News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)

Started by Grzrd, August 19, 2010, 11:13:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Stephane Dumas

Does TXDOT built a new interchange on I-30 west of Texarkana? From what I see on Google maps, it seems a new one coming http://maps.google.com/?ll=33.468573,-94.303679&spn=0.027745,0.038581&t=k&z=15

Btw, any plan to extend the I-30 service roads west of Texarkana as well? They end currently at FM-989.


NE2

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on January 25, 2012, 06:50:19 PM
Does TXDOT built a new interchange on I-30 west of Texarkana? From what I see on Google maps, it seems a new one coming http://maps.google.com/?ll=33.468573,-94.303679&spn=0.027745,0.038581&t=k&z=15
Yes, for new Spur 594.
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".

dariusb

It's a new day for a new beginning.

dariusb

1.       Yes, the existing section of US 59/Loop 151 from the interchange with US 59B/SH 93/Lake Drive to the IH 30/US 59 interchange currently meets interstate standards and could be utilized as a portion of the IH 69 facility.


Grzrd, do you really think they will use that section towards the I-69 spur? So many businesses and homes south of the current 59/Loop 151 freeway would have to be relocated in order to upgrade the rest of 59 to interstate standards. Do you think it would be cheaper to build a whole new section?

It's a new day for a new beginning.

Grzrd

#79
Quote from: dariusb on January 31, 2012, 06:01:18 PM
Grzrd, do you really think they will use that section towards the I-69 spur? So many businesses and homes south of the current 59/Loop 151 freeway would have to be relocated in order to upgrade the rest of 59 to interstate standards. Do you think it would be cheaper to build a whole new section?

I believe you are referring to an email answer I received from the Texarkana MPO:

Quote from: Grzrd on May 27, 2011, 08:41:28 PM
1. Are any sections of US 59 between Carthage and Texarkana currently interstate standard?;
The answers (from Brad McCaleb, Director, Texarkana MPO):
1. Yes, the existing section of US 59/Loop 151 from the interchange with US 59B/SH 93/Lake Drive to the IH 30/US 59 interchange currently meets interstate standards and could be utilized as a portion of the IH 69 facility.

Mr. McCaleb responded to my question about the current state of the US 59 section and said that it could be used as part of I-69.  Similarly, the Alliance for I-69 Texas "Where Interstate 69 in Texas Stands Today" page shows the the existing section of US 59/Loop 151 from the interchange with US 59B/SH 93/Lake Drive to the IH 30/US 59 interchange as being an "existing freeway section on I-69 route".

Above said, the Texarkana MPO has studied a new terrain I-69 Planning Corridor with Alternative Route from northeast of Wright Patman Lake to I-30 and over to I-49.  More recently, The Alliance for I-69 Texas Texarkana to Lufkin Projects page provides a description of where the I-69 Spur might tie in to I-30:

Quote
Preliminary alignment planning is underway on the I-69 Texarkana West Loop. The relief route would connect to Interstate 30 at a point near the former Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant site, now known as TexAmericas Center. It would run south to connect to the existing US 59 route at a point northeast of Wright Patman Lake.

Unlike the Texarkana MPO study, no mention is made of an I-30 to I-49 link.

To finally get to your question, I believe the strong preference is to build the new terrain relief route and to not use the currently existing freeway section; the meeting notes from the Texas I-69 Segment Committee 1's November 9, 2011 meeting classify the Texarkana US 59 relief route as a Recommended Priority [pages 3-4/31 of the pdf].   I do not know the comparative costs, but I am certain that costs will be a factor in the ultimate decision.

Speaking of costs, I hope the Texarkana MPO preserves the corridor for the I-30 to I-49 section of the I-69 Spur and avoids the situation that NLCOG is currently facing with the LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop in Louisiana.  :pan:

wtd67

Went through Texarkana today, forgot my camera, but used my iPhone to get some pics as I traveled north on 245 and Future I-49 & I-30 exit.

AR245 (Northbound)
At Arkansas Blvd


North of Arkansas Blvd


New Location to the right (where the pile of dirt is)


North of new location:


I-30 (Eastbound) & Future I-49


I-30 (Eastbound) & Future I-49


I-30 (Eastbound) & Future I-49


I-30 (Eastbound) & Future I-49



dariusb

#81
Quote from: Grzrd on January 31, 2012, 08:51:36 PM
Quote from: dariusb on January 31, 2012, 06:01:18 PM
Grzrd, do you really think they will use that section towards the I-69 spur? So many businesses and homes south of the current 59/Loop 151 freeway would have to be relocated in order to upgrade the rest of 59 to interstate standards. Do you think it would be cheaper to build a whole new section?
Grzrd thanks for clearing everything up for me. I'm new to the boards.

And new to quoting...  :pan: Responses go AT THE END. And delete irrelevant material.
It's a new day for a new beginning.

Grzrd

#82
Quote from: Grzrd on January 31, 2012, 08:51:36 PM
the Texarkana MPO has studied a new terrain I-69 Planning Corridor with Alternative Route from northeast of Wright Patman Lake to I-30 and over to I-49 ...
Preliminary alignment planning is underway on the I-69 Texarkana West Loop. The relief route would connect to Interstate 30 at a point near the former Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant site, now known as TexAmericas Center. It would run south to connect to the existing US 59 route at a point northeast of Wright Patman Lake ... Unlike the Texarkana MPO study, no mention is made of an I-30 to I-49 link ... Speaking of costs, I hope the Texarkana MPO preserves the corridor for the I-30 to I-49 section of the I-69 Spur and avoids the situation that NLCOG is currently facing with the LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop in Louisiana.  :pan:

After sending out an email with some questions about the I-69 Spur, I eventually was referred to and had a very interesting conversation with an individual who serves on both the I-69 for Texas Alliance and the TxDOT I-69 Segment 1 Committee.

Regarding the I-30 to I-49 section of the I-69 Spur, he said that the Segment 1 Committee's study area has a northern terminus at I-30 because the Arkansas section of I-49 from I-40 to the Texas state line will not be completed for a very long time.  That said, the Texarkana MPO continues to study the I-30 to I-49 at N. Stateline Ave. connection as a long-term proposition (and who knows if they will preserve the corridor).

I then asked if they had ever studied a "southern connection" of I-49 and the I-69 Spur south of Texarkana (sort of an eastern extension of the West Loop).  He gave an emphatic "no" to that possibility and then gave me a "big picture" view of the I-69 Spur.  The thought is to pursue the notion of TexAmericas Center becoming an inland port, and the "southern connection" would not serve that thought.  The idea is to lease the air space over the I-69 Corridor from Texarkana to an as yet undetermined Texas Gulf port.  A private group of investors would then build an elevated Freight Shuttle track within the ground-level ROW of I-69 between Texarkana and the Gulf port.  The money from the air rights would be used to at least partially fund I-69 construction along the route of the track.  Also, the hope is that TexAmericas Center would also be the location of a manufacturing plant for the shuttle cars. The cost per mile for freight using the Shuttle is estimated to be 30 cents per mile and the cost per mile by truck is estimated to be $2.30 per mile.  Apparently, this idea is being studied very seriously.

If nothing else, this idea represents creative thinking by using existing ROW and, in a sense, having freight shippers pay a "toll" instead of private drivers.

I wonder if this concept could work for I-49 South: "America's Energy Corridor"?

It will be interesting to see if this concept gains any traction.   

Anthony_JK

Hmmmm...that sounds like a brilliant idea.

Considering all the major ports served by the US 90 corridor from Lafayette southward to the NOLA area (Port of Iberia, Port of South Louisiana, Port Fourchon), a freight shuttle down US 90 wouldn't be such a bad idea..and if it negates the need for tolls along I-49 South, so much the better. Problem is, would the BNSF Railway (who is the primary rail line serving the US 90 corridor) and Louisiana & Delta RR (the short line serving the same area) be willing to accept the competition from such a freight shuttle?

I can guess that the southern port for I-69 could potentially be either Freeport (via TX 288 or the proposed TX 35 tollway) or Corpus Christi via US 77??


Anthony

bugo

Could I-49 in TX be signed at 75 MPH?  It will go through a very rural area with few interchanges.
Nobody is on the level of the devil.

Henry

Quote from: bugo on February 08, 2012, 11:44:58 PM
Could I-49 in TX be signed at 75 MPH?  It will go through a very rural area with few interchanges.
Actually, you must be thinking of I-69, because I-49 is not going through Texas. And yes, the highway could be signed at 75 mph if TXDOT wanted it to. After all, there are 80 mph speed limits on the far western end of the state, so I don't see why the eastern half shouldn't get at least 70 or 75.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

english si

#86
Quote from: Henry on February 09, 2012, 11:07:06 AMActually, you must be thinking of I-69, because I-49 is not going through Texas.
If you look upthread it is going to clip the corner of Texas, with just half of the US71 interchange, the I-69 spur interchange and half a bridge in the state.

It's not that rural, or that long, and would effectively be like I-684 clipping NY, so I don't think it will be signed as 75 for the two miles, especially given the interchange density in the state won't be that low.

Henry

Quote from: english si on February 09, 2012, 11:20:41 AM
Quote from: Henry on February 09, 2012, 11:07:06 AMActually, you must be thinking of I-69, because I-49 is not going through Texas.
If you look upthread it is going to clip the corner of Texas, with no interchanges (maybe half of one) in the state. It's not that rural, or that long, and would effectively be like I-684 clipping NY, so I don't think it will be signed as 75 for the two miles.
Well, then I apologize. Another example is I-24 clipping Georgia, which goes unnoticed except by those actually going through that area.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Grzrd

#88
Quote from: english si on February 09, 2012, 11:20:41 AM
If you look upthread it is going to clip the corner of Texas, with just half of the US71 interchange, the I-69 spur interchange and half a bridge in the state ... I don't think it will be signed as 75 for the two miles, especially given the interchange density in the state won't be that low.

Actually, the anticipated routing through Texas is closer to sixteen miles:

Quote from: Grzrd on September 06, 2010, 03:05:25 PM
Quote
The Texarkana to De Queen section is a 36-mile leg that will have an additional 16 miles in Texas and include a new bridge over the Red River, an expense that will be shared equally between Arkansas and Texas. Total cost is expected to reach $536 million.
(http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-regional-local/13536201-1.html)

Above link is now dead.  The projected route through Texas can be seen on the 2011 Arkansas Highway Map.

english si

Quote from: Grzrd on February 09, 2012, 11:57:23 AMActually, the anticipated routing through Texas is closer to sixteen miles:
<snip>
Above link is now dead.  The projected route through Texas can be seen on the 2011 Arkansas Highway Map.
Is Texarkana similar in size to London? I know there's a lot more room out there and you can spread out and build a lower density, but the length of that section of I-49 wouldn't quite cross the city(s). 16 miles seems too big there - certainly 2 is too small, and was a mix of me forgetting how spread out America is, especially west of the MS (so I got the scale wrong) and a bit of hypobole, but it looks like it is 8 miles at most in TX from that map.

Grzrd

#90
^ You may well be right about the distance being closer to eight miles (using the map's scale, I also come up with approximately eight miles).  I simply quoted the article.  Also, TxDOT has not responded to my requests about I-49.  Maybe we'll find out for sure in about forty years ...

Grzrd

#91
Quote from: Grzrd on February 09, 2012, 12:44:29 PM
You may well be right about the distance being closer to eight miles (using the map's scale, I also come up with approximately eight miles).  TxDOT has not responded to my requests about I-49.

Having had no luck with TxDOT, I gave AHTD a shot:

Quote
Our only intent is to show the corridor of future construction. It is certainly possible that we what we show in another state could be incorrect.

dariusb

Quote from: Grzrd on February 08, 2012, 07:09:11 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 31, 2012, 08:51:36 PM
the Texarkana MPO has studied a new terrain I-69 Planning Corridor with Alternative Route from northeast of Wright Patman Lake to I-30 and over to I-49 ...
Preliminary alignment planning is underway on the I-69 Texarkana West Loop. The relief route would connect to Interstate 30 at a point near the former Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant site, now known as TexAmericas Center. It would run south to connect to the existing US 59 route at a point northeast of Wright Patman Lake ... Unlike the Texarkana MPO study, no mention is made of an I-30 to I-49 link ... Speaking of costs, I hope the Texarkana MPO preserves the corridor for the I-30 to I-49 section of the I-69 Spur and avoids the situation that NLCOG is currently facing with the LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop in Louisiana.  :pan:

After sending out an email with some questions about the I-69 Spur, I eventually was referred to and had a very interesting conversation with an individual who serves on both the I-69 for Texas Alliance and the TxDOT I-69 Segment 1 Committee.

Regarding the I-30 to I-49 section of the I-69 Spur, he said that the Segment 1 Committee's study area has a northern terminus at I-30 because the Arkansas section of I-49 from I-40 to the Texas state line will not be completed for a very long time.  That said, the Texarkana MPO continues to study the I-30 to I-49 at N. Stateline Ave. connection as a long-term proposition (and who knows if they will preserve the corridor).

I then asked if they had ever studied a "southern connection" of I-49 and the I-69 Spur south of Texarkana (sort of an eastern extension of the West Loop).  He gave an emphatic "no" to that possibility and then gave me a "big picture" view of the I-69 Spur.  The thought is to pursue the notion of TexAmericas Center becoming an inland port, and the "southern connection" would not serve that thought.  The idea is to lease the air space over the I-69 Corridor from Texarkana to an as yet undetermined Texas Gulf port.  A private group of investors would then build an elevated Freight Shuttle track within the ground-level ROW of I-69 between Texarkana and the Gulf port.  The money from the air rights would be used to at least partially fund I-69 construction along the route of the track.  Also, the hope is that TexAmericas Center would also be the location of a manufacturing plant for the shuttle cars. The cost per mile for freight using the Shuttle is estimated to be 30 cents per mile and the cost per mile by truck is estimated to be $2.30 per mile.  Apparently, this idea is being studied very seriously.

If nothing else, this idea represents creative thinking by using existing ROW and, in a sense, having freight shippers pay a "toll" instead of private drivers.

I wonder if this concept could work for I-49 South: "America's Energy Corridor"?

It will be interesting to see if this concept gains any traction.   
I'm quite familiar with TexAmericas Center. If the inland port and rail project come to pass, it would be huge! The whole area would explode with growth and opportunity.
It's a new day for a new beginning.

Grzrd

#93
In the "I-49 north Texarkana thoughts" thread, Gordon mentioned that he has posted some photos on the Future I-49 Facebook page.  The first two photos are of the Co Rd 2 and Co Rd 4 bridges from the LA state line to Doddridge structures construction project.  Gordon, thanks for sharing them and I hope you don't mind that I have posted the link on this thread, too.

EDIT - Gordon has also posted these two photos and a third photo of I-49 at US 71 near Doddridge on the Build I-49 Facebook page, which is where he will post his photos in the future.  Thanks again!

Also, a belated thank you to wtd67 for sharing his I-49 photos upthread on January 31.

It's great to see progress in the Texarkana area!

BTW the Build I-49 Facebook page is great.  Thanks to US 71 and bugo!

US71

Quote from: Grzrd on February 15, 2012, 09:00:18 PM
In the "I-49 north Texarkana thoughts" thread, Gordon mentioned that he has posted some photos on the Future I-49 Facebook page.  The first two photos are of the Co Rd 2 and Co Rd 4 bridges from the LA state line to Doddridge structures construction project.  Gordon, thanks for sharing them and I hope you don't mind that I have posted the link on this thread, too.

EDIT - Gordon has also posted these two photos and a third photo of I-49 at US 71 near Doddridge on the Build I-49 Facebook page, which is where he will post his photos in the future.  Thanks again!

Also, a belated thank you to wtd67 for sharing his I-49 photos upthread on January 31.

It's great to see progress in the Texarkana area!

BTW the Build I-49 Facebook page is great.  Thanks to US 71 and Bugo!

If you want something like that done right, you get people who know what they're talking about ;)

But seriously, thanks to everyone who has liked our page &/or posted photos.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Alex

Quote from: US71 on February 15, 2012, 10:45:45 PM

If you want something like that done right, you get people who know what they're talking about ;)

But seriously, thanks to everyone who has liked our page &/or posted photos.

I will add it as a like from the AARoads FB page too.

Grzrd

#96
Quote from: Grzrd on February 09, 2012, 11:57:23 AM
Actually, the anticipated routing through Texas is closer to sixteen miles:
Quote from: Grzrd on September 06, 2010, 03:05:25 PM
Quote
The Texarkana to De Queen section is a 36-mile leg that will have an additional 16 miles in Texas and include a new bridge over the Red River, an expense that will be shared equally between Arkansas and Texas. Total cost is expected to reach $536 million.
(http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-regional-local/13536201-1.html)
Quote from: english si on February 09, 2012, 12:29:39 PM
16 miles seems too big there - certainly 2 is too small, and was a mix of me forgetting how spread out America is, especially west of the MS (so I got the scale wrong) and a bit of hypobole, but it looks like it is 8 miles at most in TX from that map.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 10, 2012, 10:29:09 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 09, 2012, 12:44:29 PM
You may well be right about the distance being closer to eight miles (using the map's scale, I also come up with approximately eight miles).  TxDOT has not responded to my requests about I-49.
Having had no luck with TxDOT, I gave AHTD a shot:
Quote
Our only intent is to show the corridor of future construction. It is certainly possible that we what we show in another state could be incorrect.

I gave AHTD another shot and they emailed me the Executive Summary of the Texarkana to DeQueen US 71 and Texarkana Northern Loop FEIS (and Alex is kind enough to host it on the AARoads server).  I find it interesting that the Texarkana Northern Loop was included in the study.  On page 18/24 of the pdf (page ES-17 of the document), the Texarkana Northern Loop is described as being approximately 20 miles and the "northern extension" is described as being approximately 17 miles.  I suppose this is where the 16 mile figure came in the article I quoted upthread.  However, I am not clear as to whether the "northern extension" is entirely in Texas, or if it includes a segment in Arkansas.  At any rate, maps of the Selected Alternative for the I-49 section in Texas can be found at pages 5-6 of the pdf (Exhibits ES-1(a) and ES-1(b)).

EDIT

Quote from: Grzrd on February 08, 2012, 07:09:11 PM
After sending out an email with some questions about the I-69 Spur, I eventually was referred to and had a very interesting conversation with an individual who serves on both the I-69 for Texas Alliance and the TxDOT I-69 Segment 1 Committee.
Regarding the I-30 to I-49 section of the I-69 Spur, he said that the Segment 1 Committee's study area has a northern terminus at I-30 because the Arkansas section of I-49 from I-40 to the Texas state line will not be completed for a very long time.  That said, the Texarkana MPO continues to study the I-30 to I-49 at N. Stateline Ave. connection as a long-term proposition (and who knows if they will preserve the corridor).

The FEIS anticipated the possibility that US 59 south of I-30 would be relocated to the west, which would necessitate new environmental and location placement studies for the Texarkana Northern Loop (page 14/24 of pdf; page ES-13 of the document).  Since the TxDOT I-69 Segment 1 Committee is currently studying the possible relocation of US 59 from NE of Wright-Patman Lake to I-30 near the TexAmericas Center, it seems like environmental/location studies associated with that corridor should also include the "relocated" non-I-49 section of the Texarkana Northern Loop that would extend from TexAmericas Center to the I-49 corridor.  Otherwise, the possibility of a "clean" connection might be lost due to urban sprawl, etc.  :no:

dariusb

Quote from: Grzrd on February 16, 2012, 11:46:11 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 09, 2012, 11:57:23 AM
Actually, the anticipated routing through Texas is closer to sixteen miles:
Quote from: Grzrd on September 06, 2010, 03:05:25 PM
Quote
The Texarkana to De Queen section is a 36-mile leg that will have an additional 16 miles in Texas and include a new bridge over the Red River, an expense that will be shared equally between Arkansas and Texas. Total cost is expected to reach $536 million.
(http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-regional-local/13536201-1.html)
Quote from: english si on February 09, 2012, 12:29:39 PM
16 miles seems too big there - certainly 2 is too small, and was a mix of me forgetting how spread out America is, especially west of the MS (so I got the scale wrong) and a bit of hypobole, but it looks like it is 8 miles at most in TX from that map.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 10, 2012, 10:29:09 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 09, 2012, 12:44:29 PM
You may well be right about the distance being closer to eight miles (using the map's scale, I also come up with approximately eight miles).  TxDOT has not responded to my requests about I-49.
Having had no luck with TxDOT, I gave AHTD a shot:
Quote
Our only intent is to show the corridor of future construction. It is certainly possible that we what we show in another state could be incorrect.

I gave AHTD another shot and they emailed me the Executive Summary of the Texarkana to DeQueen US 71 and Texarkana Northern Loop FEIS (and Alex is kind enough to host it on the AARoads server).  I find it interesting that the Texarkana Northern Loop was included in the study.  On page 18/24 of the pdf (page ES-17 of the document), the Texarkana Northern Loop is described as being approximately 20 miles and the "northern extension" is described as being approximately 17 miles.  I suppose this is where the 16 mile figure came in the article I quoted upthread.  However, I am not clear as to whether the "northern extension" is entirely in Texas, or if it includes a segment in Arkansas.  At any rate, maps of the Selected Alternative for the I-49 section in Texas can be found at pages 5-6 of the pdf (Exhibits ES-1(a) and ES-1(b)).

EDIT

Quote from: Grzrd on February 08, 2012, 07:09:11 PM
After sending out an email with some questions about the I-69 Spur, I eventually was referred to and had a very interesting conversation with an individual who serves on both the I-69 for Texas Alliance and the TxDOT I-69 Segment 1 Committee.
Regarding the I-30 to I-49 section of the I-69 Spur, he said that the Segment 1 Committee's study area has a northern terminus at I-30 because the Arkansas section of I-49 from I-40 to the Texas state line will not be completed for a very long time.  That said, the Texarkana MPO continues to study the I-30 to I-49 at N. Stateline Ave. connection as a long-term proposition (and who knows if they will preserve the corridor).

The FEIS anticipated the possbility that US 59 south of I-30 would be relocated to the west, which would necessitate new environmental and location placement studies for the Texarkana Northern Loop (page 14/24 of pdf; page ES-13 of the document).  Since the TxDOT I-69 Segment 1 Committee is currently studying the possible relocation of US 59 from NE of Wright-Patman Lake to I-30 near the TexAmericas Center, it seems like environmental/location studies associated with that corridor should also include the "relocated" non-I-49 section of the Texarkana Northern Loop that would extend from TexAmericas Center to the I-49 corridor.  Otherwise, the possibility of a "clean" connection might be lost due to urban sprawl, etc.  :no:
I know I read an article in the Texarkana Gazette a few years back about the suburban town of Redlick, Tx to the northwest of Texarkana possibly presenting a problem for the construction of the north loop which is supposed to go near the town. Now that it's been some years since that article was posted new neighborhoods, a school and some businesses have been constructed, I wonder if that could be a setback for the project.
It's a new day for a new beginning.

Grzrd

#98
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 08, 2012, 08:01:53 PM
I can guess that the southern port for I-69 could potentially be either Freeport (via TX 288 or the proposed TX 35 tollway) or Corpus Christi via US 77??
Anthony

Good guesses.

First, FWIW the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition's website says that the Port of Corpus Christi has been selected as a site for a Freight Shuttle prototype guideway:

Quote
The Freight Shuttle Development Corp. has selected a site at the Port of Corpus Christi as a likely site to build a prototype guideway for testing and proving designs.

Second, it may be possible that the Freight Shuttle to the Port of Freeport is being considered as a relief option (and a reason Committees 2 and 3 carefully use the phrase "relief option" instead of "relief route"):

Quote from: Grzrd on January 25, 2012, 08:29:51 PM
TxDOT has updated its I-69 Segment Committees page by adding notes from November, 2011 meetings of the five committees.
Regarding Houston relief options, Committee 3 decided to expand the area of study to the following [page 4/30 of pdf]:
Quote
- Extend the U.S. 59 relief options box (as depicted on the map) further south on U.S. 59 to south of Brazoria
- Extend the U.S. 59 relief options box (as depicted on the map) further north (in Segment Two) up to Cleveland
- Include the Port of Freeport in the U.S. 59 relief options box
Also, Committee 3 discussed that an Early Implementation Opportunity would be to study relief options and not just potential relief routes [page 4/30 of pdf]:
Quote
- Perform a study U.S. 59 relief options for Houston. It was noted that the U.S. 59 relief options for Houston might not be just a relief route and could include improvements such as widenings and interchanges.
Committee 2 also views the study of relief options for Houston as a Recommended Priority [page 4/32 of pdf].
(above quote from "I-69 in TX" thread on Mid-South page)

In terms of a reality check, the only "live" Freight Shuttle project I've run across is a border crossing from El Paso to Juarez that is discussed in a January, 2011 article.

EDIT

I recently ran across this December 23, 2010 article, which discusses a "conceptual freight shuttle network" from Laredo/ South Texas along the I-69 Corridor to Texarkana:

Quote
Texas leaders have said they will push to build I-69 from Laredo and South Texas to Texarkana, including a conceptual freight shuttle network.

Grzrd

#99
Quote from: Grzrd on February 16, 2012, 11:46:11 AM
I gave AHTD another shot and they emailed me the Executive Summary of the Texarkana to DeQueen US 71 and Texarkana Northern Loop FEIS ... maps of the Selected Alternative for the I-49 section in Texas can be found at pages 5-6 of the pdf (Exhibits ES-1(a) and ES-1(b)).

I recently took a look at Texarkana's 25 year transportation plan (adopted September, 2009), which provides a plan through 2035.  Page 15/44 of the Proposed Transportation Projects pdf sets forth TxDOT's Unconstrained Project List, which are projects that have been identified but are not within the twenty-five year scope of the plan (they are given a "Year of Expenditure" of 2036). Both I-49 and the Northern Loop are in TxDOT's "YOE 2036" category.  In looking at the maps in the above quote, it struck me how great the expected time lag will be between completion of the Texarkana, AR sections of I-49 and the Northern Loop (probably 2013) and the Texarkana, TX sections of I-49 and the Northern Loop (currently projected to be 2036+).  With the projected time lag expected to be a quarter century, the eventual time lag could well approach fifty years, if ever.

The I-49 time lag is not surprising because there is no point in Texas building I-49 to the Red River until Arkansas makes substantial progress on the new terrain section north of the Red River, which I suspect will be the final section of I-49 built in Arkansas.  However, I am surprised that the Northern Loop has been pushed so far into the future; by 2036, there may not be a feasible corridor from the TexAmericas Center to I-49 north of Texarkana, TX.  An I-49/I-69 Spur interchange might become an impossibility.

Oh, well.  At least we will be able to enjoy a completed I-49 from I-220 to the Texas state line in the near future (I believe LaDOTD is still projecting that Segments J & K of I-49 North will be completed by 2016).



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.