News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Interstate 369

Started by Grzrd, October 19, 2013, 10:41:06 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

bugo

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".


Alps

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.

US71

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)?
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

NE2

I should have said "I-840, person making a false statement authoritatively". But then he'd be Kettle.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Strider

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.

bugo

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

Grzrd

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 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 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.

Anthony_JK

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.

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Grzrd

#34
Quote from: Grzrd on March 01, 2014, 10:47:18 PM
This Feb. 25 article 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 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, 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."

codyg1985

Why is there a new alignment needed for I-20?
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

MaxConcrete

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.
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

Grzrd

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 thread)

The Marshall Working Group's June 10, 2014 Agenda 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):


Henry

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.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

US71

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.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Sykotyk

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.

Grzrd

#41
Quote from: Grzrd on June 24, 2014, 11:14:54 PM
The Marshall Working Group's June 10, 2014 Agenda 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):

This article 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.

Grzrd

#42
Quote from: Grzrd on August 14, 2014, 09:28:26 PM
This article 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 that includes interchange schematics and the location of a potential interchange with Toll 49.

edit

Here is a slide of the preliminary recommendation:


jasondobbins


Grzrd

The Texas Transportation Commission has posted TxDOT's December 18 I-369 Route Study presentation 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):


NE2

That route includes the east half of Loop 390; the interchange at SH 43 is set up for easy dualling.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Grzrd

#46
Quote from: Grzrd on October 19, 2013, 10:41:06 AM
This article 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 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 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:


Grzrd

#47
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) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on January 03, 2015, 12:42:26 PM
This article:
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 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 thread)

While searching for FHWA's Interstate Route Log, I stumbled across the following guidance from FHWA regarding a "progression" in 3di numbering:



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.

NE2

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.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

dfwmapper

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.