190310/

The plan illustrated in the article shows the barge channel system going as far as the US-71 crossing North of Texarkana.

This article says there is indeed talk of extending the barge channel to Denison. No feasibility studies have been completed. I'm not sure how a barge channel along the TX/OK border to Denison can work. The Red River is pretty shallow and has a very crooked, swirly path. There's lots of sandbars and disconnected crescent shaped ponds that were formerly part of the river. If a pilot channel were built from Texarakana to Denison I would expect a considerably more straight path would be dredged.

There is a lot of environmental risk in altering a river system. Much of the coastal erosion taking place in Louisiana is the result of human intervention against river flow. We dredged the Mississippi River deeper. Over 100 years ago we removed the Great Red River Raft logjam. That allowed far more of Red River waters to flow direct into the Mississippi than into the Atchafalaya. The various dams and levees built in the following decades greatly reduced the amount of fresh water flowing through the swamp and marsh lands. Salt water is able to intrude and eventually kill the plant life helping hold dry and wetlands in place.

+1
What a stupid idea.  I can't begin to imagine the screams to release water from Lake Texoma to ensure adequate water for barge traffic if it was ever built. 

[kphoger]

^^^^ why are Truss style bridges not built anymore?

Cost, both to build and to maintain.  Say "truss bridge"at NYSDOT to any anyone who works at or in partnership with any DOT and people start groaning.

Edited for accuracy.

Just the painting alone really adds up.

[sparker]

^^^^ why are Truss style bridges not built anymore?

Cost, both to build and to maintain.  Say "truss bridge"at NYSDOT to any anyone who works at or in partnership with any DOT and people start groaning.

Edited for accuracy.

Just the painting alone really adds up.

Rust-Oleum must be making their nut with WashDOT and BNSF alone (and those green bridges are mighty purty!).

[bwana39]

Back when Jim Chapman was Congressman for Northeast Texas, he had this pipe dream of "the Daingerfield Reach". Basically to make Cypress Bayou / Cypress Creek navigable from the Red River (near Shreveport) through the west end of Lake -O-the-Pines.  This was about the same length as to Index and it also was far too expensive. (Even not considering the sizeable opposition from the Caddo Lake environmental groups.) 

Here's an article from March, 2019 about extending the barge channel up to Texarakana.
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/mar/10/barges-on-red-found-feasible-20190310/

The plan illustrated in the article shows the barge channel system going as far as the US-71 crossing North of Texarkana.

This article says there is indeed talk of extending the barge channel to Denison. No feasibility studies have been completed. I'm not sure how a barge channel along the TX/OK border to Denison can work. The Red River is pretty shallow and has a very crooked, swirly path. There's lots of sandbars and disconnected crescent shaped ponds that were formerly part of the river. If a pilot channel were built from Texarakana to Denison I would expect a considerably more straight path would be dredged.

There is a lot of environmental risk in altering a river system. Much of the coastal erosion taking place in Louisiana is the result of human intervention against river flow. We dredged the Mississippi River deeper. Over 100 years ago we removed the Great Red River Raft logjam. That allowed far more of Red River waters to flow direct into the Mississippi than into the Atchafalaya. The various dams and levees built in the following decades greatly reduced the amount of fresh water flowing through the swamp and marsh lands. Salt water is able to intrude and eventually kill the plant life helping hold dry and wetlands in place.

[triplemultiplex]

May that Red River barge idea die the quiet death a hideous waste of money like that deserves.

What would such barges even carry?  There's nothing being produced in such quantity in the Texarkana region that it's in need of goddamn barges to move it.

[Scott5114]

Maybe the idea is stuff could be brought by truck or rail to Texarkana and shipped down the Red on a barge? Or vice-versa?

In any case, the difficulty that you'd run into above Texarkana is that the river channel is entirely in Oklahoma, which would derive next to zero benefit from a navigable river channel. I don't think a port serving Durant would justify the trouble.