News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

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

Started by Grzrd, September 21, 2010, 01:31:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sprjus4

Quote from: sparker on April 09, 2020, 04:32:38 PM
The primary reason for the I-5 alignment shift away from US 99.  Works for the big metros; not so much for the cities in the Valley (hence the reason for the sporadic push to designate CA 99 as an Interstate).
I'd say it's a win-win for both parties, though agree CA-99 should eventually be designated as its own interstate), the two cities have a direct interstate link between each other without interruption, and CA-99 serves almost as a "loop" to provide access to/from those cities to/from the big metros without having as much thru traffic.

I-5 is essentially a bypass of the CA-99 freeway.


sparker

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 09, 2020, 06:12:42 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 09, 2020, 04:32:38 PM
The primary reason for the I-5 alignment shift away from US 99.  Works for the big metros; not so much for the cities in the Valley (hence the reason for the sporadic push to designate CA 99 as an Interstate).
I'd say it's a win-win for both parties, though agree CA-99 should eventually be designated as its own interstate), the two cities have a direct interstate link between each other without interruption, and CA-99 serves almost as a "loop" to provide access to/from those cities to/from the big metros without having as much thru traffic.

I-5 is essentially a bypass of the CA-99 freeway.

I suppose that makes CA 99 the "business loop" (radically elongated!) of I-5!  Seriously, the truck volume on 99 on a per-mile basis exceeds most semi-rural Interstates, with heavy locally-originated agricultural traffic mixing with trucks peeling off CA 58 using 99 rather than the local slog via 58 or 46 to I-5 (which should be considerably alleviated if & when the Westside is extended to I-5).  Also, the outsized growth of the Visalia/Hanford area, metro Fresno, and the "M-towns" to the north (some of the latter Bay Area overflow) have contributed to the overall commercial flow with "normal" B-to-B and consumer product in & out of those various subregions.  So regardless of designation type, CA 99 is a primary artery in its own right -- and giving, with its overarching commercial status, new meaning to the term "business route"!

It'll be interesting to see if eventually the I-369/30/40 and I-69 AR-based corridors develop a similar symbiotic relationship!

CoreySamson

I noticed that the super-2 Monticello bypass appears complete on Google Maps, but there is no streetview yet.

Anybody know when it was "completed"?
Buc-ee's and QuikTrip fanboy. Clincher of FM roads. Proponent of the TX U-turn.

My Route Log
My Clinches

Now on mobrule and Travel Mapping!

sprjus4

Quote from: CoreySamson on July 19, 2020, 10:47:48 PM
I noticed that the super-2 Monticello bypass appears complete on Google Maps, but there is no streetview yet.

Anybody know when it was "completed"?
No Street View, but aerial imagery shows it complete and traffic moving on it.

edwaleni

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 20, 2020, 12:20:45 AM
Quote from: CoreySamson on July 19, 2020, 10:47:48 PM
I noticed that the super-2 Monticello bypass appears complete on Google Maps, but there is no streetview yet.

Anybody know when it was "completed"?
No Street View, but aerial imagery shows it complete and traffic moving on it.

As soon as more Android phones start using the ROW, Google will send out a Street View car to map it.

When phones start providing coordinates to ways they have traveled that doesn't correspond to a route in the Google database, it triggers an exception and marks it for mapping.

As it stands Google hasn't had a street view car in the area in 11 or 12 years, so they are due.

MikieTimT

I had the honor of spending New Year's in the Hampton Inn there in Monticello.  Had to setup new computers and networking equipment at a restaurant chain there and down in North Crossett, and even had time to kill waiting for my window to swap hardware, but didn't think to drive the new bypass when I was there.  I did see the current endpoint on my way down south of there, though.

abqtraveler

Quote from: CoreySamson on July 19, 2020, 10:47:48 PM
I noticed that the super-2 Monticello bypass appears complete on Google Maps, but there is no streetview yet.

Anybody know when it was "completed"?

I think it opened in 2018. On a side note, there is still about a 9 to 10 mile gap between the completed sections of the AR-530 "Super-2". Anyone know when that gap might be filled?
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

US71

Quote from: abqtraveler on July 22, 2020, 10:16:38 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on July 19, 2020, 10:47:48 PM
I noticed that the super-2 Monticello bypass appears complete on Google Maps, but there is no streetview yet.

Anybody know when it was "completed"?

I think it opened in 2018. On a side note, there is still about a 9 to 10 mile gap between the completed sections of the AR-530 "Super-2". Anyone know when that gap might be filled?

Probably whenever they finish I-49.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

edwaleni

Quote from: US71 on July 22, 2020, 10:25:54 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 22, 2020, 10:16:38 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on July 19, 2020, 10:47:48 PM
I noticed that the super-2 Monticello bypass appears complete on Google Maps, but there is no streetview yet.

Anybody know when it was "completed"?

I think it opened in 2018. On a side note, there is still about a 9 to 10 mile gap between the completed sections of the AR-530 "Super-2". Anyone know when that gap might be filled?

Probably whenever they finish I-49.

Do you mean when they finish "I-69"

US71

Quote from: edwaleni on July 23, 2020, 01:20:48 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 22, 2020, 10:25:54 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 22, 2020, 10:16:38 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on July 19, 2020, 10:47:48 PM
I noticed that the super-2 Monticello bypass appears complete on Google Maps, but there is no streetview yet.

Anybody know when it was "completed"?

I think it opened in 2018. On a side note, there is still about a 9 to 10 mile gap between the completed sections of the AR-530 "Super-2". Anyone know when that gap might be filled?

Probably whenever they finish I-49.

Do you mean when they finish "I-69"

No. ;)
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

edwaleni

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 20, 2020, 12:20:45 AM
Quote from: CoreySamson on July 19, 2020, 10:47:48 PM
I noticed that the super-2 Monticello bypass appears complete on Google Maps, but there is no streetview yet.

Anybody know when it was "completed"?
No Street View, but aerial imagery shows it complete and traffic moving on it.

Per Google:

Unfortunately Google Maps does not take requests for imagery updates, nor does it follow a schedule.

When acquiring new imagery for an area it has to consider lots of aspects including the current and new imagery dates, the size and quality of the areas covered, and quite importantly - cost.
Even a company the size of Google cannot afford to keep all areas of the globe up to date with new imagery constantly.

You can recommend an area for an imagery update, but this will not create a specific request, it will just be pooled with all other requests so that Google can gauge demand for particular areas, and the above still applies.


If you want to see where the Google Cars are capturing:

https://www.google.com/streetview/understand/

People can contribute their own 360 view imagery to Google for places where the cars may not come through: 

https://support.google.com/maps/answer/7012050?vid=0-386811035559-1500733746417

I have seen people paddling their canoes up the Mississippi River with a 360 view camera mounted on them. I think one adventurous group mapped it from New Orleans to St Louis over a summer.

sparker

Quote from: US71 on July 23, 2020, 02:03:18 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 23, 2020, 01:20:48 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 22, 2020, 10:25:54 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 22, 2020, 10:16:38 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on July 19, 2020, 10:47:48 PM
I noticed that the super-2 Monticello bypass appears complete on Google Maps, but there is no streetview yet.

Anybody know when it was "completed"?

I think it opened in 2018. On a side note, there is still about a 9 to 10 mile gap between the completed sections of the AR-530 "Super-2". Anyone know when that gap might be filled?

Probably whenever they finish I-49.

Do you mean when they finish "I-69"

No. ;)

I think US 71's referring to allocation of funds rather than connectivity.  But I think the 530 gap will be filled somewhere during the I-49 series of projects rather than waiting until they're all done.  But there's little urgency about filling the gap (except what might be expressed by local politicos!) until much more of the I-69 mainline is completed -- the idea being to funnel 69 traffic to Pine Bluff and LR.  But if there's no appreciable traffic to funnel, then it's just for local benefit.  And it's more than likely that all the above projects will be stretched out over decades (welcome to the post-chargeable Interstate party!)  :cool:

Stephane Dumas

Quote from: sparker on July 23, 2020, 11:53:42 PM

I think US 71's referring to allocation of funds rather than connectivity.  But I think the 530 gap will be filled somewhere during the I-49 series of projects rather than waiting until they're all done.  But there's little urgency about filling the gap (except what might be expressed by local politicos!) until much more of the I-69 mainline is completed -- the idea being to funnel 69 traffic to Pine Bluff and LR.  But if there's no appreciable traffic to funnel, then it's just for local benefit.  And it's more than likely that all the above projects will be stretched out over decades (welcome to the post-chargeable Interstate party!)  :cool:

Isn't the other way around to funnel instead Little Rock and Pine Bluff traffic to Monticello? ;)


sparker

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on July 24, 2020, 01:46:07 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 23, 2020, 11:53:42 PM

I think US 71's referring to allocation of funds rather than connectivity.  But I think the 530 gap will be filled somewhere during the I-49 series of projects rather than waiting until they're all done.  But there's little urgency about filling the gap (except what might be expressed by local politicos!) until much more of the I-69 mainline is completed -- the idea being to funnel 69 traffic to Pine Bluff and LR.  But if there's no appreciable traffic to funnel, then it's just for local benefit.  And it's more than likely that all the above projects will be stretched out over decades (welcome to the post-chargeable Interstate party!)  :cool:

Isn't the other way around to funnel instead Little Rock and Pine Bluff traffic to Monticello? ;)



Well, that's the wishful thinking of backers from that part of the region.  Monticello does have a branch university specifically intended to serve that part of the state, so it's a decent enough junction point for the two I-69 branches.  But the I/AR 530 facility, whether a super-2 or fleshed out to divided expressway and/or freeway status (it's likely if brought out to the latter and I-69 is actually constructed that ARDOT will seek to make AR 530 an I-530 extension -- unless they elect to extend I-57, which will probably be done by that time, down what's now the composite 530 corridor) was by its design a "sop" to central Arkansas when the current I-69 corridor routing was selected -- as an efficient way (and a way to get maximum federal funding) to connect that route with LR.  Providing a way to actually get to Monticello is a coincidental benefit -- but that's better than none at all.  A nice limited-access roadway would likely provide a safer way for students and parents to get from Pine Bluff & LR to the Monticello campus (similar function to the Indy-Bloomington/IU segment of I-69 in that state).  But maximum benefits of the N-S corridor would be realized by a southern extension down to at least Monroe, LA; suggested in some quarters but without current formalized plans.  But as with all AR Interstate projects, anything in that part of the state will have to compete, funding-wise, with the other two in-state corridors (49 & 57).  It's likely the term "leisurely" will apply to the completion timeframe of both the mainline I-69 corridor and the composite 530 branch. 

edwaleni

I had read in some local Arkansas press that politicos in SE Arkansas were petitioning to get the AR-530 gap closed. They were trying to get it into a future funding bill.

With the completion of the Monticello Bypass and the agreement to upgrade US-278 east to McGehee from that bypass, I would think they are getting a good measure of pork at the moment.

sparker

Quote from: edwaleni on July 26, 2020, 01:25:37 AM
I had read in some local Arkansas press that politicos in SE Arkansas were petitioning to get the AR-530 gap closed. They were trying to get it into a future funding bill.

With the completion of the Monticello Bypass and the agreement to upgrade US-278 east to McGehee from that bypass, I would think they are getting a good measure of pork at the moment.

With that in mind, I wonder if completion of the west portion of the I-69/US 278 Monticello bypass, at least as an initial 2-lane facility like the just-completed eastern section, would be expedited at least as far as the junction point of AR 530 to create a continuous facility as well as an effective N-S bypass of Monticello.  As far as "pork" is concerned, that concept's ship has long sailed in other regions of AR; it's just a bit delayed getting down to the state's southern tier!

edwaleni

Quote from: sparker on July 27, 2020, 12:55:55 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 26, 2020, 01:25:37 AM
I had read in some local Arkansas press that politicos in SE Arkansas were petitioning to get the AR-530 gap closed. They were trying to get it into a future funding bill.

With the completion of the Monticello Bypass and the agreement to upgrade US-278 east to McGehee from that bypass, I would think they are getting a good measure of pork at the moment.

With that in mind, I wonder if completion of the west portion of the I-69/US 278 Monticello bypass, at least as an initial 2-lane facility like the just-completed eastern section, would be expedited at least as far as the junction point of AR 530 to create a continuous facility as well as an effective N-S bypass of Monticello.  As far as "pork" is concerned, that concept's ship has long sailed in other regions of AR; it's just a bit delayed getting down to the state's southern tier!

Sorry, I am pushing a memory cell here, but an article last year said that the AR-530 extension to a future I-69 was deferred in order to spend the money on improving US-278 east of Monticello. ARDOT met with local officials and they said they preferred the money go east. I am sure the article was referenced here somewhere. So I took that to mean that any AR-530 extension south wouldn't be done until the ROW to El Dorado was being built.

sparker

Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2020, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 27, 2020, 12:55:55 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 26, 2020, 01:25:37 AM
I had read in some local Arkansas press that politicos in SE Arkansas were petitioning to get the AR-530 gap closed. They were trying to get it into a future funding bill.

With the completion of the Monticello Bypass and the agreement to upgrade US-278 east to McGehee from that bypass, I would think they are getting a good measure of pork at the moment.

With that in mind, I wonder if completion of the west portion of the I-69/US 278 Monticello bypass, at least as an initial 2-lane facility like the just-completed eastern section, would be expedited at least as far as the junction point of AR 530 to create a continuous facility as well as an effective N-S bypass of Monticello.  As far as "pork" is concerned, that concept's ship has long sailed in other regions of AR; it's just a bit delayed getting down to the state's southern tier!

Sorry, I am pushing a memory cell here, but an article last year said that the AR-530 extension to a future I-69 was deferred in order to spend the money on improving US-278 east of Monticello. ARDOT met with local officials and they said they preferred the money go east. I am sure the article was referenced here somewhere. So I took that to mean that any AR-530 extension south wouldn't be done until the ROW to El Dorado was being built.

FWIW, there was no talk of any El Dorado-related development, which is actually west of Monticello; the local push was to extend the Super-2 east along US 278 to US 65 at McGehee.  That seemed to be the preference of local interest groups; apparently ADOT presented it as a "zero-sum" proposition -- if they wanted the McGehee facility, finishing 530 would have to be deferred.  They selected McGehee -- but like with any decision with a political component, some are having second thoughts about that trade-off -- whether it's lack of resolve regarding the Great River bridge or simply more locals expressing the opinion that they'd rather have a more efficient conduit to Pine Bluff and Little Rock than a way to get over to US 65 a bit easier.  Or maybe these are "leftover" Dickey Split activists flexing their muscle -- the folks that got the 530 extension as a "consolation prize" when that Pine Bluff-based route was rejected years ago.  Any or all of the above are possible here.  Until dirt is physically broken, the situation seems somewhat fluid. 

bwana39

#468
Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2020, 01:01:00 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2020, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 27, 2020, 12:55:55 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 26, 2020, 01:25:37 AM
I had read in some local Arkansas press that politicos in SE Arkansas were petitioning to get the AR-530 gap closed. They were trying to get it into a future funding bill.

With the completion of the Monticello Bypass and the agreement to upgrade US-278 east to McGehee from that bypass, I would think they are getting a good measure of pork at the moment.



With that in mind, I wonder if completion of the west portion of the I-69/US 278 Monticello bypass, at least as an initial 2-lane facility like the just-completed eastern section, would be expedited at least as far as the junction point of AR 530 to create a continuous facility as well as an effective N-S bypass of Monticello.  As far as "pork" is concerned, that concept's ship has long sailed in other regions of AR; it's just a bit delayed getting down to the state's southern tier!

Sorry, I am pushing a memory cell here, but an article last year said that the AR-530 extension to a future I-69 was deferred in order to spend the money on improving US-278 east of Monticello. ARDOT met with local officials and they said they preferred the money go east. I am sure the article was referenced here somewhere. So I took that to mean that any AR-530 extension south wouldn't be done until the ROW to El Dorado was being built.

FWIW, there was no talk of any El Dorado-related development, which is actually west of Monticello; the local push was to extend the Super-2 east along US 278 to US 65 at McGehee.  That seemed to be the preference of local interest groups; apparently ADOT presented it as a "zero-sum" proposition -- if they wanted the McGehee facility, finishing 530 would have to be deferred.  They selected McGehee -- but like with any decision with a political component, some are having second thoughts about that trade-off -- whether it's lack of resolve regarding the Great River bridge or simply more locals expressing the opinion that they'd rather have a more efficient conduit to Pine Bluff and Little Rock than a way to get over to US 65 a bit easier.  Or maybe these are "leftover" Dickey Split activists flexing their muscle -- the folks that got the 530 extension as a "consolation prize" when that Pine Bluff-based route was rejected years ago.  Any or all of the above are possible here.  Until dirt is physically broken, the situation seems somewhat fluid.

The US-278 Improvements to McGehee are cohesive to the Great River Bridge.  The more that is built from Monticello toward the river, the more likely the bridge is. Building better road between Pine Bluff and Monticello doesn't favor the GRB route vs I-69 crossing on the US-82 bridge. Robert S. Moore, Jr., the Chairman of the Arkansas HWY Comission as well as former speaker of the Arkansas state House of Representatives lives outside of Arkansas City.

On the other side, if you think the bridge is NOT going to happen, a better road from McGehee to what SHOULD be more businesses and services in Monticello is important.

I don't really believe the bridge should be built THERE. I might add, the distance from ElDorado to Benoit MS would be similar using either route.

The real need is in Northern Mississippi (Metro Memphis) .
The road should be I-22 NOT I-69. Route it from Byhalia MS to I-40 around Forest City or Brinkley; perhaps take it US79 and then follow US-79 to I-40.

Now as to the routing of I-69. If cost were no objective, I would prefer it follow US 79 from Camden to around Winona. Meets I-530 at Pine Bluff is a more direct route. The biggest problem is bridges across both the Arkansas and White rivers in addition to the Mississippi River Bridge.

I get the great river bridge. I really do. It is close to as far north as you can get without getting involved in the Arkansas River. 
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

dariusb

Quote from: AHTD on January 25, 2014, 11:16:09 PM
Quote from: US 41 on January 24, 2014, 11:33:55 PM
Too me it appears like most of the DOT money in Arkansas is going to AR 530 and the US 67 (AR226 - US63) freeway. I-69 looks like it will be the main project in about 5 years. I-49 may be finished in about 15 years from Texarkana - Fort Smith. Isn't the US 67 freeway supposed to go to Missouri though? That project seems to be a bigger concern to Arkansas than I-69. For good reason too. A good route between Little Rock and St. Louis. I-49 might also be a long ways away from being finished as it will go through some rough terrain. Arkansas has a lot of future projects, but Arkansas seems to move fairly slow when it comes to actually starting and finishing them. 

I also have to say that I really like the interchange design at I-530 and AR530.

The improvement of U.S. 67 from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri line is on hold at this time because Missouri had to back away from a prior commitment to meet us there. Not throwing our friends at MoDOT under the bus, mind you, both states have been in similar circumstances. It happens. But because of this, we are back to square one on how to get from Walnut Ridge and with what type of a facility.

We are in the process of completing a study examining this very question. Once the Arkansas Highway Commission approves it, we'll post it in this forum for review. Should be late spring or summer of this year.

Thank you for the kind comments regarding the I-530/SH530 interchange. That stretch of road opened just this last year and in our working with Google, we got the route to appear on their maps. At this time they have yet to add it to their streetview and live traffic features, but at least you can find it on the map.
Thank you.
It's a new day for a new beginning.

sparker

Quote from: dariusb on July 31, 2020, 08:27:22 PM
Quote from: AHTD on January 25, 2014, 11:16:09 PM
Quote from: US 41 on January 24, 2014, 11:33:55 PM
Too me it appears like most of the DOT money in Arkansas is going to AR 530 and the US 67 (AR226 - US63) freeway. I-69 looks like it will be the main project in about 5 years. I-49 may be finished in about 15 years from Texarkana - Fort Smith. Isn't the US 67 freeway supposed to go to Missouri though? That project seems to be a bigger concern to Arkansas than I-69. For good reason too. A good route between Little Rock and St. Louis. I-49 might also be a long ways away from being finished as it will go through some rough terrain. Arkansas has a lot of future projects, but Arkansas seems to move fairly slow when it comes to actually starting and finishing them. 

I also have to say that I really like the interchange design at I-530 and AR530.

The improvement of U.S. 67 from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri line is on hold at this time because Missouri had to back away from a prior commitment to meet us there. Not throwing our friends at MoDOT under the bus, mind you, both states have been in similar circumstances. It happens. But because of this, we are back to square one on how to get from Walnut Ridge and with what type of a facility.

We are in the process of completing a study examining this very question. Once the Arkansas Highway Commission approves it, we'll post it in this forum for review. Should be late spring or summer of this year.

Thank you for the kind comments regarding the I-530/SH530 interchange. That stretch of road opened just this last year and in our working with Google, we got the route to appear on their maps. At this time they have yet to add it to their streetview and live traffic features, but at least you can find it on the map.
Thank you.

I was about to bemoan the MODOT decision to postpone their part of the US 67 corridor south of Poplar Bluff (figuring COVID shortfalls) until I saw the date on the cite -- about 6 1/2 years ago! -- well before the I-57 extension was designated.  So for the time being I'm breathing a sigh of relief  -- but, OTOH, waiting for the other shoe to drop; I fully expect to see wholesale delays or even shelving of projects on a nationwide basis over the next couple of years while the cost of the pandemic is internalized.   

edwaleni

As for I-57....Updated EIS work is finished. The report is supposed to be out right now. It's still moving.

https://www.modot.org/us-67-future-i-57-butler-county


bwana39

#472
I am not opposed to the road but  I am to the routing. Here are my views.

1) Leaving Louisiana, the first part isn't so bad. The Minden LA to West of ElDorado  routing is more than acceptable. It stays outside of ElDorado (Pop 17K) and doesn't completely disregard Magnolia (pop 14K College town). A routing east of ElDorado MIGHT be more direct, but  even I concede that this is justified
2) It then proceeds nearly due north to a point similarly close to Camden (Pop 15K). This is still a good fit on a Shreveport to Memphis route.
3) THEN it turns more or less 90 degrees to an E-W corridor passing adjacent to Warren (Pop 5500), Monticello (pop 10K college town),and McGehee (pop 4K).
4) It continues more or less east and crosses the Mississippi River and takes another 90 degree more or less turn.

I realize that a more direct route from Haynesville  La to McGehee misses every town of any size except it being nearby to ElDorado (off to the southeast of ElDorado. ) As much as I have griped, the proposed routing only adds 15 or 20 miles over the most direct Great River Bridge Route.

The bridge is a different story. I cannot make myself justify a bridge here. As far as that goes, I-69 in the delta is less than 50 miles from I-55. From a local perspective, it is duplicative. On the other hand absent crossing the White and Arkansas Rivers an I-69 route roughly following US-79 (as was initially proposed before the current routing) does make sense for I-69, for Arkansas, and with a Tunica County Mississippi River Bridge, sense for NW Mississippi.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sparker

Quote from: bwana39 on August 15, 2020, 12:15:47 PM
I am not opposed to the road but  I am to the routing. Here are my views.

1) Leaving Louisiana, the first part isn't so bad. The Minden LA to West of ElDorado  routing is more than acceptable. It stays outside of ElDorado (Pop 17K) and doesn't completely disregard Magnolia (pop 14K College town). A routing east of ElDorado MIGHT be more direct, but  even I concede that this is justified
2) It then proceeds nearly due north to a point similarly close to Camden (Pop 15K). This is still a good fit on a Shreveport to Memphis route.
3) THEN it turns more or less 90 degrees to an E-W corridor passing adjacent to Warren (Pop 5500), Monticello (pop 10K college town),and McGehee (pop 4K).
4) It continues more or less east and crosses the Mississippi River and takes another 90 degree more or less turn.

I realize that a more direct route from Haynesville  La to McGehee misses every town of any size except it being nearby to ElDorado (off to the southeast of ElDorado. ) As much as I have griped the proposed routing only adds 15 or 20 miles over the most direct Great River Bridge Route.

The bridge is a different story. I cannot make myself justify a bridge here. As far as that goes, I69 in the delta is less than 50 miles from I-55. From a local perspective, it is duplicative. On the other hand absent crossing the White and Arkansas Rivers an I-69 route roughly following US-79 (as was initially proposed before the current routing) does make sense for I-69, for Arkansas, and with a Tunica County Mississippi River Bridge, sense for NW Mississippi.

Essentially what is proposed here is duplicative of the late "Dickey Split", which did pretty much just that, although veering east to cross the Mississippi River near the US 49 Helena bridge -- likely to address the then-active MS concept of extending the Tunica gaming area downriver.   That was shot down as (a) too close to the I-30/40 corridor and (b) not being "equitable" about apportioning I-69 mileage between the states -- a point driven home by then Sen. Lott (R-MS), who got his way (after AR's congressional delegation got the AR 530 sub-corridor as a consolation prize).  All this was decided right around the turn of the century.   

MikieTimT

Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2020, 03:53:44 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 15, 2020, 12:15:47 PM
I am not opposed to the road but  I am to the routing. Here are my views.

1) Leaving Louisiana, the first part isn't so bad. The Minden LA to West of ElDorado  routing is more than acceptable. It stays outside of ElDorado (Pop 17K) and doesn't completely disregard Magnolia (pop 14K College town). A routing east of ElDorado MIGHT be more direct, but  even I concede that this is justified
2) It then proceeds nearly due north to a point similarly close to Camden (Pop 15K). This is still a good fit on a Shreveport to Memphis route.
3) THEN it turns more or less 90 degrees to an E-W corridor passing adjacent to Warren (Pop 5500), Monticello (pop 10K college town),and McGehee (pop 4K).
4) It continues more or less east and crosses the Mississippi River and takes another 90 degree more or less turn.

I realize that a more direct route from Haynesville  La to McGehee misses every town of any size except it being nearby to ElDorado (off to the southeast of ElDorado. ) As much as I have griped the proposed routing only adds 15 or 20 miles over the most direct Great River Bridge Route.

The bridge is a different story. I cannot make myself justify a bridge here. As far as that goes, I69 in the delta is less than 50 miles from I-55. From a local perspective, it is duplicative. On the other hand absent crossing the White and Arkansas Rivers an I-69 route roughly following US-79 (as was initially proposed before the current routing) does make sense for I-69, for Arkansas, and with a Tunica County Mississippi River Bridge, sense for NW Mississippi.

Essentially what is proposed here is duplicative of the late "Dickey Split", which did pretty much just that, although veering east to cross the Mississippi River near the US 49 Helena bridge -- likely to address the then-active MS concept of extending the Tunica gaming area downriver.   That was shot down as (a) too close to the I-30/40 corridor and (b) not being "equitable" about apportioning I-69 mileage between the states -- a point driven home by then Sen. Lott (R-MS), who got his way (after AR's congressional delegation got the AR 530 sub-corridor as a consolation prize).  All this was decided right around the turn of the century.   

Trouble is, Mississippi doesn't exactly have a track record of creative solutions to financing their portion of federal roads, and they've blown their proverbial wad on the Memphis area mileage, likely for a while.  It's a much different world than it was during Lott/Dickey's days, and Arkansas does have a recent history of self-taxation for road-building purposes, so I see this routing being revisited before anything other than the occasional bypass being constructed.  And long before a Mississippi River bridge gets constructed.  There's likely another Covid-19/New Madrid event going to change priorities before plowing or paving begins.  I wouldn't give up hope on a more-sensible US-79 routing with a river crossing at Tunica just yet.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.