I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)

[bwana39]

Yep, that three bridges. And,   if it were to happen replacing the old bridge at Helena would be best.  They it could connect to the I-69 to Tunica plan and also run a 4 lane divided to to Batesville. I would like to point out the many sections of Arkansas 1 that is 4 lane from Forrest City to Helena. I would push for that to be US 49 from Jonesboro to Barton and US 63 replacing US 49 from Jonesboro to Brinkley. It would be part if a larger Greater Memphis outer loop that included I-155, US 412, US 45, US 278.

There is absolutely no reason to replace the Helena Bridge. Leave it for the rest of its lifespan. The only problem with the Helena Bridge is it is narrow and has a fairly large gradient. It is still useful as a place for tractors and farm equipment to cross and for local and inter regional traffic.

Even if.... The Helena bridge it too far south. The two places that would seem to fit for this loop crossing would be north of Marianna to the Tunica Resorts more or less or from around Winona to Penton. The one farther north seems a better solution for the outer belt concept and the further south one a seeming better choice for a pure I-69 routing.

Yes, it probably will cost as much to bridge the Arkansas and White Rivers (together) as the Mississippi crossing.  I think that there needs to be a new bridge toward the south end of Memphis Metro (meaning Arkansas / Mississippi). I just cannot seem to justify two new crossings in the next decade of so. I will give you, Arkansas has neither the funds or priority to build two crossings whether it is two across the Mississippi  or one across the Mississippi and one across the area above the confluence of the Arkansas and White rivers.  The original plan was to follow this route. Then after the compromise moved it south of the Arkansas / Mississippi confluence, then  US Representative Jay Dickey (R-Arkansas) proposed to fund both alternatives with the so-called Dickey Split (which went nowhere).

It comes down to a major interstate was routed on the whims of local interests instead of the national interest.

I want to add one thing to this.  Back when they decided to redirect the money from the Monticello bypass to upgrading US-278 toward the McGehee, I initially thought they were making sure the Dean bridge was built. I think after the fact, that they were making sure that a decent road got built in a long forgotten area in case the bridge was built elsewhere or not at all.

[abqtraveler]

Yep, that three bridges. And,   if it were to happen replacing the old bridge at Helena would be best.  They it could connect to the I-69 to Tunica plan and also run a 4 lane divided to to Batesville. I would like to point out the many sections of Arkansas 1 that is 4 lane from Forrest City to Helena. I would push for that to be US 49 from Jonesboro to Barton and US 63 replacing US 49 from Jonesboro to Brinkley. It would be part if a larger Greater Memphis outer loop that included I-155, US 412, US 45, US 278.

There is absolutely no reason to replace the Helena Bridge. Leave it for the rest of its lifespan. The only problem with the Helena Bridge is it is narrow and has a fairly large gradient. It is still useful as a place for tractors and farm equipment to cross and for local and inter regional traffic.

Even if.... The Helena bridge it too far south. The two places that would seem to fit for this loop crossing would be north of Marianna to the Tunica Resorts more or less or from around Winona to Penton. The one farther north seems a better solution for the outer belt concept and the further south one a seeming better choice for a pure I-69 routing.

Yes, it probably will cost as much to bridge the Arkansas and White Rivers (together) as the Mississippi crossing.  I think that there needs to be a new bridge toward the south end of Memphis Metro (meaning Arkansas / Mississippi). I just cannot seem to justify two new crossings in the next decade of so. I will give you, Arkansas has neither the funds or priority to build two crossings whether it is two across the Mississippi  or one across the Mississippi and one across the area above the confluence of the Arkansas and White rivers.  The original plan was to follow this route. Then after the compromise moved it south of the Arkansas / Mississippi confluence, then  US Representative Jay Dickey (R-Arkansas) proposed to fund both alternatives with the so-called Dickey Split (which went nowhere).

It comes down to a major interstate was routed on the whims of local interests instead of the national interest.

I want to add one thing to this.  Back when they decided to redirect the money from the Monticello bypass to upgrading US-278 toward the McGehee, I initially thought they were making sure the Dean bridge was built. I think after the fact, that they were making sure that a decent road got built in a long forgotten area in case the bridge was built elsewhere or not at all.

Even if that was Arkansas' intent when they elected to complete 2 lanes of I-69 between Monticello and McGehee, there's nowhere near any kind of a guarantee that would accelerate any kind of work on the Dean Bridge. That's because Mississippi would have to come up with the money to pay for their portion of the bridge and connecting roadway. Mississippi is so broke right now they can't even afford to maintain what they have. So what makes anyone in Arkansas think that money will magically appear in Mississippi to get the Dean Bridge built?

[sparker]

Yep, that three bridges. And,   if it were to happen replacing the old bridge at Helena would be best.  They it could connect to the I-69 to Tunica plan and also run a 4 lane divided to to Batesville. I would like to point out the many sections of Arkansas 1 that is 4 lane from Forrest City to Helena. I would push for that to be US 49 from Jonesboro to Barton and US 63 replacing US 49 from Jonesboro to Brinkley. It would be part if a larger Greater Memphis outer loop that included I-155, US 412, US 45, US 278.

There is absolutely no reason to replace the Helena Bridge. Leave it for the rest of its lifespan. The only problem with the Helena Bridge is it is narrow and has a fairly large gradient. It is still useful as a place for tractors and farm equipment to cross and for local and inter regional traffic.

Even if.... The Helena bridge it too far south. The two places that would seem to fit for this loop crossing would be north of Marianna to the Tunica Resorts more or less or from around Winona to Penton. The one farther north seems a better solution for the outer belt concept and the further south one a seeming better choice for a pure I-69 routing.

Yes, it probably will cost as much to bridge the Arkansas and White Rivers (together) as the Mississippi crossing.  I think that there needs to be a new bridge toward the south end of Memphis Metro (meaning Arkansas / Mississippi). I just cannot seem to justify two new crossings in the next decade of so. I will give you, Arkansas has neither the funds or priority to build two crossings whether it is two across the Mississippi  or one across the Mississippi and one across the area above the confluence of the Arkansas and White rivers.  The original plan was to follow this route. Then after the compromise moved it south of the Arkansas / Mississippi confluence, then  US Representative Jay Dickey (R-Arkansas) proposed to fund both alternatives with the so-called Dickey Split (which went nowhere).

It comes down to a major interstate was routed on the whims of local interests instead of the national interest.

I want to add one thing to this.  Back when they decided to redirect the money from the Monticello bypass to upgrading US-278 toward the McGehee, I initially thought they were making sure the Dean bridge was built. I think after the fact, that they were making sure that a decent road got built in a long forgotten area in case the bridge was built elsewhere or not at all.

Even if that was Arkansas' intent when they elected to complete 2 lanes of I-69 between Monticello and McGehee, there's nowhere near any kind of a guarantee that would accelerate any kind of work on the Dean Bridge. That's because Mississippi would have to come up with the money to pay for their portion of the bridge and connecting roadway. Mississippi is so broke right now they can't even afford to maintain what they have. So what makes anyone in Arkansas think that money will magically appear in Mississippi to get the Dean Bridge built?

Mississippi freeways have, almost without exception, been built by maxing out the Fed contribution to the project, be it chargeable Interstates or, in the case of I-22, ARC funds for the initial construction and ensuing 80% contribution for the upgrades to I-standards via the HPC designation -- a serial "piling on" of funds from D.C., enabled by greasing the skids, congressional-wise (although AL's delegation did the heavy lifting there).  Unfortunately for any part of I-69, only the HPC source is available, but the state has deemed the entire corridor to be well down the priority list -- which is understandable, since even their 20% contribution toward a project of that magnitude would be funds they just don't have available.  The only chance that I-69 -- including the Dean bridge -- has in the next couple of decades would be for specific earmarks, now that they've been reintroduced on a limited basis, to be directed toward that corridor, including either a significant subsidy for the state/local share or a directed hike in the federal share (at or above the old 90% level afforded the original chargeable Interstates).  Otherwise -- no bridge; no continuous corridor, and likely maxing out as a 2-lane expressway across SE AR.     

[bwana39]

Yep, that three bridges. And,   if it were to happen replacing the old bridge at Helena would be best.  They it could connect to the I-69 to Tunica plan and also run a 4 lane divided to to Batesville. I would like to point out the many sections of Arkansas 1 that is 4 lane from Forrest City to Helena. I would push for that to be US 49 from Jonesboro to Barton and US 63 replacing US 49 from Jonesboro to Brinkley. It would be part if a larger Greater Memphis outer loop that included I-155, US 412, US 45, US 278.

There is absolutely no reason to replace the Helena Bridge. Leave it for the rest of its lifespan. The only problem with the Helena Bridge is it is narrow and has a fairly large gradient. It is still useful as a place for tractors and farm equipment to cross and for local and inter regional traffic.

Even if.... The Helena bridge it too far south. The two places that would seem to fit for this loop crossing would be north of Marianna to the Tunica Resorts more or less or from around Winona to Penton. The one farther north seems a better solution for the outer belt concept and the further south one a seeming better choice for a pure I-69 routing.

Yes, it probably will cost as much to bridge the Arkansas and White Rivers (together) as the Mississippi crossing.  I think that there needs to be a new bridge toward the south end of Memphis Metro (meaning Arkansas / Mississippi). I just cannot seem to justify two new crossings in the next decade of so. I will give you, Arkansas has neither the funds or priority to build two crossings whether it is two across the Mississippi  or one across the Mississippi and one across the area above the confluence of the Arkansas and White rivers.  The original plan was to follow this route. Then after the compromise moved it south of the Arkansas / Mississippi confluence, then  US Representative Jay Dickey (R-Arkansas) proposed to fund both alternatives with the so-called Dickey Split (which went nowhere).

It comes down to a major interstate was routed on the whims of local interests instead of the national interest.

I want to add one thing to this.  Back when they decided to redirect the money from the Monticello bypass to upgrading US-278 toward the McGehee, I initially thought they were making sure the Dean bridge was built. I think after the fact, that they were making sure that a decent road got built in a long forgotten area in case the bridge was built elsewhere or not at all.

Even if that was Arkansas' intent when they elected to complete 2 lanes of I-69 between Monticello and McGehee, there's nowhere near any kind of a guarantee that would accelerate any kind of work on the Dean Bridge. That's because Mississippi would have to come up with the money to pay for their portion of the bridge and connecting roadway. Mississippi is so broke right now they can't even afford to maintain what they have. So what makes anyone in Arkansas think that money will magically appear in Mississippi to get the Dean Bridge built?

Mississippi freeways have, almost without exception, been built by maxing out the Fed contribution to the project, be it chargeable Interstates or, in the case of I-22, ARC funds for the initial construction and ensuing 80% contribution for the upgrades to I-standards via the HPC designation -- a serial "piling on" of funds from D.C., enabled by greasing the skids, congressional-wise (although AL's delegation did the heavy lifting there).  Unfortunately for any part of I-69, only the HPC source is available, but the state has deemed the entire corridor to be well down the priority list -- which is understandable, since even their 20% contribution toward a project of that magnitude would be funds they just don't have available.  The only chance that I-69 -- including the Dean bridge -- has in the next couple of decades would be for specific earmarks, now that they've been reintroduced on a limited basis, to be directed toward that corridor, including either a significant subsidy for the state/local share or a directed hike in the federal share (at or above the old 90% level afforded the original chargeable Interstates).  Otherwise -- no bridge; no continuous corridor, and likely maxing out as a 2-lane expressway across SE AR.     

This road is so far down the list of priorities for both Arkansas and Mississippi that it is not going to happen absent near total federal funding (I am not sure it would get built with 80+% non-transferrable earmarked federal funds.)  For Arkansas, everything has to go through Little Rock. I assume that I-55's Arkansas route was decided by the Feds back in the fifties.  I-49 has a LITTLE traction, but Walmart, Tyson, and UofA is up there in NWA. This said, I feel like the two new freeways that run through Little Rock (I-57 and I-530) are of way higher priority than I-49 south of I-40 and I-69 for sure. I honestly see I-530 (or as many seem to envision I-57) in Monroe before I-69 sees the first miles of fully controlled access built in Arkansas.

Mississippi is as confused by the routing as I am. For them the proposed route through the delta is redundant to I-55. Even the most serious proponents see it going from the river to just North of Grenada then duplexing with I-55 to Memphis. Honestly if the bridge is built there, I am not sure the traffic loads might actually allow it without added capacity to I-55. Regardless, I-69 is very low priority. It falls far behind the US-49 corridor from Jackson to Gulfport or Biloxi . The proposed I-310 in Gulfport is dead  in the water. (It is like the MS-1 loop around Greenville, waiting for funds to complete civil details that were done over a decade ago.)

I cannot see the rural portions of this thing (including the Dean Bridge) built in my lifetime if ever.

[abqtraveler]

Yep, that three bridges. And,   if it were to happen replacing the old bridge at Helena would be best.  They it could connect to the I-69 to Tunica plan and also run a 4 lane divided to to Batesville. I would like to point out the many sections of Arkansas 1 that is 4 lane from Forrest City to Helena. I would push for that to be US 49 from Jonesboro to Barton and US 63 replacing US 49 from Jonesboro to Brinkley. It would be part if a larger Greater Memphis outer loop that included I-155, US 412, US 45, US 278.

There is absolutely no reason to replace the Helena Bridge. Leave it for the rest of its lifespan. The only problem with the Helena Bridge is it is narrow and has a fairly large gradient. It is still useful as a place for tractors and farm equipment to cross and for local and inter regional traffic.

Even if.... The Helena bridge it too far south. The two places that would seem to fit for this loop crossing would be north of Marianna to the Tunica Resorts more or less or from around Winona to Penton. The one farther north seems a better solution for the outer belt concept and the further south one a seeming better choice for a pure I-69 routing.

Yes, it probably will cost as much to bridge the Arkansas and White Rivers (together) as the Mississippi crossing.  I think that there needs to be a new bridge toward the south end of Memphis Metro (meaning Arkansas / Mississippi). I just cannot seem to justify two new crossings in the next decade of so. I will give you, Arkansas has neither the funds or priority to build two crossings whether it is two across the Mississippi  or one across the Mississippi and one across the area above the confluence of the Arkansas and White rivers.  The original plan was to follow this route. Then after the compromise moved it south of the Arkansas / Mississippi confluence, then  US Representative Jay Dickey (R-Arkansas) proposed to fund both alternatives with the so-called Dickey Split (which went nowhere).

It comes down to a major interstate was routed on the whims of local interests instead of the national interest.

I want to add one thing to this.  Back when they decided to redirect the money from the Monticello bypass to upgrading US-278 toward the McGehee, I initially thought they were making sure the Dean bridge was built. I think after the fact, that they were making sure that a decent road got built in a long forgotten area in case the bridge was built elsewhere or not at all.

Even if that was Arkansas' intent when they elected to complete 2 lanes of I-69 between Monticello and McGehee, there's nowhere near any kind of a guarantee that would accelerate any kind of work on the Dean Bridge. That's because Mississippi would have to come up with the money to pay for their portion of the bridge and connecting roadway. Mississippi is so broke right now they can't even afford to maintain what they have. So what makes anyone in Arkansas think that money will magically appear in Mississippi to get the Dean Bridge built?

Mississippi freeways have, almost without exception, been built by maxing out the Fed contribution to the project, be it chargeable Interstates or, in the case of I-22, ARC funds for the initial construction and ensuing 80% contribution for the upgrades to I-standards via the HPC designation -- a serial "piling on" of funds from D.C., enabled by greasing the skids, congressional-wise (although AL's delegation did the heavy lifting there).  Unfortunately for any part of I-69, only the HPC source is available, but the state has deemed the entire corridor to be well down the priority list -- which is understandable, since even their 20% contribution toward a project of that magnitude would be funds they just don't have available.  The only chance that I-69 -- including the Dean bridge -- has in the next couple of decades would be for specific earmarks, now that they've been reintroduced on a limited basis, to be directed toward that corridor, including either a significant subsidy for the state/local share or a directed hike in the federal share (at or above the old 90% level afforded the original chargeable Interstates).  Otherwise -- no bridge; no continuous corridor, and likely maxing out as a 2-lane expressway across SE AR.     

This road is so far down the list of priorities for both Arkansas and Mississippi that it is not going to happen absent near total federal funding (I am not sure it would get built with 80+% non-transferrable earmarked federal funds.)  For Arkansas, everything has to go through Little Rock. I assume that I-55's Arkansas route was decided by the Feds back in the fifties.  I-49 has a LITTLE traction, but Walmart, Tyson, and UofA is up there in NWA. This said, I feel like the two new freeways that run through Little Rock (I-57 and I-530) are of way higher priority than I-49 south of I-40 and I-69 for sure. I honestly see I-530 (or as many seem to envision I-57) in Monroe before I-69 sees the first miles of fully controlled access built in Arkansas.

Mississippi is as confused by the routing as I am. For them the proposed route through the delta is redundant to I-55. Even the most serious proponents see it going from the river to just North of Grenada then duplexing with I-55 to Memphis. Honestly if the bridge is built there, I am not sure the traffic loads might actually allow it without added capacity to I-55. Regardless, I-69 is very low priority. It falls far behind the US-49 corridor from Jackson to Gulfport or Biloxi . The proposed I-310 in Gulfport is dead  in the water. (It is like the MS-1 loop around Greenville, waiting for funds to complete civil details that were done over a decade ago.)

I cannot see the rural portions of this thing (including the Dean Bridge) built in my lifetime if ever.

The only thing I can see Mississippi doing in the foreseeable future, as far as I-69 is concerned, are some spot upgrades to US-61 between Tunica and Clarksdale. Periodic resurfacing/rehabilitation projects would be a great opportunity for Mississippi to tackle some of the "low hanging fruit" to start the process of upgrading US-61 to interstate standards. Even by this approach, converting US-61 to I-69 will be excruciatingly slow.

[abqtraveler]

And this just in...ARDOT's Next Three Lettings outlook has the next segment of I-69 scheduled to be let for construction on April 6, 2022. Of course, this will be a partial buildout. This contract will construct first carriageway with 2 lanes of traffic (one in each direction) between US-278 at the east end of the Monticello Bypass and US-65 near McGehee. Movement at glacial speed is better than no movement at all.

https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2022-January-Letting-to-Post.pdf

[CoolAngrybirdsrio4]

And this just in...ARDOT's Next Three Lettings outlook has the next segment of I-69 scheduled to be let for construction on April 6, 2022. Of course, this will be a partial buildout. This contract will construct first carriageway with 2 lanes of traffic (one in each direction) between US-278 at the east end of the Monticello Bypass and US-65 near McGehee. Movement at glacial speed is better than no movement at all.

https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2022-January-Letting-to-Post.pdf

Surprised that they are working on I-69 beyond the Monticello Bypass. Then again, it's probably due to the future Mississippi River bridge that will also have to be built at some point.

[MikieTimT]

And this just in...ARDOT's Next Three Lettings outlook has the next segment of I-69 scheduled to be let for construction on April 6, 2022. Of course, this will be a partial buildout. This contract will construct first carriageway with 2 lanes of traffic (one in each direction) between US-278 at the east end of the Monticello Bypass and US-65 near McGehee. Movement at glacial speed is better than no movement at all.

https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2022-January-Letting-to-Post.pdf

The project video states that they will have ROW for the other 2 carriageways, and have a partial interchange on US-65 and at-grade on the other two intersections initially with the Super-2 configuration. Looks like the PDF links are broken, but the video shows the 17 mile project diagram.

https://vpi-ldph-job-020678-hwy-278-to-hwy-65-i69-drew-and-desha-ardot.hub.arcgis.com/

[abqtraveler]

And this just in...ARDOT's Next Three Lettings outlook has the next segment of I-69 scheduled to be let for construction on April 6, 2022. Of course, this will be a partial buildout. This contract will construct first carriageway with 2 lanes of traffic (one in each direction) between US-278 at the east end of the Monticello Bypass and US-65 near McGehee. Movement at glacial speed is better than no movement at all.

https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2022-January-Letting-to-Post.pdf

The project video states that they will have ROW for the other 2 carriageways, and have a partial interchange on US-65 and at-grade on the other two intersections initially with the Super-2 configuration. Looks like the PDF links are broken, but the video shows the 17 mile project diagram.

https://vpi-ldph-job-020678-hwy-278-to-hwy-65-i69-drew-and-desha-ardot.hub.arcgis.com/

Yes, ARDOT will have acquired enough ROW to accommodate a 4 lane facility, but they're only building out the first two lanes at this time.

[bwana39]

And this just in...ARDOT's Next Three Lettings outlook has the next segment of I-69 scheduled to be let for construction on April 6, 2022. Of course, this will be a partial buildout. This contract will construct first carriageway with 2 lanes of traffic (one in each direction) between US-278 at the east end of the Monticello Bypass and US-65 near McGehee. Movement at glacial speed is better than no movement at all.

https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2022-January-Letting-to-Post.pdf

The project video states that they will have ROW for the other 2 carriageways, and have a partial interchange on US-65 and at-grade on the other two intersections initially with the Super-2 configuration. Looks like the PDF links are broken, but the video shows the 17 mile project diagram.

https://vpi-ldph-job-020678-hwy-278-to-hwy-65-i69-drew-and-desha-ardot.hub.arcgis.com/

Yes, ARDOT will have acquired enough ROW to accommodate a 4 lane facility, but they're only building out the first two lanes at this time.

It should be a better road than the existing US-278 albeit a slightly longer route. That said, regardless of whether the freeway is EVER built, this road section needs significant improvement even as a regional arterial. One thought is the people in east central Arkansas want some improvements even if the outlook for the freeway is just short of NIL.

[MikieTimT]

And this just in...ARDOT's Next Three Lettings outlook has the next segment of I-69 scheduled to be let for construction on April 6, 2022. Of course, this will be a partial buildout. This contract will construct first carriageway with 2 lanes of traffic (one in each direction) between US-278 at the east end of the Monticello Bypass and US-65 near McGehee. Movement at glacial speed is better than no movement at all.

https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2022-January-Letting-to-Post.pdf

The project video states that they will have ROW for the other 2 carriageways, and have a partial interchange on US-65 and at-grade on the other two intersections initially with the Super-2 configuration. Looks like the PDF links are broken, but the video shows the 17 mile project diagram.

https://vpi-ldph-job-020678-hwy-278-to-hwy-65-i69-drew-and-desha-ardot.hub.arcgis.com/

Yes, ARDOT will have acquired enough ROW to accommodate a 4 lane facility, but they're only building out the first two lanes at this time.

It should be a better road than the existing US-278 albeit a slightly longer route. That said, regardless of whether the freeway is EVER built, this road section needs significant improvement even as a regional arterial. One thought is the people in east central Arkansas want some improvements even if the outlook for the freeway is just short of NIL.

Not only that, but the roads down there have beat down roadbeds from all the log trucks that make up the majority of the industry there.  The roads in most all of less traveled areas of Arkansas in general can mostly claim the same.

[edwaleni]

And this just in...ARDOT's Next Three Lettings outlook has the next segment of I-69 scheduled to be let for construction on April 6, 2022. Of course, this will be a partial buildout. This contract will construct first carriageway with 2 lanes of traffic (one in each direction) between US-278 at the east end of the Monticello Bypass and US-65 near McGehee. Movement at glacial speed is better than no movement at all.

https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2022-January-Letting-to-Post.pdf

Surprised that they are working on I-69 beyond the Monticello Bypass. Then again, it's probably due to the future Mississippi River bridge that will also have to be built at some point.

If you scroll through the history of this thread you will see where local planners felt the money allocated was best spent between Monticello and McGahee, so priorities were changed to permit that.

[Finrod]

If you scroll through the history of this thread you will see where local planners felt the money allocated was best spent between Monticello and McGahee, so priorities were changed to permit that.

I had wondered about that decision when I first heard about it, but looking at it more closely, what it seems like they're doing is reserving a corridor for as far east as they'll need to for I-69-- certainly anything east of US 65 is going to be part of the Bridge That Has Yet To Be Built.  They'll be able to say "if you fund the bridge, we already have xx miles of highway land already reserved that we can build out I-69 with some extra dollars" and that number of miles will only increase as they eventually extend this corridor west.

[bwana39]

If you scroll through the history of this thread you will see where local planners felt the money allocated was best spent between Monticello and McGahee, so priorities were changed to permit that.

I had wondered about that decision when I first heard about it, but looking at it more closely, what it seems like they're doing is reserving a corridor for as far east as they'll need to for I-69-- certainly anything east of US 65 is going to be part of the Bridge That Has Yet To Be Built.  They'll be able to say "if you fund the bridge, we already have xx miles of highway land already reserved that we can build out I-69 with some extra dollars" and that number of miles will only increase as they eventually extend this corridor west.

Let's make this increasingly clear. This is solely to improve US-278. While it is the currently proposed routing of I-69, these improvements are needs that are decades old and are needed regardless of whether I-69 is ever built along this (or any) routing.  Just like the improvements a couple of decades ago along US-425 do not necessarily foretell the completion of US-57 to Monroe or Delhi, these improvements really are local improvements that MAY pave the way for I-69 along the route.

On the other hand, I just do not see I-69 built along any path through Arkansas without Federal Earmarks and less so over the proposed  Dean Bridge.

[abqtraveler]

If you scroll through the history of this thread you will see where local planners felt the money allocated was best spent between Monticello and McGahee, so priorities were changed to permit that.

I had wondered about that decision when I first heard about it, but looking at it more closely, what it seems like they're doing is reserving a corridor for as far east as they'll need to for I-69-- certainly anything east of US 65 is going to be part of the Bridge That Has Yet To Be Built.  They'll be able to say "if you fund the bridge, we already have xx miles of highway land already reserved that we can build out I-69 with some extra dollars" and that number of miles will only increase as they eventually extend this corridor west.

Let's make this increasingly clear. This is solely to improve US-278. While it is the currently proposed routing of I-69, these improvements are needs that are decades old and are needed regardless of whether I-69 is ever built along this (or any) routing.  Just like the improvements a couple of decades ago along US-425 do not necessarily foretell the completion of US-57 to Monroe or Delhi, these improvements really are local improvements that MAY pave the way for I-69 along the route.

On the other hand, I just do not see I-69 built along any path through Arkansas without Federal Earmarks and less so over the proposed  Dean Bridge.

The Dean Bridge was originally proposed as a relocation of US-278. By the time the decision to use the Dean Bridge to carry I-69 over the Mississippi River, the ROD for the bridge and its approaches had already been signed. Similarly, the section of I-69 that was built in northern Mississippi was originally intended to be a connector (MS-304) from Tunica Resorts to I-55...and casino money largely paid for its construction. The decision to route I-69 along the MS-304 connector was made after construction had started.

[bwana39]

If you scroll through the history of this thread you will see where local planners felt the money allocated was best spent between Monticello and McGahee, so priorities were changed to permit that.

I had wondered about that decision when I first heard about it, but looking at it more closely, what it seems like they're doing is reserving a corridor for as far east as they'll need to for I-69-- certainly anything east of US 65 is going to be part of the Bridge That Has Yet To Be Built.  They'll be able to say "if you fund the bridge, we already have xx miles of highway land already reserved that we can build out I-69 with some extra dollars" and that number of miles will only increase as they eventually extend this corridor west.

Let's make this increasingly clear. This is solely to improve US-278. While it is the currently proposed routing of I-69, these improvements are needs that are decades old and are needed regardless of whether I-69 is ever built along this (or any) routing.  Just like the improvements a couple of decades ago along US-425 do not necessarily foretell the completion of US-57 to Monroe or Delhi, these improvements really are local improvements that MAY pave the way for I-69 along the route.

On the other hand, I just do not see I-69 built along any path through Arkansas without Federal Earmarks and less so over the proposed  Dean Bridge.

The Dean Bridge was originally proposed as a relocation of US-278. By the time the decision to use the Dean Bridge to carry I-69 over the Mississippi River, the ROD for the bridge and its approaches had already been signed. Similarly, the section of I-69 that was built in northern Mississippi was originally intended to be a connector (MS-304) from Tunica Resorts to I-55...and casino money largely paid for its construction. The decision to route I-69 along the MS-304 connector was made after construction had started.

While there is a ROD for the Dean Bridge, neither Arkansas nor Mississippi are clamoring for its construction now or even ever. While US-278 is incomplete, because  there is a ferry that was discontinued 50+ years ago missing, it really doesn't convince me that there is actually a need for a bridge in that location or even for US-278 to be continuous. Even then from McGehee to Benoit is only 25 miles further through Lake Village.

I get that any economic boost would  help Arkansas County and Desha County, but they are about the  only places that benefit from this bridge at all. The Dean bridge is a boondoggle.  It would be great to have a bridge there, but choosing to allocate the limited resources to put it there is a totally different scenario.

[MikieTimT]

If you scroll through the history of this thread you will see where local planners felt the money allocated was best spent between Monticello and McGahee, so priorities were changed to permit that.

I had wondered about that decision when I first heard about it, but looking at it more closely, what it seems like they're doing is reserving a corridor for as far east as they'll need to for I-69-- certainly anything east of US 65 is going to be part of the Bridge That Has Yet To Be Built.  They'll be able to say "if you fund the bridge, we already have xx miles of highway land already reserved that we can build out I-69 with some extra dollars" and that number of miles will only increase as they eventually extend this corridor west.

Let's make this increasingly clear. This is solely to improve US-278. While it is the currently proposed routing of I-69, these improvements are needs that are decades old and are needed regardless of whether I-69 is ever built along this (or any) routing.  Just like the improvements a couple of decades ago along US-425 do not necessarily foretell the completion of US-57 to Monroe or Delhi, these improvements really are local improvements that MAY pave the way for I-69 along the route.

On the other hand, I just do not see I-69 built along any path through Arkansas without Federal Earmarks and less so over the proposed  Dean Bridge.

The Dean Bridge was originally proposed as a relocation of US-278. By the time the decision to use the Dean Bridge to carry I-69 over the Mississippi River, the ROD for the bridge and its approaches had already been signed. Similarly, the section of I-69 that was built in northern Mississippi was originally intended to be a connector (MS-304) from Tunica Resorts to I-55...and casino money largely paid for its construction. The decision to route I-69 along the MS-304 connector was made after construction had started.

While there is a ROD for the Dean Bridge, neither Arkansas nor Mississippi are clamoring for its construction now or even ever. While US-278 is incomplete because  there is a ferry that was discontinued 50+ years ago missing, it really doesn't convince me that there is actually a need for a bridge in that location or even for US-278 to be continuous. Even then from McGehee to Benoit is only 25 miles further through Lake Village.

I get that any economic boost would  help Arkansas and Desha Counties, but they are about the  only places that benefit form this bridge at all. The Dean bridge is a boondoggle.  It would be great to have abridge there, but choosing to allocate the limited resources to put it there is a totally different scenario.

I totally agree. Without a Trent Lott in Mississippi anymore pushing for the I-69 mileage to be in Mississippi and pretty near I-55 for a chunk of it, it would benefit the state of Arkansas more as well as the through traffic to just run I-69 along the US-79 corridor as much as is practical until departing to get the El Dorado area served, although that would also route it near I-40 for about 20 miles or so.  However, it would make for an awful lot of river crossings to contend with.  The whole region is flood prone with not much elevation between all of the rivers as well, so it's not something that Arkansas could afford to do without lots of federal help.  Let's count the river crossings with an Arkansas US-79/US-167 corridor reroute, southbound, not counting creeks and bayous.

1).  Mississippi - navigable
2).  St. Francis
3).  L'Anguille
4).  Cache (White River Natl. Refuge likely forces a northern bypass of Clarendon)
5).  White - navigable theoretically to Batesville if they'd ever repair the flood damage to the channel
6).  Arkansas - navigable
7).  Ouachita - navigable up to Camden theoretically(not much use of the river by industry currently), but would cross a good ways south of there near US-167's crossing likely to make it to serve El Dorado

SIUs 11-13 are certainly cheaper for Arkansas to build as determined with all of the above crossings that would go with the most logical and beneficial routing that we'd all like, but with benefits pretty localized as a result of it's currently designated routing, which will perpetually make it a low priority unless someone very politically connected springs up in that area, unlikely, but not impossible.  We did get a 2-term U.S. President out of Hope, AR after all, not that he gives a rip about his home state anymore, feeling being mutual. Running along US-167/US-79 would serve more Arkansans, eliminate the dogleg, and provide a 3rd Memphis crossing that would be trivial to connect back up to I-40 for a southern Memphis bypass, but at a very high cost of bridging.

TLDR; nothing happens with I-69 in AR without big federal funds.  MS and LA also share this boat.

[jbnv]

TLDR; nothing happens with I-69 in AR without big federal funds.  MS and LA also share this boat.

And Louisiana isn't going to build any part of I-69 except for the Shreveport-Bossier bypass.

[MikieTimT]

TLDR; nothing happens with I-69 in AR without big federal funds.  MS and LA also share this boat.

And Louisiana isn't going to build any part of I-69 except for the Shreveport-Bossier bypass.

And the Super-2 to Monticello and Super-2 bypass around it are all Arkansas is going to do until I-49 and I-57 are completed.  Possibly an El Dorado bypass as well, but even that's not a big push at the moment.

[abqtraveler]

TLDR; nothing happens with I-69 in AR without big federal funds.  MS and LA also share this boat.

And Louisiana isn't going to build any part of I-69 except for the Shreveport-Bossier bypass.

And the Super-2 to Monticello and Super-2 bypass around it are all Arkansas is going to do until I-49 and I-57 are completed.  Possibly an El Dorado bypass as well, but even that's not a big push at the moment.

I think in the foreseeable future you'll see ARDOT complete the Super 2 between Monticello and McGehee, the western leg of the Monticello Bypass, and perhaps completing the remaining unbuilt segments of AR-530 to 2 lanes. I would suspect where AR-530 terminates at Future I-69, the junction would be built out as a "temporary" intersection, that would be converted to a high-speed interchange if and when ARDOT gets around to building the second set of lanes for each route to make them fully-functional freeways. But don't hold your breath on that happening any time soon. I think you'll see I-49 and I-57 completed before any further movement happens on I-69.

[edwaleni]

In 2040 or beyond there will be (somewhere) a small unfinished segment that forces traffic off to traverse some little town, (kind of like I-90 and Wallace, Idaho in 1991) where I-69 will remain undone for some period of time.

And everyone will post and wonder why it took so long to build such a road to completion

[jbnv]

In 2040 or beyond there will be (somewhere) a small unfinished segment that forces traffic off to traverse some little town, (kind of like I-90 and Wallace, Idaho in 1991) where I-69 will remain undone for some period of time.

Thinking Louisiana will have even most of its part of I-69 done by 2040. 

[abqtraveler]

In 2040 or beyond there will be (somewhere) a small unfinished segment that forces traffic off to traverse some little town, (kind of like I-90 and Wallace, Idaho in 1991) where I-69 will remain undone for some period of time.

Thinking Louisiana will have even most of its part of I-69 done by 2040. 

I think the only part of I-69 in Louisiana that will be built in the foreseeable future will be from I-49 to the Port of Bossier, and maybe over the Red river and up to I-20 near Houghton. Texas and Louisiana haven't even started the EIS for the segment from the I-69/I-369 split in Tenaha to I-49. Although a ROD has been issued for the segment between I-20 and the Arkansas state line, Louisiana won't move on it until Arkansas builds more of its portion of I-69.

[bwana39]

In 2040 or beyond there will be (somewhere) a small unfinished segment that forces traffic off to traverse some little town, (kind of like I-90 and Wallace, Idaho in 1991) where I-69 will remain undone for some period of time.

And everyone will post and wonder why it took so long to build such a road to completion

I think this is REALLY optimistic. 
I think Arkansas MIGHT have the portion from US-82 through the current I-530 finished, but beyond that. what I see even in about 20 more years a two laned road to Arkansas City and no bridge.
I honestly don't see Louisiana having a single mile of freeway on I-69 in place beyond I-49 to I-20.

In that time frame, I see I-49 finished to New Orleans.
I see I-10 widened across Louisiana.
I see a new bridge in Lake Charles AND Orange  on I-10.
I see at least a loop from US-190 to I-12 at Baton Rouge.
I see a bridge replacement or widening project between Lafayette and West Baton Rouge Parish and the same between Baton Rouge and New Orleans.
I see US-165 four laned and perhaps freeway from Alexandria to Monroe and maybe the Arkansas state line.
I see US-425 upgrades to better standards from Bastrop to Ferriday.
There might be major work on I-20.
Still I don't see I-69 done or even in a steady state of construction.

[Anthony_JK]

Only things I can see LA completing in my remaining lifetime is:


1) I-49 South complete from Lafayette to Morgan City, and perhaps the Westbank Expressway completed to US 90
2) New Calcasieu River Bridge on I-10 + 2x3 on I-10 from Sabine River Bridge (already completed, only needs restriping) through Lake Charles to US 165.
3) I-49 ICC in Shreveport
4) South BTR Mississippi River Bridge bypass via extended LA 415 (arterial, not freeway)
5) I-69 connection I-49 to Port of Shreveport-Bossier/LA 1
6) Widening of I-10 through BTR


Rest of I-69? Probably not until they settle on a final route in TX and AR, if ever.