Print

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

[Anthony_JK]

I'm assuming, Grz, that that segment of I-69 between I-49 and LA 1 can be built first and signed as I-69 immediately because it both connects to NHS highways and can be an SIU that also completes the Inner Loop extension, right?


But, what would happen if, in the worst case scenario, the I-49 ICC is diverted to the Inner Loop/I-220 ("Loop It") route? Would that affect the completion of LA 3132 extension in any way?


Also....if I-69 is going to use the conversion of the existing US 84 four-laned section through Logansport, there's going to be hell to pay for driving a freeway through that segment. Or, building a bypass right after widening the existing US 84 to a 4-lane divided facility, which seems cost-ineffective.

[Grzrd]

I'm assuming, Grz, that that segment of I-69 between I-49 and LA 1 can be built first and signed as I-69 immediately because it both connects to NHS highways and can be an SIU that also completes the Inner Loop extension, right?

It could be signed because of the connection to I-49. With the concern over "the realignment over the Texas portion of I-69", I would expect them to sign it. I guess you could make the argument that it would be its own SIU, but I don't think it is critical to whether there can be signage. Is the currently signed I-369 a SIU?

But, what would happen if, in the worst case scenario, the I-49 ICC is diverted to the Inner Loop/I-220 ("Loop It") route? Would that affect the completion of LA 3132 extension in any way?

I don't think so. The LA 3132 extension is not in the I-49 corridor, even if the Loop It proposal is adopted.

Also....if I-69 is going to use the conversion of the existing US 84 four-laned section through Logansport, there's going to be hell to pay for driving a freeway through that segment. Or, building a bypass right after widening the existing US 84 to a 4-lane divided facility, which seems cost-ineffective.

I think Secretary Wilson's comment about the Sabine River bridges being "located on the Future I-69" simply reflects the concern over "the realignment over the Texas portion of I-69" and was intended to remind people that "mainline" I-69 goes through Louisiana.

[Grzrd]

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 21, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and they indicate the possibility that, if a certain alignment for the LA 3132 extension is selected, then that may "possibly disrupt or re-open" the Record of Decision ("ROD") for I-69 SIU 15. (pp. 5, 6/6 of pdf; pp. 5, 6 of document):

LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension ....
Mr. Rogers directed the members to the handouts and slides from the Project Advisory Committee’s (PAC) second meeting. Mr. Rogers stated the meeting consisted of discussion of the input received from the public meetings, the analysis done prior to the public meetings and the input from the PAC. He discussed a couple of the issues that were found with some of the alignments and interchanges. Mr. Rogers stated there would be more review and then the PAC would develop a preferred alternative ....
Mayor Walker stated the alignment on the LA3132 extension that would possibly disrupt or re‐open the I‐69 EIS ROD would not be in the best interest as it took so long to get that ROD.

I'm not at all sure you'd need to repeat the environmental process. At worst you'd have to do a supplemental EIS if the conditions when the extension from Leonard Rd to I-69 would be built were substantially different than anticipated when the FONSI was issued.

Here is another snip from the November 19 Public Materials of Alternative B2:

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") ... has posted its January 19, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes, which indicate that Alternative B2 is the locally preferred alternative for the LA 3132 extension

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its May 19, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes and it seems like FHWA and LaDOTD are trying to figure out what needs to be done since Alternative B2 for the LA 3132 extension has been selected:

6. I-69 SIU 15
Mr. Rogers directed the committee’s attention to the map in their packets. He stated that DOTD and FHWA are looking at what might possibly be done along this portion of I-69 between the port and I-49 without disturbing the existing environmental document. Mr. Rogers noted that no action had been taken on this yet.

No teling how long it will take FHWA to make a decision.

[Grzrd]

Here is another snip from the November 19 Public Materials of Alternative B2:

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") ... has posted its January 19, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes, which indicate that Alternative B2 is the locally preferred alternative for the LA 3132 extension

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its June 16, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and they reflect that LaDOTD and FHWA have concurred on NLCOG's recommendation of Alternative B2 as the preferred alternative for the LA 3132 extension, and that a FONSI could be issued by the end of this year or early next year (p. 2/3 of pdf):

LA 3132 (Inner Loop) Extension
Mr. Tayler Comeaux from BKI gave a brief update on the project to date. Mr. Comeaux stated they had received concurrence on the recommendation of Alternative B2 from both DOTD and FHWA. The process from here out is finalizing the Technical Reports including Line and Grade, Traffic Noise, and others. Following that they will prepare the Draft Environmental Assessment for review by DOTD and FHWA. Upon their approval we could then advertise and hold the public hearing and prepare the final documentation. At this point we are looking at the end of the year or early next for issuance of a FONSI. Dr. Wilson asked to clarify that Alternative B2 is the Alternative recommended by the MPO. Mr. Rogers concurred with this.

[Grzrd]

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its September 15, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and they reflect a possibility that "Future I-69" signs will be posted in Louisiana in the relatively near future (p. 3/4 of pdf):

Mayor Walker asked how we could do Future Corridor signs similar to those that Texas has done with I-69, specifically along the I-69 SIU 14 and 15 Corridors. Mr. Comeaux noted that we would need to work with DOTD. Mrs. O’Neal commented that Lafayette has also done some future corridor signs but that we would need to be sure to work with DOTD on the regulations regarding these signs. Mayor Walker asked staff to reach out to Dr. Kalivoda at DOTD to see what could be done.

I guess that is some sort of progress.

[Grzrd]

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its June 16, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and they reflect that LaDOTD and FHWA have concurred on NLCOG's recommendation of Alternative B2 as the preferred alternative for the LA 3132 extension, and that a FONSI could be issued by the end of this year or early next year (p. 2/3 of pdf)

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its April 27, 2018 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and they reflect a hope for a firm timeline for completion of the project by the June meeting (p. 4/4 of pdf):

6. Brief Updates
Mr. Rogers stated that he wanted to just give a quick update on a couple of the projects. He stated that the initial draft EA report for the Inner Loop project had been submitted to DOTD for comments. He noted that DOTD and FHWA have concurred with the MPO on the identification of Alternative B2 as the locally preferred alternative. Dr. Wilson asked Mr. England if this was the alternative preferred by the port. Mr. England stated it was.
Mr. Rogers then noted that he has asked the three major consultant for the three main projects being I-49 Inner City, the Regional Thoroughfare Plan, and the 3132 project to be able to provide a very detailed update on the project between now and the June meeting. He stated he asked them for a listing of all the technical documents that had been submitted, when submitted if approved, where the documents stand at date and what it will take to get them completed. He also stated that he wants firm timelines from them for completion of the projects.

[Grzrd]

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its September 18, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and the Minutes, as part of a LA 3132 Extension update, indicate that NLCOG intends to try again and approach the next governor and next LaDOTD Secretary (Sherri LeBas has announced that she is stepping down) for the funding to start the NEPA process for Louisiana's part of SIU 16 (p. 5/6 of pdf)

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its May 11, 2018 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and they indicate that NLCOG will contact the new LaDOTD Secretary and Dr. Kalivoda from LaDOTD to ask them to put pressure on Texas to move forward with the environmental process for SIU 16 (p. 4.4 of pdf):

Mr. Washington asked if we could have an update on I-69. Mayor Walker stated that the President of the I-69 Coalition recently passed away and a new president has not been appointed. He further stated that approximately 5 names have been floated to the state coalition directors for their review but that no one has been appointed as of yet. Mayor Walker stated that the biggest obstacle in the process is the state of Texas and their unwillingness to move forward with the environmental process on the section from Stonewall to Tenaha. The mayor stated that he has again contacted Secretary Wilson and Dr. Kalivoda at DOTD urging them to contact their counterparts in Texas to move forward. Mr. Washington expressed his concern that it seems we are in the same position as we were a year ago. Mr. Brown stated that this is going on a 30-year process and that we need to do something soon in the state of Louisiana. Mr. Brown stated that DeSoto parish stands ready to do whatever necessary to move the project forward.

[jbnv]

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its May 11, 2018 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and they indicate that NLCOG will contact the new LaDOTD Secretary and the Governor to ask them to put pressure on Texas to move forward with the environmental process for SIU 16 (p. 4.4 of pdf):

Mr. Washington asked if we could have an update on I-69. Mayor Walker stated that the President of the I-69 Coalition recently passed away and a new president has not been appointed. He further stated that approximately 5 names have been floated to the state coalition directors for their review but that no one has been appointed as of yet. Mayor Walker stated that the biggest obstacle in the process is the state of Texas and their unwillingness to move forward with the environmental process on the section from Stonewall to Tenaha. The mayor stated that he has again contacted Secretary Wilson and Dr. Kalivoda at DOTD urging them to contact their counterparts in Texas to move forward. Mr. Washington expressed his concern that it seems we are in the same position as we were a year ago. Mr. Brown stated that this is going on a 30-year process and that we need to do something soon in the state of Louisiana. Mr. Brown stated that DeSoto parish stands ready to do whatever necessary to move the project forward.

Good luck with that! I can't imagine why Louisiana's short portion of I-69 is any sort of priority to Texas.

[Bobby5280]

Yeah, I think they need to put more muscle behind the I-49 projects. The intercity connector in Shreveport is a pretty big project. Same goes for the I-49 project cutting through Lafayette. OTOH, I don't know how close either project is to getting plans finalized (and out of the court room). Extending the Westbank Expressway out of the New Orleans metro is yet another huge project.

I'm convinced TX DOT will build I-69 up to a certain point, but then prioritize building I-369 up to the Texarkana area. Arkansas might build bits and pieces of I-69 in/near towns like Monticello. But then I think they'll put more emphasis on getting I-530 extended down to the proposed I-69 corridor before building I-69 down to the Louisiana border. And then that's not factoring in all their priorities with I-49 in Fort Smith, Belle Vista, etc.

[cjk374]

I believe that TX will build I-69 to where ever THEY decide to build I-69. If they want it to go all the way to Texarkana, by golly that is where I-69 is going to go and to hell with what anyone else thinks or plans.

[Anthony_JK]

Yeah, I think they need to put more muscle behind the I-49 projects. The intercity connector in Shreveport is a pretty big project. Same goes for the I-49 project cutting through Lafayette. OTOH, I don't know how close either project is to getting plans finalized (and out of the court room). Extending the Westbank Expressway out of the New Orleans metro is yet another huge project.

[...]

Just for updating:

The Lafayette Connector portion of I-49 South is in somewhat a slowdown right now, because the Supplemental EIS is still being developed for some minor changes made in the design from the original ROD signed in 2003. Officials expect to have a Supplemental ROD in place by the summer of next year.

The Shreveport Inner City Connector portion of I-49 is well into its EIS process; a Draft EIS is expected to be completed by either this coming winter or spring, with a ROD signed by next summer.

The remaining elements of I-49 South are also either ending Supplemental EIS processes or just waiting for money to complete.

Completing the upgrade of the Westbank Expressway to US 90 isn't as huge as you might think, because most of the really expensive work, such as the highrise bridge across the Harvey Canal and the elevated sections going west to Westwego, has already been finished. Only extending the freeway portion to US 90 and reworking the interchange there would be needed.

[Bobby5280]

To be a little more fair, Texas has a whole lot of proposed miles worth of I-69 within Texas. It's difficult to decide which corridors rank higher in priority. The Houston to Texarkana corridor is a pretty big deal. I think it's also a priority for TX DOT to get the Rio Grande Valley region in the far South end of Texas (and its 1.5 million residents in that cluster of growing cities) connected to the rest of the Interstate system. Even if TX DOT deliberately puts off building its I-69 segment to the Louisiana border the agency will have legitimate excuses for doing so.

This situation is just another example of why the federal government has to start taking a leading role again in Interstate highway corridor development. Under the current planning and funding model these corridors will be nothing more than a lot of different local roads strung together in a very irregular manner. There is zero big picture approach going on with this.

Completing the upgrade of the Westbank Expressway to US 90 isn't as huge as you might think, because most of the really expensive work, such as the highrise bridge across the Harvey Canal and the elevated sections going west to Westwego, has already been finished. Only extending the freeway portion to US 90 and reworking the interchange there would be needed.

Of course the funny thing now is the existing sections of the Westbank Expressway are now aging. I remember when they first started building it: back in the early 1980's. My family lived in the area at the time and I was just a teenager in middle school. The rest of the existing highway was completed in the late 80's and early 90's. The newest portions are over 25 years old.

[sparker]

Wouldn't at all be surprised if the eventual 69/369 interchange near Tenaha ends up with 369 as the "straightline" from Houston, while I-69 toward LA is relegated to a TOTSO.  TX does have its priorities!

[txstateends]

Nothing new, other than asking if I-69 will still happen in LA.  A TV news report video is included with the article.

https://tylerpaper.com/news/texas/interstate-go-or-no/article_a198a50d-4473-55e1-93bb-d0391a4c6b9a.html

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 69 might still be built in Louisiana (and Arkansas), but it will be at least a few decades before that occurs.

[Grzrd]

This TV video report doesn't have any updates about I-69, but it does include discussion of a southern extension of the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway (in Bossier City) to Taylortown (and a presumptive interchange with I-69 ......... someday):

.... Butch Ford, Bossier Parish engineer ....
Ford said they're anticipating the future corridor of Interstate 69 that will run right through Taylortown.
"Imagine I-69 coming through and the growth that will occur because of that," Ford said.
The important project finally comes to fruition to connect Bossier Parish like never before.
The parish will start acquiring "right-of-way" for land to begin project next year.

[txstateends]

.... Butch Ford, Bossier Parish engineer ....
Ford said they're anticipating the future corridor of Interstate 69 that will run right through Taylortown.
"Imagine I-69 coming through and the growth that will occur because of that," Ford said.

I hope "imagining" isn't all that will ever happen.

[Grzrd]

I came across this May 15 TV video report and it indicates that the first I-69 construction in Louisiana could begin in two years, BUT it will be the frontage roads instead of the mainline:

.... Kent Rogers, Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments executive director ....
But, now there's some movement, there's some optimism, there's actually some money to get something done on what's being called the proposed I-69 Frontage Road.
The proposed I-69 frontage road would take it off I-49 along the Stonewall-Frierson Road then go northeast across Ellerbe Road and continuing on to intersect at state Highway 1 near the Port of Caddo-Bossier. It would be built in four segments.
"This is the Port of Caddo-Bossier property, the 2,600 acre complex. This would utilize portions of Robson Road in red. New construction in green and blue, as well as the Stonewall-Frierson Road, the 3.31-mile stretch in DeSoto Parish in yellow," said port executive director Eric England.
So red, green and yellow is existing roadway that would need to be upgraded. Blue would be completely new roadway. Why the urgency seemingly all of sudden to get this done now?
"We have some earmarked money, federal earmarked money that was set aside for the project. They come from various other smaller pots of money. A couple years ago Congress swept up a bunch of older earmarked money leftovers. And there's kind of been some rumblings that they may do that again. In order to not lose those funds we decided to sweep them together, look at what we could get done and start working on a project," said Rogers.
There is $16 million in federal funds available right now. They would need to come up with another $8-10 million from various local sources to complete the project. But that doesn't look like it's going to be an issue because of the overriding benefits to the area and the entities involved.
"Ultimately, with the building of this road, Louisiana would be saying, 'Hey, we're serious about wanting I-69 and continuing I-69 through our state and this is what we're doing to show that," said DOTD spokeswoman Erin Buchanan. "In our estimation it would be very economically feasible and viable to be able to construct this road and have new access for all of the people and commercial entities that would be using it." ....
"It's a project that everybody is excited about and everybody is on board for, and again that's not a whole lot of money to get something out there and get something on the ground in terms of I-69 and it also provides a great connection between the port and I-49 for some of that truck traffic," said Rogers.

[Bobby5280]

At least they can get the ball rolling by building just one or maybe two frontage roads. The most important near-term goal is simply getting the route established and preserving the ROW needed by the future freeway. I think it would be better overall to build a much longer corridor with either a Super 2 main line or the first half of a pair of frontage roads than it would to be a full blown freeway that runs only a short distance. A freeway segment that is built to a dead end can have further extensions blocked by new development.

[sparker]

I came across this May 15 TV video report and it indicates that the first I-69 construction in Louisiana could begin in two years, BUT it will be the frontage roads instead of the mainline:

.... Kent Rogers, Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments executive director ....
But, now there's some movement, there's some optimism, there's actually some money to get something done on what's being called the proposed I-69 Frontage Road.
The proposed I-69 frontage road would take it off I-49 along the Stonewall-Frierson Road then go northeast across Ellerbe Road and continuing on to intersect at state Highway 1 near the Port of Caddo-Bossier. It would be built in four segments.
"This is the Port of Caddo-Bossier property, the 2,600 acre complex. This would utilize portions of Robson Road in red. New construction in green and blue, as well as the Stonewall-Frierson Road, the 3.31-mile stretch in DeSoto Parish in yellow," said port executive director Eric England.
So red, green and yellow is existing roadway that would need to be upgraded. Blue would be completely new roadway. Why the urgency seemingly all of sudden to get this done now?
"We have some earmarked money, federal earmarked money that was set aside for the project. They come from various other smaller pots of money. A couple years ago Congress swept up a bunch of older earmarked money leftovers. And there's kind of been some rumblings that they may do that again. In order to not lose those funds we decided to sweep them together, look at what we could get done and start working on a project," said Rogers.
There is $16 million in federal funds available right now. They would need to come up with another $8-10 million from various local sources to complete the project. But that doesn't look like it's going to be an issue because of the overriding benefits to the area and the entities involved.
"Ultimately, with the building of this road, Louisiana would be saying, 'Hey, we're serious about wanting I-69 and continuing I-69 through our state and this is what we're doing to show that," said DOTD spokeswoman Erin Buchanan. "In our estimation it would be very economically feasible and viable to be able to construct this road and have new access for all of the people and commercial entities that would be using it." ....
"It's a project that everybody is excited about and everybody is on board for, and again that's not a whole lot of money to get something out there and get something on the ground in terms of I-69 and it also provides a great connection between the port and I-49 for some of that truck traffic," said Rogers.

At least they can get the ball rolling by building just one or maybe two frontage roads. The most important near-term goal is simply getting the route established and preserving the ROW needed by the future freeway. I think it would be better overall to build a much longer corridor with either a Super 2 main line or the first half of a pair of frontage roads than it would to be a full blown freeway that runs only a short distance. A freeway segment that is built to a dead end can have further extensions blocked by new development.

Worst case analysis is that I-69 comes in from TX, circumvents Shreveport, and simply dumps its traffic out on I-20 for years.  There's a reason the whole I-69 corridor was broken up into discrete SIU's -- so the more sections most vital to local economies can be "sold" on their own merit rather than relying on a full-corridor rationale.  Of course, the fate of the LA section is dependent upon TXDOT actually getting serious about planning their "stub" east of the I-369 divergence (since the TX goal has always been Texarkana and I-30 rather than a shortcut to Shreveport).  If that can be nailed down, then a SE Shreveport bypass may well become reality.  The following section in the piney woods heading for El Dorado (AR) will probably just have to wait for a while!

[bwana39]

Here are the things I see getting in the way in Louisiana.

1) Finishing future I-49 (or whatever the number winds up being) from Lafayette to New Orleans
2) Loop from US-190 to new Mississippi River Bridge (Port Allen)
3) New Mississippi River Bridge (Baton Rouge)
4) Upgrading US-190 between Oppolousas and Port Allen (Needs Done before I-10 Rebuild)
5) Replace Calcaseau River Bridge on I-10
6) Replace Bridges on Interstate 10 between Lafayette and Port Allen
7) I-49 Connector (Shreveport)
8) I-69 Red River Bridge (Whether I-69 gets built to Shreveport or not a bridge at the port of Shreveport - Bossier is high priority. )

Not any money to get these things done, much less build a road that doesn't move Louisianans out of the Hurricane zones.

[Anthony_JK]

Here are the things I see getting in the way in Louisiana.

1) Finishing future I-49 (or whatever the number winds up being) from Lafayette to New Orleans
2) Loop from US-190 to new Mississippi River Bridge (Port Allen)
3) New Mississippi River Bridge (Baton Rouge)
4) Upgrading US-190 between Oppolousas and Port Allen (Needs Done before I-10 Rebuild)
5) Replace Calcaseau River Bridge on I-10
6) Replace Bridges on Interstate 10 between Lafayette and Port Allen
7) I-49 Connector (Shreveport)
8) I-69 Red River Bridge (Whether I-69 gets built to Shreveport or not a bridge at the port of Shreveport - Bossier is high priority. )

Not any money to get these things done, much less build a road that doesn't move Louisianans out of the Hurricane zones.

1) I-49 South and the I-49 Lafayette Connector should be the FIRST priority after I-10 through Baton Rouge is resolved.

2) The bypass of I-10 in Baton Rouge will probably be built as an extension of LA 415 to LA 1 and then through the new Mississippi River Bridge near Addis to LA 30 near Gardere. Unfortunately, it will be built as a standard 4-lane expressway, not a freeway as it should be.

3) Upgrading US 190 between I-49 at *Opelousas* and BTR is not happening. Too many access points and too many speed traps (Port Barre, Krotz Springs, Livonia, Erwinville).

4) The Shreveport I-49 ICC will happen as soon as they get the EIS done (and the lawsuits are resolved).

5) The new Calcasieu River Bridge on I-10 also can go as soon as funding is found.
 
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.

[sparker]

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).   

[sprjus4]

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).

[sparker]

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).

Bingo!  Obviously, completing the composite 69/369 corridor to Marshall and letting the 20/220/49 continuum take over from there to Texarkana would be a fiscally sound concept -- but, then, we're dealing with TX, and that state has a history of cobbling up the necessary funding to advance in-state projects that keep any potential benefits within state boundaries.  That world with limited funding isn't apportioned equally among jurisdictions; in that respect, TX is more than willing to flex their significantly larger muscles!