Print

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

[dariusb]

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).

I don't know why the Texas portion of I-49 and the Northern Loop are projected to be built so far into the future especially considering the area the road will be going through, just north of Northwest Texarkana/Redlick, is the fastest developing part of the city. Hopefully it's built well before 2036 otherwise it will be a big mess.

[Grzrd]

There is also a proposal to designate part of US 59 near Texarkana as part of I-69. It appears in today's Texarkana Gazette (behind a paywall).

That's CRAZY! From what I remember, I-69 will go nowhere near Texarkana; instead, passing through El Dorado towards Haynesville, LA, then near Shreveport and into Texas well south of US 79. Maybe a SPUR I-69 or I-169, but not I-69 itself.

(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

I am posting in this thread because I had a recent telephone conversation with a Texarkana MPO official that touched not only on possible I-69 signage, but also I-49 in Texas and the Texarkana Northern Loop.

I-69 Spur
They are well aware that they are located on a proposed I-69 Spur, which is why they want some signage as soon as possible.  The current climate for transportation funding has given rise to a fear that the I-69 Spur might be eliminated altogether.  The thinking is that I-69 signage would make it more difficult to eliminate the spur.  I mentioned that AASHTO would probably not allow it to be designated as "I-69" because it is not part of the national route.  He said that they are still finalizing how to word the application, but they would be OK with AASHTO changing it to an I-x69 designation.  I did not debate the point that AASHTO might be more receptive to a request to sign it as an I-x69 in the first place.  Related to the concerns about getting spur signage as soon as possible, vocal (a minority, but vocal nonetheless) neighborhood opposition is slowing down evaluation of the West Loop alternative route to TexAmericas Center. The US 59 freeway section in question is literally the only section of the Spur that could be signed as an interstate in a relatively short period of time.  He said that they could always de-designate that section as an interstate if the West Loop were to be built.

I-49
He estimated the proposed mileage in Texas to be six to eight miles.  There would be an interchange at State Line Avenue (which is barely in Texas) and the only other Texas interchange would be a connection to the Northern Loop/ I-69 Spur.

Northern Loop
A big retail center that was built around the time of the issuance of the Northern Loop FEIS has made a connection to the current US 59 prohibitively expensive.  Also, even if construction of the West Loop were not a problem, preserving a Northern Loop corridor is not feasible due to both a lack of money and Texas state law having strong property protections for landowners. If connected to a West Loop, the only interchange between I-30 and I-49 would be at Richmond Road (FM 559). Regardless of whether a Freight Shuttle line would come to Texarkana, they are actively working on trying to get some type of multi-modal facility built at the TexAmericas Center.

Bottom line: Money is becoming more scarce.

[dariusb]

I apologize for this long post but the Texarkana Gazette link only allows access to a small portion of the article unless you're a subscriber to the newspaper. Again my apologies if I'm in violation of the forum. This is from todays paper.
The Metropolitain Planning Organization is considering whether to support designating a small part of US Highway 59 as I-69. US 59 bypass ( originally known as Loop 151), connecting US 59 and I-30, is already built to interstate standards, and the local committee for planning I-69 in Texas has requested that MPO support designating it I-69. Jerry Sparks, chairman of the Segment I Corridor committee, said part of the southern portion of the route, around Houston has already been designated I-69. "We're hoping to show people that Texas has it tagged at the top and bottom; all we have to do is connect the dots," Sparks said. To get a legitimate designation as I-69, not just as a future corridor, will likely take 18 months, Sparks said. " It is an awareness that I-69 is moving forward," he said. "It's a very small piece, more for recognition value than anything else. It is my understanding that the recognition that the north and south ends of I-69 being built to interstate standards is a positive factor in helping secure more federal funds." The proposed resolution says all that will be designated is the short section of the bypass (Loop 151) and calls for continued study of a relief route west of Texarkana. Various routes have been considered, and all have met with public opposition. In other action at an upcoming meeting, the MPO technical committee is expected to reccomend a project for spending $2.2 millionreceived from the Texas Transportation Commission. Though it sounds like a lot of money for most pocketbooks, MPO director Brad McCaleb told MPO members last month that $2.2 million is minimal in the transportation world. Two billion dollars is being divvied out to MPO's in Texas, but qualifying projects will have strict criteria and tight timelines. McCaleb said there has been discussion of allowing MPO's to loan their funds if they don't have qualifying projects themselves. "You have one MPO and they don't have any projectsthat they can get ready to meet this timeline, but you have another MPO, they have a project, it's ready to go out the door but they're short on funding," McCaleb explained. " The first MPO would transfer their allocationto the second MPO... part of the agreement being that that second MPO, at a particular point in timein the future, would send a portion of their allocated funds back to the first MPO. "Basically you're buying yourself time to develop that project that you don't currently have ready," he said. Texarkana's portion of the funding will likely be used to rebuild the intersection of US 59 and Kings Hwy. The MPO technical committee meets at 10 a.m. Thursday and the policy board will take final action at 10 a.m. May 17. Both meetings will be at the Texas Municipal Building 220 Texas Blvd.

[dariusb]

There is also a proposal to designate part of US 59 near Texarkana as part of I-69. It appears in today's Texarkana Gazette (behind a paywall).

That's CRAZY! From what I remember, I-69 will go nowhere near Texarkana; instead, passing through El Dorado towards Haynesville, LA, then near Shreveport and into Texas well south of US 79. Maybe a SPUR I-69 or I-169, but not I-69 itself.

(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

I am posting in this thread because I had a recent telephone conversation with a Texarkana MPO official that touched not only on possible I-69 signage, but also I-49 in Texas and the Texarkana Northern Loop.

I-69 Spur
They are well aware that they are located on a proposed I-69 Spur, which is why they want some signage as soon as possible.  The current climate for transportation funding has given rise to a fear that the I-69 Spur might be eliminated altogether.  The thinking is that I-69 signage would make it more difficult to eliminate the spur.  I mentioned that AASHTO would probably not allow it to be designated as "I-69" because it is not part of the national route.  He said that they are still finalizing how to word the application, but they would be OK with AASHTO changing it to an I-x69 designation.  I did not debate the point that AASHTO might be more receptive to a request to sign it as an I-x69 in the first place.  Related to the concerns about getting spur signage as soon as possible, vocal (a minority, but vocal nonetheless) neighborhood opposition is slowing down evaluation of the West Loop alternative route to TexAmericas Center. The US 59 freeway section in question is literally the only section of the Spur that could be signed as an interstate in a relatively short period of time.  He said that they could always de-designate that section as an interstate if the West Loop were to be built.

I-49
He estimated the proposed mileage in Texas to be six to eight miles.  There would be an interchange at State Line Avenue (which is barely in Texas) and the only other Texas interchange would be a connection to the Northern Loop/ I-69 Spur.

Northern Loop
A big retail center that was built around the time of the issuance of the Northern Loop FEIS has made a connection to the current US 59 prohibitively expensive.  Also, even if construction of the West Loop were not a problem, preserving a Northern Loop corridor is not feasible due to both a lack of money and Texas state law having strong property protections for landowners. If connected to a West Loop, the only interchange between I-30 and I-49 would be at Richmond Road (FM 559). Regardless of whether a Freight Shuttle line would come to Texarkana, they are actively working on trying to get some type of multi-modal facility built at the TexAmericas Center.

Bottom line: Money is becoming more scarce.

Would you say the North Loop probably won't start construction anytime soon?

[Grzrd]

Would you say the North Loop probably won't start construction anytime soon?

That's a safe bet.  There is currently no justification to build it as solely a relief route for I-30 (although I forgot to ask why Arkansas has built its section of I-49 from I-30 to the state line).  He did mention that Texas A & M has recently built a Texarkana campus near a possible route for the Northern Loop and that demand may grow for a Northern Loop as that campus grows.

In the intermediate term, construction of a multi-modal facility at the TexAmericas Center and/or construction of the I-69 Spur West Loop (combined with the Texas A & M - Texarkana factor) may generate enough demand/justification/need to build it.

In the long term, completion of I-49 through Arkansas, combined with completion of an I-69 Spur West Loop and a TexAmericas Center multi-modal facility, would provide a lot of justification for its construction.  He provided a good illustration of the I-49 "problem": if AHTD allocated its entire highway budget to I-49 each year for the next fifteen years, that would only generate enough money for the state portion of I-49 construction that would trigger release of the requisite federal money for its completion.  He said I-49 will not be completed in his lifetime, but then said "maybe" during his retirement years (I do not know his current age).

[dariusb]

Would you say the North Loop probably won't start construction anytime soon?

That's a safe bet.  There is currently no justification to build it as solely a relief route for I-30 (although I forgot to ask why Arkansas has built its section of I-49 from I-30 to the state line).  He did mention that Texas A & M has recently built a Texarkana campus near a possible route for the Northern Loop and that demand may grow for a Northern Loop as that campus grows.

In the intermediate term, construction of a multi-modal facility at the TexAmericas Center and/or construction of the I-69 Spur West Loop (combined with the Texas A & M - Texarkana factor) may generate enough demand/justification/need to build it.

In the long term, completion of I-49 through Arkansas, combined with completion of an I-69 Spur West Loop and a TexAmericas Center multi-modal facility, would provide a lot of justification for its construction.  He provided a good illustration of the I-49 "problem": if AHTD allocated its entire highway budget to I-49 each year for the next fifteen years, that would only generate enough money for the state portion of I-49 construction that would trigger release of the requisite federal money for its completion.  He said I-49 will not be completed in his lifetime, but then said "maybe" during his retirement years (I do not know his current age).

I wonder if there is a backup plan in the event that urban developments are built in the I-49 N/North Loop's path or is development barred from being in the freeways immediate path?

[Grzrd]

Texarkana MPO Technical Committee took action yesterday to support the I-69 designation (Texarkana Gazette paywall article):

The technical committee of Texarkana’s Metropolitan Planning Organization took expected action Thursday to support a local designation for Interstate 69.
The local I-69 planning committee is recommending using the footprint of U.S. Highway 59 for the future interstate. A small portion in Texarkana already meets interstate standards.
Thursday, the MPO panel recommended placing an I-69 designation on U.S. Highway 59 bypass “from Interstate 30 to the junction of U.S. 59 and the bypass.
“Basically, it’s the west loop,” said MPO Director Brad McCaleb.
Though the segment is a short stretch, supporters of I-69 hope it means great strides for the future.
“We don’t want to wait 20 or 30 years to start this process and sure don’t want to lose the opportunity to have a facility like this in our region,” McCaleb said.
The designation has to be approved by the Federal Highway Administration and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.  It could take more than a year to get the designation but would mean both the northern and southern tips of the interstate are designated in Texas.
 “Part of the process in getting a new interstate facility actually developed and completed is showing progress,” McCaleb said. “Anytime we can demonstrate to the citizens and to our elected officials at all levels that there is progress being made, it makes it easier to continue that process. By getting some sections of existing facilities designated as 69 it demonstrates that the State of Texas is committed to completing this facility.”
Other parts of the support resolution call for continued consideration of a relief route west of Texarkana and a freight shuttle system between Houston and the TexAmericas Center near Hooks.
McCaleb said if a relief route is selected it could remove the I-69 designation, the bypass, or the relief route could be given a different designation, such as I-69 West.
The relief route could also be a highway that is never classified as an interstate.

(bold emphasis added by me)

I think they still prefer a new terrain West Loop to TexAmericas Center, but they truly believe that they need some I-69 signage as soon as possible.

I wonder if there is a backup plan in the event that urban developments are built in the I-49 N/North Loop's path or is development barred from being in the freeways immediate path?

See below:

Northern Loop
even if construction of the West Loop were not a problem, preserving a Northern Loop corridor is not feasible due to both a lack of money and Texas state law having strong property protections for landowners.

[dariusb]

Texarkana MPO Technical Committee took action yesterday to support the I-69 designation (Texarkana Gazette paywall article):

The technical committee of Texarkana’s Metropolitan Planning Organization took expected action Thursday to support a local designation for Interstate 69.
The local I-69 planning committee is recommending using the footprint of U.S. Highway 59 for the future interstate. A small portion in Texarkana already meets interstate standards.
Thursday, the MPO panel recommended placing an I-69 designation on U.S. Highway 59 bypass “from Interstate 30 to the junction of U.S. 59 and the bypass.
“Basically, it’s the west loop,” said MPO Director Brad McCaleb.
Though the segment is a short stretch, supporters of I-69 hope it means great strides for the future.
“We don’t want to wait 20 or 30 years to start this process and sure don’t want to lose the opportunity to have a facility like this in our region,” McCaleb said.
The designation has to be approved by the Federal Highway Administration and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.  It could take more than a year to get the designation but would mean both the northern and southern tips of the interstate are designated in Texas.
 “Part of the process in getting a new interstate facility actually developed and completed is showing progress,” McCaleb said. “Anytime we can demonstrate to the citizens and to our elected officials at all levels that there is progress being made, it makes it easier to continue that process. By getting some sections of existing facilities designated as 69 it demonstrates that the State of Texas is committed to completing this facility.”
Other parts of the support resolution call for continued consideration of a relief route west of Texarkana and a freight shuttle system between Houston and the TexAmericas Center near Hooks.
McCaleb said if a relief route is selected it could remove the I-69 designation, the bypass, or the relief route could be given a different designation, such as I-69 West.
The relief route could also be a highway that is never classified as an interstate.

(bold emphasis added by me)

I think they still prefer a new terrain West Loop to TexAmericas Center, but they truly believe that they need some I-69 signage as soon as possible.

I wonder if there is a backup plan in the event that urban developments are built in the I-49 N/North Loop's path or is development barred from being in the freeways immediate path?

See below:

Northern Loop
even if construction of the West Loop were not a problem, preserving a Northern Loop corridor is not feasible due to both a lack of money and Texas state law having strong property protections for landowners.

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I have a couple more questions. Why do they want the west loop designated as I-69 when I-69 actually veers toward Louisiana once it gets to Carthage? And why call the relief route I-69 West? Wouldn't it be given a number like 369 like the spur?

[english si]

Texas is going to have lots of I-69 and long suffixed routes/I-x69. The existing/proposed-to-be-signed sections ought to be signed as I-47 or some other new 2di, which would run from Texarkana to Bownsville, with a long multiplex with I-69 which goes LA-Laredo.

OK, I-69 has the cross-country status and brand recognition, but I-47 would save all sorts of mess with the numbering.

[Grzrd]

Why do they want the west loop designated as I-69 when I-69 actually veers toward Louisiana once it gets to Carthage?

This situation provides a good illustration of why Congress should leave route numbering to FHWA and AASHTO.  First, the AARoads HPC Excerpts from the ISTEA, NHS, TEA-21, and SAFETEA-LU Legislation page provides relevant excerpts from legislation that illustrate why the Texarkana MPO is requesting an "I-69" designation.  First Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) provides that:

The routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69.

The subsection (c)(18)(C) route is as follows:

(C) In Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the Corridor shall--
(i) follow the alignment generally identified in the Corridor 18 Special Issues Study Final Report; and
(ii) include a connection between the Corridor in the vicinity of Monticello, Arkansas, to Pine Bluff, Arkansas.

The subsection (c)(20) route is as follows:

(20) United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas.

To put it another way, it looks like Congress has statutorily mandated that there "shall" one day be an I-69/ I-69 interchange in the vicinity of Joaquin/Tenaha, Texas. 

The Texarkana MPO can put forth a good faith argument that the statute mandates that "I-69" is the only interstate designation allowed along the US 59 corridor in the Texarkana vicinity, and that they shall request the I-69 designation.

And why call the relief route I-69 West? Wouldn't it be given a number like 369 like the spur?

Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) also provides that:

The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central.

Subsections (c)(18)(B)(i) and (c)(18)(B)(ii) provide as follows:

(D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
(i) include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via U.S. Route 77;
(ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59

Brad McCaleb of the Texarkana MPO probably looked at the above two designations and figured that an I-69 West designation would fit that scheme, as well.  In an ideal world, Congress would pass simple amendments to the legislation and let FHWA and AASHTO work out an optimal numbering scheme for the I-69 Corridor.  It seems easy enough, but we ARE talking about a US Congress that cannot seem to agree on the simplest of matters. 

[NE2]

If you read all the different laws carefully, I believe they say that Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois are required to post I-69 signs on I-94 between Port Huron and Chicago.

[Grzrd]

If you read all the different laws carefully, I believe they say that Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois are required to post I-69 signs on I-94 between Port Huron and Chicago.

I disagree.  If you read the statutes carefully, they say that I-94 shall be designated as I-69, but make no requirement "to post I-69 signs".  Since that part of the I-69 Corridor is already signed as I-94, there is no need to either make an official request for I-69 signage or have an I-69 signage overlap. However, the designation does provide advantage to I-94 by designating it as a high priority corridor in terms of funding.

How to apply the distinction between designation and signage in Texas? The following quote from one of your recent posts provides a link to AASHTO's materials related to the current application for I-69 signage for a stretch of US 59 just north of Houston:

Texas: I-69 (extension)
*RE_ I-69 Designations.pdf
(above quote from AASHTO meeting May 18, 2012 thread)

If you carefully read the link that you provided in your post, you will note the following comment from a FHWA official:

On the second question, regarding the recent addition of US 77 as I-69. Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of ISTEA amended, designates future Interstate routes along High Priority Corridor (HPC) #20 as “I-69”, HPC # (c)(18)(D)(i) as “I-69 East”, and HPC # (c)(18)(D)(ii) as “I-69 Central”. These three future I-69 corridors correspond to US 59, US 77, and US 281 respectively. Since there are no other approved additions along the “I-69” or “I-69 Central” Texas corridors, the US 77 segment was added as I-69 to avoid To avoid driver confusion. Once segments are added along the other two corridors the State will need to sign the routes accordingly.
Kevin D. Adderly
kevin.adderly@dot.gov
National Systems and Economic Development Team
Federal Highway Administration
202-366-5006
202-366-3409 (fax)

(bold emphasis added by me)

I agree with your point that silly results are achieved by a literal reading of the statutes.  The practical problem is that the above FHWA comment reflects a literal reading of the statutes that equates designation with signage.  As the email chain reflects, AASHTO relies on FHWA guidance. The Texarkana MPO is facing the practical problem of what numerical signage to request.  In terms of common sense, it is ridiculous for them to request "I-69" signage; however, in terms of recent guidance from the FHWA, they may well have concluded it was their only option, although patently ridiculous.

[NE2]

If you read all the different laws carefully, I believe they say that Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois are required to post I-69 signs on I-94 between Port Huron and Chicago.

I disagree.  If you read the statutes carefully, they say that I-94 shall be designated as I-69, but make no requirement "to post I-69 signs".

Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002: "A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes and/or corridors referred to in subsections (c)(18) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route 69."

[dariusb]

Why do they want the west loop designated as I-69 when I-69 actually veers toward Louisiana once it gets to Carthage?

This situation provides a good illustration of why Congress should leave route numbering to FHWA and AASHTO.  First, the AARoads HPC Excerpts from the ISTEA, NHS, TEA-21, and SAFETEA-LU Legislation page provides relevant excerpts from legislation that illustrate why the Texarkana MPO is requesting an "I-69" designation.  First Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) provides that:

The routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69.

The subsection (c)(18)(C) route is as follows:

(C) In Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the Corridor shall--
(i) follow the alignment generally identified in the Corridor 18 Special Issues Study Final Report; and
(ii) include a connection between the Corridor in the vicinity of Monticello, Arkansas, to Pine Bluff, Arkansas.

The subsection (c)(20) route is as follows:

(20) United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas.

To put it another way, it looks like Congress has statutorily mandated that there "shall" one day be an I-69/ I-69 interchange in the vicinity of Joaquin/Tenaha, Texas. 

The Texarkana MPO can put forth a good faith argument that the statute mandates that "I-69" is the only interstate designation allowed along the US 59 corridor in the Texarkana vicinity, and that they shall request the I-69 designation.

And why call the relief route I-69 West? Wouldn't it be given a number like 369 like the spur?

Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) also provides that:

The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central.

Subsections (c)(18)(B)(i) and (c)(18)(B)(ii) provide as follows:

(D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
(i) include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via U.S. Route 77;
(ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59

Brad McCaleb of the Texarkana MPO probably looked at the above two designations and figured that an I-69 West designation would fit that scheme, as well.  In an ideal world, Congress would pass simple amendments to the legislation and let FHWA and AASHTO work out an optimal numbering scheme for the I-69 Corridor.  It seems easy enough, but we ARE talking about a US Congress that cannot seem to agree on the simplest of matters. 

That clears up a lot. Thanks for the info.

[Anthony_JK]

If you ask me, the simplest of matters would be for FHWA to reject this :I-69 proposal due to it not connecting in any way with the mainline I-69, and suggesting an alternative designation until the spur and more of mainline I-69 is completed.

I mean, if they approve this, then why can't Louisiana simply drop I-49 shields on the completed segments of US 90 south of Lafayette.

And as for Congress??  Well, these are the same numbnuts who gave us proposed "I-3".  And I-99.

[austrini]

I just updated a Texarkana map i'm working on with the realignment schematics I got from AHTD, if anyone is interested.
The US 67 ramps will close when the new road opens.

[US71]

I just updated a Texarkana map i'm working on with the realignment schematics I got from AHTD, if anyone is interested.
The US 67 ramps will close when the new road opens.

How will 245 NB connect with itself? I see SB seems to turn into a ramp at 49.

[austrini]

I asked about SR 245 and they're not sure what they're going to do with the designation from I-30 to SR 296. The southern portion of SR 245 will extend from Loop 151 to SR 549/I-49. So I left it on the map for now, the only street signs put up locally up there spell out "Loop 245" on them, so thats what I labeled it.

[austrini]

Oh, and... the SR 245 designation from I-30 to SR 549 will go away - and SR 549 will take over the freeway from Louisiana to Texas until I-49 comes along.

[agentsteel53]

why not just sign the future freeway as TEMPORARY I-49?  oh hell, state 49.  Texas has never been opposed to route number duplication.  call it state FREEWAY RANCH FARM ROAD NASA GOAT 49 if need be.

[austrini]

Good idea, but its not Texas.

[Anthony_JK]

I just updated a Texarkana map i'm working on with the realignment schematics I got from AHTD, if anyone is interested.
The US 67 ramps will close when the new road opens.

How will 245 NB connect with itself? I see SB seems to turn into a ramp at 49.

Actually, it won't...the s/b off ramp will terminate at Airport Road (existing AR 245), which will continue as a 2-way until it terminates at Arkansas Blvd. The s/b on ramp to AR 549/Future I-49 will take over from there.

I'm more interested in why they're eliminating the folded diamond interchange ramps with US 67. A weaving conflict with the Arkansas Blvd interchange??

[bugo]

Will Arkansas Blvd be signed "TO US 67?"

And I agree, I don't see any problems with leaving that interchange the way it is.

[Gordon]

These standards are, as of July 2007, as follows:
Controlled access: All access onto and off the roadway is to be controlled with interchanges and grade separations (including railroad crossings). See List of gaps in Interstate Highways for the few cases that violate this rule. Interchanges should provide full access; ramps are to be designed with the appropriate standards in mind. Minimum interchange spacing should be 1 mi (1.6 km) in urban areas and 3 mi (4.8 km) in rural areas; collector/distributor roads or other configurations that reduce weaving can be used in urban areas to shorten this distance.
Access control (from adjacent properties) should extend at least 100 feet (30 m) in urban areas and 300 feet (91 m) in rural areas in each direction along the crossroad from the ramps. This is the reason for doing away with the 67 HWY. ramps. Texarkana asked for ramps on 19 th street because it is going to be a another route to the airport along with Ark. BLVD. which crosses 67 but has a railroad before the airport.

[US71]

I seem to recall 245/67 being redone in the last few years and now they want to close it?

Typical Arkansas.