AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The forum just turned ten years old! Where has all the time gone?

Author Topic: I-69 in TX  (Read 512173 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5362
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 07:16:58 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1450 on: February 07, 2019, 12:48:06 PM »

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.



Which, of course, is the raison d'etre of the TXDOT/Alliance for I-69 prioritization of I-369 over the "mainline" I-69 into LA -- the state can thus make unilateral moves to expedite access NE from Houston, which was the prime concern of the folks who cobbled up HPC #20, the portion of the I-69 corridor following US 59 throughout TX.  Getting traffic to I-30 was the goal; the interchange with I-20 at Marshall as discussed above will be, for the time being, sufficient to divert that traffic intended for Shreveport or elsewhere along I-20. 
Logged

the young texan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9
  • Location: Houston, Texas
  • Last Login: March 23, 2019, 11:36:08 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1451 on: February 11, 2019, 12:05:04 PM »

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.



Which, of course, is the raison d'etre of the TXDOT/Alliance for I-69 prioritization of I-369 over the "mainline" I-69 into LA -- the state can thus make unilateral moves to expedite access NE from Houston, which was the prime concern of the folks who cobbled up HPC #20, the portion of the I-69 corridor following US 59 throughout TX.  Getting traffic to I-30 was the goal; the interchange with I-20 at Marshall as discussed above will be, for the time being, sufficient to divert that traffic intended for Shreveport or elsewhere along I-20.

I think Texas wants I-69 to be rerouted to the I-30-I-40 corridor in Arkansas. I'm not sure what they'd do with the I-69 portion in Downtown Memphis as I-69 would go into Memphis with I-40. I do think this would be best for I-69 as The Shreveport-Memphis route wouldn't be used as much as the Texarkana-Memphis route through Little Rock.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 224
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 04:28:38 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1452 on: February 11, 2019, 01:15:31 PM »

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.



Which, of course, is the raison d'etre of the TXDOT/Alliance for I-69 prioritization of I-369 over the "mainline" I-69 into LA -- the state can thus make unilateral moves to expedite access NE from Houston, which was the prime concern of the folks who cobbled up HPC #20, the portion of the I-69 corridor following US 59 throughout TX.  Getting traffic to I-30 was the goal; the interchange with I-20 at Marshall as discussed above will be, for the time being, sufficient to divert that traffic intended for Shreveport or elsewhere along I-20.

I think Texas wants I-69 to be rerouted to the I-30-I-40 corridor in Arkansas. I'm not sure what they'd do with the I-69 portion in Downtown Memphis as I-69 would go into Memphis with I-40. I do think this would be best for I-69 as The Shreveport-Memphis route wouldn't be used as much as the Texarkana-Memphis route through Little Rock.

And then it's Arkansas' problem to deal with the extra traffic.  Sure hope those 2 segments of interstate are 3x3 at minimum throughout the state.

In 2035, just 16 years from now, pretty much all of the interstate mileage in Arkansas is forecast to be "highly congested", which is stop and go during peak periods.  Not just around Memphis, Little Rock, and Texarkana, but nearly ALL of the mileage.

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/images/hi_res_jpg/nhsconghghvoltrk2035.jpg
« Last Edit: February 11, 2019, 01:28:19 PM by MikieTimT »
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2834
  • Visionary

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 06:48:20 PM
    • Personal Site
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1453 on: February 11, 2019, 04:23:54 PM »

I doubt Texas really cares where all that traffic goes after it leaves Texas. The point is that I'm pretty sure they'd rather it pass through their city of Texarkana, which will keep it in Texas the longest.
Logged
Keep Clearview, lose the government bureaucracies and the politicians who enable them.
US Redo | Louisiana Redo | Route Challenge | Photos

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 922
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 11:08:43 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1454 on: February 12, 2019, 01:34:43 AM »

I doubt Texas really cares where all that traffic goes after it leaves Texas. The point is that I'm pretty sure they'd rather it pass through their city of Texarkana, which will keep it in Texas the longest.
This is precisely why national corridors should NOT be planned by states and rather the federal government!
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5362
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 07:16:58 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1455 on: February 12, 2019, 04:14:57 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.



Which, of course, is the raison d'etre of the TXDOT/Alliance for I-69 prioritization of I-369 over the "mainline" I-69 into LA -- the state can thus make unilateral moves to expedite access NE from Houston, which was the prime concern of the folks who cobbled up HPC #20, the portion of the I-69 corridor following US 59 throughout TX.  Getting traffic to I-30 was the goal; the interchange with I-20 at Marshall as discussed above will be, for the time being, sufficient to divert that traffic intended for Shreveport or elsewhere along I-20.

I think Texas wants I-69 to be rerouted to the I-30-I-40 corridor in Arkansas. I'm not sure what they'd do with the I-69 portion in Downtown Memphis as I-69 would go into Memphis with I-40. I do think this would be best for I-69 as The Shreveport-Memphis route wouldn't be used as much as the Texarkana-Memphis route through Little Rock.

The interested TX-based parties don't particularly care what the corridor is numbered, as long as it's completed in a reasonable timeframe and does the job its creators envisioned.  The Alliance has long been the "keeper" of the "69" family; they're the ones who pushed for the I-369 designation for the NE branch along US 59  -- although I suggested the "I-47" designation to them for that corridor back in 2010 as part of a regular correspondence with that group over several years; they replied that they wanted to reference the "69" designation over all the TX corridor portions covered by the original I-69 designation of HPC's #18 & #20 in 1995 (other adjacent corridors not cited in the original legislation could be numbered outside that sphere -- e.g., I-2 in the Rio Grande Valley). 

I doubt Texas really cares where all that traffic goes after it leaves Texas. The point is that I'm pretty sure they'd rather it pass through their city of Texarkana, which will keep it in Texas the longest.
This is precisely why national corridors should NOT be planned by states and rather the federal government!

Most of the planning for "national" corridors has been done by private and/or regional interests, who tend to bypass the DOT's of the states through which the corridors run and go directly to the congressional representatives from the affected districts -- who often see such things as demonstrative of their provision of benefits to their constituents.  The state agencies are eventually brought into the picture -- often with some reticence -- with the final corridor routing and design choices.  As I've stated several times in several threads, the lack of federal impetus dates from 1973 with legislation initiated within the Nixon administration that (a) shifted funding of capital projects, including transportation, to "block grants" to be administered at the state level, and (b) correspondingly shifted the impetus for such projects to state and local levels.  But beginning in 1991 with ISTEA, Congressional action could specify certain corridors for prioritization in disbursement of funds and qualification for maximal (80%) federal "match" -- but within the normal federal yearly budgetary process -- no equivalent to the dedicated Interstate funds for "chargeable" mileage starting in 1957; project funding needed to be eked out year by year at congressional whim.  For the past 46 years there hasn't been any effort to "re-up" the concept of either national planning (anathema to many current Congresspersons) or a general return to the 90% federal funding level (although that figure has been sporadically applied to some "spot" projects).  On a national level, the political will just hasn't been there!     
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1612
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 02:56:57 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1456 on: February 12, 2019, 09:29:19 AM »

Quote from: Plutonic Panda
This is precisely why national corridors should NOT be planned by states and rather the federal government!

When the federal government abdicates its role in planning, designing and funding national corridors, leaving most of that burden to the states then those individual states are going to build those corridors to fit their individual needs.

Individual states will even tune those corridors to specific local needs rather than any big picture view, just like what we're seeing along parts of I-69. Other states will call the corridor an unfunded mandate and just not build much of it at all. There's a billion plus dollar Mississippi river bridge that will likely never get built under the current "model" of highway planning. Then we have other laughable crap, like the giant L-shaped route I-69 takes through Kentucky. They routed I-69 on existing parkways rather than build anything new. This is what we get with the current model of federal oversight on super highways.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2834
  • Visionary

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 06:48:20 PM
    • Personal Site
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1457 on: February 12, 2019, 11:29:07 AM »

Quote from: Plutonic Panda
This is precisely why national corridors should NOT be planned by states and rather the federal government!
When the federal government abdicates its role in planning, designing and funding national corridors, leaving most of that burden to the states then those individual states are going to build those corridors to fit their individual needs. Individual states will even tune those corridors to specific local needs rather than any big picture view, just like what we're seeing along parts of I-69. Other states will call the corridor an unfunded mandate and just not build much of it at all. ...This is what we get with the current model of federal oversight on super highways.

Welcome to federalism. The federal government has become an oversized sloth, capable of little beyond making itself bigger and starting wars. (A lot like Louisiana has been for decades, with the ability to start wars.) Texas doesn't really need the federal government either. It's doing pretty well for itself, in fact capitalizing on its position as a leader over the several states that are imploding.
Logged
Keep Clearview, lose the government bureaucracies and the politicians who enable them.
US Redo | Louisiana Redo | Route Challenge | Photos

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3553
  • Last Login: April 22, 2019, 10:45:59 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1458 on: February 12, 2019, 12:40:39 PM »

Then we have other laughable crap, like the giant L-shaped route I-69 takes through Kentucky. They routed I-69 on existing parkways rather than build anything new.

Using Google Maps and comparing driving distance versus a direct measurement, it looks to me the most a direct routing through Kentucky would have saved would be 30 miles.  Not sure that would be worth maybe 70 miles of new construction at this time.  Maybe if Marion and Morganfield were bigger it would be.
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.