AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Interstate 369  (Read 58451 times)

dariusb

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 172
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Killeen,Tx
  • Last Login: September 14, 2019, 12:51:48 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #250 on: September 06, 2019, 08:54:31 PM »

The I-369 corridor is definitely a priority for TX DOT. However, that doesn't mean they're giving segments of I-69 farther South toward Houston a short shrift. The nearer term emphasis is on building bypasses and/or upgrading segments of US-59 to Interstate quality in small cities along the corridor, such as segments of I-69 in Lufkin-Diboll and Nacogdoches. Basically TX DOT has to get ahead of the very messy, anything goes nonsense in many communities along the route that stupidly allow developers to build way too close to the highway ROW. These jerk developers have known the Interstate was coming for many years but choose to build in the way anyway.

Unfortunately the emphasis of getting ahead of developers in towns and small cities along the way comes at the expense of building the longer rural connections of I-69 and I-369.

A lot of planning work has already gone into I-369 in the Marshall area. That is compounded by TX DOT efforts at extending the TX Toll-49 highway from Tyler up across I-20 over the top of Longview and ending at I-369. I'm a little surprised TX DOT intends to build a directional stack interchange with I-20 and I-369. If the same project was taking place in Oklahoma it would almost certainly be built as an old fashioned (and CHEAP) cloverleaf interchange. ODOT couldn't build a stack interchange to save its own life.

I think TX DOT needs to work much harder and much much faster at simply securing the required ROW for I-69 and I-369 and clearing the properties in the way off of the corridor. Texas is seeing unprecedented rapid growth and development. The standard operating procedure process of literally taking decades to build any of this new highway infrastructure simply is not going to work. While TX DOT and others spend years endlessly studying a given corridor segment all sorts of hair-brained, greedy developers are going to continue building all over the land on the proposed corridor. Each year that passes will see more and more homes, businesses hugging up next to US-59, along with lots of driveways spilling traffic directly onto the US-59 main lanes.

It's a Catch-22 situation with these towns. Many of them want the new Interstate coming thru town, along existing US-59 so it doesn't bypass the town on a new terrain alignment. But the town fathers in many of these places have so little discipline at keeping developers in line and keeping their new buildings and driveways off the existing corridor that it all but forces the Interstate on a new terrain alignment.
When you mentioned cities letting developers build too close to the proposed road, that's exactly what happened concerning where I-369 terminates at I-30. The northern loop was supposed to start from there but because so much development was allowed there a whole new I-30 interchange had to be found.
Logged
Glad to be alive

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5908
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 14, 2019, 03:21:01 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #251 on: September 07, 2019, 04:20:16 AM »

When you mentioned cities letting developers build too close to the proposed road, that's exactly what happened concerning where I-369 terminates at I-30. The northern loop was supposed to start from there but because so much development was allowed there a whole new I-30 interchange had to be found.

IIRC, the north loop and any western TX-based bypass of Texarkana west of the currently designated I-369 along US 59 has been shelved for the time being, with I-369 simply terminating where it does now at I-30 (at least it has an appropriate interchange for doing so!).  Whether that loop will be revived down the line is yet TBD; it's assumed that I-369 traffic to and from I-30 will follow the current route, while traffic intended for northward I-49 -- whenever that facility becomes a reality -- will have a choice of using I-30 or, more simply, Loop 151 (which may gain Interstate status at some point if brought up to standard).  The development situated in the path north of the current 30/369 interchange was there well prior to the 1991 establishment of the I-69 family of corridors; while part of the original regional "brief" was to shunt traffic to both I-30 and I-49, it's become clear that providing I-369 access to the former has been given priority over the latter, particularly since the former actually exists and the latter is at best indefinitely tentative -- and out of the developmental hands of the I-69 TX backers.  So for the time being the I-369 construction emphasis will be from Tenaha to SW Texarkana so as to complete that 115-mile corridor; a direct and more efficient connection to I-49 north of town will have to be in the form of a future revived west/north loop, which may or may not carry the I-369 designation -- but in reality no one will even be thinking about that until the main I-49 trunk is at least let and underway.  And as far as ROW preservation in TX is concerned, a lot of that is complicated by the fact that most zoning and developmental decisions occur at the county-by-county level, so TxDOT has to put up with longstanding and varying local structure and idiom when it comes to the decision to upgrade the existing route or bypass it with new-terrain construction.  So far -- at least to the south along the I-69 trunk, the results have been mixed, with some new-terrain planning combined with in situ improvements.  Again, to reiterate a cliche', in TX all politics is local -- and it shows!
Logged

dariusb

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 172
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Killeen,Tx
  • Last Login: September 14, 2019, 12:51:48 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #252 on: September 08, 2019, 03:19:08 AM »

Since there are a lot of businesses in the SW portion of the city construction through there will be challenging. I wonder will that section be elevated? I read that traffic counts on I-30 will triple in the coming years, no doubt increased by the addition of traffic from I-369. Plans are to make I-30 six lanes between New Boston and Texarkana in anticipation of increased traffic. Traffic counts on I-30 through Texarkana are 85,000. Over the next 10-15 years counts are expected to triple which is crazy to me.
Logged
Glad to be alive

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5908
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 14, 2019, 03:21:01 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #253 on: September 09, 2019, 01:55:41 AM »

Since there are a lot of businesses in the SW portion of the city construction through there will be challenging. I wonder will that section be elevated? I read that traffic counts on I-30 will triple in the coming years, no doubt increased by the addition of traffic from I-369. Plans are to make I-30 six lanes between New Boston and Texarkana in anticipation of increased traffic. Traffic counts on I-30 through Texarkana are 85,000. Over the next 10-15 years counts are expected to triple which is crazy to me.

Since it'll probably be at least 20-25 years until the composite 69/369 corridor in TX is substantially complete, there's ample time for plans for dispersing traffic through the Texarkana area to gel.  The optimal plan, of course, would be a west/north bypass intersecting 369 SW of town and heading north past I-30 and then east to meet I-49 similar to previously explored plans.  But even if that doesn't come together, it would be a relatively simple matter to improve Loop 151 to Interstate standards and use that as a bypass (likely designated a x49 by that time) for traffic intended for either I-49 or EB I-30 to circumnavigate central Texarkana -- the I-30 access part of which would be utilized regardless of whether the west/north bypass were ever built; its main purpose would be to get to NB I-49.   
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1784
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:27 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #254 on: September 09, 2019, 11:37:46 AM »

Quote from: dariusb
Since there are a lot of businesses in the SW portion of the city construction through there will be challenging. I wonder will that section be elevated?

TX DOT finished the I-369 route study for the junction between US-59 and the existing Texarkana loop:

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

The recommendation, based in part on public input, is to upgrade the existing US-59 corridor. East and West bypass options around existing US-59 were studied. Those options were rejected. If/when the I-369 upgrade along existing US-59 is built some of the freeway will be built at grade, which will require removal of a bunch of properties. The segment joining the existing loop will likely be elevated.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5908
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 14, 2019, 03:21:01 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #255 on: September 09, 2019, 10:45:35 PM »

Quote from: dariusb
Since there are a lot of businesses in the SW portion of the city construction through there will be challenging. I wonder will that section be elevated?

TX DOT finished the I-369 route study for the junction between US-59 and the existing Texarkana loop:

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

The recommendation, based in part on public input, is to upgrade the existing US-59 corridor. East and West bypass options around existing US-59 were studied. Those options were rejected. If/when the I-369 upgrade along existing US-59 is built some of the freeway will be built at grade, which will require removal of a bunch of properties. The segment joining the existing loop will likely be elevated.

Has the method of elevating I-369 been broached as of yet?  Obviously 2 options: continuous bridge or berm with periodic bridge breaks.  I wonder just what local opinion will favor -- either option will require major physical changes to the immediate area. 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1784
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:27 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #256 on: September 10, 2019, 01:33:08 PM »

The decision hasn't been made final yet. But the preliminary recommendation is to elevate I-369 for 1.5 miles over the top of existing US-59 from I-369/Loop-151 down to Rock School Road (CR-1325). The elevated bridge structure would end just South of Liberty-Eylau Elementary School. The existing US-59 road is an undivided 4-lane road with a center turn lane. The ROW is about 150' wide (measuring from the utility easements). That's enough room to build an elevated 4-lane freeway bridge. The only question really is the design of the bridge structure. Will it have bridge piers built in place of the existing center turn lane or have piers built to the outside of the existing highway? The design may end up a bit similar to how the Grand Parkway in the Houston area is being planned to squeeze through the town of Kemah.

The I-369 upgrade for the next 3.5 miles farther South along US-59 would be built at-grade, likely with frontage roads. I'm guessing TX DOT would clear the properties adjacent to existing US-59 on the West side of the road since there are fewer properties on that side. As US-59 reaches Wright Patman Lake Dam the road widens into a divided 4-lane highway with considerably more ROW. Interstate upgrades from there down to the new FM-3129 exit and farther South to Queen City should be fairly easy. The Queen City/Atlanta, TX area is another ball of wax.

The US-59 upgrade into I-369 going into the existing Texarkana loop will be more expensive and require removal of more properties (particularly where the road is built at grade and expands outward with frontage roads). But, as you can see in the route study report, there was actually far more opposition to the East Route and West Route new terrain options.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2019, 01:36:03 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.