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

sparker

Quote from: dariusb on July 20, 2018, 01:02:08 AM
I wouldn't doubt if 369 becomes just as busy as it's parent 69. At least where they split.

If I-369 is completed prior to the segment of I-69 crossing the state line (which I don't doubt in the least!) it will, of course, retain close to all of the NB traffic on I-69 out of Houston; Shreveport traffic, for the interim, will simply turn east onto I-20.  Since the Shreveport bypass section, which partially includes the SIU crossing the line, is a major local project, it'll probably be the first part of the central I-69 segment to connect to an Interstate on both ends (itself in TX and I-20 near Barksdale).  Except for the Mississippi River bridge (whose can keeps being kicked down the road), it's likely that the I-69 segment from I-20 to I-530 near Monticello, AR will be the last to see full development -- until the whole Tenaha-Tunica section is completed, it has limited value as a SIU (Shreveport-Little Rock traffic already has the 49/30 corridor to use). 

Bottom line -- even if I-69 crosses the line and serves Shreveport, commercial traffic heading northeast will continue to shoot straight up I-369 to I-30 and then NE to their various destinations, at least until the section to Memphis is opened.  Once that is done, I would expect Memphis traffic to largely shift to I-69 to avoid congestion in and around Little Rock as well as I-40 between there and Memphis.  Won't speculate on traffic bound for St. Louis and the Great Lakes (including, of course, Chicago) until a schedule for completion of I-57 in AR and MO is forthcoming in order to see how that corridor fits into the overall regional picture.   


Bobby5280

There is no way I-69 would be routed up to Texarkana and multiplexed with I-30.

OTOH, I absolutely expect TX DOT to heavily prioritize building out I-369 to Tenaha and I-69 up from Houston to the same point. Why wouldn't they do that? As long as the federal government leaves it up to individual states to complete their own segments of the I-69 system as they can scrounge money for it each state is going to build the segments that serve it best, other states be damned.

Regarding Louisiana and its section of I-69, the only way I see LA convincing TX DOT to build that 15 mile segment of I-69 from Tenaha over to Logansport any time soon is if LADOTD builds much of its own portion of I-69 first. LADOTD already has other costly and arguably higher priorities like finishing I-49 South and building the I-49 ICC within Shreveport. I think those two projects will help LA more than finishing I-69.

The federal government will have to go through a major change in philosophy/ideology for some of the segments of I-69 to get built within the next 30 or so years. I sure don't see Mississippi completing their part of I-69 and the Great River Bridge without a great deal of federal funding help.

Regarding shifts of commercial traffic if/when I-69 is completed between Houston and Memphis, we'll just have to see how the mileage of routes compares once that comes to pass. The proposed path of I-69 through Arkansas and Mississippi is pretty crooked. There may be little if any mileage savings taking that route versus I-369 up to Texarkana and then I-30 and I-40 over to Memphis.

Completion of I-57 between Little Rock and Sikeston would definitely make I-369 a more attractive route for port traffic headed to places like Chicago.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 20, 2018, 03:11:36 PM
Regarding shifts of commercial traffic if/when I-69 is completed between Houston and Memphis, we'll just have to see how the mileage of routes compares once that comes to pass. The proposed path of I-69 through Arkansas and Mississippi is pretty crooked. There may be little if any mileage savings taking that route versus I-369 up to Texarkana and then I-30 and I-40 over to Memphis.

Completion of I-57 between Little Rock and Sikeston would definitely make I-369 a more attractive route for port traffic headed to places like Chicago.

It's not the admittedly marginal mileage differential of I-69 versus a Texarkana-Little Rock/I-30/40 routing that's going to be the deciding factor of what route is taken, it's the chokepoints presented by Little Rock; although the presence of I-440 helps a bit -- although it's starting to be a problem in and of itself because, well, just about every trucker in the region uses it from point A to point B (why wouldn't they!).  And once beyond there is encountered the oppressively heavy traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55; that's not going to go away anytime soon even if 6-laned!  I-69 won't become the main Texas-Memphis corridor overnight; it'll simply be a viable alternative to what's out there today.   

Grzrd


sparker

Looks as if the new-terrain alignment west of the existing I-369 segment and passing by the TexAmericas facility is no longer being considered for this segment of the route -- at least for now (always the potential for being added later as an outer loop).  Since it won't be practical to extend the current I-369/US 59 freeway north to meet I-49, that function would naturally be shifted to I-30 or Loop 151; wouldn't be surprised if I-status for that loop is sought in the next few years.  With the Marshall bypass slated for near-term development and the other "spot" projects along the route, it looks like the I-69 corridor backers aren't letting up on the pressure!

dariusb

Sparker, I remember when the north loop was to be signed as I-249. Now that 369 is not following the TexAmericas route and more likely to follow hwy 59 into Texarkana,  wouldn't that be more expensive to build with all of the homes and businesses in that parti of the city?
It's a new day for a new beginning.

sparker

Quote from: dariusb on July 29, 2018, 02:35:00 AM
Sparker, I remember when the north loop was to be signed as I-249. Now that 369 is not following the TexAmericas route and more likely to follow hwy 59 into Texarkana,  wouldn't that be more expensive to build with all of the homes and businesses in that parti of the city?

At this point in time, it's unlikely that the presently signed I-369/US 59 freeway will be extended north of I-30; there's just too much in the way of development in any conceivable pathway to make it politically and financially feasible.  For the time being, the two ways for I-369 traffic to get over to I-49 are Loop 151 and, of course, I-30.  It's not inconceivable that the TexAmericas corridor around the west side of town and looping east to meet I-49 during its brief time in TX may be developed somewhat later, probably well after the I-49 trunk north of town is up and running.  In the meantime, traffic will simply have to utilize one of the two existing area E-W freeways to get to I-49; in my estimation, TXDOT and ARDOT will at some point jointly request Interstate designation for Loop 151.  If not, that route could always be prominently "trailblazered" as "TO I-369" and "TO I-49" respectively.

dariusb

How about building 369 south from the loop toward Atlanta? The portion from the loop down 59 through the southern side of town has homes and businesses as well. I wonder could they elevate the main lanes like they did with I-44/287 in Wichita Falls?
It's a new day for a new beginning.

sparker

Quote from: dariusb on July 30, 2018, 09:29:47 PM
How about building 369 south from the loop toward Atlanta? The portion from the loop down 59 through the southern side of town has homes and businesses as well. I wonder could they elevate the main lanes like they did with I-44/287 in Wichita Falls?

There's going to be some property taking no matter what south-of-the-loop option is selected.  What you seem to be suggesting is a further extension of the "east route" (orange line) concept to well past Atlanta.  Any concept not along the present US 59 alignment would have its pros and cons; in favor would be the lower expense, in this case, of a new-terrain route, whereas anything along the current route would require multiple structures and, likely, the provision of frontage roads to serve as access points to the current businesses and residences adjacent to US 59.  The choice of facility type would depend upon preliminary exposition and subsequent feedback from local property owners -- in other words, the usual vetting process for such things.  But an elevated structure such as found in Wichita Falls is unlikely -- there was little other choice in the case of WF without razing multiple blocks; here, there are viable options along and away from the existing highway.

dariusb

Ok. The only reason I brought that particular route is because from some of what I've read there is interest in using the existing 369 and the only way I see that happening is to go up 59 to the loop or go through the Liberty Eylau neighborhood. Just out of curiosity, since you have a knowledge of this project,  if you had to pick any route for this leg of the project which would you pick?
It's a new day for a new beginning.

sparker

Quote from: dariusb on July 31, 2018, 09:33:13 PM
Ok. The only reason I brought that particular route is because from some of what I've read there is interest in using the existing 369 and the only way I see that happening is to go up 59 to the loop or go through the Liberty Eylau neighborhood. Just out of curiosity, since you have a knowledge of this project,  if you had to pick any route for this leg of the project which would you pick?

Simple.  Build I-369 up to somewhere near the present junction of US 59, Loop 151, and existing I-369 as in all iterations of the current plan.  Then I'd get MSR Loop 151 re-designated as something like I-449.  And then I'd let I-49 be developed north of Texarkana as ARDOT has the funding to do so.  I wouldn't worry about a northern I-369 extension; let it terminate at I-30 as it presently does; for the time being, that'll be the most used facility.  The new "I-449" along present 151 would serve as the route to shunt traffic over directly to I-49 without having to overload I-30 with such traffic (not that any of that will occur until I-49 is completed north to Fort Smith). 

Now -- if and when an outer loop passing near the TexAmericas facility to the west is planned and constructed, it can serve as an I-369 to I-49 connector while avoiding much of Texarkana itself.  But the presently-doable arrangement outlined above should be more than adequate for the near term. 

The Ghostbuster

I don't think Interstate 369 should have been designated in Texarkana until work on the freeway connection towards its future junction with Interstate 69 was well underway. Signing existing 369 in Texarkana was very premature, in my opinion.

sparker

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 01, 2018, 08:09:27 PM
I don't think Interstate 369 should have been designated in Texarkana until work on the freeway connection towards its future junction with Interstate 69 was well underway. Signing existing 369 in Texarkana was very premature, in my opinion.

That seems to be an opinion shared by numerous posters, including myself; the fact that the signed portion doesn't lend itself to a readily-developed northern connection to the future I-49 corridor should have caused it to be dropped from consideration early on.  But the I-69 conceptual backers -- by now we all know who they are -- really wanted to establish their I-369 foothold in the area, and the N-S US 59 portion of the Texarkana southern loop was just sitting there waiting for them.  But right now that's "water under the bridge"; further development will have to use what's available -- and that's the existing Texarkana freeway "network".  The powers that be made their bed, and now whoever uses the various corridors will endure the consequences.  Currently there's not enough traffic on I-49 and Loop 151 to make the local situation problematic -- but we'll certainly see once I-49 north of Shreveport is functionally completed and starts carrying substantial traffic bound for eastward I-30.  If Texarkana becomes a congested "chokepoint", TXDOT and the Alliance for I-69/Texas will only have themselves to blame, especially if that occurs well prior to the completion of the I-69/369 composite corridor north of Houston.  When I-49 is completed north to Fort Smith and beyond (which will likely happen after I-369 is in full operation), Texarkana may well become one of the most congested smaller cities in the lower Midwest unless that "relief" bypass to the west and north is planned and built. 

dariusb

The congestion at least on the I-30 corridor in the Texarkana area is already starting to occur with plans to expand the freeway to 6 lanes between Texarkana and TexAmericas. Don't know when this will happen.
It's a new day for a new beginning.

sparker

Quote from: dariusb on August 07, 2018, 10:47:59 PM
The congestion at least on the I-30 corridor in the Texarkana area is already starting to occur with plans to expand the freeway to 6 lanes between Texarkana and TexAmericas. Don't know when this will happen.

Frankly, all of I-30 should be brought out to 6 lanes -- along with I-40 from Little Rock to Memphis.  That is the principal egress from TX -- except for Houston, hence the emphasis on the 69/369 corridor; as soon as that's completed, I-30 in AR, if not expanded, will be a hell of a mess until the Shreveport-Memphis portion of I-69 comes on line.  If & when I-57 is finished in AR and MO, that'll relieve I-40 somewhat -- but overall traffic won't do anything but increase over time from Dallas to Memphis.  Ever since BNSF set up their container terminal in Fort Worth about 17 years ago, I-30 truck traffic has increased dramatically as truck-bound container cargo finds its way east.  Once cargo from Houston and the Gulf Coast, dominated by plastics and other petrochemical products, mixes in any quantity with the containerized "conveyor belt", a recipe for congestion will be complete, and AR is "ground zero" for that occurrence.  It would certainly be ironic if all the naysayers about the central I-69 segment were to undergo an attitudinal sea change when confronted with bumper-to-bumper traffic between Little Rock and I-55!  Since the completion of the 69/369 corridor is at least 15-20 years away, it'll be interesting to see how the AADT of I-40 at, say, Brinkley, "naturally" increases over that period of time -- and what happens when the Houston traffic is put into the mix!

dariusb

I know what you say is the truth. Bad thing is people will wait until it's too late to remedy the problem. If you drive 30 between Texarkana and New Boston you'll see all kinds of truck stops/restaurants that have sprung up. Have heard for years that Texarkana's future is logistics/warehousing. Looks to be starting to happen already. 
It's a new day for a new beginning.

sparker

Quote from: dariusb on August 09, 2018, 01:05:02 AM
I know what you say is the truth. Bad thing is people will wait until it's too late to remedy the problem. If you drive 30 between Texarkana and New Boston you'll see all kinds of truck stops/restaurants that have sprung up. Have heard for years that Texarkana's future is logistics/warehousing. Looks to be starting to happen already. 

Yeah, I guess that's better than just supplying truckloads of Coors for Nascar parties in Atlanta!

(if that reference doesn't date me, then nothing will!)

cjk374

Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2018, 01:38:50 AM
Quote from: dariusb on August 09, 2018, 01:05:02 AM
I know what you say is the truth. Bad thing is people will wait until it's too late to remedy the problem. If you drive 30 between Texarkana and New Boston you'll see all kinds of truck stops/restaurants that have sprung up. Have heard for years that Texarkana's future is logistics/warehousing. Looks to be starting to happen already. 

Yeah, I guess that's better than just supplying truckloads of Coors for Nascar parties in Atlanta!

(if that reference doesn't date me, then nothing will!)

Wow...it dates me too! Hilarious !
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

GreenLanternCorps

Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2018, 01:38:50 AM
Quote from: dariusb on August 09, 2018, 01:05:02 AM
I know what you say is the truth. Bad thing is people will wait until it's too late to remedy the problem. If you drive 30 between Texarkana and New Boston you'll see all kinds of truck stops/restaurants that have sprung up. Have heard for years that Texarkana's future is logistics/warehousing. Looks to be starting to happen already. 

Yeah, I guess that's better than just supplying truckloads of Coors for Nascar parties in Atlanta!

(if that reference doesn't date me, then nothing will!)

Send bill to Big Enos Burdett...

Henry

Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2018, 02:58:35 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 01, 2018, 08:09:27 PM
I don't think Interstate 369 should have been designated in Texarkana until work on the freeway connection towards its future junction with Interstate 69 was well underway. Signing existing 369 in Texarkana was very premature, in my opinion.

That seems to be an opinion shared by numerous posters, including myself; the fact that the signed portion doesn't lend itself to a readily-developed northern connection to the future I-49 corridor should have caused it to be dropped from consideration early on.  But the I-69 conceptual backers -- by now we all know who they are -- really wanted to establish their I-369 foothold in the area, and the N-S US 59 portion of the Texarkana southern loop was just sitting there waiting for them.  But right now that's "water under the bridge"; further development will have to use what's available -- and that's the existing Texarkana freeway "network".  The powers that be made their bed, and now whoever uses the various corridors will endure the consequences.  Currently there's not enough traffic on I-49 and Loop 151 to make the local situation problematic -- but we'll certainly see once I-49 north of Shreveport is functionally completed and starts carrying substantial traffic bound for eastward I-30.  If Texarkana becomes a congested "chokepoint", TXDOT and the Alliance for I-69/Texas will only have themselves to blame, especially if that occurs well prior to the completion of the I-69/369 composite corridor north of Houston.  When I-49 is completed north to Fort Smith and beyond (which will likely happen after I-369 is in full operation), Texarkana may well become one of the most congested smaller cities in the lower Midwest unless that "relief" bypass to the west and north is planned and built. 
South of Memphis, TX is the only state that has gotten serious about building I-69, and don't be surprised if in a decade or two, I-69 reaches Nacogdoches, or Tenaha, or wherever I-369's southern end is supposed to be. While signing it in Texarkana may sound premature, at least there's a good excuse for that. If and when they build I-69 up to Shreveport, then the spur will be a more plausible route.

Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 09, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2018, 01:38:50 AM
Quote from: dariusb on August 09, 2018, 01:05:02 AM
I know what you say is the truth. Bad thing is people will wait until it's too late to remedy the problem. If you drive 30 between Texarkana and New Boston you'll see all kinds of truck stops/restaurants that have sprung up. Have heard for years that Texarkana's future is logistics/warehousing. Looks to be starting to happen already. 

Yeah, I guess that's better than just supplying truckloads of Coors for Nascar parties in Atlanta!

(if that reference doesn't date me, then nothing will!)

Send bill to Big Enos Burdett...
Look out for a mustachioed man wearing a cowboy hat and driving a black Trans Am! He'll be accompanied by an 18-wheeler hauling the beer.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

sparker

............and followed closely by an out-of-his-jurisdiction sheriff who looks suspiciously like Minnesota Fats!

O Tamandua

Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2018, 03:50:49 AM
............and followed closely by an out-of-his-jurisdiction sheriff who looks suspiciously like Minnesota Fats!

(How ol' Burt didn't cripple himself in the "beer warehouse" scene with that fall he took is beyond me, unless it was his stunt double...)

GreenLanternCorps

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 01, 2018, 08:09:27 PM
I don't think Interstate 369 should have been designated in Texarkana until work on the freeway connection towards its future junction with Interstate 69 was well underway. Signing existing 369 in Texarkana was very premature, in my opinion.

It's not unusual.  I-675 in Ohio was a short stub off of I-70 around Fairborn, Ohio for about 10 years (1975-1985) before construction was started on the rest of the freeway.


Grzrd

#173
This article reports that, in addition to the TxDOT study of a route into Texarkana and a Bowie County feasibility study of a western spur to TexAmericas Center, a small group of Texarkana citizens think the solution is to build a crosstown freeway roughly from the US 59/TX 151 interchange to the airport on the Arkansas side and to build the spur to TexAmericas Center, but not make it part of "I-69":

Quote
Despite the immense amount of effort by the individuals who contributed to writing and supporting the grant, their initiatives are being disrupted by a smaller group of citizens in the community who are advocating for a crosstown freeway in lieu of one that is directed towards the West.



Anthony_JK

These folks aren't thinking with their brains.

A crosstown expressway that would duplicate Loop 151 and I-49, and assumes that the Tenaha-Shreveport-Monticello-Greenwood-Tunica segment of I-69 isn't built? Really?

If the idea is to lessen the burden on I-30 and serve the Tex-Americas Center, then a better idea is an outer loop using the proposed Western Loop serving the Tex-Americas from Future I-369 to I-30, extended east to connect with I-49 south of Texarkana, and extended north to meet existing I-49 north of Texarkana. Call it I-449 if you may.

This is EXACTLY why the Tenaha to Memphis segment of I-69 is legitimately needed.



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.