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: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)  (Read 150315 times)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4529
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:37:39 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #275 on: February 25, 2020, 09:22:33 PM »

TX is more than willing to flex their significantly larger muscles!
As evident by at least 4 different I-69's, along with two spurs.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 10:36:55 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #276 on: February 26, 2020, 10:54:19 PM »

This has always bugged me...

Asides from serving Marshall and some towns south of Texarkana, isn't I-369 technically redundant to I-49 in Louisiana?

If I-69 was constructed to I-49 (~30 miles between Texas and Louisiana), it's 91 miles of completed interstate highway (I-49) to Texarkana.

I-369 is a 100 mile freeway that will practically parallel the already existing I-49.

The only thing I-369 has going for it is that it will be around 20 miles shorter and bypass Shreveport, but in a world with limited funding, wouldn't it be more worthwhile to focus on completing the connection to I-49 simply to provide a completed interstate highway connection that's competitive to the proposed I-369 / US-59 routing?

I'm not against the idea of completing I-369, but it's just a thought. Obviously political pressure in Texas will drive its completion to keep the corridor entirely in that state rather than dipping into Louisiana even if it requires over 100 miles of new interstate highway (at least $2.5 billion or more).

I-20 doesn't have the capacity to carry what it already does.  So the Marshall to Shreveport route is not the way to go. It probably would cost 75% as much to upgrade I 20 and 220 not even taking into consideration the delays and mess. Upgrading US 79 from Carthage to Greenwood is probably a better and less expensive alternative. A lot Texas folks outside of Shelby county seemingly prefer this as the I-69 main route.

Why does Texas have problems with the EIS on the Logansport to Stonewall Segment? Primarily because Louisiana wants Texas to pay for most of it (agreed the route Louisiana insists on leaves most of the significant wetland disturbance in Texas.)  Basically they want the bridges across the Sabine to be all in Texas, closer to Joaquin than the Texas to Louisiana crossing in or near Logansport.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2020, 11:13:34 PM by bwana39 »
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 10:36:55 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #277 on: February 26, 2020, 11:09:45 PM »

I-69 in Louisiana need not happen soon; since there is still enough time to wait until TX and LA resolves the beef over whether and whenever the I-69/I-369 fork will be built.

The fork itself isn't the issue; it's all but a foregone conclusion that TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts would greatly prefer to act as if I-69 from Houston to Tenaha and the whole of I-369 is the main corridor to be prioritized.  The "stub" into LA -- and whether it can snag a "piece of the action" , so to speak, poses the question that need to be answered about TX commitment to the part of the project they consider of secondary importance.  AFAIK, there still is no consensus regarding exactly where the I-69 "main line" will cross the state line -- along US 84 or somewhere to the north of that point.  Until at least that occurs, any corridor activity in the Shreveport area is simply a local matter, isolated from the developmental effort in TX. 

But one thing is more likely than not -- I-69 east of Tenaha will be configured as a TOTSO from the 69/369 interchange unless it's developed as a fully directional wye (LH exit for 369 NB).

Historically, Texas doesn't like turn off to stay on.  I635 NB at I-20EB was reconfigured to  assert the primacy of I-20 even though the high traffic count stays on 635. Confuses me every time that you stay left to turn right.  I realize highway purists despise TOTSO but sometimes it has a better flow,
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 10:36:55 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #278 on: February 26, 2020, 11:54:45 PM »

TX is more than willing to flex their significantly larger muscles!
As evident by at least 4 different I-69's, along with two spurs.


Spending money that you have is not being a bully. Yes Texas has gobs of money they can spend.Texas has the money to build roads in Texas. I don't see the logic in building a connector that will land out on LA-5 and dump freeway traffic onto what amounts to a moderate quality Farm to Market road.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6927
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:29:52 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #279 on: February 27, 2020, 04:12:46 AM »

TX is more than willing to flex their significantly larger muscles!
As evident by at least 4 different I-69's, along with two spurs.


Spending money that you have is not being a bully. Yes Texas has gobs of money they can spend.Texas has the money to build roads in Texas. I don't see the logic in building a connector that will land out on LA-5 and dump freeway traffic onto what amounts to a moderate quality Farm to Market road.

Neither does TxDOT; hence the reason for their prioritization of 69/369 over the "stub" into LA, which still lacks a definitive state-line crossing point.  They're not being a bully by any means; but they will quite naturally prioritize corridor segments that benefit their own populace -- and Marshall, along the 369 portion, is the largest town in that area.  By sticking to that priority, they're doing what state highway departments have done for the last century -- take care of their own.  And, in a backhanded way, that is -- via I-20 -- providing a reasonably direct path from Houston to Shreveport in the process, providing an indirect benefit to that city without any activity from LA entities (effectively a type of "free rider").     
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 10:36:55 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #280 on: March 20, 2020, 03:17:19 PM »

TX is more than willing to flex their significantly larger muscles!
As evident by at least 4 different I-69's, along with two spurs.


Spending money that you have is not being a bully. Yes Texas has gobs of money they can spend.Texas has the money to build roads in Texas. I don't see the logic in building a connector that will land out on LA-5 and dump freeway traffic onto what amounts to a moderate quality Farm to Market road.

Neither does TxDOT; hence the reason for their prioritization of 69/369 over the "stub" into LA, which still lacks a definitive state-line crossing point.  They're not being a bully by any means; but they will quite naturally prioritize corridor segments that benefit their own populace -- and Marshall, along the 369 portion, is the largest town in that area.  By sticking to that priority, they're doing what state highway departments have done for the last century -- take care of their own.  And, in a backhanded way, that is -- via I-20 -- providing a reasonably direct path from Houston to Shreveport in the process, providing an indirect benefit to that city without any activity from LA entities (effectively a type of "free rider").   

I will agree with one point. That the routing is as much about politics as about expediency / efficiency.
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.