Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bwana39]

The old AR549 @ AR245 signage came down in 2014 or 2015 and was replaced

 Things pointing WB toward Texas. (TO 59 Houston / Dallas.)

The sign for I49 NB says "I49 / TO I30 Little Rock / Ft Smith"

https://goo.gl/maps/ZMLa7NPMpg9EzR1M9

At US59 at the loop (Lake drive exit SB) the signage is still the same as before that except it says "TO I49 - Shreveport" instead of to To US 71  Shreveport.

While the portion of the loop between I-49 and the state line is AR151 now, the trailblazers ignore that and only one sign on the EB at the state line exists on the mainlanes that uses AR151. The cross roads at US71 uses AR151 as a direction and  the split ramp directs traffic to either I-49 or AR151.

[O Tamandua]

KTBS Channel 3 Shreveport tonight:

1-30 project in Texarkana paves way for future economic growth

Chamber President Mike Malone said the I-30 expansion project is not only in anticipation of more growth, but a reaction to growth already here. The population of Texarkana has grown 9.3% in just the last nine years.

"This is an excellent location for business here in the area, as far as, travel for the trucking industry coming up the coast, they can lay over here, before heading north and likewise going south. It's going to continue to grow, said Malone.

The average daily traffic count on I-30 at Stateline Avenue is about 76,000 vehicles per day. That number is expected to increase by 40% in the next 20 years.

...

Sandifer believes one of the driving factors behind the project is the economic growth. The transportation system in Texarkana is going to draw more industry to the area, which means more vehicles, both personal and commercial, he said.

"We're looking at more traffic coming into the area and the increase in freight between Canada and Mexico," said Sandifer.

With traffic expected to nearly double in the next two decades, Malone believes Texarkana will be ready.

"As we become a convergence of these other highway systems 49, 69* and 30 all coming together here. That's increased traffic, which means more business opportunities. We're building for the future," said Malone.

(*Yes, it's 369, but forgive him - I've met Mike...he's a great guy and a busy man.)

[sparker]

The old AR549 @ AR245 signage came down in 2014 or 2015 and was replaced

 Things pointing WB toward Texas. (TO 59 Houston / Dallas.)

The sign for I49 NB says "I49 / TO I30 Little Rock / Ft Smith"

https://goo.gl/maps/ZMLa7NPMpg9EzR1M9

At US59 at the loop (Lake drive exit SB) the signage is still the same as before that except it says "TO 149 - Shreveport" instead of to To US 71  Shreveport.

While the portion of the loop between I-49 and the state line is AR151 now, the trailblazers ignore that and only one sign on the EB at the state line exists on the mainlanes that uses AR151. The cross roads at US71 uses AR151 as a direction and  the split ramp directs traffic to either I-49 or AR151.

So the entire E-W portion is numbered "151" in both states; that's in itself reasonable.  If I-369 is completed -- and it extends no farther north than I-30 (i.e., no western loop), it wouldn' be surprising that MSR 151 is elevated to Interstate status (number TBD) as the de facto "shunt" between I-369 and I-49, keeping as much traffic away from I-30 as feasible.

KTBS Channel 3 Shreveport tonight:

1-30 project in Texarkana paves way for future economic growth

Chamber President Mike Malone said the I-30 expansion project is not only in anticipation of more growth, but a reaction to growth already here. The population of Texarkana has grown 9.3% in just the last nine years.

"This is an excellent location for business here in the area, as far as, travel for the trucking industry coming up the coast, they can lay over here, before heading north and likewise going south. It's going to continue to grow, said Malone.

The average daily traffic count on I-30 at Stateline Avenue is about 76,000 vehicles per day. That number is expected to increase by 40% in the next 20 years.

...

Sandifer believes one of the driving factors behind the project is the economic growth. The transportation system in Texarkana is going to draw more industry to the area, which means more vehicles, both personal and commercial, he said.

"We're looking at more traffic coming into the area and the increase in freight between Canada and Mexico," said Sandifer.

With traffic expected to nearly double in the next two decades, Malone believes Texarkana will be ready.

"As we become a convergence of these other highway systems 49, 69* and 30 all coming together here. That's increased traffic, which means more business opportunities. We're building for the future," said Malone.

(*Yes, it's 369, but forgive him - I've met Mike...he's a great guy and a busy man.)

69, 369 -- to TX folks, it's all the same corridor -- the one they've been pressing for over the last three decades.  Getting to I-30 as an outlet is Job #1; if I-49 is completed northward, it's icing on the cake for the I-69 corridor cluster backers.

[dariusb]

It's crazy how fast traffic counts have risen along I-369 and 30 in just a decade.

[MaxConcrete]

TxDOT is having a public meeting for the removal of the Loop 369 project at Marshall from the current four-year construction plan due to "statewide fiscal constraint". Loop 369 is the future IH-369. The affected project is from IH 20 to US 80 and is listed at $220 million in the UTP. The US 82 projects have a total cost of $57.4 million.

These are the first official Covid project casualties that I've seen, but I'm thinking there will be more.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/atlanta/011221.html

[bwana39]

TxDOT is having a public meeting for the removal of the Loop 369 project at Marshall from the current four-year construction plan due to "statewide fiscal constraint". Loop 369 is the future IH-369. The affected project is from IH 20 to US 80 and is listed at $220 million in the UTP. The US 82 projects have a total cost of $57.4 million.

These are the first official Covid project casualties that I've seen, but I'm thinking there will be more.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/atlanta/011221.html

US259 from DeKalb to I-30 kind of needs the upgrade. I said Kind of. It already would have been done except there were misunderstandings on how the county could use the BRACC funds they had coupled with the abandoned railroad ROW / Rails to Trails coupled with TXDOT's design demands.  I agree if there is any project in the Atlanta district that could be delayed, this is it.

The east loop around Marshall is badly needed. This said, Marshall is not the worst bottleneck on that road. Atlanta itself is worse. I think most of we in east Texas would agree. If you would get US-59 out of Diboll (in progress), Corrigan, Teneha, Marshall, Jefferson, Linden, Atlanta, and southern Texarkana, that the four lane rural highway in between would suffice in the present.  I wish either loop around Carthage was completely freeway, but that is coming. It  may be the west loop because that is what the Business community in Carthage wants. There is still discussion in CARTHAGE that the freeway should either follow TX-315 to Mount Enterprise and US-259 in Nacogdoches or go directly to just east of Lake Murval and catch US-59 near Timpson. The more direct route would be about 11 miles closer and would not have to go around either Timpson, or Teneha. If I-69 actually were to get built to near Logansport, then all except the mileage advantage would be moot. 

[MaxConcrete]

There is still discussion in CARTHAGE that the freeway should either follow TX-315 to Mount Enterprise and US-259 in Nacogdoches or go directly to just east of Lake Murval and catch US-59 near Timpson. The more direct route would be about 11 miles closer and would not have to go around either Timpson, or Teneha.

TxDOT's plan for $28 million in safety improvements to US 259 north of Nacogdoches seems to suggest that it is not in play as a I-369 candidate. On the other hand, the timelines for getting this section of I-369 built may be so far in the future that the $28 million would not be a waste of money if in fact the 259-315 alignment is ultimately recommended. The direct Timpson-Carthage alignment may have a better chance, but it would require a "greenfield" route, and new terrain routes are becoming increasingly difficult to build. I definitely agree that taking I-369 through Tenaha is an inefficient detour.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/101320.html

[Life in Paradise]

There is still discussion in CARTHAGE that the freeway should either follow TX-315 to Mount Enterprise and US-259 in Nacogdoches or go directly to just east of Lake Murval and catch US-59 near Timpson. The more direct route would be about 11 miles closer and would not have to go around either Timpson, or Teneha.

TxDOT's plan for $28 million in safety improvements to US 259 north of Nacogdoches seems to suggest that it is not in play as a I-369 candidate. On the other hand, the timelines for getting this section of I-369 built may be so far in the future that the $28 million would not be a waste of money if in fact the 259-315 alignment is ultimately recommended. The direct Timpson-Carthage alignment may have a better chance, but it would require a "greenfield" route, and new terrain routes are becoming increasingly difficult to build. I definitely agree that taking I-369 through Tenaha is an inefficient detour.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/101320.html

But, if they don't branch off I-369 until shortly before Tehana (or near Timpson), there are savings by not having to upgrade other roads to interstate standards, and that could be very significant savings.

[sparker]

There is still discussion in CARTHAGE that the freeway should either follow TX-315 to Mount Enterprise and US-259 in Nacogdoches or go directly to just east of Lake Murval and catch US-59 near Timpson. The more direct route would be about 11 miles closer and would not have to go around either Timpson, or Teneha.

TxDOT's plan for $28 million in safety improvements to US 259 north of Nacogdoches seems to suggest that it is not in play as a I-369 candidate. On the other hand, the timelines for getting this section of I-369 built may be so far in the future that the $28 million would not be a waste of money if in fact the 259-315 alignment is ultimately recommended. The direct Timpson-Carthage alignment may have a better chance, but it would require a "greenfield" route, and new terrain routes are becoming increasingly difficult to build. I definitely agree that taking I-369 through Tenaha is an inefficient detour.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/101320.html

But, if they don't branch off I-369 until shortly before Tehana (or near Timpson), there are savings by not having to upgrade other roads to interstate standards, and that could be very significant savings.

IIRC, one of the longstanding options for the I-69 trunk was in fact to veer north from US 59 near Timpson, cross it again about halfway between Tenaha and Carthage, and then make a beeline toward Stonewall, LA; the US 84 state line crossing at Logansport, LA wasn't in that picture.  If that new-terrain alignment were to be the one to make the cut, worrying about whether or not to upgrade existing facilities would be basically moot, as I-369 would likely simply branch off, itself on new alignment, as a Carthage bypass (whether west or east of the town TBD).  It seems the Logansport crossing has been considered to be the preferred routing simply as a "default" due to TX and LA not having a meeting of the minds as to precisely where to cross the line.  The town of Carthage seems to be attempting to get ahead of the curve by suggesting a more direct route to its vicinity than a simple but longer right-angle turn at Tenaha -- and the optional northern I-69 trunk alignment looks like it might be part of that calculus.  Ironically, if that northern section into LA is eventually selected -- and I-369 has been prioritized, schedule-wise, by TxDOT, I-69 may well end up branching off I-369's Carthage "shortcut".     

[The Ghostbuster]

This may be a crazy idea (and possibly unneeded), but here it is: When Interstate 369 is completed between Tenaha and Texarkana (if that ever happens), what if, instead of ending in Tenaha, Interstate 369 were to continue further south along the US 96 corridor all the way to Port Arthur. US 96 could be decommissioned, US 287 could end in Woodville, and US 69 could end in Lumberton (or vice-versa).

[US71]

This may be a crazy idea (and possibly unneeded), but here it is: When Interstate 369 is completed between Tenaha and Texarkana (if that ever happens), what if, instead of ending in Tenaha, Interstate 369 were to continue further south along the US 96 corridor all the way to Port Arthur. US 96 could be decommissioned, US 287 could end in Woodville, and US 69 could end in Lumberton (or vice-versa).

2 of the 3 need to be truncated at the very least.

[bwana39]

TxDOT's plan for $28 million in safety improvements to US 259 north of Nacogdoches seems to suggest that it is not in play as a I-369 candidate. On the other hand, the timelines for getting this section of I-369 built may be so far in the future that the $28 million would not be a waste of money if in fact the 259-315 alignment is ultimately recommended. The direct Timpson-Carthage alignment may have a better chance, but it would require a "greenfield" route, and new terrain routes are becoming increasingly difficult to build. I definitely agree that taking I-369 through Tenaha is an inefficient detour.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/101320.html

But, if they don't branch off I-369 until shortly before Tehana (or near Timpson), there are savings by not having to upgrade other roads to interstate standards, and that could be very significant savings.

IIRC, one of the longstanding options for the I-69 trunk was in fact to veer north from US 59 near Timpson, cross it again about halfway between Tenaha and Carthage, and then make a beeline toward Stonewall, LA; the US 84 state line crossing at Logansport, LA wasn't in that picture.  If that new-terrain alignment were to be the one to make the cut, worrying about whether or not to upgrade existing facilities would be basically moot, as I-369 would likely simply branch off, itself on new alignment, as a Carthage bypass (whether west or east of the town TBD).  It seems the Logansport crossing has been considered to be the preferred routing simply as a "default" due to TX and LA not having a meeting of the minds as to precisely where to cross the line.  The town of Carthage seems to be attempting to get ahead of the curve by suggesting a more direct route to its vicinity than a simple but longer right-angle turn at Tenaha -- and the optional northern I-69 trunk alignment looks like it might be part of that calculus.  Ironically, if that northern section into LA is eventually selected -- and I-369 has been prioritized, schedule-wise, by TxDOT, I-69 may well end up branching off I-369's Carthage "shortcut".   

As I remember, the I-69 route following US-84 as opposed to a veer further north was an outgoing state senator who hailed from Shelby county. He had fought to get it routed through Center. IE follow SH7 from Nacogdoches to Joaquin then go to Louisiana. When this was a non-starter, the compromise was to follow US-84 across the northern portion of Shelby County.  This was before any significant discussion of I-369 even started.  It has remained un-changed ever since.

There are several advantages to routing a bypass  so to speak from east of Timpson to near Woods community in Panola County. It would be a better for I-69 too. For Louisiana, the benefits would be several. 1) They would not be involved in the expense of the bridges across the Sabine River. Louisiana will almost surely run their part of I-69 through a greenfield route. This routing could miss more developed properties. 2) Louisiana would have fewer miles to build.

For Shreveport / Bossier, the desirable part of this freeway is the part from I-49 to I-20.IE: Bridging the Red River at the  port of Shreveport / Bossier to  connect to both currently existing freeways.

The most ECONOMICAL to Louisiana Route is one they seem to have ZERO interest in would be to follow US-59 to Carthage, US-79 to around Deberry and then run nearly due east to Stonewall. The problem with this route is that when funds are tight, it MIGHT wind up following US-79 to I-20 and the port crossing left out altogether.

[bwana39]

This may be a crazy idea (and possibly unneeded), but here it is: When Interstate 369 is completed between Tenaha and Texarkana (if that ever happens), what if, instead of ending in Tenaha, Interstate 369 were to continue further south along the US 96 corridor all the way to Port Arthur. US 96 could be decommissioned, US 287 could end in Woodville, and US 69 could end in Lumberton (or vice-versa).

I hope they figure out what to do with US-69 well before this. US-69 should be truncated in Tyler or in Jacksonville. Perhaps even in Denison. It absolutely should not ever get to Lufkin and points past!

The probably best way to get rid of US-96 is US-59. IE swap them back.

[bwana39]

There is still discussion in CARTHAGE that the freeway should either follow TX-315 to Mount Enterprise and US-259 in Nacogdoches or go directly to just east of Lake Murval and catch US-59 near Timpson. The more direct route would be about 11 miles closer and would not have to go around either Timpson, or Teneha.

TxDOT's plan for $28 million in safety improvements to US 259 north of Nacogdoches seems to suggest that it is not in play as a I-369 candidate. On the other hand, the timelines for getting this section of I-369 built may be so far in the future that the $28 million would not be a waste of money if in fact the 259-315 alignment is ultimately recommended. The direct Timpson-Carthage alignment may have a better chance, but it would require a "greenfield" route, and new terrain routes are becoming increasingly difficult to build. I definitely agree that taking I-369 through Tenaha is an inefficient detour.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/101320.html

I agree that it does not have any plans for anything beyond four lanes with shoulders and a left turn center lane. The part further south was done a few years back.

Does anyone else but me dislike that setup for rural 4-lane highways? I seem to prefer a median, even a narrow one with crossover cables or jersey barriers.

[dariusb]

Don't know if this has anything to do with I-369 in Texarkana but I read somewhere that eventually I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock will be 6 lanes. Also TexAmericas Center right off I-30 is still adding tenants and plans will move forward to add more flights at the Texarkana airport and even possibly another airline. Looks like Texarkana is looking to grow in a way that it's never experienced before.

[bwana39]

Don't know if this has anything to do with I-369 in Texarkana but I read somewhere that eventually I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock will be 6 lanes. Also TexAmericas Center right off I-30 is still adding tenants and plans will move forward to add more flights at the Texarkana airport and even possibly another airline. Looks like Texarkana is looking to grow in a way that it's never experienced before.

Texarkana,

3X3 on I-30. It would take the replacement of virtually EVERY bridge and overpass on the route. The new Red River Bridge is wide enough with a waiver (each side is 42' wide. that leaves a 2" inside shoulder and a 4' outside shoulder.)  Six lanes seems to be the suggested model if I-69 does NOT get built. Someone said on here months ago that it would be nearly as inexpensive and far less disruptive to build I-69 than to widen I-30 and I-40 to 3X3. I may think the proposed routing to I-69 is asinine, but the need for the road is real. Either way, at least one new bridge is badly needed at Memphis.

Texarkana growing???? Sort of: not really? Texarkana can't keep from growing once the freeways all get built.
Just like virtually every small town around Texas, if you throw enough economic development money around, someone will bite. The jury is still out on whether it pays off in the long run. The question is more if no one used tax incentives what would happen?

Tex-Americas Center: They have a lot to work with. The visual doesn't always match the realities. Just remember, they are a not for profit organization. They have to spend when they make money. There still is  more economic development outside TAC than within.

I have said this several times. The dynamics of I-30 will change when I-49 is finished to the north. South of Texarkana I-30 and US-59 (future I-369) will see the change. Ironically, I don't foresee SIGNIFICANT traffic increases from I-369's completion. US-59 is pretty busy as it is.

I agree, Texarkana cannot help but grow when the freeways get built out.

 Land in Bowie and Miller Counties has outpriced the surrounding areas for decades. The reason is so much land is viewed as potential commercial property. The irony is the additional acreage available due to TAC has not reduced it any. Hunt County land is similar in price if not cheaper than Bowie County land.  I think the point is the land is there if they come.  Much of this commercial land has sat fallow for decades. Maybe it will finally be worth what the investors believe it is worth.

[sparker]

The dynamics of I-30 will change when I-49 is finished to the north. South of Texarkana I-30 and US-59 (future I-369) will see the change. Ironically, I don't foresee SIGNIFICANT traffic increases from I-369's completion. US-59 is pretty busy as it is.

Not all the traffic on US 59 SW of Texarkana is through traffic; there are enough sizeable towns along or near 59 (Atlanta, Linden, etc.) to generate quite a few local trips to and from the Texarkana area.  I would surmise that since the completion of I-49 south to the I-220 Shreveport bypass, that freeway, and I-20 as far as at least Marshall, is bearing quite a bit of the brunt of commercial traffic heading toward Houston from I-30 and US 71 to the north (saves quite a bit of in-town slogging for a few additional miles).  But it will be interesting to juxtapose the schedule for completion of I-369 with that of I-49 north toward Fort Smith; my "guesstimate" is that the facilities' completion (or near-completion) will come within a few years of each other.  If the I-69/369 continuum precedes I-49/north completion, expect I-369 to be pretty well packed from the beginning -- especially if I-30 is fully 6-laned in AR.  But by chance if I-49 gets done first, any traffic pattern shifts will depend upon whether I-369 north of I-20 is completed; if not, expect the current "detour" via the Shreveport area to continue.  But once both the expansion of I-30 in AR and the construction of I-49 to the north are completed, it would be expected that whatever sections of I-69/369 that are completed to be pretty well packed -- KC-to-Houston commercial traffic that now utilizes I-35/35E/45 (or even US 69/75) will likely see a significant shift over to a 49/369/69 corridor as it's not only more direct but bypasses OKC and DFW.  And as a result, Texarkana will be in the catbird seat regarding profiting from the overall increased pass-through traffic as well as positioning itself as a major transfer site for traffic from all directions.     

[bwana39]

The dynamics of I-30 will change when I-49 is finished to the north. South of Texarkana I-30 and US-59 (future I-369) will see the change. Ironically, I don't foresee SIGNIFICANT traffic increases from I-369's completion. US-59 is pretty busy as it is.

Not all the traffic on US 59 SW of Texarkana is through traffic; there are enough sizeable towns along or near 59 (Atlanta, Linden, etc.) to generate quite a few local trips to and from the Texarkana area.  I would surmise that since the completion of I-49 south to the I-220 Shreveport bypass, that freeway, and I-20 as far as at least Marshall, is bearing quite a bit of the brunt of commercial traffic heading toward Houston from I-30 and US 71 to the north (saves quite a bit of in-town slogging for a few additional miles).  But it will be interesting to juxtapose the schedule for completion of I-369 with that of I-49 north toward Fort Smith; my "guesstimate" is that the facilities' completion (or near-completion) will come within a few years of each other.  If the I-69/369 continuum precedes I-49/north completion, expect I-369 to be pretty well packed from the beginning -- especially if I-30 is fully 6-laned in AR.  But by chance if I-49 gets done first, any traffic pattern shifts will depend upon whether I-369 north of I-20 is completed; if not, expect the current "detour" via the Shreveport area to continue.  But once both the expansion of I-30 in AR and the construction of I-49 to the north are completed, it would be expected that whatever sections of I-69/369 that are completed to be pretty well packed -- KC-to-Houston commercial traffic that now utilizes I-35/35E/45 (or even US 69/75) will likely see a significant shift over to a 49/369/69 corridor as it's not only more direct but bypasses OKC and DFW.  And as a result, Texarkana will be in the catbird seat regarding profiting from the overall increased pass-through traffic as well as positioning itself as a major transfer site for traffic from all directions.   

I tend to be guilty of conjecture a whole lot on here. I have lots of opinions.
This is NOT opinion. There is virtually no through traffic going to Marshall on US-59 then to Shreveport on I-20, then on to Texarkana.
There is very little following 79 from Carthage to Shreveport then on to Texarkana.  Most if not virtually all of that is driven by fuel contracts and the truck stops in Greenwood.
The truck traffic on US-59 south of Texarkana is MUCH heavier than that on I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana period. Around half of the truck traffic on I-49 N is frac sand trucks originating in Miller County Ar or returning there. All-in-all I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana is a desert.

Yeah, there is significant local and inter-regional traffic between Marion, Cass, and Bowie counties JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER set of counties and small to medium sized towns almost anywhere. These do add to the traffic counts significantly, that said, ADD TO.

There is no significant Shreveport "DETOUR"  I read it on here and am completely stumped. Look at the truck traffic in Jefferson versus Hosston.

Traffic is using 59 now in spite of the towns it goes through.  It is shorter , faster, and less likely to have closures than any current alternative.

[sparker]

The dynamics of I-30 will change when I-49 is finished to the north. South of Texarkana I-30 and US-59 (future I-369) will see the change. Ironically, I don't foresee SIGNIFICANT traffic increases from I-369's completion. US-59 is pretty busy as it is.

Not all the traffic on US 59 SW of Texarkana is through traffic; there are enough sizeable towns along or near 59 (Atlanta, Linden, etc.) to generate quite a few local trips to and from the Texarkana area.  I would surmise that since the completion of I-49 south to the I-220 Shreveport bypass, that freeway, and I-20 as far as at least Marshall, is bearing quite a bit of the brunt of commercial traffic heading toward Houston from I-30 and US 71 to the north (saves quite a bit of in-town slogging for a few additional miles).  But it will be interesting to juxtapose the schedule for completion of I-369 with that of I-49 north toward Fort Smith; my "guesstimate" is that the facilities' completion (or near-completion) will come within a few years of each other.  If the I-69/369 continuum precedes I-49/north completion, expect I-369 to be pretty well packed from the beginning -- especially if I-30 is fully 6-laned in AR.  But by chance if I-49 gets done first, any traffic pattern shifts will depend upon whether I-369 north of I-20 is completed; if not, expect the current "detour" via the Shreveport area to continue.  But once both the expansion of I-30 in AR and the construction of I-49 to the north are completed, it would be expected that whatever sections of I-69/369 that are completed to be pretty well packed -- KC-to-Houston commercial traffic that now utilizes I-35/35E/45 (or even US 69/75) will likely see a significant shift over to a 49/369/69 corridor as it's not only more direct but bypasses OKC and DFW.  And as a result, Texarkana will be in the catbird seat regarding profiting from the overall increased pass-through traffic as well as positioning itself as a major transfer site for traffic from all directions.   

I tend to be guilty of conjecture a whole lot on here. I have lots of opinions.
This is NOT opinion. There is virtually no through traffic going to Marshall on US-59 then to Shreveport on I-20, then on to Texarkana.
There is very little following 79 from Carthage to Shreveport then on to Texarkana.  Most if not virtually all of that is driven by fuel contracts and the truck stops in Greenwood.
The truck traffic on US-59 south of Texarkana is MUCH heavier than that on I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana period. Around half of the truck traffic on I-49 N is frac sand trucks originating in Miller County Ar or returning there. All-in-all I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana is a desert.

Yeah, there is significant local and inter-regional traffic between Marion, Cass, and Bowie counties JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER set of counties and small to medium sized towns almost anywhere. These do add to the traffic counts significantly, that said, ADD TO.

There is no significant Shreveport "DETOUR"  I read it on here and am completely stumped. Look at the truck traffic in Jefferson versus Hosston.

Traffic is using 59 now in spite of the towns it goes through.  It is shorter , faster, and less likely to have closures than any current alternative.

Upon further thought, you're probably more right than wrong about through traffic on US 59 surpassing that on a I-49/220/20 route from Texarkana to Marshall (or right down US 79 to cut off a few miles).  IIRC there are commercial vehicle stations in LA on I-20; presumably there's one on I-49 somewhere south of the AR state line.  If I were a trucker, I'd opt to stay in one state (here, TX) than do a short jaunt through another if that trip required additional stops near state lines.  My view that traffic would have been shunting over to the all (or near) freeway route was based on traffic patterns in general -- but bolstered by my relatives in the area who have mentioned that on their trips from SE OK to Shreveport I-49 seems to be getting more truck traffic that it did right after the stretch opened several years back.  If that anecdotal "evidence" doesn't tell the whole story, then my overall view was left a bit skewed.  Maybe after COVID dissipates I may make a trek down to the area to visit my family -- and check out the traffic patterns for myself as long as I'm in the area!

[sturmde]

An interesting comparison is found going into GoogleMaps and searching for directions from Hope AR to Carthage TX.
.
By its calculation, the 30-49-220-20-79 routing takes the same time as 30-369-59-43-59.
.
I think considering there are no small towns, traffic lights and it's 4 lanes all the way, that for passenger car traffic at least... 49 is definitely the better routing to choose.  Commercial traffic would be adding passing through Louisiana which depending, might require an extra inspection or permits, etc.  But in a car... 49, definitely the way to go.

[bwana39]

I make this trip almost every week. ( I drive from Texarkana to Shreveport  3 or more times a week. I am in Marshall most weeks and in Carthage more than once a month.)

Point by point from Carthage.

Carthage to Marshall versus Carthage to the state line are similar. 
From the State line to I-20 on US-79 is two lane and rough. The US-80 intersection is a mess.
If you take SH-43 like is suggested from Marshall, you skip part of Marshall and Jefferson and Linden completely.  It is two lane, but most of it is 70 or 75 mph and there are 1 4-way stop between Marshall and Atlanta. You do come in to the side of Atlanta and either have to go all the way around town or through downtown. (downtown is shorter and faster)
There is a lot of traffic on I-20. There is a good bit on I-220. I-49 vehicle counts are low regardless of when.
If you go straight up 59 and skip SH-43, there is clearly more traffic than on I-49.

So what are the disadvantages of one over the other?

I-49 is farther. DOTD closes I-49 far too often, every time it freezes more or less.  In spite of it being freeway, the traffic in west Shreveport is as bad as the small towns. US-79 in Louisiana is a terrible road.

US-59 and or SH-43 are not controlled access.   If you are going toward Little Rock, you come in to the opposite side of town

[RoadWarrior56]

I would definitely agree with the previous post that there is a lot of traffic on I-20 near Atlanta.

[dariusb]

I'm wondering since I-30 is widening, is I-20 planning on doing that as well?

[bwana39]

I'm wondering since I-30 is widening, is I-20 planning on doing that as well?

(I-20) Not any time soon.  Louisiana is struggling with its plans to widen I-10.I-20 is an afterthought. Northwest Louisiana used to have some power in Baton Rouge because of how the legislature was gerrymandered. The power has been shifting south both as the gerrymandering has lessened and the population around Baton Rouge and Lafayette have increased while most of the rest of the state has shrunk.

As to I-30 widening, at this point it is just in and around Texarkana Texas and From Little Rock to Benton. Pretty much Metro Little Rock in Arkansas.