I am starting a new thread dedicated to any news about the short I-49 corridor in Texas. I have heard nothing about Texas's plans for this corridor so wanted to know if anyone else has any info.
I assume Interstate 49's exit numbers will not change when it crosses into, and then departs the small segment in Texas. By the way, why will Interstate 49 pass into Texas, instead of staying in Arkansas for the entire length? Does it have to do with the terrain north of Texarkana, or is there some other reason?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2019, 04:18:34 PM
I assume Interstate 49's exit numbers will not change when it crosses into, and then departs the small segment in Texas. By the way, why will Interstate 49 pass into Texas, instead of staying in Arkansas for the entire length? Does it have to do with the terrain north of Texarkana, or is there some other reason?
Two reasons I can think of off the top are : (1) there was to be a direct tie-in with I-369 a few miles west of I-49's current north (temporary) terminus at US 71; I-49 was to turn north at this junction and cross the Red River back into AR at (2) a point where the floodplain was relatively narrow and the scope of the bridge(s) would be smaller and less costly. Now that the eventual alignment of I-369 remains in question (despite the short quasi-signed segment along the US 59 freeway), the first point is itself questionable; it may be that I-49 simply turns north toward the favorable river crossing point without a system interchange within TX. All that is, for the present, TBD!
There is zero chance of present I-369 in Texarakana being extended directly North of its terminus at I-20. There's way way too much stuff in the way.
On the South end of existing I-369, TX DOT is studying the feasibility of building an elevated segment of I-369 above existing US-59. The segment starts at the Lake Drive exit of I-369 and goes down 1.5 miles to County Road 1325/Rock School Road. That would be a tight squeeze for an elevated freeway. And then from there farther South TX DOT would have to acquire and clear a lot of commercial and residential property hugging close to US-59. The I-upgrade picture for US-59 doesn't start looking relatively easy until the highway runs parallel to Wright Patman Lake Dam. All kinds of additional hurdles exist farther South.
Back to the North half of Texarkana: it does look like TX DOT and residents (or businesses more likely) want I-369 coming into Texarkana via US-59. TX DOT eliminated other routes farther West from consideration last fall, such as one that would have run through the TexAmericas Center (the former Red River Army Depot property). I think any extension of I-369 going North of I-30 will have to be built about 5 or so miles West of the existing I-30/I-369 interchange. Obviously that requires I-369 to have a not so neat multiplex with I-30. At that distance out West a Northern extension of I-369 would be able to bypass quite a lot of higher end residential properties, golf courses, schools and other stuff. I-369 would be able to loop around all that stuff. The road would still be expensive to build however. In order to hook into I-49 it would have to be built over some flood areas. On the bright side the Interstate system connection would at least throw a bone of sorts to the TexAmericas Center.
As a side note, I haven't seen anyone talk in any of the threads involving Texarkana about the Arkansas State Highway 151 / Texas State Highway Loop 151 freeway remainder when all of these interstates are completed. I say give that it's own interstate number. The Arkansas section from the state line east to I-49 was already approved by AASHTO as I-130, so let the whole thing be I-269 or I-249.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 18, 2019, 07:14:55 PM
There is zero chance of present I-369 in Texarakana being extended directly North of its terminus at I-20. There's way way too much stuff in the way.
Since when I-20 is rerouted to Texarkana? ;) You mean I-30.
There is still the possibility of an outer loop route connecting I-369 near Wright Patman Lake with I-30 near the TAC and I-49 north of Texarkana where it would shift north to cross the Red River. I personally would extend it east to connect with I-49 south of Texarkana so that it would make a perfect I-x49 loop.
Also, I'd actually favor moving I-369 from the US 59 portion of the Inner Loop (US 59/TX 151/AR 151) to the eastern portion of the loop to end at I-49; let the US 59 portion become I-130 or keep it at US 59. That would be more accommodating to those wanting to reroute the core of the full I-69 extension traffic to I-30 and I-40 or US 82.
I doubt that will happen, but your proposal Anthony_JK makes sense to me.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2019, 06:40:41 PM
I doubt that will happen, but your proposal Anthony_JK makes sense to me.
I'll certainly second that motion; the next step would be to upgrade Loop 151 across the state line to full Interstate standards -- right now, there are substandard shoulders (obviously that route segment wasn't considered by either DOT as a future Interstate). And since the current partially-signed "I-369" along US 59 would connect two Interstates, it would be a good candidate for a I-230.
Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2019, 06:58:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2019, 06:40:41 PM
I doubt that will happen, but your proposal Anthony_JK makes sense to me.
I'll certainly second that motion; the next step would be to upgrade Loop 151 across the state line to full Interstate standards -- right now, there are substandard shoulders (obviously that route segment wasn't considered by either DOT as a future Interstate). And since the current partially-signed "I-369" along US 59 would connect two Interstates, it would be a good candidate for a I-230.
It would have to be I-269 or I-249. It doesn't have a connection to I-30.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 19, 2019, 11:15:39 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2019, 06:58:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2019, 06:40:41 PM
I doubt that will happen, but your proposal Anthony_JK makes sense to me.
I'll certainly second that motion; the next step would be to upgrade Loop 151 across the state line to full Interstate standards -- right now, there are substandard shoulders (obviously that route segment wasn't considered by either DOT as a future Interstate). And since the current partially-signed "I-369" along US 59 would connect two Interstates, it would be a good candidate for a I-230.
It would have to be I-269 or I-249. It doesn't have a connection to I-30.
That's not what I was talking about; the notion was to realign I-369 east over Loop 151 to I-49 south of Texarkana, and then re-number, if necessary, the portion of US 59 north from Loop 151 to I-30; an even x30 would be the most appropriate designation for that route. This gives I-369 a direct tie-in with I-49, and provides a more efficient way for traffic from south TX to access EB I-30 by going
around Texarkana along the 151/49 path rather than straight up to I-30, which goes through the center of town.
I doubt if that's going to happen. It's pretty clear TX DOT and residents of Texarkana want the I-369 approach from the South connecting to Loop 151, where I-369 currently ends. It looks like the current section of I-369 that is currently signed will remain part of I-369 regardless of how segments of I-369 farther South connect to it.
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/oct/31/i-369-route-study-completed/750229/ (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2018/oct/31/i-369-route-study-completed/750229/)
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us-59-queen-city/101118-route-study-report.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us-59-queen-city/101118-route-study-report.pdf)
3 routing options are being studied further for the point between the Lake Drive interchange at Loop 151/I-369 and the intersection of US-59 and County Road 1325/Rock School Road:
1.: upgrading US-59 as an elevated freeway,
2.: an East, new terrain option curving around that part of US-59,
3.: a West, new terrain option doing the same thing.
In any of those scenarios the 5 mile long Southern section of Loop 151 between the current end of I-369 and the I-49 interchange will remain. If that would be re-named as an Interstate highway it would not be able to be called I-369. It would have to be called something else, such as I-249 or any other I-x49 even digit number. The original I-130 designation for that road wouldn't work anymore, not with I-369 being the connection for Loop 151 into I-30 to the West and I-49 to the East.
I think it would be good if Texarkana had a Northern loop highway, starting from the current end of I-49 at US-59 at the State Line. Due to all the higher priced property North of I-30 the North half of a Texarkana loop would have to connect into I-30 farther West of the city. If the Northern loop is designated as a continuation of I-369 then a multiplex of I-369 and I-30 would be a given. The only other possibility would be a 2 digit I-49 or I-30 route. I kind of like the idea of an I-x49 route since one of the purposes of the Northern loop is connecting TexAmericas Center traffic into the I-49 corridor.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 20, 2019, 01:50:04 PM
[...]
I think it would be good if Texarkana had a Northern loop highway, starting from the current end of I-49 at US-59 at the State Line. Due to all the higher priced property North of I-30 the North half of a Texarkana loop would have to connect into I-30 farther West of the city. If the Northern loop is designated as a continuation of I-369 then a multiplex of I-369 and I-30 would be a given. The only other possibility would be a 2 digit I-49 or I-30 route. I kind of like the idea of an I-x49 route since one of the purposes of the Northern loop is connecting TexAmericas Center traffic into the I-49 corridor.
That's pretty much my idea as well (an outer I-449 Northern Loop from the originally planned end of I-49 at the state line to I-30 near the TAC, then further south and east crossing US 59 near Wright Patman Lake, then extending east to end at I-49 south of Texarkana).
From what I am hearing, most folks in Texarkana do favor the alignment using all of existing US 59 tying into the current US 59 (I-369)/Loop 151 interchange, perhaps with a continuous elevated section for the final 1-2 miles of the US 59 upgrade. It doesn't really matter to me if the existing I-369 routing is retained or moved to Loop 151 (with the former route becoming an I-x30 connector).
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 21, 2019, 02:34:20 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 20, 2019, 01:50:04 PM
[...]
I think it would be good if Texarkana had a Northern loop highway, starting from the current end of I-49 at US-59 at the State Line. Due to all the higher priced property North of I-30 the North half of a Texarkana loop would have to connect into I-30 farther West of the city. If the Northern loop is designated as a continuation of I-369 then a multiplex of I-369 and I-30 would be a given. The only other possibility would be a 2 digit I-49 or I-30 route. I kind of like the idea of an I-x49 route since one of the purposes of the Northern loop is connecting TexAmericas Center traffic into the I-49 corridor.
That's pretty much my idea as well (an outer I-449 Northern Loop from the originally planned end of I-49 at the state line to I-30 near the TAC, then further south and east crossing US 59 near Wright Patman Lake, then extending east to end at I-49 south of Texarkana).
From what I am hearing, most folks in Texarkana do favor the alignment using all of existing US 59 tying into the current US 59 (I-369)/Loop 151 interchange, perhaps with a continuous elevated section for the final 1-2 miles of the US 59 upgrade. It doesn't really matter to me if the existing I-369 routing is retained or moved to Loop 151 (with the former route becoming an I-x30 connector).
That I-449 scenario would be quite funny due to Texas being so 3di unfriendly; having a 3di to an interstate that just clips the state and the 3di will probably have more mileage than the parent in Texas.
I still think that I-369 is premature, since it will be a vey long time before it actually connects to its parent some 100 miles to the south. In all fairness, I would support an I-x49 loop route as well, but move it far out to avoid the development that the current I-369 encounters at its north end.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 21, 2019, 02:34:20 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 20, 2019, 01:50:04 PM
[...]
I think it would be good if Texarkana had a Northern loop highway, starting from the current end of I-49 at US-59 at the State Line. Due to all the higher priced property North of I-30 the North half of a Texarkana loop would have to connect into I-30 farther West of the city. If the Northern loop is designated as a continuation of I-369 then a multiplex of I-369 and I-30 would be a given. The only other possibility would be a 2 digit I-49 or I-30 route. I kind of like the idea of an I-x49 route since one of the purposes of the Northern loop is connecting TexAmericas Center traffic into the I-49 corridor.
That's pretty much my idea as well (an outer I-449 Northern Loop from the originally planned end of I-49 at the state line to I-30 near the TAC, then further south and east crossing US 59 near Wright Patman Lake, then extending east to end at I-49 south of Texarkana).
From what I am hearing, most folks in Texarkana do favor the alignment using all of existing US 59 tying into the current US 59 (I-369)/Loop 151 interchange, perhaps with a continuous elevated section for the final 1-2 miles of the US 59 upgrade. It doesn't really matter to me if the existing I-369 routing is retained or moved to Loop 151 (with the former route becoming an I-x30 connector).
I think by Congressional order, I-369 must connect to I-30 in Texarkana so the Loop-151/ AR-151 would have to be I-X49 or I-X69 if it were granted interstate status.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2019, 10:42:11 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 21, 2019, 02:34:20 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 20, 2019, 01:50:04 PM
[...]
I think it would be good if Texarkana had a Northern loop highway, starting from the current end of I-49 at US-59 at the State Line. Due to all the higher priced property North of I-30 the North half of a Texarkana loop would have to connect into I-30 farther West of the city. If the Northern loop is designated as a continuation of I-369 then a multiplex of I-369 and I-30 would be a given. The only other possibility would be a 2 digit I-49 or I-30 route. I kind of like the idea of an I-x49 route since one of the purposes of the Northern loop is connecting TexAmericas Center traffic into the I-49 corridor.
That's pretty much my idea as well (an outer I-449 Northern Loop from the originally planned end of I-49 at the state line to I-30 near the TAC, then further south and east crossing US 59 near Wright Patman Lake, then extending east to end at I-49 south of Texarkana).
From what I am hearing, most folks in Texarkana do favor the alignment using all of existing US 59 tying into the current US 59 (I-369)/Loop 151 interchange, perhaps with a continuous elevated section for the final 1-2 miles of the US 59 upgrade. It doesn't really matter to me if the existing I-369 routing is retained or moved to Loop 151 (with the former route becoming an I-x30 connector).
I think by Congressional order, I-369 must connect to I-30 in Texarkana so the Loop-151/ AR-151 would have to be I-X49 or I-X69 if it were granted interstate status.
Actually, the legislated definition of HPC #20, one of two that makes up the I-69 corridor complex, is pretty loose; it specifies endpoints of Laredo and Texarkana and a route generally following US 59 in between. Any details, such as whether it needs to remain in TX (the name Texarkana applies to cities in both TX and AR), are -- just like with any previous Interstate route including the original chargeables -- worked out by the relevant DOT. There's no technical reason why I-369 couldn't be shunted over to I-49 in AR via Loop 151 -- if TXDOT would go along with that change. Right now the corridor is only in its initial phase; if indeed there are efforts to dislodge I-369 from its present signed US 59 freeway alignment south of I-30, they probably won't occur until much more of the corridor is built toward Marshall and the main I-69 trunk at Tenaha.
Quote from: sparker on July 23, 2019, 12:33:52 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2019, 10:42:11 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 21, 2019, 02:34:20 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 20, 2019, 01:50:04 PM
[...]
I think it would be good if Texarkana had a Northern loop highway, starting from the current end of I-49 at US-59 at the State Line. Due to all the higher priced property North of I-30 the North half of a Texarkana loop would have to connect into I-30 farther West of the city. If the Northern loop is designated as a continuation of I-369 then a multiplex of I-369 and I-30 would be a given. The only other possibility would be a 2 digit I-49 or I-30 route. I kind of like the idea of an I-x49 route since one of the purposes of the Northern loop is connecting TexAmericas Center traffic into the I-49 corridor.
That's pretty much my idea as well (an outer I-449 Northern Loop from the originally planned end of I-49 at the state line to I-30 near the TAC, then further south and east crossing US 59 near Wright Patman Lake, then extending east to end at I-49 south of Texarkana).
From what I am hearing, most folks in Texarkana do favor the alignment using all of existing US 59 tying into the current US 59 (I-369)/Loop 151 interchange, perhaps with a continuous elevated section for the final 1-2 miles of the US 59 upgrade. It doesn't really matter to me if the existing I-369 routing is retained or moved to Loop 151 (with the former route becoming an I-x30 connector).
I think by Congressional order, I-369 must connect to I-30 in Texarkana so the Loop-151/ AR-151 would have to be I-X49 or I-X69 if it were granted interstate status.
Actually, the legislated definition of HPC #20, one of two that makes up the I-69 corridor complex, is pretty loose; it specifies endpoints of Laredo and Texarkana and a route generally following US 59 in between. Any details, such as whether it needs to remain in TX (the name Texarkana applies to cities in both TX and AR), are -- just like with any previous Interstate route including the original chargeables -- worked out by the relevant DOT. There's no technical reason why I-369 couldn't be shunted over to I-49 in AR via Loop 151 -- if TXDOT would go along with that change. Right now the corridor is only in its initial phase; if indeed there are efforts to dislodge I-369 from its present signed US 59 freeway alignment south of I-30, they probably won't occur until much more of the corridor is built toward Marshall and the main I-69 trunk at Tenaha.
Couldn't the proposed I-369 be a 2di? I-67 maybe? Or I-47?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2019, 04:18:34 PM
I assume Interstate 49's exit numbers will not change when it crosses into, and then departs the small segment in Texas. By the way, why will Interstate 49 pass into Texas, instead of staying in Arkansas for the entire length? Does it have to do with the terrain north of Texarkana, or is there some other reason?
New York has a similar thing with both I-86 and I-684 both dipping out of state, and I-24 goes into GA to interchange I-59 near Chatanooga, TN. So this concept is not that unusual.
Quote from: sparkerActually, the legislated definition of HPC #20, one of two that makes up the I-69 corridor complex, is pretty loose; it specifies endpoints of Laredo and Texarkana and a route generally following US 59 in between. Any details, such as whether it needs to remain in TX (the name Texarkana applies to cities in both TX and AR), are -- just like with any previous Interstate route including the original chargeables -- worked out by the relevant DOT.
Again, that process is actually beyond its initial phases and not so loose anymore. As of October 2018, TX DOT did away with the options of bringing I-369 up to I-30 well West of the Loop 131 corridor. They're now focused on connecting I-369 into Loop 151 near the Lake Drive interchange via 3 different possible alignments, one option being an elevated freeway above US-59 running into Loop 151. I strongly doubt TX DOT is going to consider steering I-369 away from the Loop 151 corridor anymore.
QuoteCouldn't the proposed I-369 be a 2di? I-67 maybe? Or I-47?
I don't even like the I-69 number in Texas at all. Chances are next to none the I-69 segments in Texas will be directly connected to I-69 system segments East of the Mississippi River within the next 20-30 years.
With that being said, I would only favor an "I-47" designation if it went from Texarkana down to Brownsville (and/or Laredo). But the ship has sailed on that situation, making I-69 a done deal from here on out. I-369 is pretty long for a 3 digit Interstate. However, how many more 2-digit Intra-State highways does Texas need? There's I-2 and I-14 in just the past few years. I-2 physically can't go any farther Northwest than Laredo (where it could potentially meet a I-27 extension in the distant future). I don't see I-14 getting East of Texas any time in the foreseeable future. Killeen to Huntsville (or a "W" shape to Madisonville) is about all we're going to see in the next 20 or so years,
if that even materializes. Anyway, I for one don't mind the I-369 designation. There are other long 3-digit routes in the system, like I-135 in Kansas.
^^^^^^^^^
I've mentioned this before, but back around 2010 I actually suggested within correspondence with the Alliance for I-69/Texas that what's now I-369 be designated as I-47 (for the obvious grid-related reasons). That suggestion was shot down summarily; their position, echoed by TXDOT, was that all TX corridors listed in the legislated description of the two HPC's (18 & 20) that formed the basis for the total I-69 corridor needed to reference the number "69" in some form; hence the suffixed "trident" in South Texas plus the Texarkana branch, later designated I-369. The US 83 "lateral" corridor in South Texas was never a part of that legislation, so TXDOT was free to submit any number they wanted -- and so I-2 was born.
Quote from: sparker on July 25, 2019, 06:46:11 PM
^^^^^^^^^
I've mentioned this before, but back around 2010 I actually suggested within correspondence with the Alliance for I-69/Texas that what's now I-369 be designated as I-47 (for the obvious grid-related reasons). That suggestion was shot down summarily; their position, echoed by TXDOT, was that all TX corridors listed in the legislated description of the two HPC's (18 & 20) that formed the basis for the total I-69 corridor needed to reference the number "69" in some form; hence the suffixed "trident" in South Texas plus the Texarkana branch, later designated I-369. The US 83 "lateral" corridor in South Texas was never a part of that legislation, so TXDOT was free to submit any number they wanted -- and so I-2 was born.
It's interesting that you mention the history of the suffixed I-69 branches in South Texas because I recall that the AASHTO Special Committee on Route Numbering originally voted to reject TxDOT's application for the I-69E, C, and W designations on the portions of US-77, 281 and 59 that were up to interstate standards, on the basis that AASHTO maintained a long-standing policy against suffixed interstate route numbers (note that many formerly suffixed interstates were assigned new route numbers following AASHTO's prohibition on suffixed routes).
Although the Special Committee on Route Numbering voted to deny TxDOT's application for I-69E, C and W, the parent body, the Standing Committee on Highways reversed the Special Committee on Route Numbering's decision and granted the suffixed I-69 designations on the basis that those designations were codified into federal law, meaning that only an act of Congress could allow a different route designation to be applied to any of the I-69 branches in South Texas.
As for I-369, it'll be over 100 miles in length and could qualify for its own 2di designation if the powers that be have the appetite to pursue such a change. Keep in mind that I-476 in Pennsylvania is over 130 miles in length, so I-369 being over 100 miles long when finished is not unprecedented.
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 01, 2019, 12:57:43 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 25, 2019, 06:46:11 PM
^^^^^^^^^
I've mentioned this before, but back around 2010 I actually suggested within correspondence with the Alliance for I-69/Texas that what's now I-369 be designated as I-47 (for the obvious grid-related reasons). That suggestion was shot down summarily; their position, echoed by TXDOT, was that all TX corridors listed in the legislated description of the two HPC's (18 & 20) that formed the basis for the total I-69 corridor needed to reference the number "69" in some form; hence the suffixed "trident" in South Texas plus the Texarkana branch, later designated I-369. The US 83 "lateral" corridor in South Texas was never a part of that legislation, so TXDOT was free to submit any number they wanted -- and so I-2 was born.
It's interesting that you mention the history of the suffixed I-69 branches in South Texas because I recall that the AASHTO Special Committee on Route Numbering originally voted to reject TxDOT's application for the I-69E, C, and W designations on the portions of US-77, 281 and 59 that were up to interstate standards, on the basis that AASHTO maintained a long-standing policy against suffixed interstate route numbers (note that many formerly suffixed interstates were assigned new route numbers following AASHTO's prohibition on suffixed routes).
Although the Special Committee on Route Numbering voted to deny TxDOT's application for I-69E, C and W, the parent body, the Standing Committee on Highways reversed the Special Committee on Route Numbering's decision and granted the suffixed I-69 designations on the basis that those designations were codified into federal law, meaning that only an act of Congress could allow a different route designation to be applied to any of the I-69 branches in South Texas.
As for I-369, it'll be over 100 miles in length and could qualify for its own 2di designation if the powers that be have the appetite to pursue such a change. Keep in mind that I-476 in Pennsylvania is over 130 miles in length, so I-369 being over 100 miles long when finished is not unprecedented.
Which brings up a whole different issue.....if a state can bypass AASHTO & the Standing Committee with a simple notation in a funding bill in Congress, then whats the point of having a group review it? Delegations can then go to Congress and get whatever number they feel like.
Quote from: abqtravelerIt's interesting that you mention the history of the suffixed I-69 branches in South Texas because I recall that the AASHTO Special Committee on Route Numbering originally voted to reject TxDOT's application for the I-69E, C, and W designations on the portions of US-77, 281 and 59 that were up to interstate standards, on the basis that AASHTO maintained a long-standing policy against suffixed interstate route numbers (note that many formerly suffixed interstates were assigned new route numbers following AASHTO's prohibition on suffixed routes).
I don't mind suffixes on route numbers like I-35E or I-69C. But there is one thing I believe should be banned: the practice of using larger numerals on "neutered" (no state name) 3-digit Interstate shields. The results are absolutely HIDEOUS, especially on route signs with letter suffixes such as I-69E. If the letter spacing of characters was any tighter on these shields they would literally be overlapping each other. Visually it looks totally unprofessional. The only way it could be any worse is if the characters were artificially squeezed/distorted out of normal proportions in the graphics software.
The interstate highway shield was never designed to hold numerals the same size as a plain US highway shield. Yet many states insist on using neutered shields. IMHO, if the shield numerals need to hit a certain size specification then a larger shield should be used. Oklahoma isn't the best at all in signing standards, but one thing you can find is larger state named Interstate shields with smaller US highway signs on the same posts.
Quote from: edwaleniWhich brings up a whole different issue.....if a state can bypass AASHTO & the Standing Committee with a simple notation in a funding bill in Congress, then whats the point of having a group review it? Delegations can then go to Congress and get whatever number they feel like.
Without a standing committee or some type of independent body to manage route numbers, it would turn into a stupid, ego-driven mess if politicians had free reign and zero oversight to number any road as they desire.
The scenario reminds me of the movie
Reservoir Dogs and the interaction between the boss of the caper, Joe Cabot (Lawrence Tierney) and Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi). Joe assigned him the name Mr. Pink, but he wants a less queer sounding name.
Mr Pink: "Why can't we pick our own colors?"
Joe: "No way, no way. Tried it once, it doesn't work. You get four guys all fighting over who's gonna be Mr. Black, but they don't know each other, so nobody wants to back down. No way. I pick. You're Mr. Pink. Be thankful you're not Mr. Yellow."
If politicians were put in charge of numbering the highways we might literally see the numbers of Interstate and US Highways change at state lines.
First of all, thanks to the op for starting this thread. Even though I no longer live in the Texarkana area, I still like keeping up with what's going on there. Anyway, I remember an old map that was in an edition of the Texarkana Gazette showing what the freeway network might look like when completed. From the proposed I-49 interchange on the Texas side, it showed a proposed I-249 running around the north side of town and north of I-30. As the road crosses going south of I-30 it turns to I-369 and runs through TexAmericas Center and points south. Don't know if any of you remember that.
To come to think of it, even though I-49 doesn't enter Texas yet, Texas has manufactured a few I-49 shields. That leads me to the conversation of who has what jurisdiction over State Line Drive in Texarkana. Some times it divided right down the middle and signs on the west are definitely TxDOT and signs on the east are definitely ADOT sigs. Then here is one of the I-49 assemblies:
https://goo.gl/maps/jx5Ea3K8MYTHMmu66 (https://goo.gl/maps/jx5Ea3K8MYTHMmu66)
At that location of that picture, State Line Drive is 100% in Texas, but the northbound (east side of the road) signs are both ADOT and TxDOT assemblies.
Anyway, all to say does anyone know if there has been any movement at the intersection linked?
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 03, 2021, 02:08:43 PM
To come to think of it, even though I-49 doesn't enter Texas yet, Texas has manufactured a few I-49 shields. That leads me to the conversation of who has what jurisdiction over State Line Drive in Texarkana. Some times it divided right down the middle and signs on the west are definitely TxDOT and signs on the east are definitely ADOT sigs. Then here is one of the I-49 assemblies:
https://goo.gl/maps/jx5Ea3K8MYTHMmu66 (https://goo.gl/maps/jx5Ea3K8MYTHMmu66)
At that location of that picture, State Line Drive is 100% in Texas, but the northbound (east side of the road) signs are both ADOT and TxDOT assemblies.
Anyway, all to say does anyone know if there has been any movement at the intersection linked?
There is a house on the west side of 71 at I-49. I've not driven by lately, but I'm fairly sure the house is on I-49 ROW. It's been a while since I've been down that way. If I can get a couple sunny days, I'll go see if there's anything being done.
Quote from: US71 on February 03, 2021, 05:21:04 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 03, 2021, 02:08:43 PM
To come to think of it, even though I-49 doesn't enter Texas yet, Texas has manufactured a few I-49 shields. That leads me to the conversation of who has what jurisdiction over State Line Drive in Texarkana. Some times it divided right down the middle and signs on the west are definitely TxDOT and signs on the east are definitely ADOT sigs. Then here is one of the I-49 assemblies:
https://goo.gl/maps/jx5Ea3K8MYTHMmu66 (https://goo.gl/maps/jx5Ea3K8MYTHMmu66)
At that location of that picture, State Line Drive Avenue is 100% in Texas, but the northbound (east side of the road) signs are both ADOT and TxDOT assemblies.
Anyway, all to say does anyone know if there has been any movement at the intersection linked?
There is a house on the west side of 71 at I-49. I've not driven by lately, but I'm fairly sure the house is on I-49 ROW. It's been a while since I've been down that way. If I can get a couple sunny days, I'll go see if there's anything being done.
There isn't anything being done and nothing in the works. This is the end of the line until Arkansas begins their construction from Richmond Ar to DeQueen. The proposed routing really is not conducive to opening it in stretches.
Someone talked about Texarkana (TX) property north of I-30 being pricey, this stretch of the road is going to run through the bottoms. Construction may run extra, but in this area it would be just rough land prices. TXDOT will probably pay for most of the Red River Crossing, but ARDOT will still have to cross the Little River and a bunch of smaller streams before it gets to DeQueen.
TxDOT already owns the ROW for the brief section that crosses through the state.
They are waiting until Arkansas makes a financial commitment.
Quote from: edwaleni on February 04, 2021, 12:05:26 PM
TxDOT already owns the ROW for the brief section that crosses through the state.
They are waiting until Arkansas makes a financial commitment.
The part to from the freeway end at the Arkansas State Line east of US-71 and to the KCSRR for sure. As to past the KCS RR, are you sure of that? There doesn't appear to have been any changes out there to suggest it. I have not been North of Summerhill (FM-1397) in around a year, but from Summerhill and CR-2320, there is no evidence of anything. Then again, TXDOT tends to let land owners (sellers) use it if it is contiguous to other property under a common fence or field plat.
Quote from: bwana39 on February 04, 2021, 01:26:45 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on February 04, 2021, 12:05:26 PM
TxDOT already owns the ROW for the brief section that crosses through the state.
They are waiting until Arkansas makes a financial commitment.
The part to from the freewau end at the Arkansas State Line east of US-71 and to the KCSRR for sure. As to past the KCS RR, are you sure of that? There doesn't appear to have been any changes out there to suggest it. I have not been North of Summerhill (FM-1397) in around a year, but from Summerhill and CR-2320, there is no evidence of anything. Then again, TXDOT tends to let land owners (sellers) use it if it is contiguous to other property under a common fence or field plat.
I read it in a TxDOT planning document a year or two ago.
I would imagine that they have allowed the current farmers to continue to work the land in the interim.
TnDOT allowed farmers to keep working their fields for 5-6 years north of Union City. One farmer didn't take the chance and left a 40 foot gap in his corn where the centerline was. Across the road they grew hay and then stopped planting when TnDOT warned them in advance.
Quote from: edwaleni on February 04, 2021, 02:07:23 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 04, 2021, 01:26:45 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on February 04, 2021, 12:05:26 PM
TxDOT already owns the ROW for the brief section that crosses through the state.
They are waiting until Arkansas makes a financial commitment.
The part to from the freewau end at the Arkansas State Line east of US-71 and to the KCSRR for sure. As to past the KCS RR, are you sure of that? There doesn't appear to have been any changes out there to suggest it. I have not been North of Summerhill (FM-1397) in around a year, but from Summerhill and CR-2320, there is no evidence of anything. Then again, TXDOT tends to let land owners (sellers) use it if it is contiguous to other property under a common fence or field plat.
I read it in a TxDOT planning document a year or two ago.
I would imagine that they have allowed the current farmers to continue to work the land in the interim.
TnDOT allowed farmers to keep working their fields for 5-6 years north of Union City. One farmer didn't take the chance and left a 40 foot gap in his corn where the centerline was. Across the road they grew hay and then stopped planting when TnDOT warned them in advance.
That is why I wondered. Like you said, the gap. It seems like in every one of these places, there is at least one seller who will not even shred or mow it. They barely fix the fences. This portion is mostly grazing land.