News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

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

jbnv

Texas is going to build their I-69 spur regardless of what anyone else does.

Louisiana's job 1 is completing I-49 from New Orleans to Texarkana. Beyond that, I wouldn't make any bets. The north and south ends can't agree on very much. Southern Louisiana folks aren't going to cheer for the current I-69 as the Baton Rouge bottleneck gets worse. I wouldn't be surprised if someone from South Louisiana gets on board with the idea of extending I-57 all the way to I-10 via US 165 and I-530. That project would unify south and north and would give us more of a reason to work with our friends in Arkansas than I-69 does.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge


Wayward Memphian

Quote from: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 03:39:04 PM
Texas is going to build their I-69 spur regardless of what anyone else does.

Louisiana's job 1 is completing I-49 from New Orleans to Texarkana. Beyond that, I wouldn't make any bets. The north and south ends can't agree on very much. Southern Louisiana folks aren't going to cheer for the current I-69 as the Baton Rouge bottleneck gets worse. I wouldn't be surprised if someone from South Louisiana gets on board with the idea of extending I-57 all the way to I-10 via US 165 and I-530. That project would unify south and north and would give us more of a reason to work with our friends in Arkansas than I-69 does.

If LA would give up their short section of I-69 in trade off for an I-57 to just east of Lake Charles would be awesome and make just upgrading US 82 from Texarkana to Lake Village for I-69.

I fear state highway depts are so married to current plans a divorce from them would be ugly.

Like I said, to get MS. to play along and nix a new I-69 bridge , move the bridge effort to the Southern Gateway V1-1 where it is much more useful and beneficial directly connecting the Tunica area to Arkansas's intermodal facilities.

BullRebel95


Anthony_JK

Quote from: mvak36 on May 04, 2016, 03:29:08 PM
I probably won't mind if I-69 gets cancelled in LA, AR, and MS. It'd probably be cheaper to build the rest of I-57, and make I-30 and I-40 3 lanes statewide (in AR). I would think it would have the same effect as having I-69, just not as much new terrain building.

NE2: You, sir, are a genius.

News flash, people: While LA should emphasize finishing I-49 South, the Shreveport I-49 ICC, and the Baton Rouge I-10 mess as Jobs #1-1B, they are not going to abandon I-69 through Shreveport just yet. They still need that segment of I-69 to complete the Outer Loop extension of LA 3132, now that Barksdale AFB has put its foot down against extending I-220 through there.

Extending I-155 west to meet the US 67 upgrade? Count me in on that.


jbnv

Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 09, 2016, 11:32:46 AM
News flash, people: While LA should emphasize finishing I-49 South, the Shreveport I-49 ICC, and the Baton Rouge I-10 mess as Jobs #1-1B, they are not going to abandon I-69 through Shreveport just yet. They still need that segment of I-69 to complete the Outer Loop extension of LA 3132, now that Barksdale AFB has put its foot down against extending I-220 through there.

And how are they getting south Louisiana legislators and voters on board with that? Since we're apparently going to be on hook to cover the Legislature's failure to balance the budget, why should we support a freeway that benefits only a small portion of the state?
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Grzrd

#230
This Oct. 20 editorial is not about I-69, except that it is about a relief route for I-10, I-20, I-30 and I-40: U.S. 82 (which already has a new bridge over the Mississippi River):

Quote
A public involvement meeting was held in El Dorado this week regarding the widening of six miles of U.S. 82 from the west side bypass to the South Arkansas Regional Airport ....
It is possible that by 2026, drivers will have four lanes on U.S. 82 from the east side of El Dorado to the Red River Bridge.
We have our doubts that Interstate 69 will ever be completed through Arkansas and Louisiana in our lifetime. The work on U.S. 82 makes sense now.
Interstates 10, 20 and 30 are heavily traveled and U.S. 82 could become an important secondary route — but only if the widening across South Arkansas takes place sooner than later.

I-69 appears to be way down the Arkansas priority list.

cjk374

Louisiana really has no business trying to build a new interstate right now...whether it be 69 or 57. IMO, 69 is as useless as tits on a boar hog. Just let AR buy a bunch of 69 shields & hang them on the same sign posts where they have I-40 & I-30 shields from Memphis to Texarkana. Give it to Texas at Texarkana, then call that project done. You put the I-69 completion date further ahead than where it is now.

The BR projects & I-49 definitely need LaDOTD's full attention with statewide maintenance issues next. Money is at a premium. LA is broke. No new projects need to be even considered until these are finished.

Maybe this is why TxDOT hasn't pushed the EIS for SIU 16?
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: cjk374 on October 23, 2016, 12:13:13 PM
Louisiana really has no business trying to build a new interstate right now...whether it be 69 or 57. IMO, 69 is as useless as tits on a boar hog. Just let AR buy a bunch of 69 shields & hang them on the same sign posts where they have I-40 & I-30 shields from Memphis to Texarkana. Give it to Texas at Texarkana, then call that project done. You put the I-69 completion date further ahead than where it is now.

The BR projects & I-49 definitely need LaDOTD's full attention with statewide maintenance issues next. Money is at a premium. LA is broke. No new projects need to be even considered until these are finished.

Maybe this is why TxDOT hasn't pushed the EIS for SIU 16?

The problem with that is that Shreveport needs I-69 to be completed in order to complete their loop now that I-220 is now essentially truncated to a gate entrance to Barksdale Air Force Base and LA 3132 (the Inner Loop) still needs a connection to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier. The fear is that if I-369 is completed to Texarkana first and then it's decided to truncate I-69 to US 59/I-30/I-40 (or US 59/I-30/US 67/I-155), then Shreveport and south Arkansas will be shut out completely.

Personally, I'd probably have Shreveport settle for completing I-49 through their city via the ICC; and use US 165 from Lake Charles through Alexandria, Monroe, and Bastrop, and US 425/AR 530/I-530 to Monticello/Pine Bluff/Little Rock to cover south Arkansas, while upgrading US 82 across that section to Greenville and US 61 from Vicksburg to Tunica. A SW to NE interstate might not be a real priority right now compared to I-49 and BTR, but it would do more to complete the LA freeway system than I-69 through NW LA would.

cjk374

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 23, 2016, 12:30:33 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on October 23, 2016, 12:13:13 PM
Louisiana really has no business trying to build a new interstate right now...whether it be 69 or 57. IMO, 69 is as useless as tits on a boar hog. Just let AR buy a bunch of 69 shields & hang them on the same sign posts where they have I-40 & I-30 shields from Memphis to Texarkana. Give it to Texas at Texarkana, then call that project done. You put the I-69 completion date further ahead than where it is now.

The BR projects & I-49 definitely need LaDOTD's full attention with statewide maintenance issues next. Money is at a premium. LA is broke. No new projects need to be even considered until these are finished.

Maybe this is why TxDOT hasn't pushed the EIS for SIU 16?

The problem with that is that Shreveport needs I-69 to be completed in order to complete their loop now that I-220 is now essentially truncated to a gate entrance to Barksdale Air Force Base and LA 3132 (the Inner Loop) still needs a connection to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier. The fear is that if I-369 is completed to Texarkana first and then it's decided to truncate I-69 to US 59/I-30/I-40 (or US 59/I-30/US 67/I-155), then Shreveport and south Arkansas will be shut out completely.

In the name of good common economical sense, I must say, "Too damn bad for being left out. Y'all should have never been included to begin with." After I-49 & BR are finished, upgrade LA 3132 to interstate grade, then continue building east, turn north toward I-20 and tie in around MP 30 or 31. Then you have created I-620. (face it...if it was 420, sign thefts would become a problem)

Quote
Personally, I'd probably have Shreveport settle for completing I-49 through their city via the ICC; and use US 165 from Lake Charles through Alexandria, Monroe, and Bastrop, and US 425/AR 530/I-530 to Monticello/Pine Bluff/Little Rock to cover south Arkansas, while upgrading US 82 across that section to Greenville and US 61 from Vicksburg to Tunica. A SW to NE interstate might not be a real priority right now compared to I-49 and BTR, but it would do more to complete the LA freeway system than I-69 through NW LA would.

I completely agree. Take it to Lake Charles, build on the western edge of the Kayouche Coulee Golf Course & tie in to I-10 & I-210.
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

amroad17

Mississippi and Arkansas should have utilized the US 82 bridge over the Mississippi for I-69.  I-69 could have been routed along the US 61 corridor to Greenville, crossed the river, then followed US 65 and US 165 to Monroe, LA and duplexed with I-20 to Shreveport.  There is where I-69 could join its proposed routing to Texas.

If this was done, there would be no need for the Pine Bluff connector--or there could be a scaled-down version of it (two-lane limited access).
I don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)

froggie

QuoteThe problem with that is that Shreveport needs I-69 to be completed in order to complete their loop

Does Shreveport really need a full loop?

Anthony_JK

Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2016, 07:37:20 AM
QuoteThe problem with that is that Shreveport needs I-69 to be completed in order to complete their loop

Does Shreveport really need a full loop?

Not necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.

jbnv

Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2016, 07:37:20 AM
Does Shreveport really need a full loop?

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 24, 2016, 09:58:43 AM
Not necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.

There we go. I-649 from I-49 to I-20, connecting to LA 3132. The rest of I-69 in Louisiana is pork.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

froggie

QuoteNot necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.

I was under the impression that an extension of LA 3132 was proposed which would connect the port to I-49 and (conversely) I-20.

cjk374

Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2016, 01:42:35 PM
QuoteNot necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.

I was under the impression that an extension of LA 3132 was proposed which would connect the port to I-49 and (conversely) I-20.

Yes, but if you build my I-620 idea, traffic needing to go from the port to east bound I-20 can avoid both back tracking & the heavy in-city traffic.
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2016, 01:42:35 PM
QuoteNot necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.

I was under the impression that an extension of LA 3132 was proposed which would connect the port to I-49 and (conversely) I-20.

The current LA 3132 extension being proposed would connect to the Port of Shreveport, but only indirectly through via a connection through an upgraded LA 1 or a new terrain route to proposed I-69, which would run from I-49 near Ellerbe Road to I-20 near Haughton. The original plan was for LA 3132 to have its own Red River crossing rather than use I-69, but that depended on the original plan of going through Barksdale AFB.

If LA 3132 was extended on its own as an I-x49, it would probably require its own Red River crossing; that would go against NWCOG's stated aim of using the extension's connection to I-69 for the completion of the southern portion of the loop. That's why I can't see Shreveport or NW LA abandoning their section of I-69. Also, the fear is that if Texas commits everything to I-369 to Texarkana before SIU's 14 and 15 of I-69 and then backs out of the LA/AR segment, Shreveport loses out on becoming a major crossroads.

Remember that highways are built as much on political coalitions as they are on gas taxes. Would Louisiana care as much about I-69 if it did bypass them for Texarkana/Little Rock, and if Shreveport didn't get consolation in the form of a full Inner Loop or the I-49 ICC??

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: amroad17 on October 24, 2016, 01:31:27 AM
Mississippi and Arkansas should have utilized the US 82 bridge over the Mississippi for I-69.  I-69 could have been routed along the US 61 corridor to Greenville, crossed the river, then followed US 65 and US 165 to Monroe, LA and duplexed with I-20 to Shreveport.  There is where I-69 could join its proposed routing to Texas.

If this was done, there would be no need for the Pine Bluff connector--or there could be a scaled-down version of it (two-lane limited access).

just use the Texas I-69 spur to Texarkana as the main route and then upgrade US 82 across southern Arkansas to the US 82 bridge and call it I -69. Arkansas could then run 530 all the way down to the LA border as a 2 lane limited access upgradable to interstate one day as an extention of I-57 to at least Monroe.

This would eliminate the need for a new bridge. Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.

I'd rather see any effort for a new bridge across he Mississippi reserve for the Memphis area or at least Helena as part of a new 4 lane to Batesville.

Interstate 69 Fan

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on October 26, 2016, 11:14:27 AM
Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.
I-69 in LA was not dropped. LADOT said right now it's main priority is finishing I-49 (To New Orleans and Connecting the 2 segments, creating one highway from Texarkana and Lafayette via Shreveport), then they will focus on I-69.

I-69 is just on hold.
For now.

However, I saw a post on the Future I-69 page on facebook that LA 3132 was numbered I-269. Is that actually proposed or what?
Apparently I’m a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

jbnv

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 01, 2016, 11:40:54 AM
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on October 26, 2016, 11:14:27 AM
Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.
I-69 in LA was not dropped. LADOT said right now it's main priority is finishing I-49 (To New Orleans and Connecting the 2 segments, creating one highway from Texarkana and Lafayette via Shreveport), then they will focus on I-69.

I-69 is just on hold.
For now.

He didn't say that it was dropped. The statement was suggestive, not a declaration of fact.

Where do you get the idea that Louisiana has any plans to focus on I-69, even post-I-49? The I-10 cluster in Baton Rouge needs attention.

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 01, 2016, 11:40:54 AM
However, I saw a post on the Future I-69 page on facebook that LA 3132 was numbered I-269. Is that actually proposed or what?

This would be news to most of us on here.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Interstate 69 Fan

Quote from: jbnv on November 01, 2016, 11:47:29 AM
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 01, 2016, 11:40:54 AM
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on October 26, 2016, 11:14:27 AM
Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.
I-69 in LA was not dropped. LADOT said right now it's main priority is finishing I-49 (To New Orleans and Connecting the 2 segments, creating one highway from Texarkana and Lafayette via Shreveport), then they will focus on I-69.

I-69 is just on hold.
For now.

He didn't say that it was dropped. The statement was suggestive, not a declaration of fact.

Where do you get the idea that Louisiana has any plans to focus on I-69, even post-I-49? The I-10 cluster in Baton Rouge needs attention.

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 01, 2016, 11:40:54 AM
However, I saw a post on the Future I-69 page on facebook that LA 3132 was numbered I-269. Is that actually proposed or what?

This would be news to most of us on here.

First, I'm sorry. I took that the wrong way. And a friend of mine went to a I-49 public hearing, and he asked a LADOT official about I-69, and he said we will probably begin studies after I-49 is done.
Apparently I’m a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

jbnv

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 01, 2016, 12:25:41 PM
And a friend of mine went to a I-49 public hearing, and he asked a LADOT official about I-69, and he said we will probably begin studies after I-49 is done.

Studies are cheap, relatively speaking.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Anthony_JK

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on October 26, 2016, 11:14:27 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 24, 2016, 01:31:27 AM
Mississippi and Arkansas should have utilized the US 82 bridge over the Mississippi for I-69.  I-69 could have been routed along the US 61 corridor to Greenville, crossed the river, then followed US 65 and US 165 to Monroe, LA and duplexed with I-20 to Shreveport.  There is where I-69 could join its proposed routing to Texas.

If this was done, there would be no need for the Pine Bluff connector--or there could be a scaled-down version of it (two-lane limited access).

just use the Texas I-69 spur to Texarkana as the main route and then upgrade US 82 across southern Arkansas to the US 82 bridge and call it I -69. Arkansas could then run 530 all the way down to the LA border as a 2 lane limited access upgradable to interstate one day as an extention of I-57 to at least Monroe.

This would eliminate the need for a new bridge. Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.

I'd rather see any effort for a new bridge across he Mississippi reserve for the Memphis area or at least Helena as part of a new 4 lane to Batesville.

Problem with that would be that would create an even longer stretch for I-69 if it was signed on US 82 between Texarkana and Greenville, and then US 61 from there to Memphis. The existing proposed route, even if a bit distorted, at least is more direct and serves as a direct route from Shreveport to Memphis. The only way a Greenville route through the US 82 bridge would be useful as part of I-69 would be either if I-69 was routed further east through Monroe, or if it was split between a South Texas-Corpus Christi-Houston-Texarkana section and a Lake Charles-Monroe-Greenville-Memphis segment.

NE2

Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 01, 2016, 02:25:35 PM
The existing proposed route, even if a bit distorted, at least is more direct and serves as a direct route from Shreveport to Memphis.
False. Using EIS mileage, Shreveport-Memphis via I-49/30/40 is 12 miles SHORTER than the proposed route of I-69.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

mvak36

Would it be cheaper to widen 30 and 40 rather than building the new terrain 69? It seems more feasible to do IMO.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

sparker

Quote from: mvak36 on November 01, 2016, 04:08:55 PM
Would it be cheaper to widen 30 and 40 rather than building the new terrain 69? It seems more feasible to do IMO.

If I-30 and I-40 could be widened by additional lane(s) in the median rather than having to acquire significant adjoining properties, then -- even with the bayou-hopping nature of I-40 between Little Rock & Memphis, which requires a substantial number of bridge structures -- it would be likely that widening of those routes would indeed cost less than the new-terrain I-69.  Subtract the "Great River" bridge on I-69 and it would probably come a little closer to parity.  But the fact is that the routing -- and the concept to begin with in this region -- is largely a result of decades of politicking and persistent lobbying by representatives and interests in south Arkansas, an area that is locally perceived to have been neglected, especially in comparison with other parts of the state.  Sure, it has neither significant population centers nor much in the way of tourist attraction -- but what's there has been vocal (and manipulative) enough to get a multi-state corridor aligned through it.  For better or worse (aka, "like it or not"), highway facilities are often the manifestations of political will; this portion of I-69 is an example of that process -- although the final product might be "tweaked" down the line to accommodate fiscal and/or localized realities. 



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.