AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Interstate 369  (Read 75968 times)

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 209
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 10:08:56 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #375 on: March 30, 2020, 05:07:37 PM »

Seems like when 369 and 49 are finally completed through Texarkana, there's no telling how bad the traffic will be. I hope they plan with that in mind or else it could be a future choke point.

The owners of road-related businesses located (or looking to locate) in the Texarkana area are probably looking forward to a useful-to-them bit of congestion -- with an eye toward drivers, both commercial and "civilian", electing to stop and patronize them as long as it's relatively slow going through the city center.  Of course, a lot of that will depend upon the final configuration of the area freeway network; if 369 is indeed relocated at some point around the west side of town to meet up with 49 near the Red River crossing, then there will be a whole new set of local interchanges at which to locate the usual complement of restaurants, shops, and even truck stops.  Otherwise -- if 369 stays where it is up to I-30 and not extended further, Loop 151 will likely be pressed into the connecting role, with a few appropriate businesses locating along its length.

The geography for the  I -369 / I-49 Intersection with the westward reroute is in the Red River's flood plain. The frequent flood plain.  The I-30 / I-369 intersection near Leary would probably be the place for all of that.
Logged

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 189
  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: August 07, 2020, 01:25:26 PM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #376 on: March 30, 2020, 05:42:47 PM »

Seems like when 369 and 49 are finally completed through Texarkana, there's no telling how bad the traffic will be. I hope they plan with that in mind or else it could be a future choke point.

The owners of road-related businesses located (or looking to locate) in the Texarkana area are probably looking forward to a useful-to-them bit of congestion -- with an eye toward drivers, both commercial and "civilian", electing to stop and patronize them as long as it's relatively slow going through the city center.  Of course, a lot of that will depend upon the final configuration of the area freeway network; if 369 is indeed relocated at some point around the west side of town to meet up with 49 near the Red River crossing, then there will be a whole new set of local interchanges at which to locate the usual complement of restaurants, shops, and even truck stops.  Otherwise -- if 369 stays where it is up to I-30 and not extended further, Loop 151 will likely be pressed into the connecting role, with a few appropriate businesses locating along its length.

The geography for the  I -369 / I-49 Intersection with the westward reroute is in the Red River's flood plain. The frequent flood plain.  The I-30 / I-369 intersection near Leary would probably be the place for all of that.

I don't believe I-369/I-49 won't connect until the 2030s or 40s due to Arkansas having a low interest in the area of I-49 Between Fort Smith and Texarkana

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7058
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 05:51:34 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #377 on: March 30, 2020, 10:03:35 PM »

I don't believe I-369/I-49 won't connect until the 2030s or 40s due to Arkansas having a low interest in the area of I-49 Between Fort Smith and Texarkana

The mid-2030's would be a good informed guess.  It's not a matter of low interest; it's a matter of AR funds being spread a bit thin on multiple projects, including the I-49 Arkansas River bridge, which is likely to be a budget-buster for the years it's being constructed.  Then there's I-57 and other statewide improvement projects that require funding, so it's likely I-49 will see some construction after, say, 2025 -- but likely one little section at a time.  But without that bridge project, completion of the remainder south to Texarkana is, in the larger sense, a bit pointless. 
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4701
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:04:06 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #378 on: March 30, 2020, 11:38:26 PM »


But without that bridge project, completion of the remainder south to Texarkana is, in the larger sense, a bit pointless.
Can't say I would necessarily agree. I-540 could act as a "temporary" routing if the rest of I-49 is built south of Fort Smith while that bridge is still being worked out.

I say just build it as a toll bridge and call it a day.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7058
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 05:51:34 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #379 on: March 31, 2020, 06:51:14 AM »


But without that bridge project, completion of the remainder south to Texarkana is, in the larger sense, a bit pointless.
Can't say I would necessarily agree. I-540 could act as a "temporary" routing if the rest of I-49 is built south of Fort Smith while that bridge is still being worked out.

I say just build it as a toll bridge and call it a day.

That's all this corridor needs -- to have US 71 between I-49 and I-540 become the western version of Breezewood!  In all likelihood, though, the bridge will be done well before most of the route's remainder south to Texarkana is even let.  The high level of regional need effectively renders that crossing it's own SIU independent of the full I-49 corridor -- even if it is tolled. 
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 462
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 12:39:42 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #380 on: May 15, 2020, 03:53:06 PM »

I see what you're saying about the area having a future in manufacturing and distribution. Not only does Texarkana's location put it in a good spot but the city also serves all modes of transportation (rail, bus and air). A brand new airport terminal is scheduled to start construction next year to make room for any new airlines. Currently there's airline service to DFW. A lot of truck stops, gas stations and restaurants have broken ground over the last several years to service the growing number of trucks along I-30. All good but need jobs that pay the wages that manufacturing and distribution centers would pay. Most new jobs in Texarkana are either some sort of restaurant or retail which mostly pay minimum wage.

They're also gunning for the 4th mode of transportation along with northern LA in pulling together the money for a Corps of Engineering study to make the Red River navigable to the US-71 bridge.  This one's a longer bet, but 3 more locks and dams on the river solve some flooding issues for LA as well, so that's why they're kicking some in.  Of course, all this was pre-Covid-19, so who knows about timeframes at this point.

https://bossierpress.com/parish-commits-to-study-about-red-river-flooding-navigability-into-arkansas/
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7058
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 05:51:34 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #381 on: May 15, 2020, 07:49:00 PM »

I see what you're saying about the area having a future in manufacturing and distribution. Not only does Texarkana's location put it in a good spot but the city also serves all modes of transportation (rail, bus and air). A brand new airport terminal is scheduled to start construction next year to make room for any new airlines. Currently there's airline service to DFW. A lot of truck stops, gas stations and restaurants have broken ground over the last several years to service the growing number of trucks along I-30. All good but need jobs that pay the wages that manufacturing and distribution centers would pay. Most new jobs in Texarkana are either some sort of restaurant or retail which mostly pay minimum wage.

They're also gunning for the 4th mode of transportation along with northern LA in pulling together the money for a Corps of Engineering study to make the Red River navigable to the US-71 bridge.  This one's a longer bet, but 3 more locks and dams on the river solve some flooding issues for LA as well, so that's why they're kicking some in.  Of course, all this was pre-Covid-19, so who knows about timeframes at this point.

https://bossierpress.com/parish-commits-to-study-about-red-river-flooding-navigability-into-arkansas/

Unless there's sufficient funds in play here to rebuild the I-30 and the adjacent UPRR Red River bridges so that tug/barge traffic can pass beneath (right now there's only about 12-15' clearance), it's likely a "Port of Texarkana" would be located east of town, likely along or near US 82.  The UP/former Cotton Belt main line follows that highway, so rail access to a potential port (a must!) would be a relatively easy matter to address.   
Logged

dariusb

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 213
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Belton, Tx
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 03:12:47 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #382 on: June 15, 2020, 12:24:33 AM »

True. With Covid 19 in the way, no telling how long things will take.
Logged
It's a new day for a new beginning.

KamKam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 42
  • Location: Texarkana, AR
  • Last Login: July 22, 2020, 11:48:22 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #383 on: June 23, 2020, 04:59:05 PM »

Exit #s are added to the I-369 Freeway between Lake Dr (U.S. 59/TX 93 to I-30) in Texarkana The Exit #s are:

112-U.S. 67: 7th St
113-Westlawn Dr/Wake Village
(NB)114A-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd
(NB)114B-FM 559: Richmond Road
(sb)114-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7058
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 05:51:34 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #384 on: June 23, 2020, 05:07:38 PM »

Exit #s are added to the I-369 Freeway between Lake Dr (U.S. 59/TX 93 to I-30) in Texarkana The Exit #s are:

112-U.S. 67: 7th St
113-Westlawn Dr/Wake Village
(NB)114A-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd
(NB)114B-FM 559: Richmond Road
(sb)114-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd.

Not surprising, since it's about 115 miles south to the projected Tenaha-area location of the 69/369 split.  But it's an indicator that the existing US 59 freeway will remain, at least initially, the designated I-369 routing.
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 9927
  • Sign Inspector, mad man with a camera

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 06:30:32 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #385 on: June 23, 2020, 05:27:33 PM »

Exit #s are added to the I-369 Freeway between Lake Dr (U.S. 59/TX 93 to I-30) in Texarkana The Exit #s are:

112-U.S. 67: 7th St
113-Westlawn Dr/Wake Village
(NB)114A-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd
(NB)114B-FM 559: Richmond Road
(sb)114-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd.

These should be added to Wikipedia
Logged
Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4701
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:04:06 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #386 on: June 23, 2020, 06:05:05 PM »

Exit #s are added to the I-369 Freeway between Lake Dr (U.S. 59/TX 93 to I-30) in Texarkana The Exit #s are:

112-U.S. 67: 7th St
113-Westlawn Dr/Wake Village
(NB)114A-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd
(NB)114B-FM 559: Richmond Road
(sb)114-U.S. 82: New Boston Rd.
Took long enough. I was wondering why there was nothing posted yet last year.
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1077
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: August 03, 2020, 01:53:26 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #387 on: June 25, 2020, 12:25:36 PM »

Is there a SB exit number for the frontage road turnaround just before the Pine Bluff Subdivision?
Or for the end itself at Loop 151?
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

KamKam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 42
  • Location: Texarkana, AR
  • Last Login: July 22, 2020, 11:48:22 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #388 on: June 25, 2020, 03:50:53 PM »

No they haven't have an exit # for it yet.
Logged

dariusb

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 213
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Belton, Tx
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 03:12:47 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #389 on: June 27, 2020, 03:23:02 PM »

Just wondering, do you think work on 369 will start first coming down from Texarkana or going up from Tenaha?
Logged
It's a new day for a new beginning.

-- US 175 --

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 136
  • Location: Somewhere between north-central and east-central TX
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 10:17:51 AM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #390 on: June 27, 2020, 04:57:14 PM »

Just wondering, do you think work on 369 will start first coming down from Texarkana or going up from Tenaha?

Sounds like it will be a spotty mixture that might not favor 1 direction or the other.  There was that work to create the grade-separation/exit south of Texarkana at Domino.  The only other mentioned project has been the "east loop" work in Marshall.  No other widenings or bypasses have been announced.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 209
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 10:08:56 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #391 on: June 28, 2020, 04:11:53 PM »

Just wondering, do you think work on 369 will start first coming down from Texarkana or going up from Tenaha?

Sounds like it will be a spotty mixture that might not favor 1 direction or the other.  There was that work to create the grade-separation/exit south of Texarkana at Domino.  The only other mentioned project has been the "east loop" work in Marshall.  No other widenings or bypasses have been announced.

I think you will see work between Carthage and Texarkana progress one step after the previous one.  The short term needs are
1) Marshall bypass  (in progress)
2) Linden bypass
3) Jefferson bypass
4) Atlanta / Queen City bypass or improvements.
5) Carthage loop improvements (east or west...)
6) Atlanta to Texarkana  (& / or Texarkana bypass) freeway
7) Atlanta to Marshall freeway
8)Carthage to Marshall freeway
9) Carthage to I-69 freeway

The Teneha to Carthage portion is subject to I-69 actually getting built to Teneha.  There are shorter and less congested routes between Nacogdoches and Carthage.  The thought is that there is some priority in the Atlanta TXDOT district, but the Lufkin District is focused further south . Part of the Teneha routing of I-369 have been to avoid Rusk County and the Tyler District.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2020, 04:17:33 PM by bwana39 »
Logged

KamKam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 42
  • Location: Texarkana, AR
  • Last Login: July 22, 2020, 11:48:22 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #392 on: June 29, 2020, 12:54:41 AM »

Just wondering, do you think work on 369 will start first coming down from Texarkana or going up from Tenaha?
I want to say coming down from Texarkana because according the Texarkana Gazette, they are currently doing a environmental study on U.S. 59 (Lake Dr) and the Domino interchange (FM 3129 Exit) was completed and plans to create an East Bypass at Marshall
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7058
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 05:51:34 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #393 on: June 29, 2020, 06:03:15 AM »

The Tenaha to Carthage portion is subject to I-69 actually getting built to Teneha.  There are shorter and less congested routes between Nacogdoches and Carthage.  The thought is that there is some priority in the Atlanta TXDOT district, but the Lufkin District is focused further south . Part of the Teneha routing of I-369 have been to avoid Rusk County and the Tyler District.

Much of the uncertainty as to the location of the I-69/369 junction stems from the fact that as of yet TX and LA have yet to agree on a place to cross the state line.  Some have speculated that the I-69 path will simply follow US 84 east of Tenaha and cross into LA adjacent to the current bridge.  The "classic" plan floated when I-69 was being proposed was to veer north from around Timpson, crossing US 59 north of Woods, avoiding the north end of Lake Toledo; it would essentially be as straight a line as possible between Timpson and Stonewall, LA.  TxDOT has always preferred this route, as it would entail less costly bridge construction, crossing the Sabine at a narrow point rather than use a route straight down US 84 through Logansport, LA, which would cross more developed territory; it would also cut about 3-4 miles off of I-369 by moving the junction point north a bit.  But nothing can be finalized until the basic I-69 alignment is selected.   Also, it's likely that the Houston-based interest groups that have visualized as efficient a combination 69/369 arrangement as possible (prioritizing the Houston-Texarkana aspect of the corridor) would prefer a junction site that renders the angle at which 369 departs the main 69 pathway as small as feasible, creating as straight a line as possible for the all-TX route that includes I-369.   As the selection of the main I-69 corridor has, and probably will be in the near term, been the subject of consistent procrastination by all parties, both routes in that vicinity will almost certainly be among the last to see development.   
Logged

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 625
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 10:39:30 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #394 on: June 29, 2020, 08:01:40 PM »

Presentation for consultant solicitation for Marshall bypass. Pages of interest start on page 23

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/062520/presentation.pdf

Overview sheet
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/062520/facts.pdf

This is envisioned as a three-phase project
Middle section, IH 20 to US 80: scheduled bidding date is December 2023
North section, US 80 to north of Marshall: scheduled bidding date is August 2028
South section, from IH 20 to a point five miles south: scheduled bidding date is August 2031.

Unfortunately these are some long timelines, but as always it's a funding issue. The consultant contract alone is listed at $45 million on page 7. The $154 million currently funded is sufficient for only the middle section.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2020, 08:08:40 PM by MaxConcrete »
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 557
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 07:49:35 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #395 on: July 10, 2020, 01:20:35 PM »

The Tenaha to Carthage portion is subject to I-69 actually getting built to Teneha.  There are shorter and less congested routes between Nacogdoches and Carthage.  The thought is that there is some priority in the Atlanta TXDOT district, but the Lufkin District is focused further south . Part of the Teneha routing of I-369 have been to avoid Rusk County and the Tyler District.

Much of the uncertainty as to the location of the I-69/369 junction stems from the fact that as of yet TX and LA have yet to agree on a place to cross the state line.  Some have speculated that the I-69 path will simply follow US 84 east of Tenaha and cross into LA adjacent to the current bridge.  The "classic" plan floated when I-69 was being proposed was to veer north from around Timpson, crossing US 59 north of Woods, avoiding the north end of Lake Toledo; it would essentially be as straight a line as possible between Timpson and Stonewall, LA.  TxDOT has always preferred this route, as it would entail less costly bridge construction, crossing the Sabine at a narrow point rather than use a route straight down US 84 through Logansport, LA, which would cross more developed territory; it would also cut about 3-4 miles off of I-369 by moving the junction point north a bit.  But nothing can be finalized until the basic I-69 alignment is selected.   Also, it's likely that the Houston-based interest groups that have visualized as efficient a combination 69/369 arrangement as possible (prioritizing the Houston-Texarkana aspect of the corridor) would prefer a junction site that renders the angle at which 369 departs the main 69 pathway as small as feasible, creating as straight a line as possible for the all-TX route that includes I-369.   As the selection of the main I-69 corridor has, and probably will be in the near term, been the subject of consistent procrastination by all parties, both routes in that vicinity will almost certainly be among the last to see development.   

Funny, although this is expected, what was the point of erecting mile posts on the existing I-369?  If the 0 mile post is moving/movable, I see it as a waste of money.  I know the real reason, give legitimacy to an interstate corridor without actually performing any construction (hey look at this interstate.  It's been here all along but it has shiny new things.)
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7058
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 05:51:34 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #396 on: July 10, 2020, 05:42:13 PM »

The Tenaha to Carthage portion is subject to I-69 actually getting built to Teneha.  There are shorter and less congested routes between Nacogdoches and Carthage.  The thought is that there is some priority in the Atlanta TXDOT district, but the Lufkin District is focused further south . Part of the Teneha routing of I-369 have been to avoid Rusk County and the Tyler District.

Much of the uncertainty as to the location of the I-69/369 junction stems from the fact that as of yet TX and LA have yet to agree on a place to cross the state line.  Some have speculated that the I-69 path will simply follow US 84 east of Tenaha and cross into LA adjacent to the current bridge.  The "classic" plan floated when I-69 was being proposed was to veer north from around Timpson, crossing US 59 north of Woods, avoiding the north end of Lake Toledo; it would essentially be as straight a line as possible between Timpson and Stonewall, LA.  TxDOT has always preferred this route, as it would entail less costly bridge construction, crossing the Sabine at a narrow point rather than use a route straight down US 84 through Logansport, LA, which would cross more developed territory; it would also cut about 3-4 miles off of I-369 by moving the junction point north a bit.  But nothing can be finalized until the basic I-69 alignment is selected.   Also, it's likely that the Houston-based interest groups that have visualized as efficient a combination 69/369 arrangement as possible (prioritizing the Houston-Texarkana aspect of the corridor) would prefer a junction site that renders the angle at which 369 departs the main 69 pathway as small as feasible, creating as straight a line as possible for the all-TX route that includes I-369.   As the selection of the main I-69 corridor has, and probably will be in the near term, been the subject of consistent procrastination by all parties, both routes in that vicinity will almost certainly be among the last to see development.   

Funny, although this is expected, what was the point of erecting mile posts on the existing I-369?  If the 0 mile post is moving/movable, I see it as a waste of money.  I know the real reason, give legitimacy to an interstate corridor without actually performing any construction (hey look at this interstate.  It's been here all along but it has shiny new things.)

My guess is that the mileage figure as applied to the current I-369 exits at Texarkana are "guesstimates", likely accurate within a mile or two of where the actual southern I-369 terminus will lie.  Later, it can be fudged a bit by making the terminal interchange with I-69 exit "0" or exit "1"; that allows a mile or so of slack.  Of course, since the whole of I-369 won't likely be completed for 20+ years in any case, the exit numbers could always be changed to reflect the actual finalized mileage.  There's a lot of ways a DOT can go about this -- but for the time being, they're simply estimating. 
 
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 557
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: August 12, 2020, 07:49:35 PM
Re: Interstate 369
« Reply #397 on: July 10, 2020, 06:03:20 PM »

The Tenaha to Carthage portion is subject to I-69 actually getting built to Teneha.  There are shorter and less congested routes between Nacogdoches and Carthage.  The thought is that there is some priority in the Atlanta TXDOT district, but the Lufkin District is focused further south . Part of the Teneha routing of I-369 have been to avoid Rusk County and the Tyler District.

Much of the uncertainty as to the location of the I-69/369 junction stems from the fact that as of yet TX and LA have yet to agree on a place to cross the state line.  Some have speculated that the I-69 path will simply follow US 84 east of Tenaha and cross into LA adjacent to the current bridge.  The "classic" plan floated when I-69 was being proposed was to veer north from around Timpson, crossing US 59 north of Woods, avoiding the north end of Lake Toledo; it would essentially be as straight a line as possible between Timpson and Stonewall, LA.  TxDOT has always preferred this route, as it would entail less costly bridge construction, crossing the Sabine at a narrow point rather than use a route straight down US 84 through Logansport, LA, which would cross more developed territory; it would also cut about 3-4 miles off of I-369 by moving the junction point north a bit.  But nothing can be finalized until the basic I-69 alignment is selected.   Also, it's likely that the Houston-based interest groups that have visualized as efficient a combination 69/369 arrangement as possible (prioritizing the Houston-Texarkana aspect of the corridor) would prefer a junction site that renders the angle at which 369 departs the main 69 pathway as small as feasible, creating as straight a line as possible for the all-TX route that includes I-369.   As the selection of the main I-69 corridor has, and probably will be in the near term, been the subject of consistent procrastination by all parties, both routes in that vicinity will almost certainly be among the last to see development.   

Funny, although this is expected, what was the point of erecting mile posts on the existing I-369?  If the 0 mile post is moving/movable, I see it as a waste of money.  I know the real reason, give legitimacy to an interstate corridor without actually performing any construction (hey look at this interstate.  It's been here all along but it has shiny new things.)

My guess is that the mileage figure as applied to the current I-369 exits at Texarkana are "guesstimates", likely accurate within a mile or two of where the actual southern I-369 terminus will lie.  Later, it can be fudged a bit by making the terminal interchange with I-69 exit "0" or exit "1"; that allows a mile or so of slack.  Of course, since the whole of I-369 won't likely be completed for 20+ years in any case, the exit numbers could always be changed to reflect the actual finalized mileage.  There's a lot of ways a DOT can go about this -- but for the time being, they're simply estimating.

Yes, I know they are guessing.  Still sucks that they (we) are paying people to go out there, dig holes and plant poles with mile posts attached to them that are most definitely going to move so that another crew can come out and move them in the future.  Texas always marks mile 0 so they won't fudge it there.  The exit numbers don't bother me a much as the placement of the mile markers.  The exit numbers can be edited in the field or moved up an exit, but you still have to have someone go do that, which makes the process, again, foolish and a waste of money, but then again, someone go to work that day. 

It's a lot like watching a sign placement or small pavement project start and get completed, only to have the whole thing ripped out by construction of the most anticipated freeway.  These things don't spring up over night, everyone knows they are coming. 
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.