Print

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

[english si]

I-65 is in a different state, and is more than 5 miles short of Chicago. I counted it for Gary.

I-88 would have reached the city centre if I-290 hadn't been there first. I used something not as exclusive as a city, but not as inclusive as an Urban Area/Met Area*.

*This could be because I'm British and city boundaries are crazy and urban areas run into each other here.

[Road Hog]

I-65 is in a different state, and is more than 5 miles short of Chicago. I counted it for Gary.

I-88 would have reached the city centre if I-290 hadn't been there first. I used something not as exclusive as a city, but not as inclusive as an Urban Area/Met Area*.

*This could be because I'm British and city boundaries are crazy and urban areas run into each other here.

I'd say as long as the terminus was close-in, a metro area would be close enough for government work.

[Grzrd]

This article indicates an interesting form of alternative financing for I-69, a dedicated freight fee:

James Carlow, who represents the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce for the I-69 project .... said he expects funding for the I-69 project to partially come from a dedicated 20 percent fee directed from freight revenue transferred from the Port of Houston to Texarkana.

(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees discussed ... important connections to the I-69 system ... at the risk of parsing the language too closely, by not limiting "important connections to the I-69 system" to highways, the Committees probably intend for studies to include non-highway options for freight, including the Freight Shuttle along the I-69 corridor (discussed in this thread).
The language regarding Houston relief options in the two Committee reports is identical:

Relief Options in Houston – In the first few months of meeting, the committee discussed ... important connections to the I-69 system.

(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

This July 26 TV video report reports on the anticipated addition of I-69 signage to US 59 in Texarkana, and part of it has Judge Carlow discussing I-69 financing and the possibility of the Freight Shuttle on the I-69 Corridor from Houston to Texarkana.

[dariusb]

Wow. Why not number it X69? They'd have to change the I-69 shields later on. Thanks for the update.

[Revive 755]

^ Maybe they are hoping to trigger a reroute with mainline I-69 going through Texarkanna and the Shreveport section becoming the I-x69 route?

[Grzrd]

Why not number it X69? They'd have to change the I-69 shields later on.

Maybe they are hoping to trigger a reroute with mainline I-69 going through Texarkanna and the Shreveport section becoming the I-x69 route?

I think the TV report simply referred to it as I-69 because it likely has not been widely communicated that it will probably receive a spur designation. TxDOT has indicated that it will probably be numbered in a manner consistent with an interstate spur, like I-x69:

I just received a comprehensive email from TxDOT that addresses a lot of I-69 issues ...

...
How will these roads be numbered as Interstate?
...
Because the primary national I-69 route extends into Louisiana south of Texarkana, US 59 north of US 84 will be on the I-69 system but its specific numbering will be determined in consultation with FHWA, AASHTO and TxDOT.  US 59 from Texarkana to Tenaha may be designated in a manner that is consistent with an interstate spur, e.g. I-369.

(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

[dariusb]

This is from todays Texarkana Gazette:
     A report concerning the local leg of the future Interstate 69 is now available. Segment committees have made the reports available, and the Texarkana and East Texas corridor is Segment One. The reports are found at txdot.gov/drivenbytexans/publications.htm  Statewide there are 5 segment committees composed of citizen volunteers. I-69 is a proposed national highway linking Michigan and Texas. It stretches about 1,600 miles and includes Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana and Michigan. Jerry Sparks chairs the I-69 Segment One Committee, and said the report will be passed to decision makers, including legislators and Texas Dept Of Transportationofficials.

      The lengthy report is the culmination of about 2 years work.Segment One runs from Texarkana south to around Lufkin, Tx and the future I-69 largely follows U.S. Hwy 59. "Everywhere along the I-69 corridor where it's feasible, it uses existing corridors. We're not trying to build a new superhighway through the middle of nowhere. We want to take advantage of existing highways that meet interstate standards", Sparks said. The report represents traffic and highway data, citizen input and resolutions of support for I-69. It states support for I-69 is not only needed to accomodate population and traffic growth, but also to provide safer travel, improve emergency evacuations and improve economic development. The cost estimate is staggering for the Texas portion. About 16.4 billion is needed statewide to reconstruct roads to be designated I-69 corridors, with 4.6 billion in improvements identified in Segment One alone.

        Sparks pointed out funding is likely to be scarce, as state and national transportation budgets have been cut. "Without adequate funding, all we have is a conceptual plan. But we have to start now and know its an uphill battle. It's not going to be fast," he said. In a TxDOT press release dated July 24, the agency says Texas Transportation Commission recently approved an additional $140 million for various projects along the route, bringing total funding to more than $600 million. The release states funded priorities include the study of relief options in the Nacogdoches/Lufkin/Corrigan area; right of way acquisition for U.S. 59 improvements in Liberty County; environmental and engineering studies in the fort Bend and Wharton County areas; upgrading a section of U.S. 59 in Victoria to interstate standards; construction of a relief route in Premont; the U>S> 77/I-69 interstate-upgrade project from Driscoll to Kingsville; and construction of an overpass in Laredo. The I-69 advisory committee and 5 segment committees were created in 2008 by TTC. The move is a grassroots effort to encourage citizen involvement in planning the Texas portion of I-69.

       In a TxDOT press release dated July 24, the agency said it is reviewing more than 200 miles of highway along U.S. 59, U.S. 77, U.S. 83 and U.S. 281 as the first step in designating these highways as I-69. Most recently 35 miles of U.S. 59 was dually designated as I-69/U.S. 59 between I-610 North in Houston and the Liberty County line. Six miles of U.S. 77 has been designated I-69 between I-37 and state highway 44 in Robstown.

[Grzrd]

A report concerning the local leg of the future Interstate 69 is now available.

The I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations contains an interesting map which references the Freight Shuttle, shows the Northern Loop connection to I-49 as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Connecting Route", and shows a direct "Committee Suggested I-69 Connecting Route" between Carthage and Nacogdoches as a "Truck Route" (instead of a Relief Route).  It even looks like a Toll 49 extension to the I-69 Spur ("East Texas Hourglass") is under consideration (page 21/155 of pdf; page 15 of document):

[dariusb]

Wow! A lot of good info.

[us175]

A report concerning the local leg of the future Interstate 69 is now available.

The I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations contains an interesting map which references the Freight Shuttle, shows the Northern Loop connection to I-49 as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Connecting Route", and shows a direct "Committee Suggested I-69 Connecting Route" between Carthage and Nacogdoches as a "Truck Route" (instead of a Relief Route).  It even looks like a Toll 49 extension to the I-69 Spur ("East Texas Hourglass") is under consideration (page 21/155 of pdf; page 15 of document):

I see they are marking the TX 204 route as a connecting corridor; I've wondered since all the I-69 in east TX stuff has come about, if planners were going to try to emphasize that or not, maybe even to the point of redesignating the road as an extension of US 175 and getting TxDOT to add it as another part of the set of Texas Trunk highways.  They'll need to do a lot of work to get the road (the current TX 204 route) in better/wider shape if they expect it to carry more truck traffic.

[Grzrd]

The agenda for TTC's meeting next week includes this item: Highway Designations
(1) Bowie County - Authorize the submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 59 in Texarkana as an Interstate Highway (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 3.5 mile segment of US 59 from I-30 to SL 151 in Texarkana as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-369. The proposed route will act as a spur within the developing Interstate Highway 69 System.
The Texarkana spur may be designated as I-369.

I know this a little fictional highways but ...US281 becomes I-169 or rather I-969 since they are screwing up Texarkana area.

(above 2 quotes from I-69 in TX thread)

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

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

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.

Assuming the Texas Transportation Commission will authorize the I-369 application to AASHTO at its September 27 meeting (page 6/14 of pdf), I wonder to what degree the I-69 statutory designation will limit AASHTO's discretion in regard to the application.  First, I think AASHTO will agree that, the statute notwithstanding, US 59 in Texarkana should not be designated as I-69 because it is clearly a spur off of mainline I-69 (they would probably contend that not doing so is the most reasonable interpretation of the I-69 statutory provisions in their entirety).  That said, I also think AASHTO would find that the I-69 statutory scheme would prevent them from designating US 59 in Texarkana as an I-x30.

However, I think AASHTO does have the authority to determine the proper first number of the designation; in other words, should it be I-"3"69?  Since the statute does not provide a specific spur designation, I think AASHTO has authority to require that it comply with the conventional spur numbering scheme and be designated as I-969 (or maybe I-769), and I think that there is a reasonable chance that they will issue a conditional approval that will require a change in the designation.

[english si]

However, I think AASHTO does have the authority to determine the proper first number of the designation; in other words, should it be I-"3"69?  Since the statute does not provide a specific spur designation, I think AASHTO has authority to require that it comply with the conventional spur numbering scheme and be designated as I-969 (or maybe I-769), and I think that there is a reasonable chance that they will issue a conditional approval that will require a change in the designation.

What convention? There might be a pattern that some states use, but there doesn't look like a convention to me - or if there is, there's a lot of exceptions.

I reckon it's more likely that AASHTO would raise the question of why not I-169 (as the lowest free number - with no conflicts with other states), than raise the question of why not I-969.

[Grzrd]

What convention?

In general, on N-S interstates, going south-to-north, I believe the general pattern is for mileage is to from 0 upwards; similarly, I am used to seeing spur routes progress generally from 1xx to 9xx.  I'm curious, which states number their spurs from 9xx to 1xx in a south-to-north direction? The semantic difference between convention and pattern is not important to me. 

There might be a pattern that some states use, but there doesn't look like a convention to me - or if there is, there's a lot of exceptions.

In general, AASHTO strives to minimize confusion to the traveling public; I believe the above pattern serves that purpose.

I reckon it's more likely that AASHTO would raise the question of why not I-169 (as the lowest free number - with no conflicts with other states), than raise the question of why not I-969.

What conflicts with other states?  The proposed I-369 in entirely within Texas.  It doesn't matter how other states number their spurs.  For example, Georgia and South Carolina each have an I-185 as their southernmost I-85 spur.

[NE2]

There is no such convention for first digits to increase. Some states have done this on their own, including Texas.

[english si]

In general, on N-S interstates, going south-to-north, I believe the general pattern is for mileage is to from 0 upwards; similarly, I am used to seeing spur routes progress generally from 1xx to 9xx.  I'm curious, which states number their spurs from 9xx to 1xx in a south-to-north direction? The semantic difference between convention and pattern is not important to me.

How about evens on I-5 in CA (8, 4, 6, 2 heading north, ie increased mileage), I-76 in PA goes 3, 1 heading east.

I am beginning to see this pattern, but it isn't bold (FL I-95 goes 3, 1, 5) and clear, or always the case. I've not seen it mentioned in my years of looking at American Roadgeek sites.

What conflicts with other states?  The proposed I-369 in entirely within Texas.  It doesn't matter how other states number their spurs.  For example, Georgia and South Carolina each have an I-185 as their southernmost I-85 spur.

Avoid the nearby I-169 if Shreveport has one, or something. Take the DC I-695/MD I-695 confusion recently when the former was signed, for instance. They can't do jack about it, as there's all the evens taken, but if they could have, they would have. There's definitely a few states where they have I-4xx or I-3xx as there's a nearby I-1xx or I-2xx.

Or perhaps they have an idea where auxillary routes might be long term (baring in mind that TX44 and US83 won't be odd spurs, and there's to be three mainlines, and only plan on their being one odd spur of I-69 (say in the Houston area?) and thus I-369 meets the pattern. After all, I'm not hearing complaints about I-781 not being I-981, just in case there's a need for an I-x87 near Albany (and quite why I-587 is so far south - then again perhaps they reckoned that NYC might need two odd numbers) - there's certainly nowhere north of there that would need an odd interstate spur.

There is no such convention for first digits to increase. Some states have done this on their own, including Texas.

That's what I thought. AASHTO don't care, and ironically the people that do care (other than the three people in this thread, or whatever), are the ones that chose the number in the first place.

[Grzrd]

There is no such convention for first digits to increase. Some states have done this on their own, including Texas.

Thanks for the clarification. I had been limited by my myopic observations. I stand corrected.  It is interesting that Texas appears to be departing from its own past practice.

Avoid the nearby I-169 if Shreveport has one, or something.

Interesting example. A system of consistent progressions would pretty much avoid such potential similarities, but as NE2 pointed out, perhaps this would be a better discussion for Fictional Highways.

As for complaining about the numbering,

(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

AASHTO don't care, and ironically the people that do care (other than the three people in this thread, or whatever), are the ones that chose the number in the first place.

The beauty of this Forum is that it is one of the few places in the world that questions like this can be discussed, whether one wants to characterize it as complaining or not.  That said, I don't think the room is completely empty.

[Grzrd]

The agenda for TTC's meeting next week includes this item: Highway Designations
(1) Bowie County - Authorize the submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 59 in Texarkana as an Interstate Highway (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 3.5 mile segment of US 59 from I-30 to SL 151 in Texarkana as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-369. The proposed route will act as a spur within the developing Interstate Highway 69 System.
The Texarkana spur may be designated as I-369.

(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

The "Highway Designations" section was included as subsection (c)(1) of the Section "10. Routine Minute Orders" (pages 4-7 of Sept. 27 Agenda pdf).  The authorization for an application to AASHTO for the I-369 designation was passed in response to a motion to approve all of the Routine Minute Orders.  Video of the Texas Transportation Commission Sept. 27 meeting includes approval of the Routine Minute Orders from approximately 1:51:00 to 1:51:30 on the video.

[NE2]

369, damn she's fine

[dariusb]

         This related news from yesterday's Texarkana Gazette. A freight shuttle from Houston to Texarkana, Texas, could turn an industrial park near Hooks, Texas into a regional transportation hub, said a former Bowie County judge. James Carlow discussed how an overhead freight rail service could reduce truck traffic while saving money for Interstate 69 construction. Carlow who served as Bowie County judge from 1986 to 2010 said private investors could help fund construction of an overhead rail line along existing U S Highway 59  rights of way. The route could bring freight from shipping channels in Houston and New Orleans to TexAmericas Center, a 20,000 acre complex on highway 82 near Hooks. The freight shuttle rails could be built within 2 1/2 years, Carlow said. Carlow said with the expansion of the Panama canal , which is expected to be completed by 2014, ports in Houston and New Orleans could see an increase in freight bound for world markets. Carlow said according to his research, the overhead freightline-which looks like truck trailers with steel wheels that operate on a rail-could be powered by electricity using existing electrical grids. Fuel would cost 6 cents per mile, compared to the line $1.70 per mile for traditional tractor trailers, Carlow said. The shuttle would be quiet and smokeless because it uses electricity. Carlow said the rails would be about 20 feet above the road and allow freight to travel 62 mph. It would be safer because it's above the traffic. The security would be better. They could use heat sensors or an MRI system to check what is in the trailer. It would make it easier to spot nuclear weapons. The overhead trails would be constructed either in the median of U.S. 59 or on the other side of rights of way.
          The system could haul 8,600 trailers each way or  about 17,000 daily, Carlow said. Carlow said the Texarkana region could become a transportation hub if a freight shuttle  is constructed. Inbound cargo could be processed for shipment to major markets. Additionally, products made at Ash Grove and Domtar in Little River County could be shipped to TexAmericas Center and redistributed to world markets via southern ports, Carlow said. We've got to think outside the box. There is no money for I-69, but this could save money shipping by freight shuttle. It doesn't require an environmental study, because we're using existing rights of way, Carlow said. A shuttle could also reduce maintenance of U.S. 59, Carlow said. This would benefit Bowie, Cass, Miller and Little River counties. Carlow also turned attention to the Red River. He said making the waterway navigable could provide a way for Little River County manufacturers to ship goods by river to New Orleans and on to international markets.

[mgk920]

Are there not railroad lines already in that corridor (I have not checked a map on this)?  Also, the speed that you mentioned is much slower than how fast the existing freight railroads already run their intermodal trains.  Yes, there are several major rail routes that run north-south between the Gulf Coast region and the USA's upper midwest.

OTOH, I do kind of wonder how well 'open access' railroads would do in some of the major corridors.

Mike

[Anthony_JK]

Are there not railroad lines already in that corridor (I have not checked a map on this)?  Also, the speed that you mentioned is much slower than how fast the existing freight railroads already run their intermodal trains.  Yes, there are several major rail routes that run north-south between the Gulf Coast region and the USA's upper midwest.

OTOH, I do kind of wonder how well 'open access' railroads would do in some of the major corridors.

Mike

I believe that Union Pacific has a major Class A line already running in that corridor.

[rte66man]

Are there not railroad lines already in that corridor (I have not checked a map on this)?  Also, the speed that you mentioned is much slower than how fast the existing freight railroads already run their intermodal trains.  Yes, there are several major rail routes that run north-south between the Gulf Coast region and the USA's upper midwest.

OTOH, I do kind of wonder how well 'open access' railroads would do in some of the major corridors.

Mike

I believe that Union Pacific has a major Class A line already running in that corridor.

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/rail/plan/ch3.pdf

rte66man

[US71]

Looks like some of the signs will be going up soon. There are sign gantries along I-30 at AR 549/Future I-49.

There is also a small sign yard near US 71 and CR 55 north of Texarkana

[Road Hog]

Odd that Houston would be signed with Shreveport on that 549 stretch. You could just as easily sign Houston on I-30, and Houston is not signed on I-30 until the US 59 exit.

[Grzrd]

The November 27 Texarkana Gazette, instead of an article, has a photo and caption indicating that AR 245/ Future I-49 had the last section of concrete poured yesterday and will open in February:

Staff photo by Evan Lewis • Workers with Interstate Highway Construction of Denver pour the last section of concrete Monday, completing state Highway 245 in Texarkana, Ark. The section between Interstate 30 and U.S. Highway 71 will be open in February, completing the 14.5-mile loop that will eventually become Interstate 49.

Now if AHTD will just pave those last four miles between Doddridge and Louisiana ... and go ahead and sign the above section as I-49 as well.