AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in TX  (Read 528149 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5912
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 05:31:23 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: 10
  • Location: Houston, Texas
  • Last Login: August 07, 2019, 07:20:18 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: 281
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 07:12:09 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: 3217
  • Never say never.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: September 13, 2019, 04:44:37 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: 1035
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 03:26:04 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: 5912
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 05:31:23 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: 1785
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:47:02 AM
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: 3217
  • Never say never.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: September 13, 2019, 04:44:37 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: 3668
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 10:19:49 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

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 383
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: August 21, 2019, 10:15:45 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1459 on: July 16, 2019, 06:02:04 PM »

According to Google Maps Street View from May of 2018, the I-69 to I-69E signing project from the Callallen I-37 intersection south to Robstown isn't complete as of then:

https://goo.gl/maps/AjTxdpoHeGHG3XELA

Can someone from the area verify that is has been remedied.  For some reason, the last time I was there I thought I saw I-69E stand alones.
Logged

austrini

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 210
  • Collin County GIS admin

  • Location: Dallas
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 11:33:21 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1460 on: July 17, 2019, 01:16:02 PM »

I was there in June (going to Kingsville) and saw zero I-69E shields. If you go all the way down to that first BGS in Raymondville you get them though.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 01:18:16 PM by austrini »
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 383
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: August 21, 2019, 10:15:45 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1461 on: July 23, 2019, 01:18:45 PM »

Are there plans to upgrade this intersection to interstate standards by the Mexico/US border?

https://goo.gl/maps/LdGnBoGUU66dVwwh9

Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2196
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:35:54 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1462 on: July 23, 2019, 02:54:47 PM »

According to Google Maps Street View from May of 2018, the I-69 to I-69E signing project from the Callallen I-37 intersection south to Robstown isn't complete as of then:

https://goo.gl/maps/AjTxdpoHeGHG3XELA

Can someone from the area verify that is has been remedied.  For some reason, the last time I was there I thought I saw I-69E stand alones.
Don't know the current status, but I will say that the newly upgraded section south of Robstown that was completed back in 2018 only had standard I-69 shields when I drove up the highway last year. It also appears on Google Street View.
Logged

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 527
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 03:09:05 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1463 on: July 23, 2019, 07:04:53 PM »

Bids were opened last week for a section of main lanes on the south side of Nacogodoches. Looking at Google aerial views, I don't know why this strange curving alignment was selected because a direct route is mostly vacant land. But selecting inefficient alignments seems to be TxDOT's standard operating procedure these days.

County:   NACOGDOCHES   Let Date:   07/09/19
Type:   CONSTRUCT 4 LANE DIRECT CONNECTION   Seq No:   3002
Time:   523 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   NH 1902(081)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   07193002
Length:   6.100   CCSJ:   0176-01-081
Limits:   
From:   SH 7   Check:   $100,000
To:   1.242 MI SOUTH OF SPRADLEY ST.   Misc Cost:   $580,000.00
Estimate   $77,867,877.57   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $86,198,369.43   +10.70%   LONGVIEW BRIDGE AND ROAD, LTD.
Bidder 2   $89,349,489.78   +14.74%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 3   $91,680,440.52   +17.74%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.
Bidder 4   $92,301,213.56   +18.54%   EAST TEXAS BRIDGE, INC.
Bidder 5   $100,655,367.50   +29.26%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 6   $106,919,764.27   +37.31%   JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY


roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9500
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 10:57:02 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1464 on: July 23, 2019, 11:25:58 PM »

 I do not know why I-69 does not take over I-30 and replace the I-57 extension to Little Rock.  Let it use part of proposed I-57 and then a new freeway over to I-155 in MO. Then up its path into Kentucky.

Is Memphis really that important? Plus AR is not really that gung ho at the moment to built their part as I-49 is top on the list of getting done for freeways.  Even IMO I-49 is more important as right now commerce could easily use I-30 and I-40, just build I-69 from San Jacinta County up to Texarkana and you have that issue solved.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2196
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:35:54 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1465 on: July 24, 2019, 06:39:03 AM »

Bids were opened last week for a section of main lanes on the south side of Nacogodoches. Looking at Google aerial views, I don't know why this strange curving alignment was selected because a direct route is mostly vacant land. But selecting inefficient alignments seems to be TxDOT's standard operating procedure these days.

That “vacant land” is a heavily developed area with hotels and gas stations. A good reason to avoid it. That certainly wouldn’t be cheap to buy out. That’s why it curves to the east then back to the west.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2196
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:35:54 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1466 on: July 24, 2019, 11:21:56 AM »

According to Google Maps Street View from May of 2018, the I-69 to I-69E signing project from the Callallen I-37 intersection south to Robstown isn't complete as of then:

https://goo.gl/maps/AjTxdpoHeGHG3XELA

Can someone from the area verify that is has been remedied.  For some reason, the last time I was there I thought I saw I-69E stand alones.
Don't know the current status, but I will say that the newly upgraded section south of Robstown that was completed back in 2018 only had standard I-69 shields when I drove up the highway last year. It also appears on Google Street View.
Google Street View from May 2019 still shows I-69 shields, not I-69E.

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7398201,-97.6997014,3a,37.5y,133.44h,70.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOAm-Y0uwzXGdm11UcPkjSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2196
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:35:54 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1467 on: July 24, 2019, 11:42:20 AM »

New May 2019 Street View imagery along US-77 south of Driscoll shows construction ramping up on the I-69E Driscoll Bypass, along with clearing work north of Bishop.

The current project is 10.4 miles long and will upgrade US-77 to interstate standards between the north end of the Bishop Bypass and the southern end of the 2017 completed I-69E segment, and includes a 3 mile bypass around Driscoll. The project began construction in February 2019 and will be completed by April 2022 for a total cost of $118 million. Once completed, I-69E will stretch from I-37 to south of Kingsville, a distance of approximately 32 miles.

https://www.zachryconstructioncorp.com/Projects/Transportation/US-77-Driscoll-Bypass/
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1785
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:47:02 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1468 on: July 24, 2019, 11:08:08 PM »

Quote from: roadman65
Is Memphis really that important? Plus AR is not really that gung ho at the moment to built their part as I-49 is top on the list of getting done for freeways.  Even IMO I-49 is more important as right now commerce could easily use I-30 and I-40, just build I-69 from San Jacinta County up to Texarkana and you have that issue solved.

Memphis is a major distribution hub. FedEx HQ is there. The metro could use another Interstate corridor. It's just too bad the route is getting built so damn crooked. It would pretty much take a god with divine powers to divert I-69 away from Memphis at this point. Too many things are set in stone.
Logged

GreenLanternCorps

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 301
  • What's behind me, is not important!

  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ohio
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 07:21:25 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1469 on: July 25, 2019, 07:33:50 AM »

New May 2019 Street View imagery along US-77 south of Driscoll shows construction ramping up on the I-69E Driscoll Bypass, along with clearing work north of Bishop.

The current project is 10.4 miles long and will upgrade US-77 to interstate standards between the north end of the Bishop Bypass and the southern end of the 2017 completed I-69E segment, and includes a 3 mile bypass around Driscoll. The project began construction in February 2019 and will be completed by April 2022 for a total cost of $118 million. Once completed, I-69E will stretch from I-37 to south of Kingsville, a distance of approximately 32 miles.

https://www.zachryconstructioncorp.com/Projects/Transportation/US-77-Driscoll-Bypass/

Here is a link to the North end of the Construction zone:

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6560308,-97.7581419,3a,75y,92.68h,84.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sptQRZ4Y7yO-Ya-DIlNHIyw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 281
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 07:12:09 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1470 on: July 25, 2019, 09:57:36 AM »

Quote from: roadman65
Is Memphis really that important? Plus AR is not really that gung ho at the moment to built their part as I-49 is top on the list of getting done for freeways.  Even IMO I-49 is more important as right now commerce could easily use I-30 and I-40, just build I-69 from San Jacinta County up to Texarkana and you have that issue solved.

Memphis is a major distribution hub. FedEx HQ is there. The metro could use another Interstate corridor. It's just too bad the route is getting built so damn crooked. It would pretty much take a god with divine powers to divert I-69 away from Memphis at this point. Too many things are set in stone.

I-30/I-40 can't take more trucking without at least one more lane in each direction, so an alternative that both serves northern Louisiana and southern Arkansas as well as bypasses the choke-point of Little Rock is a worthy endeavor.  I don't happen to like the routing in Arkansas, but if left to itself to fund the road as it can afford to, local needs will be served ahead of through traffic and we get the routing that we currently have.  That being said, until engineering studies are completed and ROW is purchased and set aside, it's not set in stone if there winds up being a different focus at the federal level in the future.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5912
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 05:31:23 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1471 on: July 25, 2019, 01:26:11 PM »

Quote from: roadman65
Is Memphis really that important? Plus AR is not really that gung ho at the moment to built their part as I-49 is top on the list of getting done for freeways.  Even IMO I-49 is more important as right now commerce could easily use I-30 and I-40, just build I-69 from San Jacinta County up to Texarkana and you have that issue solved.

Memphis is a major distribution hub. FedEx HQ is there. The metro could use another Interstate corridor. It's just too bad the route is getting built so damn crooked. It would pretty much take a god with divine powers to divert I-69 away from Memphis at this point. Too many things are set in stone.

I-30/I-40 can't take more trucking without at least one more lane in each direction, so an alternative that both serves northern Louisiana and southern Arkansas as well as bypasses the choke-point of Little Rock is a worthy endeavor.  I don't happen to like the routing in Arkansas, but if left to itself to fund the road as it can afford to, local needs will be served ahead of through traffic and we get the routing that we currently have.  That being said, until engineering studies are completed and ROW is purchased and set aside, it's not set in stone if there winds up being a different focus at the federal level in the future.

Like I've said a few times already, including the AR 530 N-S branch to Pine Bluff -- and by I-530 extension, to LR, was something of a coup for ADOT when the I-69 authorizing legislation was passed; that "branch" is at least as important to them as the I-69 trunk -- if not more so.  If LA follows suit with an intial 2-lane expressway on their portion of the I-69 corridor north of I-20, and AR builds NE from there to the AR 530 junction, that'll probably be considered a major stepping stone in the corridor's progress -- at least by ADOT and their political handlers in LR.  Of course, that doesn't address the issue of I-40 congestion from LR east -- but it takes care, at least in an initial sense, of the state's connectivity issues vis-a-vis the "neglected" southern tier of AR.  Remember that I-69 was born as a political animal and will continue, for better or worse, to be developed in a way that addresses that truth.     
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1785
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:47:02 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1472 on: July 25, 2019, 01:36:24 PM »

Quote from: MikieTimeT
I-30/I-40 can't take more trucking without at least one more lane in each direction, so an alternative that both serves northern Louisiana and southern Arkansas as well as bypasses the choke-point of Little Rock is a worthy endeavor.

I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis needs to be upgraded to at least 3 lanes in each direction regardless of what ever happens with the I-69 or I-57 corridors. It may be decades before either one is finished. So they really need to get to work at upgrading that stretch of I-40 ASAP. The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.

I-57 has far better odds of being completed within the next 20 years since there's no $1 billion+ bridge over the Mississippi to build. I-69 is saddled with that problem along with Mississippi have little if any money to spend building its portion.

Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.
Logged

Echostatic

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 21
  • Concrete > Asphalt

  • Age: 14
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:53 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1473 on: July 25, 2019, 02:59:11 PM »

The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.

The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.

I-40 absolutely needs to be three lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. I-30 could use with it as well, but it's not quite as important.

The I-57 extension, if it's ever completed, will probably just take more traffic from I-55 than any other highway. I-40 is still going to be a massive corridor heading East into Tennessee and onwards, and I-30's traffic counts probably won't much.

Verlanka

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 217
  • Location: Tampa, FL
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 05:38:21 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #1474 on: July 26, 2019, 05:18:13 AM »

Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.

I totally agree.
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.