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: Interstate 369  (Read 54917 times)

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6019
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 01:42:42 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2014, 08:11:21 PM »

Overlaps I-73 and I-785.
Okay, so then the word "dummy" was uncalled for. Got it.
*admin hat* Please don't throw in epithets, however true or even funny you may believe them to be.

"Dummy" is not an epithet.  Considering the language you use in the chatroom, you shouldn't get upset at "dummy".
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12337
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 10:51:06 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2014, 08:17:29 PM »

Overlaps I-73 and I-785.
Okay, so then the word "dummy" was uncalled for. Got it.
*admin hat* Please don't throw in epithets, however true or even funny you may believe them to be.

"Dummy" is not an epithet.  Considering the language you use in the chatroom, you shouldn't get upset at "dummy".
The chatroom is a different animal than the forum. We try to avoid name-calling in the forum. And even in the chatroom, I'd say we try to limit it to what we all feel comfortable with. We want to be inclusive.

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8462
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 10:40:51 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2014, 08:39:10 PM »


"Dummy" is not an epithet.  Considering the language you use in the chatroom, you shouldn't get upset at "dummy".

Dummy is a noun, no? As in a ventriloquest's dummy (like Achmed the Dead Terrorist)?
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13777
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 10:58:42 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2014, 08:49:29 PM »

I should have said "I-840, person making a false statement authoritatively". But then he'd be Kettle.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Strider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 655
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:30:23 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2014, 10:54:52 PM »

That I-369 is too long for a spur. Should be I-45 extension and have it end at I-49 north of Texarkana. But again, I forgot the routes like I-476 in PA and I-395 in CT/MA. oh well.
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6019
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 01:42:42 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2014, 11:55:10 PM »

Overlaps I-73 and I-785.
Okay, so then the word "dummy" was uncalled for. Got it.
*admin hat* Please don't throw in epithets, however true or even funny you may believe them to be.

"Dummy" is not an epithet.  Considering the language you use in the chatroom, you shouldn't get upset at "dummy".
The chatroom is a different animal than the forum. We try to avoid name-calling in the forum. And even in the chatroom, I'd say we try to limit it to what we all feel comfortable with. We want to be inclusive.

But "dummy"?  Seriously?  Would you ban me if I said you were a "big poopy head" or a "real mean
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2014, 10:47:18 PM »

TxDOT has posted The I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Route Study page that will essentially study whether to upgrade the existing US 59 through Marshall or to build a relief route, with the study anticipated to be completed in "late fall 2014"

This Feb. 25 article reports that a working group of local citizens had its first meeting on Feb. 25 to study a possible I-369 route though Marshall and Harrison County:

Quote
A working group of local citizens, led by Harrison County Judge Hugh Taylor, met for the first time Tuesday to begin a study on the possible future route of Interstate 369 in the Marshall area ....
"I-69 and I-369 will follow the current US 59 footprint through Texas, but relief routes are needed around many of the towns US 59 passes through in order to prevent the loss or relocation of many homes and businesses in the towns," Judge Taylor said. "The purpose of this study group is to determine the best route for the highway to pass through Harrison County and, particularly, around the city of Marshall."
The group will be looking at the future transportation needs of the area and routes with the least amount of impact to citizens and businesses. They will also actively seek public input from local citizens, business owners and elected officials concerning possible routes.
"Having ready access to good and efficient transportation systems are vital to business and industry anywhere. Being at a crossroads of two interstate highways through this area can bring lots of businesses and jobs to the area. If new routes are needed for these highways, then we need to know the best location for them and have a say so in where they are located," Judge Taylor said.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1309
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 03:49:19 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #32 on: March 02, 2014, 12:40:53 AM »

Still doesn't make sense to overlap a route over another route just to terminate it at a third route while the second route continues. The less concurrencies, the better.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13777
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 10:58:42 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #33 on: March 02, 2014, 02:09:31 AM »

Also I-41.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2014, 11:58:38 AM »

This Feb. 25 article reports that a working group of local citizens had its first meeting on Feb. 25 to study a possible I-369 route though Marshall and Harrison County

This article reports on a meeting of the I-369/I-69 System Harrison County-Marshall Study Group, notes that the I-369 study is being conducted concurrently with the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, and suggests that a new alignment for I-20 around Marshall is also on the table:

Quote
The I-369/I-69 System Harrison County-Marshall Study Group, comprised of 15 local citizens and elected officials, held its first meeting to begin a study on the possible future route of Interstate 369 through Harrison County.
“The purpose of this study group is to determine the best route for the highway to pass through Harrison County, and, particularly, around the city of Marshall,” said Harrison County Judge Hugh Taylor, chair of the study group ....
Taylor, who is also involved in the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, said the timeline of the study will parallel with that of the I-20 study.
“It dovetails together because you just can’t do one without the other, under the circumstances,”
said Taylor.
“In order to have a correlated transportation model that would affect us for the rest of the century, we’ve got to get up to speed with I-69 here in the county, and we hope to finalize our concept and our plan by December 2014, much like the I-20 advisory committee,” he added
Tracy Hill, consultant and facilitator of the meeting ....
Hill explained that Interstate spur routes connecting with a main Interstate route at one end are required to carry a three-digit Interstate number that begins with an odd number followed by the number of the main route. And once the remaining sections of U.S. 59 between Tenaha and I-30 are upgraded to meet Interstate standards and are connected to or planned to connect to the existing Interstate system by July 2037, they would also be designated as I-369, he said ....
“Being at a crossroads of two interstate highways through this area can bring lots of businesses and jobs to the area,” said Taylor. “If new routes are needed for these highways, then we need to know the best location for them and have a say so in where they are located.”
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 01:47:06 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2056
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: Today at 08:38:26 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #35 on: March 11, 2014, 12:06:14 PM »

Why is there a new alignment needed for I-20?
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 485
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 05:00:20 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2014, 08:23:53 PM »

Why is there a new alignment needed for I-20?

Looking at the fact sheet on the web site, the I-20 study is focused on getting local input for needed improvements in the corridor. Improvements could include new frontage roads, additional main lanes, safety improvements and median barriers. There is one mention of study of possible "Alternate routes", which could mean many things.

Reading the article at the link in the previous post by Grzd, I don't interpret anything in that article as suggesting a new alignment for I-20 is on the table. Obviously there would be an interchange between I-20 and I-369, which would likely necessitate improvements and new lanes on adjacent sections of I-20.

In my view, I-20 will need six continuous main lanes for most or all of its full length through east Texas at some point in the future.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #37 on: June 24, 2014, 11:14:54 PM »

reading about this article on how engineers, meeting with the public at Marshall, TX (the largest city on I-369 not named "Texarkana"), presented three different routes the other day:
http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/best-roads-highway-development-group-considers-options-at-meeting/article_ba1d78b1-c583-5a13-ba42-5b6f4f0270bb.html
(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

The Marshall Working Group's June 10, 2014 Agenda includes a map showing the three "better performing options" on the eastern side of Marshall in green and the remaining "poorer performing options" in red (page 11/46 of pdf):

Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4692
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:22:47 AM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #38 on: June 25, 2014, 02:23:35 PM »

Apparently, there'd be opposition to the west of Marshall because it's more built-up than to the east, but I may be wrong.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8462
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 10:40:51 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #39 on: June 27, 2014, 08:39:36 PM »

Apparently, there'd be opposition to the west of Marshall because it's more built-up than to the east, but I may be wrong.

As I recall (having driven it back in May), west of Marshall is more built up.
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

Sykotyk

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 874
  • Last Login: February 03, 2019, 02:49:05 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #40 on: June 28, 2014, 01:52:32 PM »

Yeah, the loop on the west side isn't that suitable. Might as well build the brand new corridor to the east and be done with. You could also probably get away with very few frontage roads to the east, which should keep development to a minimum directly alongside the freeway.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #41 on: August 14, 2014, 09:28:26 PM »

The Marshall Working Group's June 10, 2014 Agenda includes a map showing the three "better performing options" on the eastern side of Marshall in green and the remaining "poorer performing options" in red (page 11/46 of pdf):

This article reports that the preliminary choice is the better performing option located closest to town:

Quote
The local I-69/I-369 working group decided Tuesday to go forward with presenting the public the preliminary recommendation they chose for the interstate route option in Harrison County ....
From south to north, the recommendation option deviates from existing U.S. Highway 59 north of Farm-to-Market Road 2625, crosses Interstate Highway 20 just east of the city wastewater treatment plant, passes south of the airport, uses the Loop 390 alignment to north of Marshall, and then connects back to U.S. 59 north of FM 1793. A pamphlet about the project noted that the working group requested the preliminary recommendation to be refined to include an interchange at North Buck Sherrod Road to provide better traffic circulation.
“The reasoning behind the working group selecting this option of the other two (best performing options) was because this route is closer to town and easier to provide city utility services,” TxDOT officials, who are assisting the group with the project, informed. “Therefore, the group believes this option will better support economic development in the area.”

It looks like the proposed new terrain North Buck Sherrod Road interchange would be slightly east of the southern end of the airport.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 10:11:58 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #42 on: August 21, 2014, 11:07:52 PM »

This article reports that the preliminary choice is the better performing option located closest to town

TxDOT has posted a more detailed map of the preliminary recommendation that includes interchange schematics and the location of a potential interchange with Toll 49.

edit

Here is a slide of the preliminary recommendation:

« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 07:11:17 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

jasondobbins

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6
  • Last Login: October 13, 2015, 02:00:12 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #43 on: October 23, 2014, 09:48:13 AM »

Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #44 on: December 18, 2014, 08:22:15 PM »

The Texas Transportation Commission has posted TxDOT's December 18 I-369 Route Study presentation that includes a slide showing the recommended route and recommended points of emphasis for the environmental process (further study of the northern and southern tie-ins and further study moving east) (page 7/8 of pdf):

Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13777
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 10:58:42 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #45 on: December 18, 2014, 09:02:02 PM »

That route includes the east half of Loop 390; the interchange at SH 43 is set up for easy dualling.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #46 on: December 27, 2014, 08:06:48 PM »

This article discusses Future I-369 in Carthage ... :
Quote
More progress on Interstate 69 has been completed in the past two years than in the entire 20 years the project has been in the works, said Charles Thomas, executive director of the Carthage Improvement Corporation ....
Thomas said the interstate construction in Carthage should be smooth.
“Our four lane divided loop is basically an interstate without frontage roads,” Thomas said. “They will either use the existing loop or build an outside loop. I think they will use the existing loop, there are a few driveways, but that’s not hard to fix.”
The entire loop is four lanes except for the Southwest segment from U.S. 59 to Highway 315.
“Panola County is so far ahead of most everyone else,” Thomas said. “We voted bonds to buy the right-of-ways years ago, and now, only one section of the loop is two lanes, that can be fixed in a few years.”

Although short on details, this article reports that 2015 should see some work, in some form or fashion, on I-369 in Carthage and Panola County:

Quote
Outgoing Panola County Judge David Anderson said the county would have to be aware of the oil industry going into 2015.
“I think you are going to see the drop in oil and gas is probably going to affect us. It is probably going to affect the appraisal values,” he said.
The county will also continue to work on road projects including continued work on I-69 and the loop around it.

edit

Above said, this I-69 Funding Program as of March 27, 2014 map does not show any activity in Panola County, which suggests that the county wants to make progress on initiating the Project Development phase for the work in the Carthage area:

« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 10:22:41 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #47 on: January 05, 2015, 10:21:30 PM »

However, I think AASHTO does have the authority to determine the proper first number of the designation; in other words, should it be I-"3"69?  Since the statute does not provide a specific spur designation, I think AASHTO has authority to require that it comply with the conventional spur numbering scheme and be designated as I-969 (or maybe I-769), and I think that there is a reasonable chance that they will issue a conditional approval that will require a change in the designation.
What convention? There might be a pattern that some states use, but there doesn't look like a convention to me - or if there is, there's a lot of exceptions.
I reckon it's more likely that AASHTO would raise the question of why not I-169 (as the lowest free number - with no conflicts with other states), than raise the question of why not I-969.
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) thread)
This article:
Quote
Pete Sepulveda Jr., Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority executive director, said work on the final phase of the $44 million 550 connector project started in March 2013 and is expected to be complete this month in terms of establishing direct connectivity between the interstate and the port ....
“The next step after that is to work with TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) to design the portion that connects 550 with I-69 East to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road,” Sepulveda said. “That will be designated as Interstate-169 ..."
(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)
Quote
Wonder how long it will be before an I-569 is announced somewhere in Texas?
That developing freeway spur of TX-44 off of I-69E in Robstown going toward Corpus Christi looks like a very obvious I-569 candidate. Going one better, if TX-44 was turned into I-569 then TX-358 could conceivably get turned into I-769.
I wonder where I-969 could wind up in Texas.
(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

While searching for FHWA's Interstate Route Log, I stumbled across the following guidance from FHWA regarding a "progression" in 3di numbering:



However, if FHWA does have a 3di progression policy, then why did it sign off on an I-369 designation for the Tenaha-to-Texarkana spur instead of requiring an I-969 (or perhaps I-769) designation for that spur?  If anything, english si's observation that there are a lot of exceptions to this guidance appears to be directly on point.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2015, 10:59:15 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13777
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 10:58:42 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #48 on: January 05, 2015, 10:36:47 PM »

It doesn't say they should increase from south to north. It's also not clear if that's still followed, or if it was only used in the initial 1950s numbering.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

dfwmapper

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 624
  • Location: DFW
  • Last Login: June 18, 2017, 12:20:34 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #49 on: January 06, 2015, 12:43:19 AM »

It doesn't even hold true in Texas. The only child of I-20 is I-820, the only child of I-35 is I-635, the only child of I-45 is I-345, and there are I-410 and I-610 but no I-210.
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.