Print

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

[dariusb]

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.

Thanks for sharing the map! It makes everything more clear for me in relation to the Arkansas Blvd interchange and Loop 245 north to I-30.

[dariusb]

This is from todays Texarkana Gazette concerning I-49:

Progress on the future I-49 corridor is changing the traffic flow on Arkansas Highway 245. North and southbound traffic will soon be rerouted off the Hwy 245 path to Arkansas Blvd. Officials were hopeful that the shift would be completed Thursday afternoon or early today. Southbound drivers will exit 245 at Arkansas Blvd. At the signal light they may choose to turn left or right on Arkansas Blvd. or go straight across and continue on 245. Northbound traffic will exit 245 at  Arkansas Blvd., turn left across the overpass, then turn right in the area of the old frontage road. This puts drivers back northbound on the relocated lanes of Hwy 245. These, between Arkansas Blvd and I-30, will eventually become a city street. Detour signs will be in place to mark the new routes. Both north and southbound traffic have been narrowed to one lane and are traveling on the northbound side and the southbound lanes have been closed.hen the new traffic change occurs, motorists still be restricted to one lane in each direction. The new dhange will allow workers to tear out the existing lanes of Hwy 245 beneath Arkansas Blvd. and complete the tie in to state hwy 549 that is already built near the fairgrounds. The entire project which puts in place the loop and interchanges, that will eventually be named I-49, should be complete by the end of the year.

[austrini]

I took a few photos of it the other day, I got there really early in the morning and it was deserted.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatguyinalittlecoat/6957232908/in/photostream (some others)

[Grzrd]

^ Thanks for the I-49-related photos.  Great shots!

As regards the I-69 Spur, yesterday, the Texarkana MPO adopted Resolution 14-2012 supporting an I-69 designation:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICY BOARD OF THE TEXARKANA MPO, THAT THE BOARD SUPPORTS CO-DESIGNATION OF THE PORTION OF US 59 FROM I-30 TO THE JUNCTION OF LP 151 AS US 59/I-69. THE BOARD ALSO SUPPORTS:
SECTION 1: IMPROVEMENT OF US 59 TO INTERSTATE STANDARDS through the State of Texas consistent with recommendations developed by the I-69 Corridor and Segment Advisory Committees; and
SECTION 2: participation by the Texas Department of Transportation in the EVALUATION OF ACCESS TO/FROM US 59/I-69 and the TexAmericas Center, an Intermodal Freight Facility, along the west side of the Texarkana Study Area Boundary, including the need for DEVELOPMENT OF AN I-69 RELIEF ROUTE as described in Texarkana MPO Resolution #3-2011; and
SECTION 3: participation by the Texas Department of Transportation in the EVALUATION OF A FREIGHT SHUTTLE SYSTEM between the Port of Houston and TexAmericas Intermodal Freight Facility that may mitigate congestion, maintenance needs, and environmental impacts from truck traffic on US 59/I-69; and
SECTION 4: CONTINUING THE COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP between the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texarkana MPO Policy Board, and local governments in the Texarkana Study Area Boundary needed to develop I-69 corridor improvements within our region; and
SECTION 5: the Study Director of the Texarkana MPO is hereby authorized to transmit Resolution #14-2012 to TxDOT, the Texas Transportation Commission and the I-69 Segment One Committee.
ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Texarkana MPO Policy Board during Regular Session on the 17th day of May, 2012.

Resolution 3-2011 describes the relief route as follows:

WHEREAS, the Texarkana MPO is supportive of the continued study and development of a relief route under the guidance of the Texas Department of Transportation and the direction of the I-69 Segment Corridor Committee One, as described below:
Beginning at the north end of the Sulphur River bridge and concurrent with existing US 59, then connecting to the TexAmerica’s property (former Lone Star Army Ammunition site) and continuing to an interchange point with I-30.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Policy Board of the Texarkana MPO that:
SECTION 1: this resolution supporting the continued study and development of an I-69 relief route by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the I-69 Segment Corridor Committee One as described above is hereby adopted.

The Texarkana MPO also has a Resolution 14-2012 Background document providing arguments for the I-69 designation:

KEY QUESTIONS
How would the Texarkana region benefit from co-designation?
• Economically: Although the immediate economic benefit from co-designation would be small, the I-69 corridor will improve state, national and international access to and from our region. With thousands of jobs in trade, transportation, construction and manufacturing, much of this region’s economic vitality and economic competitiveness is directly dependent on access to state, national and international markets. Development of the I-69 corridor will also increase access to business services in our region, enlarging their potential markets. TxDOT views the co-designation of US 59 as an important next step in development of the ultimate corridor.
• Public Safety: The I-69 corridor is one of the principle evacuation routes for our state. Millions of people depend on safe and efficient roadway facilities for possible evacuation from hurricanes.
• Traffic Safety: Interstate highways are safer than US highways in large measure due to the absence of at-grade intersections and driveways. Interstate co-designation for portions of US 59 will support acceleration of needed improvements to remaining sections not meeting interstate criteria.
Is this action (co-designation) consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)?
• The MTP has supported the development of interstate class facility on the Texas side of our region since 1999.
Will co-designation increase traffic volumes?
• It is expected that traffic volumes will continue to increase along the US 59 corridor regardless of an interstate highway designation. As one of Texas’ principle highway segments, future traffic growth on US 59 is likely to increase with the completion of the Panama Canal expansion in 2014, as freight distribution companies seek less congested routes through Texas, and as our national economy improves. This reality is recognized by TxDOT and in reports from the I-69 Advisory Committees. One key strategy will be successful improvement of multi-modal access to ports, manufacturing centers and intermodal freight facilities.
Why is TxDOT pursuing co-designation at this time?
• TxDOT has stated that getting the first sections of the proposed corridor added to the interstate system is an important milestone marking the beginning of an era when Texas will focus on filling in the I-69 gaps rather than simply talking about a large corridor whose ultimate development has yet to start.
What other impacts may interstate co-designation have on US 59?
• Since the sections of US 59 under consideration for co-designation already meet interstate criteria, no substantive construction or reconstruction will be required apart from revised signage displaying both the US 59 and I-69 shields. There is a project in the MTP that would construct grade separation structures on the frontage roads, providing access across the UP Railroad and Findley Street. Current addresses and business signage should not be affected.
• An increased level of federal review and consultation is required for changes to the geometry or access to an interstate facility. Federal interstate highway limitations on truck weights and axle loads may be more stringent than those enforced on US or state highways.
Will co-designation increase federal funding to Texas?
• An increase in federal interstate mileage should increase Texas’ share of interstate maintenance funding.
How long will co-designation take?
• In could take as long as 18 months before the request for co-designation is approved.

They seem to believe in the equation:

Increased I-69 signage = Increased I-69 funding.

Maybe the Arkansas side of the Texarkana MPO should try to convince AHTD of the merits of applying a similar equation to I-49.

[Anthony_JK]

I still think this is going to be a hard sell, since the Texarkana segment is going to be outside the mainline I-69 route, which will break off at Carthage/Texada and go through Louisiana.

Then again, the segment of US 77 near Robstown is outside the mainline I-69 route, too...but they got their sheilds.

Never mind Arkansas with I-49 North...if they are going to do that, then I want my I-49 shields on the completed freeway sections of US 90 in South Louisiana. Fair is fair, you know.

[dariusb]

Loop 245 was referred to as the Hickerson Frwy but now that the new section of frwy around the fairgrounds to I-30 will soon open, does anyone know if that will be named Hickerson Frwy?

[dariusb]

^ Thanks for the I-49-related photos.  Great shots!

As regards the I-69 Spur, yesterday, the Texarkana MPO adopted Resolution 14-2012 supporting an I-69 designation:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICY BOARD OF THE TEXARKANA MPO, THAT THE BOARD SUPPORTS CO-DESIGNATION OF THE PORTION OF US 59 FROM I-30 TO THE JUNCTION OF LP 151 AS US 59/I-69. THE BOARD ALSO SUPPORTS:
SECTION 1: IMPROVEMENT OF US 59 TO INTERSTATE STANDARDS through the State of Texas consistent with recommendations developed by the I-69 Corridor and Segment Advisory Committees; and
SECTION 2: participation by the Texas Department of Transportation in the EVALUATION OF ACCESS TO/FROM US 59/I-69 and the TexAmericas Center, an Intermodal Freight Facility, along the west side of the Texarkana Study Area Boundary, including the need for DEVELOPMENT OF AN I-69 RELIEF ROUTE as described in Texarkana MPO Resolution #3-2011; and
SECTION 3: participation by the Texas Department of Transportation in the EVALUATION OF A FREIGHT SHUTTLE SYSTEM between the Port of Houston and TexAmericas Intermodal Freight Facility that may mitigate congestion, maintenance needs, and environmental impacts from truck traffic on US 59/I-69; and
SECTION 4: CONTINUING THE COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP between the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texarkana MPO Policy Board, and local governments in the Texarkana Study Area Boundary needed to develop I-69 corridor improvements within our region; and
SECTION 5: the Study Director of the Texarkana MPO is hereby authorized to transmit Resolution #14-2012 to TxDOT, the Texas Transportation Commission and the I-69 Segment One Committee.
ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Texarkana MPO Policy Board during Regular Session on the 17th day of May, 2012.

Resolution 3-2011 describes the relief route as follows:

WHEREAS, the Texarkana MPO is supportive of the continued study and development of a relief route under the guidance of the Texas Department of Transportation and the direction of the I-69 Segment Corridor Committee One, as described below:
Beginning at the north end of the Sulphur River bridge and concurrent with existing US 59, then connecting to the TexAmerica’s property (former Lone Star Army Ammunition site) and continuing to an interchange point with I-30.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Policy Board of the Texarkana MPO that:
SECTION 1: this resolution supporting the continued study and development of an I-69 relief route by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the I-69 Segment Corridor Committee One as described above is hereby adopted.

The Texarkana MPO also has a Resolution 14-2012 Background document providing arguments for the I-69 designation:

KEY QUESTIONS
How would the Texarkana region benefit from co-designation?
• Economically: Although the immediate economic benefit from co-designation would be small, the I-69 corridor will improve state, national and international access to and from our region. With thousands of jobs in trade, transportation, construction and manufacturing, much of this region’s economic vitality and economic competitiveness is directly dependent on access to state, national and international markets. Development of the I-69 corridor will also increase access to business services in our region, enlarging their potential markets. TxDOT views the co-designation of US 59 as an important next step in development of the ultimate corridor.
• Public Safety: The I-69 corridor is one of the principle evacuation routes for our state. Millions of people depend on safe and efficient roadway facilities for possible evacuation from hurricanes.
• Traffic Safety: Interstate highways are safer than US highways in large measure due to the absence of at-grade intersections and driveways. Interstate co-designation for portions of US 59 will support acceleration of needed improvements to remaining sections not meeting interstate criteria.
Is this action (co-designation) consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)?
• The MTP has supported the development of interstate class facility on the Texas side of our region since 1999.
Will co-designation increase traffic volumes?
• It is expected that traffic volumes will continue to increase along the US 59 corridor regardless of an interstate highway designation. As one of Texas’ principle highway segments, future traffic growth on US 59 is likely to increase with the completion of the Panama Canal expansion in 2014, as freight distribution companies seek less congested routes through Texas, and as our national economy improves. This reality is recognized by TxDOT and in reports from the I-69 Advisory Committees. One key strategy will be successful improvement of multi-modal access to ports, manufacturing centers and intermodal freight facilities.
Why is TxDOT pursuing co-designation at this time?
• TxDOT has stated that getting the first sections of the proposed corridor added to the interstate system is an important milestone marking the beginning of an era when Texas will focus on filling in the I-69 gaps rather than simply talking about a large corridor whose ultimate development has yet to start.
What other impacts may interstate co-designation have on US 59?
• Since the sections of US 59 under consideration for co-designation already meet interstate criteria, no substantive construction or reconstruction will be required apart from revised signage displaying both the US 59 and I-69 shields. There is a project in the MTP that would construct grade separation structures on the frontage roads, providing access across the UP Railroad and Findley Street. Current addresses and business signage should not be affected.
• An increased level of federal review and consultation is required for changes to the geometry or access to an interstate facility. Federal interstate highway limitations on truck weights and axle loads may be more stringent than those enforced on US or state highways.
Will co-designation increase federal funding to Texas?
• An increase in federal interstate mileage should increase Texas’ share of interstate maintenance funding.
How long will co-designation take?
• In could take as long as 18 months before the request for co-designation is approved.

They seem to believe in the equation:

Increased I-69 signage = Increased I-69 funding.

Maybe the Arkansas side of the Texarkana MPO should try to convince AHTD of the merits of applying a similar equation to I-49.

I'm very interested in seeing how the I-69 spur will connect with the freeway section of Hwy 59 already in place in Texarkana. There are lots of homes and businesses between that section and Texarkana city limits. It seems like it would be easier to just forget about an I-69 relief route and just build the spur to Tex-Americas Center.

[bjrush]

Since the spur will essentially be an upgrade of U.S.59, the cost of it should be analogous to MoDOT's current upgrade of U.S. 71 to I-49 along the I-44 to I-435 segment, which is relatively inexpensive at $5 million to $7 million per interchange.

Are you talking about interchanges between Fort Smith and Texarkana? Because they will be significantly more difficult/expensive to build than MoDOT's diamond interchanges on the ultraflat US 71 between I-435 and I-44.

[austrini]

Here is the I-69 spur planning map

http://www.texarkanampo.org/documents/ih-69.pdf

[Grzrd]

http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/localnews/2010/09/12/i-69-committee-meets-tuesday-90.php:

The local planning committee for Interstate 69 meets Tuesday in Marshall to work on a progress report for the Texas Transportation Commission.
Segment 1 of the planning corridor reaches from Bowie County to Angelina County. Plans for I-69 here focus on upgrading U.S. Highway 59 to interstate standards.

It occurs to me that Texarkana I-69 spur could, when viewed from North to South perspective, be just as easily viewed as the "Texarkana I-49 spur" ... Since the spur will essentially be an upgrade of U.S.59, the cost of it should be analogous to MoDOT's current upgrade of U.S. 71 to I-49 along the I-44 to I-435 segment, which is relatively inexpensive at $5 million to $7 million per interchange.

Are you talking about interchanges between Fort Smith and Texarkana? Because they will be significantly more difficult/expensive to build than MoDOT's diamond interchanges on the ultraflat US 71 between I-435 and I-44.

No. I'm talking about interchanges along an upgraded US 59 between Texarkana and the Tenaha area, which is also known as the I-69 SIU 29 Corridor.  In this thread, when I refer to the I-69 Spur I am also referring to the SIU 29 corridor.  Initially, Carthage was envisioned as the southern terminus of SIU 29, but more recent planning efforts now place it closer to Tenaha.  I-30 in Texarkana remains the northern terminus of the I-69 Spur (although I advocate several times throughout this thread for an I-49/I-69 Spur interchange north of Texarkana, TX).

[US71]

This is from todays Texarkana Gazette concerning I-49:

Progress on the future I-49 corridor is changing the traffic flow on Arkansas Highway 245. North and southbound traffic will soon be rerouted off the Hwy 245 path to Arkansas Blvd. Officials were hopeful that the shift would be completed Thursday afternoon or early today. Southbound drivers will exit 245 at Arkansas Blvd. At the signal light they may choose to turn left or right on Arkansas Blvd. or go straight across and continue on 245. Northbound traffic will exit 245 at  Arkansas Blvd., turn left across the overpass, then turn right in the area of the old frontage road. This puts drivers back northbound on the relocated lanes of Hwy 245. These, between Arkansas Blvd and I-30, will eventually become a city street. Detour signs will be in place to mark the new routes. Both north and southbound traffic have been narrowed to one lane and are traveling on the northbound side and the southbound lanes have been closed.hen the new traffic change occurs, motorists still be restricted to one lane in each direction. The new dhange will allow workers to tear out the existing lanes of Hwy 245 beneath Arkansas Blvd. and complete the tie in to state hwy 549 that is already built near the fairgrounds. The entire project which puts in place the loop and interchanges, that will eventually be named I-49, should be complete by the end of the year.

I drove that Monday: what a big mess! 

[dariusb]

This is from todays Texarkana Gazette concerning I-49:

Progress on the future I-49 corridor is changing the traffic flow on Arkansas Highway 245. North and southbound traffic will soon be rerouted off the Hwy 245 path to Arkansas Blvd. Officials were hopeful that the shift would be completed Thursday afternoon or early today. Southbound drivers will exit 245 at Arkansas Blvd. At the signal light they may choose to turn left or right on Arkansas Blvd. or go straight across and continue on 245. Northbound traffic will exit 245 at  Arkansas Blvd., turn left across the overpass, then turn right in the area of the old frontage road. This puts drivers back northbound on the relocated lanes of Hwy 245. These, between Arkansas Blvd and I-30, will eventually become a city street. Detour signs will be in place to mark the new routes. Both north and southbound traffic have been narrowed to one lane and are traveling on the northbound side and the southbound lanes have been closed.hen the new traffic change occurs, motorists still be restricted to one lane in each direction. The new dhange will allow workers to tear out the existing lanes of Hwy 245 beneath Arkansas Blvd. and complete the tie in to state hwy 549 that is already built near the fairgrounds. The entire project which puts in place the loop and interchanges, that will eventually be named I-49, should be complete by the end of the year.

I drove that Monday: what a big mess! 

I haven't been to that part of town in a while but I can only image what a headache it is!

[Grzrd]

I recently looked at AHTD's ARRA page regarding two Miller County Future I-49 projects, grading project 030354 from Co. Rd 2 to Doddridge and grading project 030353 from the LA state line to Co. Rd. 2:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/ARRA/update_11222010/ARRA%2011-22-10.pdf
I emailed AHTD ... [t]he reply indicates that AHTD intends to let a major "Structures" contract for these two sections in October, 2011 and then let a paving contract for the approximate 4.4 miles after completion of the "Structures" contract.

Well talk about the slow track for those 4.4 miles.

This news report has AHTD officials stating that the Doddridge to LA state line section of I-49 should be finished by 2015: http://www.ktbs.com/news/28413069/detail.html

Highway officials say Interstate 49 from Texarkana, Arkansas through Louisiana should be complete by 2015.

LA. shows you can work on Bridges and the paving at the same time. It is a shame AR. can't do the same and finish there last 4 miles so they could both open up I49 from LA 1 to Texarkana in the spring of 2013.

(above quote from I49 in LA thread)

The Preliminary 2013-16 STIP indicates that AHTD still intends to meet the above disappointing timetable by scheduling the letting of the paving contract for 2013:

JOB /ITEM NUMBER-030313
COUNTY-Miller
RTE-071
TERMINI-LA Line-Doddridge (Bs. & Surf.) (S)
TYPE WORK-New Location
LENGTH-4.46
YEAR-2013

[Road Hog]

I noticed a month ago that overhead signage on the new highway was already up at the junction of I-30 and future I-49. The main sign said "North [AR 549] Ashdown Ft. Smith" with a right arrow for the cloverleaf onto "[I-30] Dallas."

[US71]

I noticed a month ago that overhead signage on the new highway was already up at the junction of I-30 and future I-49. The main sign said "North [AR 549] Ashdown Ft. Smith" with a right arrow for the cloverleaf onto "[I-30] Dallas."

I'll have to go look.

[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. 

As regards the I-69 Spur, yesterday, the Texarkana MPO adopted Resolution 14-2012 supporting an I-69 designation:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICY BOARD OF THE TEXARKANA MPO, THAT THE BOARD SUPPORTS CO-DESIGNATION OF THE PORTION OF US 59 FROM I-30 TO THE JUNCTION OF LP 151 AS US 59/I-69.

The Alliance for I-69 Texas, in an article on its website, I-69 Scores Victory in Passage of MAP-21 Highway Bill, indicates that the Texarkana I-69 Spur will eventually be a 3di:

A 5-mile section of US 59 connecting to I-30 in Texarkana is being processed for designation as part of an I-69 system element. Because the primary national I-69 route extends into Louisiana south of Texarkana in Shelby County, section 118-mile section from I-30 south to Tenaha will be on the I-69 system but its specific numbering will be determined under the guidelines for interstate spur routes which carry a three-digit number using the number of the main route with an odd-number prefix such as 369 or 569.

It appears that common sense will prevail over the awkward wording of the statute.

[mgk920]

^^
Reading through that article, I also seriously wonder why newly-completed sections of interstate highways are not allowed to be signed as such, regardless of the status of other nearby incomplete sections, like was S.O.P. when the original system was being built.  For example, why can't the completed sections of I-86 in New York simply be signed as such, with temporary signs at the ends of the completed sections saying "For [I-86], follow [NY 17]"?

Ditto with US 41 here in Wisconsin, when AASHTO and the FHWA lay hands upon the number and it is decreed, sign the parts of the corridor that are complete right away and hold off on the few remaining substandard parts until they are finished.

I don't like this 'wait until the entire highway is completed before you can sign it' thing that is being done now at all.

Mike

[Grzrd]

This is from todays Texarkana Gazette concerning I-49:

Progress on the future I-49 corridor is changing the traffic flow on Arkansas Highway 245 ... The entire project which puts in place the loop and interchanges, that will eventually be named I-49, should be complete by the end of the year.

I drove that Monday: what a big mess! 

A June 29 Texarkana Gazette article indicates that the AR 245 resurfacing part of the project should be completed this Fall:

State Highway 245 construction is part of a bigger project for Interstate 49, officials say.
The construction is on state Highway 245 from Arkansas Boulevard north where the existing road is being patched and overlaid, said Don Donaldson, district engineer with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department in Hope Ark.
 “The patch and overlay project is part of a larger project for the construction of Interstate 49. It will be all in one project for 549 around Texarkana. It’s part of a $38.2 million job,” Donaldson said.
The 6.9-mile resurfacing project will extend north on 245 across Interstate 30 and end near Miller County Road 55, he said.
Interstate Highway Construction Inc. of Englewood, Colo., is the project contractor.
The construction should be completed in the fall, Donaldson said.

[Grzrd]

The Alliance for I-69 Texas, in an article on its website, I-69 Scores Victory in Passage of MAP-21 Highway Bill, indicates that the Texarkana I-69 Spur will eventually be a 3di:

A 5-mile section of US 59 connecting to I-30 in Texarkana is being processed for designation as part of an I-69 system element. Because the primary national I-69 route extends into Louisiana south of Texarkana in Shelby County, section 118-mile section from I-30 south to Tenaha will be on the I-69 system but its specific numbering will be determined under the guidelines for interstate spur routes which carry a three-digit number using the number of the main route with an odd-number prefix such as 369 or 569.

A good place to start is FHWA's Statutory Listing of High Priority Corridors.  I-69 is described in Subsections 18 and 20:

18. ...
20. United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]

Next, page 23/599 of the MAP-21 pdf has the following provision:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2031;109 Stat. 597; 115 Stat. 872) is amended—
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘and in subsections(c)(18) and (c)(20)’’ and inserting ‘‘, in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20), and in subparagraphs (A)(iii) and (B) of subsection(c)(26)’’; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘that the segment’’ and all that follows through the period and inserting ‘‘that the segment meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code, and is planned to connect to an existing Interstate System segment by the date that is 25 years after the date of enactment of the MAP–21.’’.

(above quote from Across-the-Board Changes for Interstate Designations in New Highway Bill? thread)

in Texarkana, I would not mind driving the US 59/ Future I-x69 segment.  In about 18 months, it may hold the record for the signed disconnected "child" that is the greatest distance from its signed "parent". 

(above quote from Louisiana/Mississippi Road Meet thread)

After making the joking comment about US 59/ Future I-x69 in the road meet thread, I started thinking about how absurd (illogical?) it would be to have a signed disconnected child an extremely long way from its signed parent.  In addition to the 113 mile length of the Texarkana Future I-x69's connection to mainline I-69 in Tenaha, it is approximately another 135 miles to what will definitely be a signed I-69 in Cleveland, Texas connected to the interstate system.  In the other direction from Tenaha, it is approximately 42 miles to Stonewall, La., which is the southern (southwestern) terminus of I-69 SIU 15 connected to the interstate system (LaDOTD has indicated in email correspondence that they are planning on completing I-69 SIU 15 approximately 25 years from now).

To make a long story short, there is NO WAY that TxDOT can assert with a straight face in its application to FHWA/ AASHTO that the Texarkana I-x69 segment will be connected to a mainline I-69 segment that is itself connected to the interstate system within 25 years. However, TxDOT will not have to make that assertion because the Texarkana I-x69 segment is already connected to I-30, an existing route on the interstate system.

I think that, since subparagraph (c)(20) statutorily defines the US 59 Laredo to Texarkana corridor as "I-69" (and the I-69 for Texas Alliance is concluding that it will be an I-x69 designation because, from Tenaha to Texarkana, it is both an I-69 spur and an I-69 "system element" off of mainline I-69), then FHWA/ AASHTO would be powerless to require the Texarkana I-x69 segment to be signed as an "I-x30".
[as an aside, the Alliance's description of the I-69 Spur as a "system element" echoes the I-69/I-269 "system" for the I-69 Corridor in Memphis; I-x69 would sort of be a "spur cousin" to I-269]

This situation provides a good example of how the MAP-21 provisions for I-69 and I-11 differ from the provisions for other interstates.  If the Texarkana I-x69 segment had been statutorily required to be analyzed as a "logical addition or connection" (the new MAP-21 requirement for the other interstates), then I believe the easy conclusion would have been that the segment connects to I-30 and should therefore be an I-x30, particularly considering the current distance from mainline I-69.  It's definitely a quirky situation that leads to a seemingly "abandoned child". 

[dariusb]

The Alliance for I-69 Texas, in an article on its website, I-69 Scores Victory in Passage of MAP-21 Highway Bill, indicates that the Texarkana I-69 Spur will eventually be a 3di:

A 5-mile section of US 59 connecting to I-30 in Texarkana is being processed for designation as part of an I-69 system element. Because the primary national I-69 route extends into Louisiana south of Texarkana in Shelby County, section 118-mile section from I-30 south to Tenaha will be on the I-69 system but its specific numbering will be determined under the guidelines for interstate spur routes which carry a three-digit number using the number of the main route with an odd-number prefix such as 369 or 569.

A good place to start is FHWA's Statutory Listing of High Priority Corridors.  I-69 is described in Subsections 18 and 20:

18. ...
20. United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]

Next, page 23/599 of the MAP-21 pdf has the following provision:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2031;109 Stat. 597; 115 Stat. 872) is amended—
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘and in subsections(c)(18) and (c)(20)’’ and inserting ‘‘, in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20), and in subparagraphs (A)(iii) and (B) of subsection(c)(26)’’; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘that the segment’’ and all that follows through the period and inserting ‘‘that the segment meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code, and is planned to connect to an existing Interstate System segment by the date that is 25 years after the date of enactment of the MAP–21.’’.

(above quote from Across-the-Board Changes for Interstate Designations in New Highway Bill? thread)

in Texarkana, I would not mind driving the US 59/ Future I-x69 segment.  In about 18 months, it may hold the record for the signed disconnected "child" that is the greatest distance from its signed "parent". 

(above quote from Louisiana/Mississippi Road Meet thread)

After making the joking comment about US 59/ Future I-x69 in the road meet thread, I started thinking about how absurd (illogical?) it would be to have a signed disconnected child an extremely long way from its signed parent.  In addition to the 113 mile length of the Texarkana Future I-x69's connection to mainline I-69 in Tenaha, it is approximately another 135 miles to what will definitely be a signed I-69 in Cleveland, Texas connected to the interstate system.  In the other direction from Tenaha, it is approximately 42 miles to Stonewall, La., which is the southern (southwestern) terminus of I-69 SIU 15 connected to the interstate system (LaDOTD has indicated in email correspondence that they are planning on completing I-69 SIU 15 approximately 25 years from now).

To make a long story short, there is NO WAY that TxDOT can assert with a straight face in its application to FHWA/ AASHTO that the Texarkana I-x69 segment will be connected to a mainline I-69 segment that is itself connected to the interstate system within 25 years. However, TxDOT will not have to make that assertion because the Texarkana I-x69 segment is already connected to I-30, an existing route on the interstate system.

I think that, since subparagraph (c)(20) statutorily defines the US 59 Laredo to Texarkana corridor as "I-69" (and the I-69 for Texas Alliance is concluding that it will be an I-x69 designation because, from Tenaha to Texarkana, it is both an I-69 spur and an I-69 "system element" off of mainline I-69), then FHWA/ AASHTO would be powerless to require the Texarkana I-x69 segment to be signed as an "I-x30".
[as an aside, the Alliance's description of the I-69 Spur as a "system element" echoes the I-69/I-269 "system" for the I-69 Corridor in Memphis]

This situation provides a good example of how the MAP-21 provisions for I-69 and I-11 differ from the provisions for other interstates.  If the Texarkana I-x69 segment had been statutorily required to be analyzed as a "logical addition or connection" (the new MAP-21 requirement for the other interstates), then I believe the easy conclusion would have been that the segment connects to I-30 and should therefore be an I-x30, particularly considering the current distance from mainline I-69.  It's definitely a quirky situation that leads to a seemingly "abandoned child". 

Wow! That's crazy and confusing. So when the spur is built to Tex Americas Center, as they veer off 59 heading more to the northwest people continuing up 59 to the loop may get confused thinking there are 2  of the same I-69 freeway?

[Road Hog]

The question came up on another thread so I have what I think is the answer on why the new I-30/I-49 interchange has one flyover.

I looked at it on Google Maps and there is a farmhouse in the northwest quadrant where the fourth cloverleaf would be going WB 30 to SB 49. So they saved the house by building a flyover instead. 

The good news is it looks like as of this winter, all the concrete was down between U.S. 71 and Loop 245 except for the part where it hooks into 245 on the south end.

[dariusb]

Cool!

[US71]

There is a barn on 59/71 just north of Texarkana that appears to have just missed getting razed for I-49: it's a Meramec Caverns barn. 

[dariusb]

Wow!

[Grzrd]

I recently contacted AHTD to see the current best guess for opening the I-49 new terrain section in Texarkana, and if it would be possible to arrange a pre-opening "drive" on it.  LaDOTD has given the preliminary OK for a group drive on Segments A-B of I-49 North this Fall, and I thought it would be interesting to drive the Texarkana section, too.

To make a long story short, AHTD is not very ecouraging about a pre-opening drive, but the good news is that they are about to scout out a dedication sight for an opening by the end of the year:

I’ve been told that I will most likely need to a dedication of that job by the end of this year. I seriously doubt that they would let you drive it before that. I intend to go down there by the end of this month to look for a good dedication location. I’ll be glad to keep you informed.

To drive on the newly opened Texarkana section in addition to unopened segments on I-49 North would still be a great drive.