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: I-69 in TX  (Read 524991 times)

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1083
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: August 15, 2019, 07:42:30 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1425 on: February 04, 2019, 08:15:38 AM »

A 4-level stack? I don't believe I've ever seen one in an essentially rural setting. I can't believe the traffic counts on I20 warrant the extra cost.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 456
  • Last Login: Today at 03:16:02 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1426 on: February 04, 2019, 11:55:07 AM »

Here is a link to the off for the meeting with a map of the project.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/sl390/013119-notice.pdf

If I'm reading that map right, this will build the full I-369 I-20 interchange.
Here's what it will eventually look like when I-369 is fully completed.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us59-harrison-county/harrison-map-best-options.pdf
The green routing.

What is "Potential Toll 49" north of Marshall?
Logged

1

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 7132
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 07:52:55 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1427 on: February 04, 2019, 11:58:51 AM »

Here is a link to the off for the meeting with a map of the project.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/sl390/013119-notice.pdf

If I'm reading that map right, this will build the full I-369 I-20 interchange.
Here's what it will eventually look like when I-369 is fully completed.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us59-harrison-county/harrison-map-best-options.pdf
The green routing.

What is "Potential Toll 49" north of Marshall?

There's already a route numbered 49 about 20 miles north of Marshall (not to be confused with Tyler's beltway).
Logged
Clinched, plus MA 133

Traveled, plus
US ⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚12⒎127A.14⒈159
NH 27,38,111A(E),128; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32; VT 5A; QC 16⒉16⒌263

Bold = new

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1748
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:28 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1428 on: February 04, 2019, 11:59:49 AM »

It would be the eastern extension of the toll road around Tyler. The current terminus South of Tyler would be extended up back across I-20 and over Longview on the way to Marshall. The toll road would end at I-369. It's something nicknamed the "East Texas Hourglass."
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5841
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:26:37 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1429 on: February 04, 2019, 03:14:01 PM »

A 4-level stack? I don't believe I've ever seen one in an essentially rural setting. I can't believe the traffic counts on I20 warrant the extra cost.

TXDOT's probably expecting that interchange to handle much of the Houston-Shreveport movement if, as is likely, I-369 is completed well in advance of I-69 around Shreveport -- and they seem to (a) be getting away from cloverleafs for Interstate junctions and (b) haven't really adopted turbines or CA-style combination direct/loop configurations with the direct ramps reflecting actual or projected high volumes. 

Here is a link to the off for the meeting with a map of the project.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/sl390/013119-notice.pdf

If I'm reading that map right, this will build the full I-369 I-20 interchange.
Here's what it will eventually look like when I-369 is fully completed.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us59-harrison-county/harrison-map-best-options.pdf
The green routing.

What is "Potential Toll 49" north of Marshall?

There's already a route numbered 49 about 20 miles north of Marshall (not to be confused with Tyler's beltway).

Since when has TXDOT given a rats' ass about duplication of numbers?
Logged

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1083
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: August 15, 2019, 07:42:30 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1430 on: February 05, 2019, 02:38:27 PM »

A 4-level stack? I don't believe I've ever seen one in an essentially rural setting. I can't believe the traffic counts on I20 warrant the extra cost.

TXDOT's probably expecting that interchange to handle much of the Houston-Shreveport movement if, as is likely, I-369 is completed well in advance of I-69 around Shreveport -- and they seem to (a) be getting away from cloverleafs for Interstate junctions and (b) haven't really adopted turbines or CA-style combination direct/loop configurations with the direct ramps reflecting actual or projected high volumes. 

Some of the directions (East to North) would not have much if any long distance traffic as that would run up I30 to Texarkana. Same goes for North to West.  Seems extravagant.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5841
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:26:37 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1431 on: February 05, 2019, 05:34:23 PM »

A 4-level stack? I don't believe I've ever seen one in an essentially rural setting. I can't believe the traffic counts on I20 warrant the extra cost.

TXDOT's probably expecting that interchange to handle much of the Houston-Shreveport movement if, as is likely, I-369 is completed well in advance of I-69 around Shreveport -- and they seem to (a) be getting away from cloverleafs for Interstate junctions and (b) haven't really adopted turbines or CA-style combination direct/loop configurations with the direct ramps reflecting actual or projected high volumes. 

Some of the directions (East to North) would not have much if any long distance traffic as that would run up I30 to Texarkana. Same goes for North to West.  Seems extravagant.

In reality, a simple cloverleaf, but modified with a WB>SB flyover and a larger-radius NB>EB ramp (and C/D lanes for the rest) would be more than adequate for that particular situation -- but TXDOT seems to prefer some form of stack for system interchanges these days, even out in the relative hinterlands.  Guess they're a little more spendthrift than some of us would figure for a public agency. 

At least it's not a fucking volleyball!!!!!!
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 993
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: August 17, 2019, 11:36:18 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1432 on: February 05, 2019, 06:55:05 PM »

Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 273
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:00:30 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1433 on: February 05, 2019, 07:48:54 PM »

Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.

Besides, they can build 5-level stacks cheaper in Texas (Dallas High 5) than Arkansas can build 4 lanes bridges crossing rivers (Arkansas/I-49,Mississippi/I-69).
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 993
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: August 17, 2019, 11:36:18 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1434 on: February 05, 2019, 07:52:24 PM »

Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.

Besides, they can build 5-level stacks cheaper in Texas (Dallas High 5) than Arkansas can build 4 lanes bridges crossing rivers (Arkansas/I-49,Mississippi/I-69).
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 273
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:00:30 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1435 on: February 05, 2019, 09:30:53 PM »

Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.

Besides, they can build 5-level stacks cheaper in Texas (Dallas High 5) than Arkansas can build 4 lanes bridges crossing rivers (Arkansas/I-49,Mississippi/I-69).
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.

Yes, but somehow 4 lanes across the 2 big muddy creeks in Arkansas are double that price, each.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5841
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:26:37 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1436 on: February 06, 2019, 03:37:35 AM »

Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.

Besides, they can build 5-level stacks cheaper in Texas (Dallas High 5) than Arkansas can build 4 lanes bridges crossing rivers (Arkansas/I-49,Mississippi/I-69).
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.

Yes, but somehow 4 lanes across the 2 big muddy creeks in Arkansas are double that price, each.

Apples and oranges.  Crossing a navigable channel with a structure such as a cable-stay span, complete with approaches, will invariably cost considerably more than a bunch of short bridges with 16-foot clearances.  Besides, TXDOT probably has several existing stack designs readily available to be adapted to the surroundings -- it's not like this is anything novel for them!   
Logged

Chris

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2241
  • International road enthusiast

  • Age: 31
  • Location: the Netherlands
  • Last Login: August 17, 2019, 03:11:11 PM
    • Flickr
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1437 on: February 06, 2019, 04:09:38 AM »

I think the Dallas High Five Interchange is a little more complex / expensive than your average 4-level stack. They used much longer spans than a typical 100 ft beam.

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 273
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:00:30 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1438 on: February 06, 2019, 10:58:55 AM »

Apples and oranges.  Crossing a navigable channel with a structure such as a cable-stay span, complete with approaches, will invariably cost considerably more than a bunch of short bridges with 16-foot clearances.  Besides, TXDOT probably has several existing stack designs readily available to be adapted to the surroundings -- it's not like this is anything novel for them!

And crossing the Mississippi and Arkansas rivers aren't anything particularly novel either as Arkansas has done both a few times now.  Something like a cable stay might possibly be necessary for the I-69 crossing of the Mississippi River, but for I-49, there is nothing even remotely unusual about where that crosses.  There will be to be some build-up of approaches to go over levees and probably a fairly raised road bed through the Kibler bottoms since it's flood prone, but there's nothing unusual about that even in Arkansas as large stretches of I-40 east of Little Rock require the same.  Heck, even just a simple utilitarian bridge like the current I-540 Arkansas River crossing would get the job done.  Not pretty, but handles the traffic counts required of it over a navigable waterway just upstream a few miles where the I-49 one would go.

https://goo.gl/maps/Zg1rJbP5QVA2

We seem to have this hangup these days to make everything into a work of art, but the cost growth just means that a state like Arkansas just can't afford to put a masterpiece in place when we're currently shuttling the traffic around 5+ additional miles over I-40, I-540, and a 2-lane AR-59 to connect the 2 currently built segments of I-49 in the river valley that take US-71 south of Ft. Smith or to any points on the south side of the river to the east.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1748
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:28 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1439 on: February 06, 2019, 11:06:08 AM »

Quote from: Chris
I think the Dallas High Five Interchange is a little more complex / expensive than your average 4-level stack. They used much longer spans than a typical 100 ft beam.

The Dallas High Five Interchange is the only stack in Texas I can think of that uses cast-segmental bridge spans. And then that's only used on the parts of fly-over bridges that go directly over the I-635/US-75 main lanes. The rest of it is like so many stacks in Texas: made with lots and lots of straight beams. It's kind of clunky looking compared to an all cast-segmental stack interchange, such as I-10 & AZ-303 in Phoenix.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.

Where is ODOT supposedly building a 4-level stack interchange? They've been dragging their feet for well over a decade now on the I-44/I-235 interchange in Oklahoma City; that one will have two fly-over bridges and two cloverleaf loops. The same kind of crap is planned for I-35/I-240 in Oklahoma City.

Quote from: sparker
Apples and oranges. Crossing a navigable channel with a structure such as a cable-stay span, complete with approaches, will invariably cost considerably more than a bunch of short bridges with 16-foot clearances.  Besides, TXDOT probably has several existing stack designs readily available to be adapted to the surroundings -- it's not like this is anything novel for them!

Cable-stay span? Where? As best as I can tell the $400 million (and rising) I-49 project in Fort Smith going from Alma to Barling is nothing special at all. I never heard about a cable stay bridge being included in the plan. The bridge only has to provide clearance for barge traffic, not any bigger ships. That's what, maybe 30 to 40 feet? The other bridges across the Arkansas River in the Fort Smith area are not very high in clearance level at all.

The big thing making the Alma to Barling segment of I-49 expensive: it's 12 miles long and about 5 of those miles has to either be built up on a new berm above the flood plain or on long bridges. I was always under the impression the bridges would be conventional, garden variety spans. Not anything exotic or visually appealing.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5841
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:26:37 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1440 on: February 06, 2019, 12:32:46 PM »

^^^^^^^^^
For some reason I had thought that the I-49 bridge was going to be cable-stayed; but the consensus here is that it's going to be a conventional structure with the added requirement of crossing a wide floodplain.  While that in itself will provoke a different set of plans, it does still require a certain elevation of the main span(s) to clear the towing vessels used for barge movement; that should require significantly more clearance than flyovers within an interchange.  But I do have a question (if anyone familiar with ADOT methodology can provide enlightenment): one of the cost-saving measures used elsewhere has been the use of prestressed concrete bridge elements (primarily beams), which can be fabricated elsewhere and trucked to the site, obviating the need for the building of on-site manufacturing facilities for such (bents, because they extend well below the surface of the ground, still generally require on-site creation).  Does ADOT employ this method -- or any such cost-containment measures? 
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 993
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: August 17, 2019, 11:36:18 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1441 on: February 06, 2019, 01:31:59 PM »

Quote from: Plutonic Panda
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.

Where is ODOT supposedly building a 4-level stack interchange? They've been dragging their feet for well over a decade now on the I-44/I-235 interchange in Oklahoma City; that one will have two fly-over bridges and two cloverleaf loops. The same kind of crap is planned for I-35/I-240 in Oklahoma City.

OkDOT is calling the 235/44 interchange a 4 level which by definition I think they're right.

Rendering of the final product is at the bottom of the page. https://www.ok.gov/odot/OFF_Broadway_and_I-235.html
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1748
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:28 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1442 on: February 06, 2019, 03:17:44 PM »

While ODOT may be selling the I-44/I-235 interchange as "4-level" it is by no means a true stack interchange. For it to be a real stack interchange it can't have any stupid cloverleaf ramps. In this one the I-44 Westbound lanes are connected with 2 cloverleaf ramps. They say there are 7 phases to the project. They started working on this thing 10 years ago. In that span of time only 2 phases of the project have been complete. That's hardly impressive at all. At this rate it will probably take them until the year 2030 to get the whole project done. Maybe it will be around 2040 or 2050 before the modest I-35/I-240 interchange is finished.

Quote from: sparker
While that in itself will provoke a different set of plans, it does still require a certain elevation of the main span(s) to clear the towing vessels used for barge movement; that should require significantly more clearance than flyovers within an interchange.

The highest fly-over bridges in a true directional stack interchange can reach over 100' in height, particularly if the directional interchange is a 5-level stack. I almost get dizzy just driving on the fly-over ramp from Kell Freeway to I-44 in Wichita Falls. That's just a T-interchange, but does have room to upgrade into a full stack if necessary. Barge pushers aren't nearly that high. On the Arkansas River they can't have any deeper than a 9' draft.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 03:38:39 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10468
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 05:02:23 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1443 on: February 06, 2019, 03:35:34 PM »

So it's a four-level cloverstack.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1748
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:28 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1444 on: February 06, 2019, 03:39:36 PM »

Given how stupidly long it's taking ODOT to build it, I'd call it a 4-level clover-clusterf***-stack.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 273
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:00:30 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1445 on: February 06, 2019, 03:47:00 PM »

While ODOT may be selling the I-44/I-235 interchange as "4-level" it is by no means a true stack interchange. For it to be a real stack interchange it can't have any stupid cloverleaf ramps. In this one the I-44 Westbound lanes are connected with 2 cloverleaf ramps. They say there are 7 phases to the project. They started working on this thing 10 years ago. In that span of time only 2 phases of the project have been complete. That's hardly impressive at all. At this rate it will probably take them until the year 2030 to get the whole project done. Maybe it will be around 2040 or 2050 before the modest I-35/I-240 interchange is finished.

Quote from: sparker
While that in itself will provoke a different set of plans, it does still require a certain elevation of the main span(s) to clear the towing vessels used for barge movement; that should require significantly more clearance than flyovers within an interchange.

The highest fly-over bridges in a true directional stack interchange can reach over 100' in height, particularly if the directional interchange is a 5-level stack. I almost get dizzy just driving on the fly-over ramp from Kell Freeway to I-44 in Wichita Falls. That's just a T-interchange, but does have room to upgrade into a full stack if necessary. Barge pushers aren't nearly that high. On the Arkansas River they can't have any deeper than a 9' draft.

According to http://lrportauthority.com/intermodal-transportation/mcclellan-kerr-river-system/, bridges over the channel have a minimum vertical clearance of 52 feet 98% of the time. Actual vertical clearance above the normal level of the navigation pool is normally more than 52 feet.

It's not just barge traffic that uses the marine highway, but also the occasional sailboat.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5841
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:26:37 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1446 on: February 06, 2019, 07:15:02 PM »

So regardless of bridge type, a fixed bridge needs to be 52+ feet above the mean river surface.  This seems to be consistent with the three Interstate bridges in and around Little Rock.   
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1748
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:28 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1447 on: February 06, 2019, 08:32:07 PM »

I don't think every bridge on the Arkansas & Verdigris rivers sports a 52' vertical clearance above the water surface. Some of them, such as the 10th Street Bridge and I-540 bridge in Fort Smith, sure don't look like they're any more than 35 feet above the river, much less 50.

Even if 52' is a mandated vertical clearance regulation that clearance height doesn't have to be applied to the entire bridge. Plenty of ship and barge channel bridges do a bit of a roller coaster hill, making the waterway traffic pass under the bridge at a certain point.
Logged

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 350
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: July 11, 2019, 02:57:49 PM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1448 on: February 06, 2019, 10:44:52 PM »

This is only a slight bit of aside, but:

It's never easy to be #1 in any category in Texas, America's second most populous and second biggest state.

That being said, the past year Texarkana, stuck way up in the northeast corner, has earned multiple #1s, including:

- Earning the Texas 4A Division II state championship in football in December 2017 (they made it to the championship game again in December 2018, and are one of the heavy favorites to win it all next year).  Even as football-crazy as Texas is this mightn't have been a big deal, except that in doing so Texarkana became the first Texas city to have three high schools which have each won a football and a baseball state championship.  Hard for me to believe with as many schools there are in D/FW, Houston and SA, but that's what the sportswriters said.
- Architectural Digest ranked the Perot Theatre in downtown TXK as the nicest theatre in all of Texas.
- A middle school principal in the Texarkana district (TXK has 3 separate districts on the Texas side, 1 on Arkansas) was named the top secondary school principal in the Lone Star State for 2018.
- A young lady in the same district was named as president of the Texas association of student councils.

Texarkana is far from a perfect city, yet it's still a very interesting one, and is pretty much the closest city in the "Great State" to any place in the mid-South, midwest (don't know why we don't hyphenate that, or not hyphenate the previous) and northeast, as well as the resort areas of southeast Oklahoma and Arkansas.  Knowing how wall-to-wall traffic is already on I-30 to Little Rock I wonder what will happen when Texas I-69 is finished from this city all the way to Laredo/McAllen/Brownsville, as well as what will happen when Arkansas I-49 is finished.  If the aforementioned Marshall interchange is a "4-stack", a lot of those stacks' traffic will go through Bowie County, Texas and Miller County, Arkansas.

I think some fascinating things may happen in TXK's future, even by Lone Star State standards.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3125
  • Never say never.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 02:55:51 PM
    • Personal Site
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1449 on: February 07, 2019, 11:12:49 AM »

That's a lot of traffic that could pass through Louisiana but won't. A healthy and growing Texarkana means that Texas doesn't have to care at all what Louisiana does.

Logged
Keep Clearview, lose the government bureaucracies and the politicians who enable them.
US Redo | Louisiana Redo | Route Challenge | Photos

 


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.