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

[sprjus4]

I think overall you are right. I69 is not a better route than 369/30/40. It might even be an inferior one.

See above. Both routes will have the same distance / travel time and serve two different traffic loads.

the real redundancy is I-69 and I-55. They run on either side of the Mississippi River.

Again, serving two different traffic loads. I-69 for those bound to the northeast, Indiana, Michigan, etc. and I-55 / 57 for those bound north / west, Illinois, Missouri, etc.

I-69 between Memphis and Indianapolis will be 10 - 15 miles shorter than the current routing of I-55, I-57, and I-70.

[sprjus4]

The point is that I-30 / I-40 upgrades are for more expensive than you give it credit. It isn't glue a new lane on each side and go. It is replace every overpass and most of the bridges along them. Yes the ROW is at least minimally wide enough. The problem is the overpasses are too narrow for three lanes to go under and the bridges are too narrow for three lanes to go over.  Look at US 75 from I-635 to Sherman. Replace the overpass, replace the bridges... 100% of the ones built before 1995 that is the case. Most of them on I-30 & 40 were built long before 1995.

The majority of the overpasses can handle an additional lane and shoulder constructed underneath them, though some will need to be replaced. Additionally, the mainline bridges can be widened in many cases, they don't have to be fully replaced unless deemed necessary.

[bwana39]

The point is that I-30 / I-40 upgrades are for more expensive than you give it credit. It isn't glue a new lane on each side and go. It is replace every overpass and most of the bridges along them. Yes the ROW is at least minimally wide enough. The problem is the overpasses are too narrow for three lanes to go under and the bridges are too narrow for three lanes to go over.  Look at US 75 from I-635 to Sherman. Replace the overpass, replace the bridges... 100% of the ones built before 1995 that is the case. Most of them on I-30 & 40 were built long before 1995.

The majority of the overpasses can handle an additional lane and shoulder constructed underneath them, though some will need to be replaced. Additionally, the mainline bridges can be widened in many cases, they don't have to be fully replaced unless deemed necessary.

As to the smaller bridges, I agree with you . As to the overpasses .....NO!  They have 65 foot clear spans. 3 lanes need 110 to 120'.

[ibthebigd]

Connecting Houston to to Memphis and points north is a huge point of I-69 in Arkansas

SM-G950U

[sprjus4]

The point is that I-30 / I-40 upgrades are for more expensive than you give it credit. It isn't glue a new lane on each side and go. It is replace every overpass and most of the bridges along them. Yes the ROW is at least minimally wide enough. The problem is the overpasses are too narrow for three lanes to go under and the bridges are too narrow for three lanes to go over.  Look at US 75 from I-635 to Sherman. Replace the overpass, replace the bridges... 100% of the ones built before 1995 that is the case. Most of them on I-30 & 40 were built long before 1995.

The majority of the overpasses can handle an additional lane and shoulder constructed underneath them, though some will need to be replaced. Additionally, the mainline bridges can be widened in many cases, they don't have to be fully replaced unless deemed necessary.

As to the smaller bridges, I agree with you . As to the overpasses .....NO!  They have 65 foot clear spans. 3 lanes need 110 to 120'.

Can you provide an example of an overpass that would need to be replaced?

[sparker]

Connecting Houston to to Memphis and points north is a huge point of I-69 in Arkansas

SM-G950U

At this point in the game, it's likely that eventually both the I-369/30/40 and the mainline I-69 corridor will share the traffic from Houston to Memphis.  Traffic to Chicago, once I-57 is built, will likely remain on the I-369/30 portion of that composite corridor so it can peel off at LR onto 57.  The I/AR-530 corridor portion, intended to provide a connector between I-69 and LR, is workable but a bit awkward, since it "backtracks" a bit heading north, adding mileage to the mix.  What will likely happen in that case is commercial drivers will obtain traffic reports from both corridor options and pick the one with the least issues (particularly if I-30 starts undergoing expansion, and construction areas slow down traffic significantly).  What one needs to realize is that besides Evansville, IN, most of the impetus for the national I-69 corridor came from Houston and the interests within.  To them,I-69 is a means, not an end -- that end defined by an efficient path to the upper Midwest/Great Lakes area, something lacking for the 63+ years of the Interstate system.   To them, if they can get that main task done via I-369 and I-30, it's a win -- at least until their added traffic starts overwhelming the older sections of I-30 -- then they'll start pressing for the central portion of I-69 to be done as a relief route.  Now -- if I-57 is completed with some rapidity, that portion of traffic heading to or around Chicago/Wisconsin will likely stick to the 369/30 continuum, despite any congestion or construction slogging.  But traffic heading for more easterly Great Lakes points will probably prefer I-69 (this is assuming TN actually completes their portion before MS's and AR's sections are operational); if I-69 is delayed anywhere south of Dyersburg, then the often-touted 40/55/155/69 routing will probably be consistently utilized. 

Those currently suggesting that the Shreveport-Memphis portion of I-69 be deleted or at least shelved seem to be convinced that a "one size fits all" approach with I-30 & I-40 (presumably expanded) will address most of the regional traffic needs.  I'll disagree, stating unequivocally that in not only this instance but others around the country, relief routes for overused Interstate segments will be a necessity sooner than later; if unserved/underserved areas of the country can be addressed within that process, the benefits to constructing these relief routes will be spread out to more than the traffic using the new facilities.  I don't take a quasi-Darwinian approach to these things (i.e., if one is located in a remote place, one deserves the isolation and its consequences) -- if an area can muster up the political will and means to get a corridor established (and those efforts need to be doubled and redoubled to actually get one built!) in this age where extensive "top-down" programs like the original Interstate concept have become politically infeasible (and even pariahs in some circles), then more power to them!   It won't always be pretty -- or look like the old "connect-the-dots" approach of the initial system (which was based on major US highways which were based on the original rail system, yada yada.......) but hey, it's what's available right now.   It's a matter of not rejecting the adequate and imperfect in the quest for the perfect corridor; the latter won't occur without a sea change in national attitude.       

[CoreySamson]

The point is that I-30 / I-40 upgrades are for more expensive than you give it credit. It isn't glue a new lane on each side and go. It is replace every overpass and most of the bridges along them. Yes the ROW is at least minimally wide enough. The problem is the overpasses are too narrow for three lanes to go under and the bridges are too narrow for three lanes to go over.  Look at US 75 from I-635 to Sherman. Replace the overpass, replace the bridges... 100% of the ones built before 1995 that is the case. Most of them on I-30 & 40 were built long before 1995.

The majority of the overpasses can handle an additional lane and shoulder constructed underneath them, though some will need to be replaced. Additionally, the mainline bridges can be widened in many cases, they don't have to be fully replaced unless deemed necessary.

As to the smaller bridges, I agree with you . As to the overpasses .....NO!  They have 65 foot clear spans. 3 lanes need 110 to 120'.

Can you provide an example of an overpass that would need to be replaced?

Just had a quick look on streetview at most of the bridges between Little Rock and Earle on I-40, and tbh it looks like the only bridges that would need to be replaced at least on 40 are the bridges in Forrest City and the overpass carrying state highway 15 over 40 at exit 169. 90% of the existing overpasses would probably remain.

Also, some newer bridges (such as the ones near Earle) have been built with 3x3 in mind.

Hopefully the White River bridge is built to support 3x3.

[Rick Powell]

With the funding issue, maybe the I-69 Mississippi River crossing could be the first Interstate ferry crossing!  The completion of the entire I-69 Indy-Rio Grande route looks like a year 2100 project at this point.

[Revive 755]

As to the smaller bridges, I agree with you . As to the overpasses .....NO!  They have 65 foot clear spans. 3 lanes need 110 to 120'.

Assuming 12 foot lanes and 10 foot shoulders on both sides have 10 foot shoulders, you are at 56 feet - more than enough to fit under a 65 foot span.  While 110 feet would be ideal, I think there are quite a few overpasses that do not meet this on widened interstates. 

Example of this in Illinois.

[MikieTimT]

Additionally, Google's time calculations tend to assume a slightly higher speed than the actual speed limit, so I would have to go through each segment of I-40 and I-30, notably in the urban areas, and get an accurate time calculation based on the posted speed limit. The I-30 and I-40 time estimate could be ~5 minutes off. I assumed a consistent 70 mph speed limit on the I-69 route, whereas Google may have assumed a consistent 75 mph driving speed on I-30 / I-40.

There's never a consistent 75 MPH on I-40 between Galloway and West Memphis.  You will inevitably spend at least 20 of those miles behind a 64-65MPH series of rolling roadblocks, which will murder your average for that stretch.  And your patience too.  And it's even flat and level for that stretch, so it's not even because of horsepower limitations of the tractors.  Stupid governors...

[sparker]

As to the smaller bridges, I agree with you . As to the overpasses .....NO!  They have 65 foot clear spans. 3 lanes need 110 to 120'.

Assuming 12 foot lanes and 10 foot shoulders on both sides have 10 foot shoulders, you are at 56 feet - more than enough to fit under a 65 foot span.  While 110 feet would be ideal, I think there are quite a few overpasses that do not meet this on widened interstates. 

Example of this in Illinois.

Huh?  I thought Interstate absolute minimum (w/o waivers) was 10' outer shoulders, 12' carriageway lanes, and 4' inner shoulders.  Adding in a 4' wide K-rail, four lanes come to 48' (lanes)+20' (outer shoulders)+8' (inner shoulders) + 4' (center rail); that comes to an 80' clear width assuming no center bent on the overpass.  Now -- there are double 65' clear spans, that would mean each side would require 40' of that for a 4-lane directional set, plus any space required to accommodate the center bent.  Adding an additional 12' lane would bring it out to 52'.  With bent accommodation, that would probably be sufficient to poke 3+3 through with about 6-8' inner shoulders (narrowing slightly at the overcrossings). 

Out here in CA we went through that with the CA 120 Manteca bypass; originally a Gianturco-era 3-lane undivided freeway (with alternating passing lanes) and overcrossings lacking a center bent but with berms that came almost right to the outer shoulder -- at ground level, a tad under 65' wide (there was a K-rail separating the directions -- but only at the center-lane transitions!).  When a series of fatal accidents in the early '80's resulted in a decision to widen it to a full 4-lane divided freeway (with a minimum 36' median), all the overpasses needed to be torn down and rebuilt.  Now the full facility is Interstate-standard (with the exception of the CA 99 interchange); the eastbound direction uses the original 3-lane pavement (with the unused portion serving as the inner shoulder).  This was one of the few CA freeways to not utilize center-bents; during that particular era at Caltrans, eliminating or shrinking freeway plans was SOP; it was assumed (fortunately incorrectly) that those policies would continue under future administrations.     

[sprjus4]

As to the smaller bridges, I agree with you . As to the overpasses .....NO!  They have 65 foot clear spans. 3 lanes need 110 to 120'.

Assuming 12 foot lanes and 10 foot shoulders on both sides have 10 foot shoulders, you are at 56 feet - more than enough to fit under a 65 foot span.  While 110 feet would be ideal, I think there are quite a few overpasses that do not meet this on widened interstates. 

Example of this in Illinois.

Huh?  I thought Interstate absolute minimum (w/o waivers) was 10' outer shoulders, 12' carriageway lanes, and 4' inner shoulders.  Adding in a 4' wide K-rail, four lanes come to 48' (lanes)+20' (outer shoulders)+8' (inner shoulders) + 4' (center rail); that comes to an 80' clear width assuming no center bent on the overpass.  Now -- there are double 65' clear spans, that would mean each side would require 40' of that for a 4-lane directional set, plus any space required to accommodate the center bent.  Adding an additional 12' lane would bring it out to 52'.  With bent accommodation, that would probably be sufficient to poke 3+3 through with about 6-8' inner shoulders (narrowing slightly at the overcrossings). 

On VDOT's current I-64 Segment 3 expansion near Williamsburg, the typical section calls for a 12 foot inner shoulder, three 12 foot lanes, and a 12 foot outer shoulder in each direction, though in order to retain the existing 1960's overpasses, they are narrowing the left shoulder to ~4 ft under each overpass and installing a barrier wall to protect the bridge pier.

A tight squeeze in some areas -
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2849277,-76.6693419,3a,75y,336.84h,84.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfS-gRp_ZcISVKNyVfwhjQg!2e0!5s20180601T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3038039,-76.6832546,3a,75y,327.86h,87.27t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB163x9EYv07sXsp0wtMHKw!2e0!5s20180601T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

Of course, the proper method would have been to replace those overpasses which are aging anyways, but it certainly helps to save a few bucks.

[sprjus4]

Additionally, Google's time calculations tend to assume a slightly higher speed than the actual speed limit, so I would have to go through each segment of I-40 and I-30, notably in the urban areas, and get an accurate time calculation based on the posted speed limit. The I-30 and I-40 time estimate could be ~5 minutes off. I assumed a consistent 70 mph speed limit on the I-69 route, whereas Google may have assumed a consistent 75 mph driving speed on I-30 / I-40.

There's never a consistent 75 MPH on I-40 between Galloway and West Memphis.  You will inevitably spend at least 20 of those miles behind a 64-65MPH series of rolling roadblocks, which will murder your average for that stretch.  And your patience too.  And it's even flat and level for that stretch, so it's not even because of horsepower limitations of the tractors.  Stupid governors...

Agreed, and have witnessed this first hand. This would reduce I-40's travel times further.

[sprjus4]

Just had a quick look on streetview at most of the bridges between Little Rock and Earle on I-40, and tbh it looks like the only bridges that would need to be replaced at least on 40 are the bridges in Forrest City

Those mainline bridges could likely be widened, though depending on age and condition, may be replaced.

and the overpass carrying state highway 15 over 40 at exit 169.

Depends on how the state approaches it. They could technically squeeze 3x3 underneath (see my examples above with what VDOT is doing with I-64), but may opt to replace it.

Hopefully the White River bridge is built to support 3x3.

Parsons to Replace I-40 White River Bridge in Arkansas

The existing White River Bridge has four 12-ft-wide travel lanes and 200 ft of vertical clearance between piers for commercial navigation vessels. The new bridge will have 18 spans comprising six travel lanes and will provide 321.5 ft of horizontal clearance between the two main river piers and 51.9 ft of vertical clearance above the flow line of the White River channel. It will also use drilled shaft foundations in lieu of the original pile foundation design that provides the benefit of reduced construction costs and time. In addition, construction of the new bridge will include demolition of the old bridge, earthwork, traffic maintenance, and erosion control.

[Verlanka]

With the funding issue, maybe the I-69 Mississippi River crossing could be the first Interstate ferry crossing!

Wouldn't that make the interstate discontinuous?

[sparker]

With the funding issue, maybe the I-69 Mississippi River crossing could be the first Interstate ferry crossing!

Wouldn't that make the interstate discontinuous?

You're a day early; April Fools' isn't until tomorrow!

[edwaleni]

With the funding issue, maybe the I-69 Mississippi River crossing could be the first Interstate ferry crossing!

Wouldn't that make the interstate discontinuous?

If the Boring Company can get tunnel costs down from $1 Billion per mile to $10 million per mile, it may be economic to just have a tunnel instead of a whopper bridge at the Mississippi.

[sparker]

With the funding issue, maybe the I-69 Mississippi River crossing could be the first Interstate ferry crossing!

Wouldn't that make the interstate discontinuous?

If the Boring Company can get tunnel costs down from $1 Billion per mile to $10 million per mile, it may be economic to just have a tunnel instead of a whopper bridge at the Mississippi.

Wonder if their HQ is in

                       Boring
                        Oregon City

OK.....now I'm a day early with the 4/1 jokes!

[bjrush]

The point is that I-30 / I-40 upgrades are for more expensive than you give it credit. It isn't glue a new lane on each side and go. It is replace every overpass and most of the bridges along them.

You're talking about widening a few overpasses along I-40 and I-30. There is no way it's in the same league as constructing full exits, all new ramps, bridges from scratch, etc every few miles along a 250+ mile route (over dozens of exits)

[bwana39]

With the funding issue, maybe the I-69 Mississippi River crossing could be the first Interstate ferry crossing!

Wouldn't that make the interstate discontinuous?

OK> Where is your sense of humor. I am sure he intended this to be tongue-in-cheek

[abqtraveler]

With the funding issue, maybe the I-69 Mississippi River crossing could be the first Interstate ferry crossing!

Wouldn't that make the interstate discontinuous?

Not necessarily, if the ferry is designated as part of the interstate route. Precedence has already been established for US-9 and US-10.

[sparker]

With the funding issue, maybe the I-69 Mississippi River crossing could be the first Interstate ferry crossing!

Wouldn't that make the interstate discontinuous?

Not necessarily, if the ferry is designated as part of the interstate route. Precedence has already been established for US-9 and US-10.

Again, not necessarily.  Interstate standards are substantially higher and, for new facilities, functionally inviolate.  US highway criteria are necessarily looser due to the wide variety of roadway formats they traverse as well as the fact that high speeds are not intrinsically part of the facility criteria.  So far, no one has attempted to do a waiver on the Interstate system for a ferry;  discontinuity would be the least of the reasons for disallowing a ferry.  Besides, the whole shooting match will be on a series of bridges and berms besides the main span; it crosses a very wide floodplain and part of the corridor is situated lengthwise down an oxbow, which along most flatland rivers are prone to flooding; if a ferry were by some remote chance to be commissioned, the approaches to the termini would still be exceptionally expensive.   It'll be a full-fledged navigable-channel bridge or nothing.   

[ibthebigd]

I am willing to bet itll be a Toll Bridge.

SM-G950U

[Bobby5280]

The point is that I-30 / I-40 upgrades are for more expensive than you give it credit. It isn't glue a new lane on each side and go. It is replace every overpass and most of the bridges along them.

I never suggested a widening project of I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis would merely be grafting new lanes onto old, existing roadway. Even in my previous post I said a lot of bridges would have to be replaced.

However there is a GIANT advantage in already have the ROW in place to allow such an expansion. From a legal standpoint, and probably even from the angle of expense, it's going to be more difficult to build out a brand new Interstate highway on a new terrain path than upgrading an existing freeway on an already sufficiently wide ROW.

Either road would require an all new road bed built up to current Interstate standards. Nothing will be cheap about building the stretch of I-69 in Southern Arkansas.

Upgrades along I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis are already badly needed regardless of what progress can be made with I-69 farther South. Normally the upgrades would be converting the road from a 2x2 lanes configuration to 3x3. Perhaps it really needs to go from 2x2 to 4x4 lanes.

[bwana39]

I-69 in Arkansas, as currently proposed, is indeed a crooked route. And shifting the Mississippi crossing farther South to US-82 will make it even more stupidly crooked. It will make I-69 in Arkansas a mostly East-West route and the path in Mississippi very much a North-South route. The path would be a stupid, giant backwards L-shape route. Just worthless.

The I-30/I-40 combo is a long established route with lots of services along its exits. I-69 doesn't have any guarantees of attracting similar amounts of development along its path, especially if it runs an even more out of the way angle to re-purpose the US-82 crossing. Most of the traffic will likely keep using I-30 and I-40.

There's no official proposal to re-route it to US-82.

For the existing proposed route, it's just as long as the current I-30 / I-40 routing. Look above.

yeah i Haven't seen anything of US 82 being the Bridge of I-69, But i do believe they might have to due to low funding for both Arkansas and Mississippi

There used to be a lot of discussion of routing it over the Greenville Bridge before the ROW aquisitions in Arkansas. Then again the original proposals for the Great River Bridge were further north. As to distance, the distance of I-69 is nominally different (as few as 3 miles) with a realigned US 82 from ElDorado to Greenville versus through Monticello and McGeehee and across the proposed Dean bridge.  It just transfers the east / west flat spot farther south and moves the virtually north / south portion from south central Arkansas to  Mississippi.

As to the I-30 / I -40 being similar in length. It is indeed less than 50 miles farther.  This said, the congestion inside Metro Litttle Rock is one issue.  Crossing the Bridge(s) into Memphis is another.  So, starting in Nacogdoches, I-69 would have a similar distance to the north side of Memphis as going through Texarkana and Little Rock. It is like a circle, whatever way you go around  the semicircle the distance is the same.

As to a giant L. It would indeed be a lazy L so is the I-369- I-30 route.  If you want straight. You would follow US 84 to the Red River more or less then go near Jonesboro to near Monroe to cross the Mississippi at Greenville or even farther south.  Freeways are never straight. Sometimes they make detours that are more political than practical (IE routing I-69 through Shelby County , Texas)

The current routing versus a rough US 82 path boils down to this. Economic development for Camden and routing through Desha and Arkansas Counties.  Redevelopment of the former Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot is a really big deal and the Interstate is perceived as a huge piece of that endevor. This all said the base has been closed for several decades.

The point is. This freeway is not REDUNDANT or Duplacative. It would be additive. The question is how to build it within the budgets of the governmental entities that are paying. The Dean Bridge only gets built if the FEDERAL government pays a significant amount of it (whether from dedicated or generic funds).

As to services, LOVES, PILOT, and others will build on it. Traffic will populate it.  When it is finished, it will be an economic development tool at times in spite of the wishes of the locals.