First it was AR 245, then Future I-130, now it's AR 549, and next it's going to be I-49. Will Future I-130 be decommissioned? Will this be the first AASHTO-approved interstate to be decommissioned before a single sign was posted? Or will it be forgotten, a secret number on a road that never was to be...or will the ghost of Future I-130 raise from the dead and set up shop somewhere else? A Benton to Hot Springs interstate would make a dandy I-130 (even though I prefer I-330). Or maybe a future Hope spur or an Arkadelphia-Hot Springs freeway?
I don't think it's been formally decommissioned yet, but considering the entire approved Future I-130 (i.e., the pre-2013 Loop from I-30 to US 71) either (a) will soon be I-49 or (b) was handed over to the city and downgraded to Four States Fair Boulevard, it certainly ain't gonna happen.
There were tons of interstates in the original system that were decommissioned without a single sign being posted.
Send it to the home for lost highway designations. I'm sure 2, 3, 6, 47, 68, 99 and 471 would love some new company ;)
Were the initial interstates such as I-67 AASHO approved?
Yep:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Interstate_Highway_plan_August_14%2C_1957.jpg)
You could say I-31 in ND was "decommissioned without being posted", since it was merged with I-29 in later planning maps.
This is just a thought but couldn't Ar/TX 151 between the I-49/AR 549 interchange and the I-369/US 59 interchange be made into I-130?
Quote from: dariusb on July 13, 2014, 04:07:31 AM
This is just a thought but couldn't Ar/TX 151 between the I-49/AR 549 interchange and the I-369/US 59 interchange be made into I-130?
Because it doesn't touch I-30?
Didn't stop I-369 much. :P
How about a sensible 3DI with a sensible even first digit?
Quote from: yakra on July 22, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
Didn't stop I-369 much. :P
Could the reason for that be... I don't know... because I-369 is planned to connect to I-69 at a later date? :rolleyes:
Of course, I-369 could easily turn into an abandoned project like I-170--in which case, choosing an I-x30 off-the-bat would have been better--or even I-47.
Quote from: yakra on July 22, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
Didn't stop I-369 much. :P
How about a sensible 3DI with a sensible even first digit?
It's a spur off its yet to be built parent. An odd first digit is just fine.
Quote from: Brandon on July 23, 2014, 10:12:29 AM
Quote from: yakra on July 22, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
Didn't stop I-369 much. :P
How about a sensible 3DI with a sensible even first digit?
It's a spur off its yet to be built parent. An odd first digit is just fine.
It's also an example of FHWA doing the best it can with Congressional
meddling, er, legislation. HPC 20 defines the Texarkana-to-Tenaha corridor as I-69; however, FHWA realized that HPC 18 also defines "mainline national" I-69, and that the two statutes, when read together, created an I-69/I-69 interchange in the Tenaha area. FHWA, in interpreting the statutes, decided that Congress did not intend that result. FHWA apparently decided that Congress intended that the Texarkana-to-Tenaha corridor be an I-69 "spur". As a "spur", the corridor received an odd first digit, I-369, even though the corridor is intended to eventually connect I-30 with I-69, which under normal circumstances would warrant an even first digit I-x69.
Interestingly, the current connection with I-30 allows the current I-369 signage because it provides a connection to the currently existing interstate system, even though that current connection with I-30 is not reflected in the odd first digit I-369 designation itself.
Clear?
edit
In light of FHWA's recent decision that the I-69W designation for the Laredo-to-George West prong complies with the HPC 20 "I-69" designation language, perhaps it's not too late to redesignate I-369 as I-69N in order to give Texarkana a 2di suffixed I-69 and remove any controversy over an odd first digit 3di vs. even first digit 3di. :bigass:
Quote from: Grzrd on July 23, 2014, 12:46:24 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 23, 2014, 10:12:29 AM
Quote from: yakra on July 22, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
Didn't stop I-369 much. :P
How about a sensible 3DI with a sensible even first digit?
It's a spur off its yet to be built parent. An odd first digit is just fine.
It's also an example of FHWA doing the best it can with Congressional meddling, er, legislation. HPC 20 defines the Texarkana-to-Tenaha corridor as I-69; however, FHWA realized that HPC 18 also defines "mainline national" I-69, and that the two statutes, when read together, created an I-69/I-69 interchange in the Tenaha area. FHWA, in interpreting the statutes, decided that Congress did not intend that result. FHWA apparently decided that Congress intended that the Texarkana-to-Tenaha corridor be an I-69 "spur". As a "spur", the corridor received an odd first digit, I-369, even though the corridor is intended to eventually connect I-30 with I-69, which under normal circumstances would warrant an even first digit I-x69.
Interestingly, the current connection with I-30 allows the current I-369 signage because it provides a connection to the currently existing interstate system, even though that current connection with I-30 is not reflected in the odd first digit I-369 designation itself.
Clear?
edit
In light of FHWA's recent decision that the I-69W designation for the Laredo-to-George West prong complies with the HPC 20 "I-69" designation language, perhaps it's not too late to redesignate I-369 as I-69N in order to give Texarkana a 2di suffixed I-69 and remove any controversy over an odd first digit 3di vs. even first digit 3di. :bigass:
I'm pretty sure Congress insisted on I-69E/C/W in south Texas so Brownsville, Pharr & Laredo could all claim they got the south end of I-69 -- though technically the winner was Victoria. ;) The Texarkana spur doesn't have quite the same rationale, especially since Texarkana already has I-30 *and* will soon have I-49 as well. IMO I-369 is less of a rules violation than I-69E/C/W; it's essentially an extreme outer bypass of Shreveport. (It would have also been an outer bypass of Texarkana if built as originally planned thru Red River Army Depot, but its continued BRAC reprieves killed that plan and forced I-369 onto the Loop.)
Quote from: Grzrd on July 23, 2014, 12:46:24 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 23, 2014, 10:12:29 AM
Quote from: yakra on July 22, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
Didn't stop I-369 much. :P
How about a sensible 3DI with a sensible even first digit?
It's a spur off its yet to be built parent. An odd first digit is just fine.
It's also an example of FHWA doing the best it can with Congressional meddling, er, legislation. HPC 20 defines the Texarkana-to-Tenaha corridor as I-69; however, FHWA realized that HPC 18 also defines "mainline national" I-69, and that the two statutes, when read together, created an I-69/I-69 interchange in the Tenaha area. FHWA, in interpreting the statutes, decided that Congress did not intend that result. FHWA apparently decided that Congress intended that the Texarkana-to-Tenaha corridor be an I-69 "spur". As a "spur", the corridor received an odd first digit, I-369, even though the corridor is intended to eventually connect I-30 with I-69, which under normal circumstances would warrant an even first digit I-x69.
Interestingly, the current connection with I-30 allows the current I-369 signage because it provides a connection to the currently existing interstate system, even though that current connection with I-30 is not reflected in the odd first digit I-369 designation itself.
Clear?
edit
In light of FHWA's recent decision that the I-69W designation for the Laredo-to-George West prong complies with the HPC 20 "I-69" designation language, perhaps it's not too late to redesignate I-369 as I-69N in order to give Texarkana a 2di suffixed I-69 and remove any controversy over an odd first digit 3di vs. even first digit 3di. :bigass:
Actually, it is inconsistent for the application of an even or odd first digit when the interstate spur in question connects two different mainline interstates.
Examples of interstates that connect between two (or more) different mainline interstates with an odd first digit:
I-155 IL
I-355 IL
I-395 CT/MA
I-580 CA
I-505 CA
I-376 PA*
I-390 NY+
I-380 PA
I-135 KS
I-335 KS
*Yes, it was extended after designation to connect back to I-76 and up to I-80.
+Originally a spur, now connects to I-86.
Then there are the various even first digit interstate spurs that lead to nothing (I-495 NY comes to mind).
Quote from: Brandon on September 02, 2014, 09:51:04 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 23, 2014, 12:46:24 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 23, 2014, 10:12:29 AM
Quote from: yakra on July 22, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
Didn't stop I-369 much. :P
How about a sensible 3DI with a sensible even first digit?
It's a spur off its yet to be built parent. An odd first digit is just fine.
It's also an example of FHWA doing the best it can with Congressional meddling, er, legislation. HPC 20 defines the Texarkana-to-Tenaha corridor as I-69; however, FHWA realized that HPC 18 also defines "mainline national" I-69, and that the two statutes, when read together, created an I-69/I-69 interchange in the Tenaha area. FHWA, in interpreting the statutes, decided that Congress did not intend that result. FHWA apparently decided that Congress intended that the Texarkana-to-Tenaha corridor be an I-69 "spur". As a "spur", the corridor received an odd first digit, I-369, even though the corridor is intended to eventually connect I-30 with I-69, which under normal circumstances would warrant an even first digit I-x69.
Interestingly, the current connection with I-30 allows the current I-369 signage because it provides a connection to the currently existing interstate system, even though that current connection with I-30 is not reflected in the odd first digit I-369 designation itself.
Clear?
edit
In light of FHWA's recent decision that the I-69W designation for the Laredo-to-George West prong complies with the HPC 20 "I-69" designation language, perhaps it's not too late to redesignate I-369 as I-69N in order to give Texarkana a 2di suffixed I-69 and remove any controversy over an odd first digit 3di vs. even first digit 3di. :bigass:
Actually, it is inconsistent for the application of an even or odd first digit when the interstate spur in question connects two different mainline interstates.
Examples of interstates that connect between two (or more) different mainline interstates with an odd first digit:
I-155 IL
I-355 IL
I-395 CT/MA
I-580 CA
I-505 CA
I-376 PA*
I-390 NY+
I-380 PA
I-135 KS
I-335 KS
*Yes, it was extended after designation to connect back to I-76 and up to I-80.
+Originally a spur, now connects to I-86.
Then there are the various even first digit interstate spurs that lead to nothing (I-495 NY comes to mind).
So long as it doesn't connect back to its parent Interstate, the spur designation should hold (which should question I-376 around Western PA)...
Quote from: Brandon on September 02, 2014, 09:51:04 AM
Then there are the various even first digit interstate spurs that lead to nothing (I-495 NY comes to mind).
495 is an interesting case:
As originally conceived, it was to "connect" I-95 in New Jersey with I-78 in Queens, with NY 24 extending eastward from there but continuing on the same mainline route.
Around that time, a proposal to connect the east end to I-95 in Connecticut was floated, but ultimately never went further beyond that stage.
In the 1970s the section east of what was built as I-78 (now I-295) became NY 495. In the 1980s, the I-495 designation was extended eastward (while 495 west of 278 officially became a state route, but is still signed as Interstate from 278 into Manhattan).
The original numbering seemed to reflect New York's approach of strictly following the even/odd rules of "even routes have termini at Interstates at both ends" even though save the unbuilt east end bridge, the constructed route always has functioned as an east-west spur.
As for 580 in that above list...the 1984 extension actually made it a true spur route for the first time, albeit one that is even more of a hodgepodge corridor than the original segment.
What about having I-130 run from I-30 to I-49. Then have 369 end at 130.
Or the southern part could be 569 or 149.
I'm fairly confused about I-369 and its routing in the Texarkana area.
First of all, there is a proposed "I-69" route running into I-30 about 8 miles West of the current I-30/I-369 interchange. That "I-69" route is cutting through the TexAmericas Center, South of Hooks, TX and Leary, TX. That particular "I-69" route is what would be extended farther North past I-20 and terminated at the short, Texas segment of I-49 before it crosses the Red River and back into Arkansas. The way it sounds, that's what's really going to turn into I-369 eventually.
I-369, as it is positioned on TX Loop 151 in Texarkana, is looking at some challenges with extending I-369 off the loop and farther South into Texas toward the parent I-69 route. There is a pretty good amount of commercial and residential development along US-59 Southwest of Texarkana. I strongly doubt TX DOT could convert US-59 into I-369 on its current alignment South of the loop. But where do you build a new terrain route? It's looking like a very expensive proposition just getting I-369 South past Wright Patman Dam.
Regardless of where I-369 actually ends up going, it's probably going to have to run on the East side of Wright Patman Dam. Wright Patman Lake is pretty big. If I-369 only ended up going into the TexAmericas Center the only two route options are along/near US-59 on the East side of the dam, or building the route 12 miles West along TX-8 (bypassing Atlanta, TX and Queen City, TX in the process).
Summing up this confusion, it looks like Texarkana will either get I-369 along one of two proposed routes, or they're actually going to have two I-x69 spurs in the area.
At any rate, if I-369 actually ends up not ever getting built fully into Texarkana and going to the TexAmericas Center instead, then it might be possible to revive that I-130 designation (even though something like I-230 makes more sense since it would be connecting to Interstate highways on either end).
Hopefully this map will clear things up a bit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVWdNt.png&hash=5efa81c93248d2daf63ff688351ad039dfc3f71b)
As I understand it the blue line from Tenaha to Texarkana is I-369 and the blue line from Lufkin to Joaquin is mainline I-69. The brown routes are other routes that might be constructed/upgraded to tie into the I-69/I-369 system.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 03, 2014, 04:17:21 PM
Hopefully this map will clear things up a bit
Also, this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg149646#msg149646) quotes two Resolutions from the Texarkana MPO and related background material that helps to explain why they approved the current I-369 designation, but ultimately have their eyes on a relief route to TexAmericas Center.
So, basically, some people kind of jumped the gun in sticking those I-369 shields on the loop highway in Texarkana when I-369 stands a good chance of not going there.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 03, 2014, 09:56:24 PM
So, basically, some people kind of jumped the gun in sticking those I-369 shields on the loop highway in Texarkana when I-369 stands a good chance of not going there.
The environmental studies for I-49 north of Texarkana assume the existing Texas Loop (now I-369) will be extended northwest from I-30 (easiest way thru the residential areas) to the edge of the city, then back east to meet I-49 just west of the Arkansas Loop's end -- no TexAmericas Center shortcut, but a full-circle Loop via I-369, I-49 & AR/TX Loop 151.
Still, there's no question the original "Future I-130" is essentially dead; all of it will soon be either I-49 or non-freeway. AHTD & AASHTO haven't found the fat lady yet, but she's already sung...
Same thing that happened to I-910.
Quote from: RBBrittain on October 05, 2014, 02:42:35 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 03, 2014, 09:56:24 PM
So, basically, some people kind of jumped the gun in sticking those I-369 shields on the loop highway in Texarkana when I-369 stands a good chance of not going there.
The environmental studies for I-49 north of Texarkana assume the existing Texas Loop (now I-369) will be extended northwest from I-30 (easiest way thru the residential areas) to the edge of the city, then back east to meet I-49 just west of the Arkansas Loop's end -- no TexAmericas Center shortcut, but a full-circle Loop via I-369, I-49 & AR/TX Loop 151.
The mall sitting north of the I-30/I-369 interchange may prove to making a northern extension difficult from that point. Also, when that interchange was revamped. no provisions were made in the design for a future northern extension.
Quote from: RBBrittain on October 05, 2014, 02:42:35 AM
The environmental studies for I-49 north of Texarkana assume the existing Texas Loop (now I-369) will be extended northwest from I-30 (easiest way thru the residential areas) to the edge of the city, then back east to meet I-49 just west of the Arkansas Loop's end -- no TexAmericas Center shortcut, but a full-circle Loop via I-369, I-49 & AR/TX Loop 151.
However, the Executive Summary of the Texarkana to DeQueen US 71 and Texarkana Northern Loop FEIS (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/030108_2001_09_01_aFEIS_Sum.pdf), completed in September, 2001, does anticipate the possibility that the Texas I-69 Corridor evaluation (HPC 20) could result in a westerly relocation of US 59, which in turn would necessitate more environmental studies for the Texas segment of the Northern Loop (page 14/24 of pdf; page ES-13 of the document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4CFLjC2.jpg&hash=c5a0234b7827523c6bec9a9bfd2b28fc738ea39a)
At least the FEIS (and resultant ROD) allowed Arkansas to build and open its section of the Northern Loop to traffic, with I-49 signage coming soon to that section.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 03, 2014, 09:56:24 PM
So, basically, some people kind of jumped the gun in sticking those I-369 shields on the loop highway in Texarkana when I-369 stands a good chance of not going there.
Get your photos now before it's too late ;)