In the February 13, 2012 article, Some imagine Chester Street for new bridge (http://beta.arkansasonline.com/news/2012/feb/13/some-imagine-chester-street-new-bridge-20120213/), Scott Bennett, the director of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, gave a current estimate of $750 million for construction of the Great River Bridge:
Quote
The Great River Bridge, a $750 million proposed crossing on the Mississippi River near Arkansas City. It is part of future Interstate 69. It has been designed, but no funding for the bridge has been identified.
The Great River Bridge is also known as the Charles W. Dean Bridge. I-69 Section of Independent Utility 12 ("SIU 12") includes the Charles W. Dean Bridge over the Mississippi River and a short approach from Mississippi. Here's a map of SIU 12 (which is located primarily in Arkansas) (http://i.imgur.com/cedC7.jpg). Also, here are two perspectives of the current design of the Charles W. Dean Bridge (http://www.garverusa.com/portfolio/transportation/greatriver.php):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRPCgV.jpg&hash=75cd31a8b9165388d8697b4f165c9745bc3ca420) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmpEq9.jpg&hash=1fd2542d88d6ed7760724e2796facad38cd547db)
It should be a very long time before any construction will begin on this bridge; I've started this thread to basically be a repository of information of the occasional snippets of information about cost estimates and other related items. Over time, it should be somewhat similar to the "I-69 Ohio River Bridge" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.0) thread on the Ohio Valley page.
I don't think anyone is even venturing a guess as to when construction might begin. The best recent clue that I have seen is from page 9/18 of the I-69 Mississippi Section of Independent Utility 11 ("SIU 11") Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") Executive Summary pdf (page S-9 of the document) (http://www.gomdot.com/Home/Projects/I69/pdf/files/Executive%20Summary.pdf), in which 2026 is identified as the beginning date for the 22.8 mile section of Section 4 of SIU 11 (http://www.gomdot.com/Home/Projects/I69/pdf/I69-SIU11-Map.pdf), which is the SIU 11 section in Mississippi that connects to SIU 12 and the bridge:
Quote
Section 4: 22.807 miles, South of SR 446 Interchange to Great River Bridge
Anticipated Letting Date: 2026
Above said, AHTD in the past has informed me that ROW acquisition has already begun for the bridge:
Quote from: Grzrd on September 21, 2010, 01:31:22 PM
Arkansas 2010-13 STIP, which was released in April, lists a FY 2010 letting for the Charles W. Dean Memorial Bridge over Mississippi River for "Phase I". The project has an earmark of $8.67 million and the total letting is anticipated to be $10.35 million. The recent I-69 book estimates total cost of project to be around $500 million.
http://www.arkansashighways.com/stip/Final%20STIP%202010-2013%20%20Web%20Version.pdf
Quote
I-69 Corridor (Hwy. 65-Miss. Rt. 1) (GRB) (Ph I) (F) 069 2010 Phase I $10,346 $8,666
I recently emailed AHTD to see if these projects were still "on track". Pertinent part of the reply:
Quote
Phase 1 for the Great River Bridge involves right of way acquisition, which is already underway. Phase I for the Monticello Bypass is preliminary engineering which involves environmental work.
I don't believe either project is going to make FY 2010.
(above quote from the "I-69 in AR" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.0) thread on Mid-South page)
At any rate, construction of both the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge and the I-69 Ohio River Bridge should give us a new take on the "race of the turtles". :meh:
edit
For perspective on the $750 million estimate, a July 25, 2010 article (http://www.dolanmedia.com/view.cfm?recID=614760) provided a cost estimate of $715 million:
Quote
The Interstate 69 bridge's close proximity to the new U.S. 82 bridge and its price tag – $715 million – raises a question: Why spend money on a new I-69 bridge at Benoit when there is now a completed interstate-grade bridge near Greenville?
Many years ago, Charles W. Dean (now deceased) proposed a combination road/rail bridge across the Mississippi River near the Bolivar County town of Rosedale, where a port had just been opened.
The I-69 bridge, if built, would cross the river near the town of Benoit, about 12 miles south of Rosedale. A railroad component would be out of the question, since there is no rail service in Bolivar County anymore, a source of grief for this train lover! :-(
God bless,
CKB
Quote from: Grzrd on February 14, 2012, 10:09:40 PM
AHTD in the past has informed me that ROW acquisition has already begun for the bridge:
Quote from: Grzrd on September 21, 2010, 01:31:22 PM
Arkansas 2010-13 STIP, which was released in April, lists a FY 2010 letting for the Charles W. Dean Memorial Bridge over Mississippi River for "Phase I". The project has an earmark of $8.67 million and the total letting is anticipated to be $10.35 million ...
http://www.arkansashighways.com/stip/Final%20STIP%202010-2013%20%20Web%20Version.pdf
Quote
I-69 Corridor (Hwy. 65-Miss. Rt. 1) (GRB) (Ph I) (F) 069 2010 Phase I $10,346 $8,666
I recently emailed AHTD to see if these projects were still "on track". Pertinent part of the reply:
Quote
Phase 1 for the Great River Bridge involves right of way acquisition, which is already underway. Phase I for the Monticello Bypass is preliminary engineering which involves environmental work.
I don't believe either project is going to make FY 2010.
(above quote from the "I-69 in AR" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.0) thread on Mid-South page)
Since the land acquisition for the bridge had been scheduled for FY 2010, and it had been over one-and-one-half years since my previous email to AHTD on the topic, I once again emailed AHTD and asked if the above project has been rescheduled for a later time. To sum it up, the project appears to now be on indefinite hold:
Quote
the project is on hold right now
Not surprising, since Arkansas has many more pressing needs.
Quote from: cbalducc on February 16, 2012, 04:39:29 PM
Many years ago, Charles W. Dean (now deceased) proposed a combination road/rail bridge across the Mississippi River near the Bolivar County town of Rosedale, where a port had just been opened.
The I-69 bridge, if built, would cross the river near the town of Benoit, about 12 miles south of Rosedale. A railroad component would be out of the question, since there is no rail service in Bolivar County anymore, a source of grief for this train lover! :-(
God bless,
CKB
Maybe a rail component is NOT out of the question. This article (http://www.bolivarcom.com/view/full_story/18575044/article-Bryant-addresses-Delta-issues?instance=homefirstleft) indicates that Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant is actively working to bring rail service back to Rosedale:
Quote
Bryant stressed the importance of railroad transportation in the Delta to the crowd.
He said he has asked the Mississippi Development Authority to work with railroad users, Mississippi Department of Transportation, the Delta Council, the Wyoming Rail Company and other industries all along the closed rail lines between Greenwood and West Point.
"This is with the interest of reaching the river ports of Greenville and Rosedale. To reopen this 92 mile abandoned stretch of rail will require significant investment," he said. "So I've asked the MDA to proceed with a sense of urgency in identifying opportunities to support reopening this east-west rail corridor to provide rail users on the east side of the state access to these ports on the Miss. river."
(bold emphasis added by me)
I think that there would be pleeeeenty of time to re-design the I-69 bridge if the return of rail service proves to be successful. :-P
Quote from: Grzrd on May 14, 2012, 05:26:25 PM
Quote from: cbalducc on February 16, 2012, 04:39:29 PM
Many years ago, Charles W. Dean (now deceased) proposed a combination road/rail bridge across the Mississippi River near the Bolivar County town of Rosedale, where a port had just been opened.
The I-69 bridge, if built, would cross the river near the town of Benoit, about 12 miles south of Rosedale. A railroad component would be out of the question, since there is no rail service in Bolivar County anymore, a source of grief for this train lover! :-(
God bless,
CKB
Maybe a rail component is NOT out of the question. This article (http://www.bolivarcom.com/view/full_story/18575044/article-Bryant-addresses-Delta-issues?instance=homefirstleft) indicates that Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant is actively working to bring rail service back to Rosedale:
Quote
Bryant stressed the importance of railroad transportation in the Delta to the crowd.
He said he has asked the Mississippi Development Authority to work with railroad users, Mississippi Department of Transportation, the Delta Council, the Wyoming Rail Company and other industries all along the closed rail lines between Greenwood and West Point.
"This is with the interest of reaching the river ports of Greenville and Rosedale. To reopen this 92 mile abandoned stretch of rail will require significant investment," he said. "So I've asked the MDA to proceed with a sense of urgency in identifying opportunities to support reopening this east-west rail corridor to provide rail users on the east side of the state access to these ports on the Miss. river."
(bold emphasis added by me)
I think that there would be pleeeeenty of time to re-design the I-69 bridge if the return of rail service proves to be successful. :-P
It would seem to me that one of the Class I railroads would jump all over the idea of a MS river bridge since it would increase inter-connectivity and since there are no rail bridges on the MS river between Memphis and Vicksburg. However, the article doesn't mention a rail component for the bridge, but instead just for repairing and reopening the stretch of the old Columbus and Greenville railway. I would hope that a river bridge would be considered.
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 15, 2012, 07:06:09 AM
It would seem to me that one of the Class I railroads would jump all over the idea of a MS river bridge since it would increase inter-connectivity and since there are no rail bridges on the MS river between Memphis and Vicksburg.
Railroads like to have a small number of major hubs for efficiency. Except for a unit train (e.g. coal to a power plant) it's not a good idea to bypass those hubs. This is why the Toledo, Peoria and Western Railway never took off as a Chicago bypass.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 14, 2012, 10:09:40 PM
The Great River Bridge is also known as the Charles W. Dean Bridge. I-69 SIU 12 includes the Charles W. Dean Bridge over the Mississippi River and a short approach from Mississippi. Here's a map of SIU 12 (which is located primarily in Arkansas) (http://i.imgur.com/cedC7.jpg).
I don't think anyone is even venturing a guess as to when construction might begin. The best recent clue that I have seen is from page 9/18 of the I-69 SIU 11 FEIS Executive Summary pdf (page S-9 of the document) (http://www.gomdot.com/Home/Projects/I69/pdf/files/Executive%20Summary.pdf), in which 2026 is identified as the beginning date for the 22.8 mile section of Section 4 of SIU 11 (http://www.gomdot.com/Home/Projects/I69/pdf/I69-SIU11-Map.pdf), which is the SIU 11 section that connects to SIU 12 and the bridge:
Quote
Section 4: 22.807 miles, South of SR 446 Interchange to Great River Bridge
Anticipated Letting Date: 2026
...
Arkansas 2010-13 STIP, which was released in April, lists a FY 2010 letting for the Charles W. Dean Memorial Bridge over Mississippi River for "Phase I". The project has an earmark of $8.67 million and the total letting is anticipated to be $10.35 million.
http://www.arkansashighways.com/stip/Final%20STIP%202010-2013%20%20Web%20Version.pdf
Quote
I-69 Corridor (Hwy. 65-Miss. Rt. 1) (GRB) (Ph I) (F) 069 2010 Phase I $10,346 $8,666
Quote from: Grzrd on May 07, 2012, 10:58:06 AM
I once again emailed AHTD and asked if the above project has been rescheduled for a later time. To sum it up, the project appears to now be on indefinite hold:
Quote
the project is on hold right now
It's no great surprise, but no projects for the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge are included in the Preliminary 2013-16 STIP (http://www.arkansashighways.com/stip/2013-2016/2013-2016_Prelim_STIP.pdf), and it appears to be on hold at least through 2016. The only I-69 project listed in the Preliminary STIP is for the Monticello Bypass; no SIU 12 projects approaching the bridge are included.
T
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 15, 2012, 07:06:09 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 14, 2012, 05:26:25 PM
Quote from: cbalducc on February 16, 2012, 04:39:29 PM
Many years ago, Charles W. Dean (now deceased) proposed a combination road/rail bridge across the Mississippi River near the Bolivar County town of Rosedale, where a port had just been opened.
The I-69 bridge, if built, would cross the river near the town of Benoit, about 12 miles south of Rosedale. A railroad component would be out of the question, since there is no rail service in Bolivar County anymore, a source of grief for this train lover! :-(
God bless,
CKB
Maybe a rail component is NOT out of the question. This article (http://www.bolivarcom.com/view/full_story/18575044/article-Bryant-addresses-Delta-issues?instance=homefirstleft) indicates that Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant is actively working to bring rail service back to Rosedale:
Quote
Bryant stressed the importance of railroad transportation in the Delta to the crowd.
He said he has asked the Mississippi Development Authority to work with railroad users, Mississippi Department of Transportation, the Delta Council, the Wyoming Rail Company and other industries all along the closed rail lines between Greenwood and West Point.
"This is with the interest of reaching the river ports of Greenville and Rosedale. To reopen this 92 mile abandoned stretch of rail will require significant investment," he said. "So I've asked the MDA to proceed with a sense of urgency in identifying opportunities to support reopening this east-west rail corridor to provide rail users on the east side of the state access to these ports on the Miss. river."
(bold emphasis added by me)
I think that there would be pleeeeenty of time to re-design the I-69 bridge if the return of rail service proves to be successful. :-P
It would seem to me that one of the Class I railroads would jump all over the idea of a MS river bridge since it would increase inter-connectivity and since there are no rail bridges on the MS river between Memphis and Vicksburg. However, the article doesn't mention a rail component for the bridge, but instead just for repairing and reopening the stretch of the old Columbus and Greenville railway. I would hope that a river bridge would be considered.
The TIGER II grant application for restoration of C&G RY service included a mention of its being a component of a transcontinental network if rail were added to the Charles Dean bridge. They also brought out the homeland security aspect of having a RR bridge in place if one or more of the Memphis or Vicksburg bridges were knocked out of service for any reason.
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 15, 2012, 03:26:04 PM
The TIGER II grant application for restoration of C&G RY service included a mention of its being a component of a transcontinental network if rail were added to the Charles Dean bridge. They also brought out the homeland security aspect of having a RR bridge in place if one or more of the Memphis or Vicksburg bridges were knocked out of service for any reason.
This Mississippi State University Analysis (http://www.msgovt.org/modules/cms/images/thumb/367.pdf) that was performed before the Tiger II application also indicates that the C & G would be able to connect to the Union Pacific in McGehee, Arkansas with less than twenty miles of new track (page 9/11 of pdf):
Quote
In addition to facilitating the highway trade flows between Canada and Mexico, the completion of I-69 Charles W. Dean Bridge can significantly impact the railroad freight flow in the United States. The Columbus & Greenville Railway can connect to Union Pacific Railroad at McGehee, Arkansas, to the west with less than 20 miles of new railroad track. To the east, the C&G Railway can connect to Birmingham, Alabama, via the Alabama Southern Railroad and CSXT. After Birmingham, the freight on the C&G Railway can be transferred and go to all major cities on the east coast. This new railroad route will bring competitive freight transportation rates to many railroad freight origin and destination metropolitan areas in the nation. Consequently, it could ensure a healthy railroad transportation industry in the future. There will be enormous primary, secondary, and tertiary impacts on our national economy from this new rail corridor ....
The less than twenty miles of new railroad track that would be required is certainly a lot less than the new terrain I-69 mileage needed in both Mississippi and Arkansas!
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 15, 2012, 03:26:04 PM
They also brought out the homeland security aspect of having a RR bridge in place if one or more of the Memphis or Vicksburg bridges were knocked out of service for any reason.
The thought of al-Qaeda leaders cackling and saying "Yes, our next plan is to blow up a railroad bridge in Mississippi! That'll fix 'em!" is in no way plausible. Sounds like whoever wants this project done is just bullshitting to make the project more appealing.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 15, 2012, 04:31:39 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 15, 2012, 03:26:04 PM
The TIGER II grant application for restoration of C&G RY service included a mention of its being a component of a transcontinental network if rail were added to the Charles Dean bridge. They also brought out the homeland security aspect of having a RR bridge in place if one or more of the Memphis or Vicksburg bridges were knocked out of service for any reason.
This Mississippi State University Analysis (http://www.msgovt.org/modules/cms/images/thumb/367.pdf) that was performed before the Tiger II application also indicates that the C & G would be able to connect to the Union Pacific in McGehee, Arkansas with less than twenty miles of new track (page 9/11 of pdf):
Quote
In addition to facilitating the highway trade flows between Canada and Mexico, the completion of I-69 Charles W. Dean Bridge can significantly impact the railroad freight flow in the United States. The Columbus & Greenville Railway can connect to Union Pacific Railroad at McGehee, Arkansas, to the west with less than 20 miles of new railroad track. To the east, the C&G Railway can connect to Birmingham, Alabama, via the Alabama Southern Railroad and CSXT. After Birmingham, the freight on the C&G Railway can be transferred and go to all major cities on the east coast. This new railroad route will bring competitive freight transportation rates to many railroad freight origin and destination metropolitan areas in the nation. Consequently, it could ensure a healthy railroad transportation industry in the future. There will be enormous primary, secondary, and tertiary impacts on our national economy from this new rail corridor ....
The less than twenty miles of new railroad track that would be required is certainly a lot less than the new terrain I-69 mileage needed in both Mississippi and Arkansas!
I wonder how the east end would play out? Norfolk Southern used to have a line from Columbus east to Birmingham via Fayette and Parrish, but parts of that line were abandoned in the late 1990's. The western portion of it operates as a short-line railroad.
There is also the former KCS line (now Alabama Southern) (http://www.watcocompanies.com/Railroads/ABS%20(Alabama)/ABS%20main%20page.htm) going out of Columbus east to Tuscaloosa which interchanges with NS in Tuscaloosa and CSX in Brookwood.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 15, 2012, 09:14:29 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 15, 2012, 03:26:04 PM
They also brought out the homeland security aspect of having a RR bridge in place if one or more of the Memphis or Vicksburg bridges were knocked out of service for any reason.
The thought of al-Qaeda leaders cackling and saying "Yes, our next plan is to blow up a railroad bridge in Mississippi! That'll fix 'em!" is in no way plausible. Sounds like whoever wants this project done is just bullshitting to make the project more appealing.
It's not so much al-Qaeda that concerns some people, but the flow of freight through this region. Should a barge break loose & wipe out the bridge @ Vicksburg (which happens to be the only rail crossing the big muddy between Memphis & Baton Rouge!), or old age catches up with any of the bridges, it would keep congestion down in Memphis or BR should they have to close the Vicksburg bridge.
I, also being a railfan & rail employee, would love to see some abandoned rail R.O.W. come back to life. :cheers:
Quote from: Grzrd on May 14, 2012, 05:26:25 PM
Maybe a rail component is NOT out of the question. This article (http://www.bolivarcom.com/view/full_story/18575044/article-Bryant-addresses-Delta-issues?instance=homefirstleft) indicates that Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant is actively working to bring rail service back to Rosedale:
Quote
To reopen this 92 mile abandoned stretch of rail will require significant investment," he said. "So I've asked the MDA to proceed with a sense of urgency in identifying opportunities to support reopening this east-west rail corridor to provide rail users on the east side of the state access to these ports on the Miss. river."
Quote from: Grzrd on September 15, 2012, 04:31:39 PM
This Mississippi State University Analysis (http://www.msgovt.org/modules/cms/images/thumb/367.pdf) that was performed before the Tiger II application also indicates that the C & G would be able to connect to the Union Pacific in McGehee, Arkansas with less than twenty miles of new track (page 9/11 of pdf):
Quote
... the completion of I-69 Charles W. Dean Bridge can significantly impact the railroad freight flow in the United States. The Columbus & Greenville Railway can connect to Union Pacific Railroad at McGehee, Arkansas, to the west with less than 20 miles of new railroad track.
Quote from: cjk374 on September 23, 2012, 10:09:12 PM
I, also being a railfan & rail employee, would love to see some abandoned rail R.O.W. come back to life.
This article (http://mymonticellonews.net/news/article_92219874-452f-11e2-8831-001a4bcf887a.html) discusses rail on the Arkansas side of the Mississippi River. It discusses a resurgence in rail, rail banks to preserve rail in Arkansas, the new federal requirement for rail to be included in state transportation plans, and how the Panama Canal expansion might impact both highway and rail freight transportation in that part of the country:
Quote
Earlier this month, the Arkansas Economic Development Commission hosted a workshop to address rail access in the state with economic developers in the state.
Among the many who attended were Monticello Economic Development Commission director Nita McDaniel ....
McDaniel said there were several items addressed at the workshop, and there will be more like it in the future as the state and the nation shift back to using railway more to ship more goods cross country in an effort to sayve money.
Of the items discussed, McDaniel said she was glad to see rail banking addressed because not too long ago there was a movement pushing to pull up the railway instead of preserving it for the future.
"Rail banking is when the state comes in and tells the rail company or whoever wants to pull the rail up that they need to leave it alone," McDaniel said. "It's saving the rails in Arkansas." ....
"Shipping by truck is so expensive these days that businesses and industries are going back to the rail," McDaniel said.
Another issue discussed at the workshop was the federal government's requirement for the state to include a rail plan in the state's transpiration [sic] plan. The mandate will be that each state much create a plan to improve rail transportation for both freight and passenger train.
"This rail plan will be a requirement in order for each state to be eligible for federal grants," McDaniel said. "If they don't include the plans as required in the time indicated, they won't qualify for federal grants. This is the first time ever the state has been required to include rail in its transportation plans."
John Lipton, chairman of the Southeast Arkansas Regional Intermodal Authority, also knows the importance of rail access ....
"Rail is very important to what we trying to do," Lipton said.
Lipton said the location of the facility on Highway 278 East was due to the access to the railway Interstate 530 and future Interstate 69. ....
The entire concept behind the intermodal facility brings rail, highway transportation and the use of the Mississippi River together to get items shipped from one place to another.
"We expect the Mississippi River to be used to ship items north once the Panama Canal opens to larger ships," Lipton said.
"Facilities like ours will be used to send goods east or west by rail or truck."
If there is actually a trend back to rail for cross-country freight transportation, then adding a rail component to the I-69 Charles W. Dean Bridge might make increasing sense.
Is this bridge going to be a drawbridge?
Looks nice though.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 15, 2012, 09:14:29 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 15, 2012, 03:26:04 PM
They also brought out the homeland security aspect of having a RR bridge in place if one or more of the Memphis or Vicksburg bridges were knocked out of service for any reason.
al-Qaeda
No, more like the New Madrid fault. (and barge crashes as stated above) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skyscrapercity.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fsmile.gif&hash=a4341200187ba49a98b8ff9c673aecb616645ae2)
Quote from: Grzrd on February 14, 2012, 10:09:40 PM
In the February 13, 2012 article, Some imagine Chester Street for new bridge (http://beta.arkansasonline.com/news/2012/feb/13/some-imagine-chester-street-new-bridge-20120213/), Scott Bennett, the director of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, gave a current estimate of $750 million for construction of the Great River Bridge .... The Great River Bridge is also known as the Charles W. Dean Bridge.
Atkins North America has completed its I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf). In the Final Findings, it is noted that the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge is essentially ready to begin construction once funding for it is identified (page 9/122 of pdf; page 4 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHi3FefS.jpg&hash=1f9441e771e83ceb1cc5ca88418d575475a7335a)
The Final Findings conclude that, in addition to tolls and other bonding mechanisms, significant federal financial assistance will be needed (page 50/122 of pdf; page 45 of document):
Quote
... it appears that significant Federal assistance will be required to advance development of the I‐69 corridor, particularly given the high cost of the bridges across the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers that are keys to ensuring connectivity throughout the corridor. This report identifies several FHWA funding programs that could potentially be used to support development of the corridor.
In order to best position I-69 (including the Mississippi River Bridge) for future federal funding the Final Findings suggest that the project should be included in the respective freight plans of Arkansas and Mississippi (page 18/122 of pdf; page 13 of document):
Quote
Section 1116 of MAP‐21 includes provisions for development of a freight plan .... the Secretary may increase the Federal share payable for any project to 95 percent for projects on the Interstate System and 90 percent for any other project if the Secretary certifies that the project meets the requirements of this section .... The potential for increased Federal participation could be beneficial for all I‐69 segments, but particularly bridge segments that are high cost and for which funding for the entire segment must be available before any construction can be initiated ... the states should coordinate with FHWA to ensure that I‐69 is included in the Freight Plan to better position themselves for a reduced State match under MAP‐21 and future funding programs.
The Final Findings also suggest that AHTD and MDOT coordinate with FHWA to designate I-69 (including the Mississippi River Bridge) as a Project of National and Regional Significance (pp. 17-18 of pdf; pp. 12-13 of document):
Quote
Section 1120 of MAP‐21 states the following:
"Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the MAP‐21, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate regarding projects of national and regional significance."
The report must include a comprehensive list of each project of national and regional significance that has been compiled through a survey of State DOTs .... to improve the opportunity for Federal funding of I‐69 segments under both the current and future versions of this program, each state represented in this study should contact FHWA to ensure that they are involved in the process and provide the documentation necessary to support FHWA's determination that I‐69 warrants a position on the list based on the requirements identified above.
If federal money does become available in the future, at least this project is "shovel ready".
Quote from: Grzrd on September 15, 2012, 04:31:39 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 15, 2012, 03:26:04 PM
The TIGER II grant application for restoration of C&G RY service included a mention of its being a component of a transcontinental network if rail were added to the Charles Dean bridge. They also brought out the homeland security aspect of having a RR bridge in place if one or more of the Memphis or Vicksburg bridges were knocked out of service for any reason.
This Mississippi State University Analysis (http://www.msgovt.org/modules/cms/images/thumb/367.pdf) that was performed before the Tiger II application also indicates that the C & G would be able to connect to the Union Pacific in McGehee, Arkansas with less than twenty miles of new track (page 9/11 of pdf)
Quote from: NE2 on May 15, 2012, 02:25:51 PM
Railroads like to have a small number of major hubs for efficiency. Except for a unit train (e.g. coal to a power plant) it's not a good idea to bypass those hubs.
The Final Findings do not discuss the possibility of adding a rail component to the bridge.
edit
Revised post to include links to the Final Findings and the Executive Summary.
"It is also suggested that AHTD and MDOT coordinate with FHWA to designate I-69 (including the Mississippi River Bridge) as a Project of National and Regional Significance:"
Be interesting if they will then apply for TIGER IV (TIGER 2013) funding. NCDOT made the case that the new I-85 bridge was of national and regional importance (including renaming the bridge) in order to get some TIGER funds for its eventual and current construction.
Quote from: Grzrd on April 25, 2013, 08:13:13 PM
Atkins North America has completed its I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf). In the Final Findings, it is noted that the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge is essentially ready to begin construction once funding for it is identified (page 9/122 of pdf; page 4 of document) .... In order to best position I-69 (including the Mississippi River Bridge) for future federal funding the Final Findings suggest that the project should be included in the respective freight plans of Arkansas and Mississippi (page 18/122 of pdf; page 13 of document) .... The Final Findings also suggest that AHTD and MDOT coordinate with FHWA to designate I-69 (including the Mississippi River Bridge) as a Project of National and Regional Significance (pp. 17-18 of pdf; pp. 12-13 of document) .... If federal money does become available in the future, at least this project is "shovel ready".
Quote from: CanesFan27 on April 26, 2013, 11:40:03 AM
Be interesting if they will then apply for TIGER IV (TIGER 2013) funding
Quote from: Grzrd on June 18, 2013, 04:15:00 PM
AHTD has posted the PowerPoint presentation for the May 21 Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition banquet (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/052113_SEB-Moore_SEACoalition.pdf).
(bottom quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg227984#msg227984) thread)
Page 42/49 of the May 21 Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition banquet PowerPoint pdf is a slide of the I-69 Great River Bridge:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFkCQ03o.jpg&hash=28ca1f883c14ff0e27441d189fe42e80823c406b)
Although I suspected that nothing new had been presented about the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge at the banquet, I went ahead and emailed AHTD about the talking points associated with the slide. Not surprisingly, the response:
Quote
It was merely a reminder that it's planned for the future and we needs lots of money to make it happen.
No announcement of a TIGER funding request. As a minor point, the slide demonstrates that AHTD refers to the bridge as the I-69 Great River Bridge instead of as the Charles W. Dean Bridge.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 14, 2012, 05:26:25 PM
Maybe a rail component is NOT out of the question. This article (http://www.bolivarcom.com/view/full_story/18575044/article-Bryant-addresses-Delta-issues?instance=homefirstleft) indicates that Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant is actively working to bring rail service back to Rosedale:
Quote
Bryant stressed the importance of railroad transportation in the Delta to the crowd.
He said he has asked the Mississippi Development Authority to work with ... the Delta Council ... and other industries all along the closed rail lines between Greenwood and West Point.
"This is with the interest of reaching the river ports of Greenville and Rosedale. To reopen this 92 mile abandoned stretch of rail will require significant investment," he said. "So I've asked the MDA to proceed with a sense of urgency in identifying opportunities to support reopening this east-west rail corridor to provide rail users on the east side of the state access to these ports on the Miss. river."
Quote from: Grzrd on September 15, 2012, 04:31:39 PM
This Mississippi State University Analysis (http://www.msgovt.org/modules/cms/images/thumb/367.pdf) that was performed before the Tiger II application also indicates that the C & G would be able to connect to the Union Pacific in McGehee, Arkansas with less than twenty miles of new track (page 9/11 of pdf):
Quote
the completion of I-69 Charles W. Dean Bridge can significantly impact the railroad freight flow in the United States. The Columbus & Greenville Railway can connect to Union Pacific Railroad at McGehee, Arkansas, to the west with less than 20 miles of new railroad track.
This article (behind paywall) (http://www.ddtonline.com/news/article_bfe8384a-4ae6-11e3-aab4-0019bb2963f4.html?success=2) reports on recent efforts by the Delta Council. It mentions that the Delta Council was part of the successful lobbying effort for the completion of I-269. Otherwise, it does not expressly mention the remainder of I-69 in Mississippi, but it does report on a current effort to restore "broken links" in rail transport between Greenville and West Point:
Quote
While the Delta Council continues to emphasize agriculture – given that "if you look at the GDP of the Delta, there has never been a time when agriculture wasn't a large component," Chip Morgan, the group's current executive vice president, recently noted – the organization, which comprises all or most of 18 Mississippi counties and represents the interest of 3,700 dues-paying members, now also pushes for enhanced education, health care, transportation and, given the area's topography, flood control, among other issues important to the area ....
Efforts to enhance road transportation have proven more successful than bids to fill gaps in rail systems.
The Delta Council successfully lobbied, with others, to secure financing to complete the Interstate 269 Memphis, Tenn., bypass, which, when completed, will tie into several major highways leading north out of Mississippi: Interstate 55 and U.S. highways 61 and 78, the latter of which is expected to be completed into Birmingham, Ala., in late 2014, when it will be designated Interstate 22.
The council, however, remains concerned about legislative failures to secure future funds to maintain roadways.
Morgan noted that the Mississippi Legislature, in a recent highway appropriation, approved only construction funding, not maintenance dollars ....
That's why, the council's stated policy insists, in Morgan's words, "maintenance funding has to be written into the laws" authorizing new highway construction ....
the Delta Council is working to restore "broken links" in rail transport between Greenville and West Point.
As with the remainder of I-69 in Mississippi, there is no express mention of the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge in the article, but there is still a possibility that a rail component could later come into play.
We received a request for the following subject documents and thought we'd share with everyone.
I-69 Mississippi River Crossing Final Environmental Impact Statement (100MB)
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_FEIS.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_FEIS.pdf)
I-69 Mississippi River Crossing FEIS Record of Decision (634kb)
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_ROD.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_ROD.pdf)
ENJOY!
I believe these "broken rail links" mentioned is the former Columbus & Greenville Railroad (CAGY) IIRC. I have a friend who used to run trains between West Point & Greenville. He told me there used to be lots of pulpwood yards between these towns, but the railroad insisted on more money to haul it. That turned the woodyards to using trucks, so the CAGY shut their western end down.
Quote from: cjk374 on January 24, 2014, 06:44:15 AM
I believe these "broken rail links" mentioned is the former Columbus & Greenville Railroad (CAGY) IIRC. I have a friend who used to run trains between West Point & Greenville. He told me there used to be lots of pulpwood yards between these towns, but the railroad insisted on more money to haul it. That turned the woodyards to using trucks, so the CAGY shut their western end down.
Norfolk Southern used to have a line between Birmingham and Columbus, MS which fed into the CAGY. A portion of this line between Berry, AL and Belk, AL was abandoned in the mid 1990's. A cotton mill in Fayette, AL was served by this line, along with various lumber yards west of there. The portion of the line between Belk and Columbus is now a short line railroad called the Luxapalila Valley Railroad. If NS would have kept the line and invested in keeping up the CAGY, then perhaps we could be talking about a rail bridge over the Mississippi River to connect to the UPRR, perhaps as part of the I-69 crossing, but now none of it seems likely. I believe at one time when the CAGY was built a MS River bridge was considered but never happened.
Quote from: cbalducc on February 16, 2012, 04:39:29 PM
Many years ago, Charles W. Dean (now deceased) proposed a combination road/rail bridge across the Mississippi River near the Bolivar County town of Rosedale, where a port had just been opened.
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 15, 2012, 03:26:04 PM
The TIGER II grant application for restoration of C&G RY service included a mention of its being a component of a transcontinental network if rail were added to the Charles Dean bridge. They also brought out the homeland security aspect of having a RR bridge in place if one or more of the Memphis or Vicksburg bridges were knocked out of service for any reason.
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2012, 10:52:10 AM
This article (http://mymonticellonews.net/news/article_92219874-452f-11e2-8831-001a4bcf887a.html) discusses rail on the Arkansas side of the Mississippi River. It discusses a resurgence in rail, rail banks to preserve rail in Arkansas, the new federal requirement for rail to be included in state transportation plans, and how the Panama Canal expansion might impact both highway and rail freight transportation in that part of the country:
Quote
the state and the nation shift back to using railway more to ship more goods cross country in an effort to sayve money. ....
"Shipping by truck is so expensive these days that businesses and industries are going back to the rail," McDaniel said.
Lipton said the location of the facility on Highway 278 East was due to the access to the railway Interstate 530 and future Interstate 69. ....
The entire concept behind the intermodal facility brings rail, highway transportation and the use of the Mississippi River together to get items shipped from one place to another.
"We expect the Mississippi River to be used to ship items north once the Panama Canal opens to larger ships," Lipton said.
"Facilities like ours will be used to send goods east or west by rail or truck."
Quote from: AHTD on January 22, 2014, 05:26:31 PM
I-69 Mississippi River Crossing Final Environmental Impact Statement (100MB)
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_FEIS.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_FEIS.pdf)
I-69 Mississippi River Crossing FEIS Record of Decision (634kb)
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_ROD.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_ROD.pdf)
AHTD, thank you for posting the FEIS and ROD. Great historical info!
The FEIS notes that, prior to the I-69 bridge project, an Environmental Impact Study had been completed for a combination highway/rail bridge along the same general corridor (page 3/556 of pdf; page S-2 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FM85ktlE.jpg&hash=e9e9f1d927575a416d1b45e4375311c3f5099ef8)
The rail component did not survive the I-69 bridge FEIS and ROD (I think).
Given that approximately ten years have passed since the FEIS for the I-69 bridge was completed and Mississippi is making (distant) noises about reviving the C & G, has there been any interest from Arkansas (AHTD and/or Union Pacific) and/or communication with MDOT to revisit the possibility of having a rail component on the bridge?
Also, will you please post the initial GRB EIS that includes the rail component?
Preliminary Engineering and Economic Assessment Report of the Feasibility for Providing a new Mississippi River Crossing (98MB)
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Prelim.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Prelim.pdf) This is the earliest report we located.
Also, found another FEIS that was completed for the GRB in 2000 (39MB).
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_FEIS_2000.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_FEIS_2000.pdf)
Quote from: Grzrd on February 01, 2014, 01:44:56 PM
Quote from: cbalducc on February 16, 2012, 04:39:29 PM
Many years ago, Charles W. Dean (now deceased) proposed a combination road/rail bridge across the Mississippi River near the Bolivar County town of Rosedale, where a port had just been opened.
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 15, 2012, 03:26:04 PM
The TIGER II grant application for restoration of C&G RY service included a mention of its being a component of a transcontinental network if rail were added to the Charles Dean bridge. They also brought out the homeland security aspect of having a RR bridge in place if one or more of the Memphis or Vicksburg bridges were knocked out of service for any reason.
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2012, 10:52:10 AM
This article (http://mymonticellonews.net/news/article_92219874-452f-11e2-8831-001a4bcf887a.html) discusses rail on the Arkansas side of the Mississippi River. It discusses a resurgence in rail, rail banks to preserve rail in Arkansas, the new federal requirement for rail to be included in state transportation plans, and how the Panama Canal expansion might impact both highway and rail freight transportation in that part of the country:
Quote
the state and the nation shift back to using railway more to ship more goods cross country in an effort to sayve money. ....
"Shipping by truck is so expensive these days that businesses and industries are going back to the rail," McDaniel said.
Lipton said the location of the facility on Highway 278 East was due to the access to the railway Interstate 530 and future Interstate 69. ....
The entire concept behind the intermodal facility brings rail, highway transportation and the use of the Mississippi River together to get items shipped from one place to another.
"We expect the Mississippi River to be used to ship items north once the Panama Canal opens to larger ships," Lipton said.
"Facilities like ours will be used to send goods east or west by rail or truck."
Quote from: AHTD on January 22, 2014, 05:26:31 PM
I-69 Mississippi River Crossing Final Environmental Impact Statement (100MB)
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_FEIS.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_FEIS.pdf)
I-69 Mississippi River Crossing FEIS Record of Decision (634kb)
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_ROD.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_ROD.pdf)
AHTD, thank you for posting the FEIS and ROD. Great historical info!
The FEIS notes that, prior to the I-69 bridge project, an Environmental Impact Study had been completed for a combination highway/rail bridge along the same general corridor (page 3/556 of pdf; page S-2 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FM85ktlE.jpg&hash=e9e9f1d927575a416d1b45e4375311c3f5099ef8)
The rail component did not survive the I-69 bridge FEIS and ROD (I think).
Given that approximately ten years have passed since the FEIS for the I-69 bridge was completed and Mississippi is making (distant) noises about reviving the C & G, has there been any interest from Arkansas (AHTD and/or Union Pacific) and/or communication with MDOT to revisit the possibility of having a rail component on the bridge?
Also, will you please post the initial GRB EIS that includes the rail component?
Indeed a rail component was considered at one time, but as a separate PARALLEL structure. That's right! TWO cable-stays side-by-side.
Here is the profile of the railroad structure:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_01.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_01.pdf)
Here is the alignment next to the Great River Bridge:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_02.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_02.pdf)
^ Wow! It would be awesome if that would be built someday.
Quote from: Grzrd on April 25, 2013, 08:13:13 PM
Atkins North America has completed its I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf) ....
In order to best position I-69 (including the Mississippi River Bridge) for future federal funding the Final Findings suggest that the project should be included in the respective freight plans of Arkansas and Mississippi (page 18/122 of pdf; page 13 of document):
Quote
Section 1116 of MAP‐21 includes provisions for development of a freight plan .... the Secretary may increase the Federal share payable for any project to 95 percent for projects on the Interstate System and 90 percent for any other project if the Secretary certifies that the project meets the requirements of this section .... The potential for increased Federal participation could be beneficial for all I‐69 segments, but particularly bridge segments that are high cost and for which funding for the entire segment must be available before any construction can be initiated
Quote from: AHTD on April 25, 2014, 04:12:35 PM
members of our congressional delegation have begun somewhat of a renewed effort to promote the corridor. We developed this document for them to use in that effort:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf)
(bottom quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg294961#msg294961) thread)
The document that AHTD created for the Arkansas congressional delegation includes the following language (page 2/4 of pdf):
Quote
- Right-of-way limits have been established for SIU 12. In Arkansas, right-of-way has been acquired for the segment from just west of Highway 4 to the Mississippi River. The Department is currently investigating alternative acquisition methods to preserve the highway corridor from Highway 65 in McGehee to just west of Highway 4.
Here is a map provided by AHTD to the congressional delegation that shows the location of Highway 4 in relation to the bridge and US 65 (page 4/4 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmWOHOEQ.jpg&hash=5f658a1c7e15f049b3293090334afea7a0e05520)
I recently emailed Mississippi DOT to see if they have acquired any SIU 12 ROW on their side of the river. They responded in the negative:
Quote
MDOT ROW Division has not seen anything concerning this project at the present time.
It seems like, in order to make an effective "sell", Arkansas and Mississippi would need to present a joint effort, if for no other reason than for both states to acquire ROW in order to preserve the SIU 12 corridor. AHTD, has the congressional delegation asked AHTD to coordinate its information-gathering with MDOT?
Most all future construction is on hold at this time from everything I see. Most of the money appropriated is for Bridge Repair and road maintenance according to the Mississippi Legislature. I do not anticipate further construction on the Mississippi side until the MDOT funding woes are solved. And that may take years. As for federal funding, I do not know what the Congressional delegation in Mississippi is doing toward the bridge. But it is election time for the congressional delegation and I assume that Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss) is working on that end along with the rest of the Mississippi delegation.
You might also ask the Columbus and Greenville RR what their plans are in regard to the bridge.
Just drove through where the new bridge is anticipated a few days ago. Holy crap. To imagine an interstate running through there is almost inconceivable. Arkansas City is in the middle of nowhere!
Quote from: bjrush on May 16, 2014, 07:31:14 PM
Just drove through where the new bridge is anticipated a few days ago. Holy crap. To imagine an interstate running through there is almost inconceivable. Arkansas City is in the middle of nowhere!
But let's not forget one of Arkansas' highway commissioners, Robert S. Moore, Jr., is from there. I'm sure he wants to put it "on the map", so to speak. ;)
Quote from: Grzrd on November 11, 2013, 04:27:36 PM
This article (behind paywall) (http://www.ddtonline.com/news/article_bfe8384a-4ae6-11e3-aab4-0019bb2963f4.html?success=2) reports on recent efforts by the Delta Council ... it does report on a current effort to restore "broken links" in rail transport between Greenville and West Point .... there is no express mention of the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge in the article
Quote from: AHTD on February 18, 2014, 06:11:03 PM
Indeed a rail component was considered at one time, but as a separate PARALLEL structure. That's right! TWO cable-stays side-by-side.
Here is the profile of the railroad structure:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_01.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_01.pdf)
Here is the alignment next to the Great River Bridge:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_02.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_02.pdf)
Quote from: richllewis on May 16, 2014, 04:51:46 AM
You might also ask the Columbus and Greenville RR what their plans are in regard to the bridge.
Here is a snip of the railroad structure from AHTD's link:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZ58qeud.png&hash=4814b7ea205053cd20abcd568a0903a1598ca088)
FWIW the Delta Council has a Delta Rail Service (http://www.deltacouncil.org/policies--resolutions.html) resolution (link can be found on linked page) setting forth its support for the rail bridge:
Quote
The future of industrial development and competitive freight rates for existing business is closely tied to the availability of rail service ....
Delta Council also continues to support a rail bridge to be included as part of the I-69-Mississippi River crossing ....
Delta Council would like to go on record in total support of efforts that could result in the re-opening of the 92 miles of Genesee and Wyoming (formerly C and G) Rail Line between West Point and Greenwood, Mississippi ....
Delta Council has always been a strong advocate of the entire intermodal transportation concept for the Delta and the State of Mississippi. We continue to support the view that Mississippi ports, commercial aviation, highways and railroads must be maintained and improved in order for our region to become nationally competitive.
It's a pipe dream, but pretty good as far as pipe dreams go..................
Quote from: Grzrd on May 30, 2014, 04:24:46 PM
Quote
The future of industrial development and competitive freight rates for existing business is closely tied to the availability of rail service ....
Delta Council also continues to support a rail bridge to be included as part of the I-69-Mississippi River crossing ....
Delta Council would like to go on record in total support of efforts that could result in the re-opening of the 92 miles of Genesee and Wyoming (formerly C and G) Rail Line between West Point and Greenwood, Mississippi ....
Delta Council has always been a strong advocate of the entire intermodal transportation concept for the Delta and the State of Mississippi. We continue to support the view that Mississippi ports, commercial aviation, highways and railroads must be maintained and improved in order for our region to become nationally competitive.
It's a pipe dream, but pretty good as far as pipe dreams go..................
WHAT?? :wow: When did G & W buy the CAGY?? :-(
Grzrd, from the "Pipe dream" department.
The highway (not railroad) version of that proposed I-69 bridge with those high pillars is the type I'd love to see them build on I-49 across the Arkansas River. That would be seen for miles as one reaches the northern hills of the River Valley traveling south.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 30, 2014, 04:24:46 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 11, 2013, 04:27:36 PM
This article (behind paywall) (http://www.ddtonline.com/news/article_bfe8384a-4ae6-11e3-aab4-0019bb2963f4.html?success=2) reports on recent efforts by the Delta Council ... it does report on a current effort to restore "broken links" in rail transport between Greenville and West Point .... there is no express mention of the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge in the article
Quote from: AHTD on February 18, 2014, 06:11:03 PM
Indeed a rail component was considered at one time, but as a separate PARALLEL structure. That's right! TWO cable-stays side-by-side.
Here is the profile of the railroad structure:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_01.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_01.pdf)
Here is the alignment next to the Great River Bridge:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_02.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_02.pdf)
Quote from: richllewis on May 16, 2014, 04:51:46 AM
You might also ask the Columbus and Greenville RR what their plans are in regard to the bridge.
Here is a snip of the railroad structure from AHTD's link:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZ58qeud.png&hash=4814b7ea205053cd20abcd568a0903a1598ca088)
FWIW the Delta Council has a Delta Rail Service (http://www.deltacouncil.org/policies--resolutions.html) resolution (link can be found on linked page) setting forth its support for the rail bridge:
Quote
The future of industrial development and competitive freight rates for existing business is closely tied to the availability of rail service ....
Delta Council also continues to support a rail bridge to be included as part of the I-69-Mississippi River crossing ....
Delta Council would like to go on record in total support of efforts that could result in the re-opening of the 92 miles of Genesee and Wyoming (formerly C and G) Rail Line between West Point and Greenwood, Mississippi ....
Delta Council has always been a strong advocate of the entire intermodal transportation concept for the Delta and the State of Mississippi. We continue to support the view that Mississippi ports, commercial aviation, highways and railroads must be maintained and improved in order for our region to become nationally competitive.
It's a pipe dream, but pretty good as far as pipe dreams go..................
If only Norfolk Southern (http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/pdf/system-map.pdf) wouldn't have sold off and abandoned the line between Berry, AL and Columbus, MS that tied into the Columbus and Greenville Railroad. The east end of that line ties to the Norfolk Southern NA West End District in Parrish, AL and goes to Birmingham, AL and then Atlanta, GA via the NA East End District. Then again, it may be redundant to the KCS Meridian Speedway line between Shreveport, LA and Meridian, MS.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 26, 2014, 05:02:03 PM
Quote from: AHTD on April 25, 2014, 04:12:35 PM
members of our congressional delegation have begun somewhat of a renewed effort to promote the corridor. We developed this document for them to use in that effort:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf)
The document that AHTD developed for the congressional delegation estimates that, in regard to the entirety of Segment of Independent Utility 12 ("SIU 12"), it would currently cost Arkansas $910 million to build 12.6 miles of roadway approaches, 3.1 miles of approach spans, and the 0.3 mile for the Arkansas half of the Great River Bridge main river span (Mississippi is estimated to have similar current costs of $390 million) (page 2/4 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNUocyLq.png&hash=fd8a73d0939ab5410844c2ea2f49fe88da043cce)
(above quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg308313#msg308313) thread)
Quote from: AHTD on July 15, 2014, 09:45:00 AM
we're likely to see I-49 completed before I-69. HOWEVER... keep an eye on the state congressional delegation - we have recently brought them up to speed on what it would take to see this corridor realized in Arkansas.
(above quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg312609#msg312609) thread)
In a July 23, 2014 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2014/072314_Commission%20Meeting%20Powerpoint.pdf), AHTD Director Scott Bennett included a slide about the Great River Bridge (page 56/82 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQ25g5p8.png&hash=66b8a22dfec7c10ee2fafe6e31c7d0c6587d40a3)
The slide seems to support the case that, with design complete and ROW acquisition underway, the project is close to being shovel-ready if a financing solution can be found.
Note: Right-of-Way Acquisition is ACTIVELY underway.
Our appraisal team is in the area this week!
Quote from: Grzrd on May 15, 2014, 10:57:33 PM
Quote from: AHTD on April 25, 2014, 04:12:35 PM
members of our congressional delegation have begun somewhat of a renewed effort to promote the corridor. We developed this document for them to use in that effort:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf)
(bottom quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg294961#msg294961) thread)
The document that AHTD created for the Arkansas congressional delegation includes the following language (page 2/4 of pdf):
Quote
- Right-of-way limits have been established for SIU 12. In Arkansas, right-of-way has been acquired for the segment from just west of Highway 4 to the Mississippi River. The Department is currently investigating alternative acquisition methods to preserve the highway corridor from Highway 65 in McGehee to just west of Highway 4.
Here is a map provided by AHTD to the congressional delegation that shows the location of Highway 4 in relation to the bridge and US 65 (page 4/4 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmWOHOEQ.jpg&hash=5f658a1c7e15f049b3293090334afea7a0e05520)
Quote from: AHTD on July 28, 2014, 11:39:04 AM
Note: Right-of-Way Acquisition is ACTIVELY underway.
Our appraisal team is in the area this week!
AHTD, are they acquiring ROW all of the way to US 65?
Yes! The entire SIU.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 28, 2014, 01:45:25 PM
AHTD, are they acquiring ROW all of the way to US 65?
Quote from: AHTD on July 28, 2014, 02:05:28 PM
Yes! The entire SIU.
This article (http://www.reporter-times.com/slow-ride-to-mexico-states-face-obstacles-in-effort-to/article_96738df2-e99f-5a10-b45a-13288aac9755.html) examines the progress (or lack thereof) being made on I-69 in six different states. Interestingly, the Arkansas section of the article begins with AHTD public information officer Randy Ort focusing on the need for the Mississippi River crossing:
Quote
"If you look north to south," said Randy Ort, public information officer for the Arkansas Department of Transportation, referring to the I-69 corridor, "you can't have a highway without crossing the Mississippi River."
Leaders in Arkansas' Desha County and Mississippi's Bolivar County have been talking about building a bridge to connect to two communities since the mid-1980s. In the mid-1990s, what is being the called the Great River Bridge was suggested as the Mississippi River crossing for I-69. In 2004, the Federal Highway Administration issued a Record of Decision approving the location of the Great River Bridge as the I-69 Mississippi River crossing.
The current plan calls for a four-lane bridge between McGhee, Arkansas and Benoit, Mississippi. It is estimated to cost $1.3 billion.
"Funding is the greatest obstacle," Ort said referring to not only the bridge, but the entire I-69 project in Arkansas.
I suppose it's noteworthy that, in regard to I-69, AHTD is placing a lot of relative emphasis on the Mississippi River crossing. Maybe they have received a signal from Congress that the Mississippi River crossing is the best I-69 candidate to receive a significant infusion of federal money at this point in time.
The Mississippi River crossing is truly a segment of independent utility, as opposed to many of the porkier pieces.
Quote from: NE2 on December 29, 2014, 03:25:22 PM
The Mississippi River crossing is truly a segment of independent utility, as opposed to many of the porkier pieces.
Indeed. It can also carry US 278, which will eliminate its out-of-the-way routing between McGehee and Cleveland.
Quote from: NE2 on December 29, 2014, 03:25:22 PM
The Mississippi River crossing is truly a segment of independent utility, as opposed to many of the porkier pieces.
Quote from: lordsutch on May 13, 2015, 01:55:23 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 13, 2015, 12:32:15 PM
An April 22, 2015 state-by-state status updates presented to the I-69 Congressional Caucus PowerPoint (linked on this page (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/resource.html)) includes a slide that provides an update on "I-69 in Mississippi" (slide 29/54)
Unless they've moved the SIU boundary, SIU 12 really starts at MS 1, since otherwise the bridge wouldn't actually connect to a highway on the Mississippi side of the river and thus lack independent utility.
(above quote from I-69 in MS (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4783.msg2063736#msg2063736) thread)
As far as I can tell, at the time the Record of Decision ("ROD") for SIU 12 was issued, it was intended that the later SIU 11 Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") would identify the Preferred Alternative for the Great River Bridge to Benoit/ SR 1 segment of SIU 12, but it appears that, at some point during that process, MDOT moved the SIU 12/ SIU 11 boundary to the eastern end of the bridge itself.
First, the SIU 12 ROD (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_ROD.pdf) defines the River Crossing Segment's eastern end as being near Beaver Dam Road in Eutaw (https://www.google.com/maps/search/beaver+dam+road+eutaw+ms/@33.6210969,-91.1018742,1731m/data=!3m1!1e3!6m1!1e1) (p. 4/14 of pdf):
Quote
The common River Crossing Alternative includes the Mississippi River bridge structure. It begins approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 km) east of Route 4, at the common connection point of the four McGehee segment alternatives. This alternative will be on embankment for about three-quarters of a mile and a right-of-way width of 350 feet (106.7 m) will be used. From this point to about 4,200 feet (1280.2 m) east of the Mississippi East Levee, the roadway approaches and the Mississippi River Crossing will be on structure. This will allow the right-of-way width to be reduced to 200 feet (70 m). The alternative will continue on from this point at grade with an assumed right-of-way width of 350 feet (106.7 m), until it reaches the Benoit segment somewhere near Beaver Dam Road.
Next, the SIU 12 ROD states that the SIU 11 FEIS will determine the route for the eastern segment of SIU 12 (pp. 4-5/14 of pdf):
Quote
Though the limits of this SIU extend to a connection with Route 1 in Mississippi, this Final EIS will not select a preferred alignment within the Benoit Segment. The EIS for SIU No. 11 will assess the full range of the Reasonable Alternatives in the Benoit Segment and will select the preferred alignment within this segment subsequent to this Final EIS .... The EIS for SIU No. 11 will define and select the preferred alignment for the Benoit Segment of this SIU.
However, the SIU 11 FEIS Summary (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/District%201%20and%202/Archived%20Projects/Project%20Studies/I-69%20Section%2011%20-%20Robinsonville%20To%20Benoit/Executive%20Summary.pdf) describes the Southern Section of the SIU 11 Preferred Alternative by speaking of the eastern end of the bridge as "the SIU 12 terminus" (p. 7/18 of pdf; p. S-7 of document):
Quote
The Preferred Alternative begins at the SIU 12 terminus and proceeds southeast across Lake Bolivar. It crosses SR 1 north of Scott at Lake Vista and then turns east before crossing SR 448.
Also, here is a snip of the SIU 11 FEIS map (the link is now cold), which shows SIU 11 continuing toward Eutaw from the SR 1 interchange:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3KECN.jpg&hash=ba8fca7c4018ea9a80b651838f44086bbee1875f)
Finally, here is a snip of the Mississippi "SIU 12" slide from the above-linked April 22, 2015 PowerPoint that appears to show a Eutaw terminus (slide 33/54; compare to the AHTD map of SIU 12 in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg299742#msg299742)):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcVf70bx.png&hash=cf17dfbfedc6e4a2809b35325152c3b4cc5f509b)
It seems like, somewhere along the SIU 11 FEIS way, the anticipated Great River Bridge to Benoit/ SR 1 segment of SIU 12 instead became part of SIU 11 and Beaver Dam Road became the unlikely eastern (northern in overall I-69 terms?) terminus of SIU 12 (with doubtful independent utility).
It would make sense for the portion between US 65 and US 61 be an SIU. Or, move the boundary east so that SIU 11 encompasses that. This way, US 278 can be rerouted across the bridge and it would eliminate the long detour the route currently has to take.
I don't think anyone is going to build a billion dollar bridge just so some crappy three digit US highway looks a little nicer on a map to some roadfans
Quote from: bjrush on May 15, 2015, 09:35:39 AM
I don't think anyone is going to build a billion dollar bridge just so some crappy three digit US highway looks a little nicer on a map to some roadfans
True but it would be one step closer to I-69 being completed (even though it may not ever be completed in our lifetimes).
I don't get it. US 61 already exsists and is four laned through this area. There is already a bridge that US 278 is routed upon. Waste of taxpayer money.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 29, 2015, 01:44:04 PM
I don't get it. US 61 already exsists and is four laned through this area. There is already a bridge that US 278 is routed upon. Waste of taxpayer money.
While I agree about 61, I disagree about the need for the bridge IF it is combined with a new rail crossing.
Quote from: rte66man on May 31, 2015, 10:50:56 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 29, 2015, 01:44:04 PM
I don't get it. US 61 already exsists and is four laned through this area. There is already a bridge that US 278 is routed upon. Waste of taxpayer money.
While I agree about 61, I disagree about the need for the bridge IF it is combined with a new rail crossing.
A new rail crossing would need to be augmented with new rail up to the crossing on both ends. On the east end, the nearest main railroad is the CN line that runs through Greenwood. There is also the Columbus and Greenville railroad, but it is essentially abandoned for most of its length. On the west end, there is a UP line that isn't too far away.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 30, 2014, 04:24:46 PM
Quote from: AHTD on February 18, 2014, 06:11:03 PM
Indeed a rail component was considered at one time, but as a separate PARALLEL structure. That's right! TWO cable-stays side-by-side.
Here is the profile of the railroad structure:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_01.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_Railroad_01.pdf)
Here is a snip of the railroad structure from AHTD's link:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZ58qeud.png&hash=4814b7ea205053cd20abcd568a0903a1598ca088)
FWIW the Delta Council has a Delta Rail Service (http://www.deltacouncil.org/policies--resolutions.html) resolution (link can be found on linked page) setting forth its support for the rail bridge:
Quote
Delta Council also continues to support a rail bridge to be included as part of the I-69-Mississippi River crossing ....
Delta Council would like to go on record in total support of efforts that could result in the re-opening of the 92 miles of Genesee and Wyoming (formerly C and G) Rail Line between West Point and Greenwood, Mississippi ....
Quote from: cjk374 on May 30, 2014, 10:30:13 PM
WHAT?? :wow: When did G & W buy the CAGY?? :-(
Quote from: codyg1985 on June 03, 2015, 05:43:55 PM
Quote from: rte66man on May 31, 2015, 10:50:56 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 29, 2015, 01:44:04 PM
I don't get it. US 61 already exsists and is four laned through this area. There is already a bridge that US 278 is routed upon. Waste of taxpayer money.
While I agree about 61, I disagree about the need for the bridge IF it is combined with a new rail crossing.
A new rail crossing would need to be augmented with new rail up to the crossing on both ends. On the east end, the nearest main railroad is the CN line that runs through Greenwood. There is also the Columbus and Greenville railroad, but it is essentially abandoned for most of its length. On the west end, there is a UP line that isn't too far away.
MDOT has posted its Draft 2040 Unified Long-Range Transportation Infrastructure Plan (October 2015) (http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/public_affairs/documents/2040-long-range-transportation-plan/FLASH/index.html) and it includes a map that can be interpreted as showing that the tracks of both the CAGY and the Great River Railroad could be used if needed (p. 32/60 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1z0Tazn.jpg&hash=edf6cafafea593e315d40a6b45d0dd1fa229de88)
Neither an I-69 interstate bridge nor a parallel railroad bridge is included in the 2040 Plan, but it seems that a rail connection on the Mississippi side is now more feasible.
The thing I struggle with for a rail bridge across the Mississippi is that without investment from Class I railroads (the closest of which is UP on the Arkansas side, and CN on the Mississippi side in Greenwood), I don't see it happening. Of course, the I-69 bridge is a pipe dream as it stands. Also, I don't know how much it would benefit cross-country intermodal trains. IF I-69 is ever built in this area and if an intermodal terminal was built near Greenville or Benoit, then it may make both the rail bridge and restoration/upgrade of the former CAGY line between Greenwood and West Point more feasible. It would also require new track between McGehee and the new bridge.
A lot would have to go right before the rail bridge across the MS River is feasible, IMO.
Theoretically, a rail component to the Great River Bridge would provide some redundancy for when the New Madrid Fault rears its ugly head and impacts the existing Memphis river crossings...
I could see a rail component being a very important part of such a crossing - if North American railroads operated on a European and Australian style of 'open access', much like how highways, civil aviation and so forth all operate here.
Mike
Quote from: codyg1985 on November 18, 2015, 07:46:34 AM
The thing I struggle with for a rail bridge across the Mississippi is that without investment from Class I railroads (the closest of which is UP on the Arkansas side, and CN on the Mississippi side in Greenwood), I don't see it happening. Of course, the I-69 bridge is a pipe dream as it stands. Also, I don't know how much it would benefit cross-country intermodal trains. IF I-69 is ever built in this area and if an intermodal terminal was built near Greenville or Benoit, then it may make both the rail bridge and restoration/upgrade of the former CAGY line between Greenwood and West Point more feasible. It would also require new track between McGehee and the new bridge.
A lot would have to go right before the rail bridge across the MS River is feasible, IMO.
The Creak and Groan (C&G) is actually in better shape than it was in the 70's, at least in the sections that are still operating. The Great River RR is pretty much impassable in its current condition and it has probably not seen a train in 10 years. The KCS RR would probably do everything in its power to fight this connection, as a direct competitor to its Meridian Speedway, unless the long rumored merger with CN ever happens.
Quote from: Rick Powell on November 19, 2015, 06:39:40 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on November 18, 2015, 07:46:34 AM
The thing I struggle with for a rail bridge across the Mississippi is that without investment from Class I railroads (the closest of which is UP on the Arkansas side, and CN on the Mississippi side in Greenwood), I don't see it happening. Of course, the I-69 bridge is a pipe dream as it stands. Also, I don't know how much it would benefit cross-country intermodal trains. IF I-69 is ever built in this area and if an intermodal terminal was built near Greenville or Benoit, then it may make both the rail bridge and restoration/upgrade of the former CAGY line between Greenwood and West Point more feasible. It would also require new track between McGehee and the new bridge.
A lot would have to go right before the rail bridge across the MS River is feasible, IMO.
The Creak and Groan (C&G) is actually in better shape than it was in the 70's, at least in the sections that are still operating. The Great River RR is pretty much impassable in its current condition and it has probably not seen a train in 10 years. The KCS RR would probably do everything in its power to fight this connection, as a direct competitor to its Meridian Speedway, unless the long rumored merger with CN ever happens.
Off topic, but Rick, where did you hear about a possible KCS/CN merger?
Quote from: rte66man on November 19, 2015, 10:15:52 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on November 19, 2015, 06:39:40 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on November 18, 2015, 07:46:34 AM
The thing I struggle with for a rail bridge across the Mississippi is that without investment from Class I railroads (the closest of which is UP on the Arkansas side, and CN on the Mississippi side in Greenwood), I don't see it happening. Of course, the I-69 bridge is a pipe dream as it stands. Also, I don't know how much it would benefit cross-country intermodal trains. IF I-69 is ever built in this area and if an intermodal terminal was built near Greenville or Benoit, then it may make both the rail bridge and restoration/upgrade of the former CAGY line between Greenwood and West Point more feasible. It would also require new track between McGehee and the new bridge.
A lot would have to go right before the rail bridge across the MS River is feasible, IMO.
The Creak and Groan (C&G) is actually in better shape than it was in the 70's, at least in the sections that are still operating. The Great River RR is pretty much impassable in its current condition and it has probably not seen a train in 10 years. The KCS RR would probably do everything in its power to fight this connection, as a direct competitor to its Meridian Speedway, unless the long rumored merger with CN ever happens.
Off topic, but Rick, where did you hear about a possible KCS/CN merger?
My brother works for KCS and he hears scuttlebutt from upper management every so often. KCS is mentioned as a target for CP, BNSF and UP at different times, too.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-17/kansas-city-southern-on-track-for-takeover-real-m-a
Right now Canadian Pacific is looking to buy Norfolk Southern (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/canadian-pacific-ceo-hopes-norfolk-southern-talk-merger-35311303). That wouldn't impact this project since neither road operates close to this location.
Quote from: Rick Powell on November 20, 2015, 12:59:07 AM
Quote from: rte66man on November 19, 2015, 10:15:52 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on November 19, 2015, 06:39:40 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on November 18, 2015, 07:46:34 AM
The thing I struggle with for a rail bridge across the Mississippi is that without investment from Class I railroads (the closest of which is UP on the Arkansas side, and CN on the Mississippi side in Greenwood), I don't see it happening. Of course, the I-69 bridge is a pipe dream as it stands. Also, I don't know how much it would benefit cross-country intermodal trains. IF I-69 is ever built in this area and if an intermodal terminal was built near Greenville or Benoit, then it may make both the rail bridge and restoration/upgrade of the former CAGY line between Greenwood and West Point more feasible. It would also require new track between McGehee and the new bridge.
A lot would have to go right before the rail bridge across the MS River is feasible, IMO.
The Creak and Groan (C&G) is actually in better shape than it was in the 70's, at least in the sections that are still operating. The Great River RR is pretty much impassable in its current condition and it has probably not seen a train in 10 years. The KCS RR would probably do everything in its power to fight this connection, as a direct competitor to its Meridian Speedway, unless the long rumored merger with CN ever happens.
Off topic, but Rick, where did you hear about a possible KCS/CN merger?
My brother works for KCS and he hears scuttlebutt from upper management every so often. KCS is mentioned as a target for CP, BNSF and UP at different times, too.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-17/kansas-city-southern-on-track-for-takeover-real-m-a
That Bloomburg article seems to be 3 years old. Since then, Mexico has taken their roads back from KCS (after they did all the hard work of repairing them) and now KCS has taken out a poison-pill amount of loans out so that they aren't nearly as attractive to buy.
But something to keep in mind...whoever decides to buyout the KCS will be able to do so under what I call "the old rules of buyout approval". After UP's disasterous buyout of SP & CNW in the late 90s, the STB established new rules and regulations that they will use to approve/deny any Class 1 mergers. However, they excluded the KCS from those new rules & said that any buyout involving them will be determined under the old rules.
Quote from: NE2 on December 29, 2014, 03:25:22 PM
The Mississippi River crossing is truly a segment of independent utility, as opposed to many of the porkier pieces.
This article (http://www.magnoliareporter.com/news_and_business/local_news/article_82b7d068-9e5c-11e5-bcff-b7b9aa3c336c.html) reports that Arkansas highway officials recently told a group in El Dorado that construction of the Great River Bridge is the key to building the porkier pieces in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi, but that Congress will have to foot most of the bill for the bridge:
Quote
Construction of the proposed Great River Bridge near Arkansas City is the key that will unlock construction of Interstate 69 across South Arkansas and North Louisiana.
That was the message Arkansas highway officials delivered to area leaders Monday during a meeting at South Arkansas Community College.
The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department is buying right-of-way for the bridge and 16 miles of highway roadbed between the proposed bridge location on the Mississippi River and the city of McGehee, said Director Scott Bennett. Plans are being prepared for delivery into the hands of a successful bidder.
There's only one problem — the state doesn't have its $900 million share for bridge and approach costs. The State of Mississippi doesn't have its $300 million, either.
Federal aid will be essential to build the bridge, which represents approximately a third of the total estimated cost of completing Interstate 69 in the two states, said the parade of highway leaders.
Congress will have to be convinced that the Great River Bridge and the completion of Interstate 69 goes beyond the benefit to Arkansas, Mississippi and the six other states that are part of the highway corridor from the Great Lakes to the Rio Grande, they said.
There are factors working in favor of the project. The most important is the expansion of the Panama Canal, which will make possible the ocean shipment of more goods to and from Asia while bypassing Pacific ports. Most of these goods will pass through Gulf of Mexico ports, and be moved by truck through the southern and central United States.
Truck traffic on interstate highways in the South is already heavy. Interstate 69 meets the need for a north-south route to relieve east-west truck traffic.
Also, federal transportation programs are leaning toward providing more funds for freight movement.
Arkansas Highway Commissioner Robert Moore told the audience that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."
"When you want something done you have got to speak up to Congress and use every resource to make noise. If you work hard and have vision it can be done," Moore said.
Moore acknowledged other priorities for highway funding in Arkansas, such as Interstate 49 in western Arkansas, and a proposal to widen Interstate 30 through Little Rock.
Construction of the Great River Bridge and the resulting Interstate 69 would accomplish the same goals as the Little Rock project — reducing freeway congestion and speeding east-west traffic through Arkansas -- for roughly the same price. It would also spur economic development in a part of Arkansas that needs it, Moore said.
State Rep. Matthew Shepherd (R-El Dorado) said that the task of securing federal funding for the bridge is daunting, "But we must raise the issue," he said ....
Bossier City, LA Mayor Lo Walker said that until progress is made on the Great River Bridge, potential I-69 traffic will bypass South Arkansas and North Louisiana.
Former AHTD director Dan Flowers asked Dr. David Rankin, chairman of the Golden Triangle Economic Development Council, to work with counterparts at the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition as advocates for Great River Bridge funding.
The direct comparison of the cost of the Great River Bridge and I-69 in Arkansas to the cost of the I-30 widening in Little Rock is an interesting angle.
edit
A video of the meeting has been posted on Youtube:
Quote from: Grzrd on December 09, 2015, 08:25:08 AM
This article (http://www.magnoliareporter.com/news_and_business/local_news/article_82b7d068-9e5c-11e5-bcff-b7b9aa3c336c.html) reports that Arkansas highway officials recently told a group in El Dorado that construction of the Great River Bridge is the key to building the porkier pieces in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi, but that Congress will have to foot most of the bill for the bridge ....
A video of the meeting has been posted on Youtube:
The major financial problem with the current $1.3 billion estimated cost for the I-69 Mississippi River bridge is that a bridge project cannot be broken into smaller segments. Arkansas and Mississippi need a large chunk of federal assistance to build the bridge. At approximately the 19:00 mark of the above video, Bennett points out that Section 6021 ("Future Interstate Study") of the FAST highway bill (p. 272/490 of pdf) (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr22enr/pdf/BILLS-114hr22enr.pdf) provides for a three-year study of the interstate system to upgrade and restore that system. Since Bennett describes the I-69 Mississippi River bridge's nationally important purpose as "Spanning a River and Connecting a Nation" (at approximately the 40:40 mark), he expresses hope that the Future Interstate Study could eventually lead to the needed big chunk of federal assistance to build the bridge.
Section 6021 reads in part as follows:
Quote
SEC. 6021. FUTURE INTERSTATE STUDY.
(a) FUTURE INTERSTATE SYSTEM STUDY.–Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies to conduct a study on the actions needed to upgrade and restore the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways to its role as a premier system that meets the growing and shifting demands of the 21st century ....
(d) CONSIDERATIONS.–In carrying out the study, the Transportation Research Board shall determine the need for reconstruction and improvement of the Interstate System by considering–
(1) future demands on transportation infrastructure determined for national planning purposes, including commercial and private traffic flows to serve future economic activity and growth; ....
(4) those National Highway System routes that should be added to the existing Interstate System to more efficiently serve national traffic flows; and
(5) the resources necessary to maintain and improve the Interstate System, including the resources required to upgrade the National Highway System routes identified in paragraph (4) to Interstate standards ....
(f) REPORT.–Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Transportation Research Board shall submit to the Secretary, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the results of the study conducted under this section.
QuoteInterstate 69 meets the need for a north-south route to relieve east-west truck traffic.
Do these people even listen to themselves? If east-west traffic is the problem, you don't build a north-south connector...you either build a new east-west route or improve your existing routes.
Furthermore, the existing east-west routes are really not all that bad, especially in the rural areas. What they should be doing is, instead of blowing money on I-69, use that money to improve the urban bottlenecks that are causing a far greater problem for freight traffic.
Quote from: froggie on December 12, 2015, 08:52:21 PM
QuoteInterstate 69 meets the need for a north-south route to relieve east-west truck traffic.
Do these people even listen to themselves? If east-west traffic is the problem, you don't build a north-south connector...you either build a new east-west route or improve your existing routes.
Furthermore, the existing east-west routes are really not all that bad, especially in the rural areas. What they should be doing is, instead of blowing money on I-69, use that money to improve the urban bottlenecks that are causing a far greater problem for freight traffic.
Have you ever traversed I-40 in the afternoons between Memphis and Little Rock? It's a nigbtmare . The thinking goes some of the truck traffic will ditch I-30 and choose I-69 snice a lot of it originates in Texas. The truck traffic isn't nearly as bad west of Little Rock on I-40.
Define nightmare. Does traffic routinely roll below 45 MPH? Or are regular drivers just mad because they can't pass the trucks?
Urban areas are still the primary freight bottlenecks. The money would be far better spent upgrading those. And if 40 is really that bad, spending the money on 40 would be far more cost-effective than building 69.
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2015, 09:48:31 AM
Define nightmare. Does traffic routinely roll below 45 MPH? Or are regular drivers just mad because they can't pass the trucks?
Urban areas are still the primary freight bottlenecks. The money would be far better spent upgrading those. And if 40 is really that bad, spending the money on 40 would be far more cost-effective than building 69.
Yep, you have no ideal of what I-40 is like, not mention the need for 4 lane divideds for economic reasons in counties so poor you can't quite comprend up in Vermont.
Any project on I-40 would involve a major bridge of over the White River(it's not the Mississippi but it's a biggie) which at major flood stage has shut down I- 40 not to mention only 5 lanes each way over the Mississippi at Memphis.
Now if you came at me with spend that money on a third bridge at Memphis to route traffic around Memphis, I'd listen. I'm not going to speak on the needs of any part of this country I don't frequent because I don't know them.
Lower White River at I 40 during major flood stage
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.srh.noaa.gov%2Fimages%2Flzk%2Fimages2%2Ffloodpic050611e.jpg&hash=c113d79067e8ba897407fdd95923b4027f14262b)
QuoteYep, you have no ideal of what I-40 is like, not mention the need for 4 lane divideds for economic reasons in counties so poor you can't quite comprend up in Vermont.
You obviously don't know my background. I spent 7 years of my Navy career in Mississippi, so I am quite aware of the poverty in that region. And just because I now live in Vermont doesn't mean that I still don't see poverty around me.
I have also traveled/studied enough to know that a 4-lane highway is not a panacea for economic recovery. Plenty of areas in the Deep South that sit right along major Interstate highways, yet are just as poor as the Delta counties.
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2015, 11:08:43 PM
QuoteYep, you have no ideal of what I-40 is like, not mention the need for 4 lane divideds for economic reasons in counties so poor you can't quite comprend up in Vermont.
You obviously don't know my background. I spent 7 years of my Navy career in Mississippi, so I am quite aware of the poverty in that region. And just because I now live in Vermont doesn't mean that I still don't see poverty around me.
I have also traveled/studied enough to know that a 4-lane highway is not a panacea for economic recovery. Plenty of areas in the Deep South that sit right along major Interstate highways, yet are just as poor as the Delta counties.
It doesn't hurt, especially being on what would be a Nafta route but the main issue is safety in my book, I travel that stretch of road numerous times a year, I experience trips with more back ups than with out and I'm talking the come to complete stop kind, sometimes it's from road construction, sometimes accidents. They shear volume of trucks makes it not one governed truck getting around another governed truck the problem but that's all there is it's constant, never ending line of trucks(I've counted as many as 27 trucks in a row) consistently whipping out in front of traffic to pass the two or three in front of it causing traffic to check up often down to 40 or 45 miles per hour. It never ends for two hours and then it converges with all the trucks on I-55. I leads to major aggressive driving in some to others being overly cautious and going below the posted speed in the left lane. Any time during the day during the week, it's horrible. If it rains, holy s#&t, you'll never see more than 20 yards ahead of you. It is truly one of the most crowded (truck wise) stretches of road in America.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fops.fhwa.dot.gov%2Ffreight%2Ffreight_analysis%2Fnat_freight_stats%2Fimages%2Fhi_res_jpg%2Fnhslnghultrktraf2011.jpg&hash=30783994804a524d00a21d475457be5611f63b02)
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/nhsavglhft2011.htm
Quote from: NE2 on December 15, 2015, 10:27:25 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fops.fhwa.dot.gov%2Ffreight%2Ffreight_analysis%2Fnat_freight_stats%2Fimages%2Fhi_res_jpg%2Fnhslnghultrktraf2011.jpg&hash=30783994804a524d00a21d475457be5611f63b02)
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/nhsavglhft2011.htm
Like I said, if you don't drive, you haven't a clue and the graph shoes it's over run.
Also notice how the I-49 segment from I-40 to NWA had already been highlighted by red, now imagine if the missing pieces were in place. The map also shows what was then non interstate portions of I-49. You can easily see how I-69 would relieve 1-30, I-40,and I-65 with the southwest to northeast onslaught of frieght from Texas and it's ports and Mexico.
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on December 17, 2015, 05:59:35 PM
Also notice how the I-49 segment from I-40 to NWA had already been highlighted by red ... The map also shows what was then non interstate portions of I-49.
It's highlighted in red because it's an interstate highway. The thickness of the line indicates the amount of traffic, not the color.
The map also shows why so many Chamber of Commerces and local governments believe that having an interstate shield brings business. Also a hotly debated topic here
Wayward Memphian, you can go a long way here without being a dick to every person.
It would be interesting to do a cost comparison of widening the existing routes (I-30, I-40, and I-65) versus building the remaining segments of I-69.
Quote from: codyg1985 on December 21, 2015, 07:22:38 AM
It would be interesting to do a cost comparison of widening the existing routes (I-30, I-40, and I-65) versus building the remaining segments of I-69.
Widening it how much? I believe 40 between Little Rock and Memphis needs at least 8 lanes. It should also include a 3rd Memphis bridge to avoid all that traffic piling through the middle of Memphis. I would tie that to getting 69 finished in Tennessee, then forgetting the rest of it.
These estimates (http://capitolfax.com/summary.pdf) from five years ago suggest the cost per mile of rural freeway widening from 4 to 6 lanes is around $3.5 million. Obviously the St. Francis River bridge would be more. Realistically I don't see 8 lanes happening except maybe in the environs of West Memphis and through Forrest City.
A new location 4-lane rural freeway like I-69 is estimated at $3.5 million per mile as well. (AHTD's own estimates (https://www.arkansashighways.com/roadway_design_division/Cost%20per%20Mile%20(JULY%202012).pdf) are substantially higher, but they don't present any widening estimates for freeways - judging from their list, though, the expense of going from 4 to 6 lanes would probably be around the same as a new-location 4-lane freeway.)
I don't think I-69 would relieve enough of the traffic on I-30 and I-40 to say widening the latter could substitute for the former, or vice versa, especially without any connectivity between the two in Arkansas. But when it comes to networks, more redundancy is almost always better than not having it.
I'm skeptical I-69 would relieve much traffic, if any at all, from the I-35, I-30 and I-40 corridors. The proposed I-69 route, as it is planned through Arkansas and Mississippi, is so freaking crooked the extra distance needed to build it will kill any driving time savings versus staying on I-35, I-30 and I-40. Those older, existing Interstate routes are a lot more direct.
Then there's the issue of services along the route. It will take at least several years, bare minimum, for many of the kinds of businesses one expects to find on an established Interstate route to get built up along new sections of I-69. Some parts of the road may remain with little if any new business development.
If I was calling the shots about road funding in Arkansas I'd put a lot more emphasis on getting I-49 built as well as improving I-40. The truck traffic on I-40 is no joke. The Google Earth imagery along I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis shows lots and lots of trucks. If widening I-40 to 4 lanes in each direction between Little Rock and Fort Smith is too much to ask it ought to at least have 3 lanes in each direction. That seems to be the minimum on the re-built I-35 between Dallas and Austin.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
Then there's the issue of services along the route. It will take at least several years, bare minimum, for many of the kinds of businesses one expects to find on an established Interstate route to get built up along new sections of I-69. Some parts of the road may remain with little if any new business development.
Only a problem once you leave the US 59 corridor. Even then, the route is not completely barren. At I-49, travelers could take I-49 to Shreveport and rejoin I-69 via I-20. the route will pass near Minden and El Dorado. The route will pass near a few towns as it crosses the Mississippi River and pass through Mississippi. And look at I-49 north of Alexandria; the exit at LA 6 has become an oasis in a service desert. I figure that some towns along the I-69 will rise to the challenge and provide needed services.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
I'm skeptical I-69 would relieve much traffic, if any at all, from the I-35, I-30 and I-40 corridors. The proposed I-69 route, as it is planned through Arkansas and Mississippi, is so freaking crooked the extra distance needed to build it will kill any driving time savings versus staying on I-35, I-30 and I-40. Those older, existing Interstate routes are a lot more direct.
Then there's the issue of services along the route. It will take at least several years, bare minimum, for many of the kinds of businesses one expects to find on an established Interstate route to get built up along new sections of I-69. Some parts of the road may remain with little if any new business development.
If I was calling the shots about road funding in Arkansas I'd put a lot more emphasis on getting I-49 built as well as improving I-40. The truck traffic on I-40 is no joke. The Google Earth imagery along I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis shows lots and lots of trucks. If widening I-40 to 4 lanes in each direction between Little Rock and Fort Smith is too much to ask it ought to at least have 3 lanes in each direction. That seems to be the minimum on the re-built I-35 between Dallas and Austin.
You just have to experience it when it comes to truck traffic on I-40 east of Little Rock. That's not being an ass about it. You don't need four lanes west of Conway, most times two is enough but I could see three lanes needed by a 2030, that al depends on 5h2 continued growth of 4he Northwest corner.
Agreed on I-49 this would be the most useful route for the state but it's got it's own bridge issue over the Arkansas River.
As an Arkansan, I'd just as soon see an upgraded US 412 connecting NWA with NEA with a four lane divided. Connecting two of the faster growing regions without the trip down and up currently required over the two lane hell that is US 412 . I know politics played the part with Lott and the Mississippi congressional pull played in routing I-69 as it should have a crossed further up in Helena. You have a new four lane bridge at Lake Village, I'd just as soon have seen US 82 upgraded across Southern Arkansas like US 412, and an Interstate quality road from Pine Bluff to Monroe. The Corridor V project would take care of the Helena Bridge upgrade. In fact, Corridor V could actually be part of an outer loop of the Memphis Metro. Here's how:
New Helena Bridge and four lane to either Brinkley or Forrest City (I prefer Forrest City and Ark 1 over Brinkley and US - 49 for pure economic reasons plus less wetland reasons)
Forrest City to Jonesboro
Jonesboro to Paragould
Paragould along US 412 and I-155 to Dyersburg
Dyersburg to Jackson
Jackson to Corinth
Corinth to Tupelo
Tupelo to Oxford
Oxford to Batesville
Batesville to Helena
And...the loop is complete.
Instead of I-69, MS can upgrade US 61 and US 278 and make use of that perfectly fine new bridge.between Greenville and Lake Village. And... Arkansas could push for those US 82 upgrades that connect the main towns across Lower Arkansas. And explore Arkansas upgrading it's two lane from El Dorado to met with tthe 4 lane divided that covers LA from Junction City to Ruston. That gives much more direct east/west and North/ South corridors. But I'M there's some reason the decided that the I-69 route made made more sense.
AHTD likes a crappy US 412 so people have to go thru Little Rock
Quote from: rte66man on December 23, 2015, 12:06:20 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on December 21, 2015, 07:22:38 AM
It would be interesting to do a cost comparison of widening the existing routes (I-30, I-40, and I-65) versus building the remaining segments of I-69.
Widening it how much? I believe 40 between Little Rock and Memphis needs at least 8 lanes. It should also include a 3rd Memphis bridge to avoid all that traffic piling through the middle of Memphis. I would tie that to getting 69 finished in Tennessee, then forgetting the rest of it.
The contract we just let to replace the White River Bridge on I-40: It will be wide enough to accommodate three lanes in each direction and will be constructed adjacent to the existing structure. None of the other structures we have recently upgraded in this I-40 corridor are being widened at this time, but they will be much easier to widen when the time comes.
I agree with Wayward...I-69 is a pipe dream. I'm 42 & I never expect to see I-69 cross through south Arkansas in my lifetime. I'd connect to 82 & use the greenvile river bridge. Mississippi needs an excuse to finish the Greenville bypass.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 13, 2015, 03:43:53 PM
the SIU 11 FEIS Summary (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/District%201%20and%202/Archived%20Projects/Project%20Studies/I-69%20Section%2011%20-%20Robinsonville%20To%20Benoit/Executive%20Summary.pdf) describes the Southern Section of the SIU 11 Preferred Alternative by speaking of the eastern end of the bridge as "the SIU 12 terminus" (p. 7/18 of pdf; p. S-7 of document):
Quote
The Preferred Alternative begins at the SIU 12 terminus and proceeds southeast across Lake Bolivar. It crosses SR 1 north of Scott at Lake Vista and then turns east before crossing SR 448.
Also, here is a snip of the SIU 11 FEIS map (the link is now cold), which shows SIU 11 continuing toward Eutaw from the SR 1 interchange ....
It seems like, somewhere along the SIU 11 FEIS way, the anticipated Great River Bridge to Benoit/ SR 1 segment of SIU 12 instead became part of SIU 11 and Beaver Dam Road became the unlikely eastern (northern in overall I-69 terms?) terminus of SIU 12 (with doubtful independent utility).
MDOT recently re-posted the I-69 SIU 11 FEIS and ROD (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/Pages/Projects.aspx?RootFolder=%2FEnvironmental%2FEnvironmental%20Projects%2FI%2D69%20from%20Benoit%20to%20Robinsonville&FolderCTID=0x012000ED771D25C0211643833FC9F36E7B9E45&View=%7b5A9868A7-E687-4B7E-85A2-5F170FE3AA55%7d). The FEIS (http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/environmental/I-69%20SIU%2011%20-%20Final%20Environmental%20Impact%20Statement.pdf) provides a bit more clarity about the dividing line between SIU 12 and SIU 11 by describing the SIU 12 terminus as Eutaw Landing (p. 69/1447 of pdf; p. 2-16 of document):
Quote
Due to the length of the project and to facilitate a combination of segments, each alternative is divided into a southern, middle, and northern section (see Figure 2-3). These three sections of the project are consistently used through the remainder of the FEIS. Each section of the study area is described below:
Southern Section
The southern section begins at SIU 12 (Great River Bridge-Eutaw Landing) terminus, in Bolivar County to the west of SR 1 and Benoit. As mentioned in Chapter 1, a FEIS and ROD have been completed for SIU 12.
Yet another potential roadgeek pilgrimage site identified.
AHTD has posted its June 9 I-69 Coalition Meeting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2016/060916_I-69_Coalition.pdf) presentation, and it reveals a strategy that will depend on heavy federal funding for the bridge. First, it quotes the I-69 Implementation Strategy that federal help will be needed, particularly regarding the bridge (p.4/15 od pdf)):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_16_11_53_15.png)
The Presentation concludes with a picture with a star at the location of the bridge and a quote from Robert Kennedy (p. 15/15 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_06_16_12_08_37.png)
Looks like they will need the federal funding, but will they get it?
Doubtful. Given lack of Congressional will to increase the gas tax or provide other revenue sources, they'd have to pull it from what little gas tax revenue the HTF does get. Nobody will want to give up their slice of what's already a small pie...
Why can't they give up this dream of the grand river bridge & use the new 82 bridge at Greenville. It'll be cheaper to reroute some roadways versus building this monster.
I think it might be cheaper to just widen I-30 and I-40 statewide throughout Arkansas.
Widening I-30 and I-40 through Arkansas would be more productive.
The winding, crooked, time & distance wasting path of I-69 through Arkansas, Mississippi, Kentucky and Indiana makes it counterproductive. The route would only be valuable for short distance travel between towns in specific regions on that path. The trouble is there probably wouldn't be enough traffic to justify building an Interstate for it, much less a Mississippi River bridge costing well over $1 billion.
They should use that money for the I-69 bridge to build a new crossing near Memphis (Southern Gateway project). And once that's built, build a new I-55 bridge.
Quote from: sparker on December 16, 2016, 02:39:33 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 08, 2016, 03:12:35 PM
I-69 would cross near Benoit, about 25 miles north of the Greenville Bridge. Seems it would make more sense around Rosedale, but pork will be pork.
IIRC, the crossing at Benoit was intended to avoid the confluence of the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers for two reasons: environmental (I don't recall the exact situation) and practical: avoiding multiple structures across both waterways and their floodplains. Apparently just west of Benoit is the narrowest combination of channel + floodplain below the confluence, thus the most practical/feasible location for the bridge.
(above quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg2192972#msg2192972) thread)
Quote from: cjk374 on December 17, 2016, 12:41:20 PM
Relieving the traffic on rugged US 71 is a greater need than creating a crooked-route pork-barrel project that isn't relieving...anything.
(above quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg2193164#msg2193164) thread)
For the record, the I-69 Mississippi River Crossing Environmental Impact Study (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_FEIS.pdf) considered a location near Helena, Arkansas, which would have provided a much straighter, direct route. However, it was rapidly eliminated, for the reasons summarized in this table (p. 64/556 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_17_12_16_8_57_32.jpeg)
Also, the Greenville location was initially considered, but it was not in the defined National I-69 Corridor (more crooked) and there was no compelling reason for extending the boundary (p. 60/556 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_17_12_16_9_08_18.jpeg)
In addition, four alignments near Rosedale were considered in the Great River Bridge "GRB" EIS (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_FEIS_2000.pdf) (which was an initial study conducted before I-69) but were eliminated for essentially the following reasons (p. 66/556 of I-69 Mississippi River Crossing EIS pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_17_12_16_9_25_30.jpeg)
Here is a map of the GRB EIS Alignment Alternatives (p. 87/556 of I-69 Mississippi River Crossing EIS pdf)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_17_12_16_9_40_31.jpeg)
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on April 11, 2014, 04:45:20 PM
You know AHTD, have you ever submitted a request to eliminate the 'Future I-130' designation on AR-549 that you requested back in 2000 and had approved by the AASHTO between I-30 and US-71 since you now have I-49 there (per AASHTO approval)?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv645%2Frickmastfan67%2FInterstates%2FMISC%2FAR_I-130.png&hash=7477af92ad3963e512030c1a5dbc97cf76f40652)
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg292170#msg292170) thread)
Quote from: bjrush on November 06, 2016, 01:24:14 PM
Did you know Scott Bennett is Chairman of the eight state I-69 Steering Committee?
(above quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg2185654#msg2185654) thread)
I put the I-130 quote above in order to show the section that was disapproved - because AHTD forgot to coordinate with TxDOT. Although the situation is not perfectly analogous, I am worried that AHTD is repeating the mistake, this time in regard to the Great River Bridge and Mississippi. In looking at the projects AHTD submitted to the Trump Administration (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2017/20170426%20AHC%20Meeting.pdf) (P. 8/127 of pdf),
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_26_04_17_5_56_52.jpeg)
AHTD asked for $910 million for the Great River Bridge. With Mississippi's share of the Great River Bridge being $390 million (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg314876#msg314876), I checked Mississippi and found that, although they had asked for $1.83 billion in construction (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4783.msg2212854#msg2212854) for SIU 11, they did not ask for SIU 12 construction because Arkansas was the lead state (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4783.msg2215127#msg2215127). I then emailed AHTD and asked if there had been any coordination with Mississippi. The reply:
Quote
Q: Is it safe to say that there was no coordination with Mississippi on the Great River Bridge?
A: That's correct. Arkansas' portion of the cost is close to a billion dollars. Not so much for Mississippi.
Well, you certainly can't build half a bridge. Scott Bennett is on the record as saying that construction of the Great River Bridge is essential if progress is to be made on I-69. A joint request with Mississippi would have been powerful; instead, there is an easy reason to eliminate this project.
I don't know the rules, if any. on the requests. One could see Mississippi's request for SIU 11 and simply transfer the request to the bridge. Or not.
I hope AHTD doesn't repeat the I-130 disapproval.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 10, 2017, 11:04:21 AM
Well, you certainly can't build half a bridge. Scott Bennett is on the record as saying that construction of the Great River Bridge is essential if progress is to be made on I-69. A joint request with Mississippi would have been powerful; instead, there is an easy reason to eliminate this project.
I don't know the rules, if any. on the requests. One could see Mississippi's request for SIU 11 and simply transfer the request to the bridge. Or not.
I hope AHTD doesn't repeat the I-130 disapproval.
In a May 9 presentation to the I-69 Coalition (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2017/I-69%20Coalition%20Mtg.pdf), AHTD presented a map of the I-69 projects submitted to the Trump Administration. Unfortunately, it only shows the Arkansas half of the bridge. (p. 15/16 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_24_05_17_10_05_13.png)
With the first draft of Trump's plan providing for $200 billion in direct investment (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/23/infrastructure-transportation-trump-budget-238741), it seems like the bridge would have a reasonable shot. However, Mississippi is currently silent on it and Arkansas does not include the Mississippi section in the map. I hope history does not repeat itself ........
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on December 24, 2015, 09:46:07 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
I'm skeptical I-69 would relieve much traffic, if any at all, from the I-35, I-30 and I-40 corridors. The proposed I-69 route, as it is planned through Arkansas and Mississippi, is so freaking crooked the extra distance needed to build it will kill any driving time savings versus staying on I-35, I-30 and I-40. Those older, existing Interstate routes are a lot more direct.
Then there's the issue of services along the route. It will take at least several years, bare minimum, for many of the kinds of businesses one expects to find on an established Interstate route to get built up along new sections of I-69. Some parts of the road may remain with little if any new business development.
If I was calling the shots about road funding in Arkansas I'd put a lot more emphasis on getting I-49 built as well as improving I-40. The truck traffic on I-40 is no joke. The Google Earth imagery along I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis shows lots and lots of trucks. If widening I-40 to 4 lanes in each direction between Little Rock and Fort Smith is too much to ask it ought to at least have 3 lanes in each direction. That seems to be the minimum on the re-built I-35 between Dallas and Austin.
You just have to experience it when it comes to truck traffic on I-40 east of Little Rock. That's not being an ass about it. You don't need four lanes west of Conway, most times two is enough but I could see three lanes needed by a 2030, that al depends on 5h2 continued growth of 4he Northwest corner.
Agreed on I-49 this would be the most useful route for the state but it's got it's own bridge issue over the Arkansas River.
I agree. I-49 is needed much more than I-69. If I were Arkansas, I'd be focusing all my attention on completing I-49 and finishing the US 67 freeway from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line (in preparation for I-57). Those two projects I bet could be completed for less than it would take to build the entire I-69 section in Arkansas (including the Mississippi River bridge).
I never really understood the need for I-69 period, but especially between Memphis and Texas. The existing routes seem to be more than adequate.
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 08:50:18 PM
Those two projects I bet could be completed for less than it would take to build the entire I-69 section in Arkansas (including the Mississippi River bridge).
While I-49 is IMO much more important than I-69 and I-57, I imagine it would take a lot more money to build I-49 due to the terrain difficulties. I think the cost would be very close when you consider the terrain difficulties on I-49 and the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge. I-49 would certainly have more benefit for more people if it were finished, while I-69 would essentially end where it enters Louisiana since Louisiana has much less interest in their portion.
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 25, 2017, 07:44:13 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 08:50:18 PM
Those two projects I bet could be completed for less than it would take to build the entire I-69 section in Arkansas (including the Mississippi River bridge).
While I-49 is IMO much more important than I-69 and I-57, I imagine it would take a lot more money to build I-49 due to the terrain difficulties. I think the cost would be very close when you consider the terrain difficulties on I-49 and the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge. I-49 would certainly have more benefit for more people if it were finished, while I-69 would essentially end where it enters Louisiana since Louisiana has much less interest in their portion.
Fair point. I was just thinking since I-49 and I-57 were further along, it would be best to focus on completing those first. I think I-69 will have a difficult terrain as well.
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 08:50:18 PM
I agree. I-49 is needed much more than I-69. If I were Arkansas, I'd be focusing all my attention on completing I-49 and finishing the US 67 freeway from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line (in preparation for I-57). Those two projects I bet could be completed for less than it would take to build the entire I-69 section in Arkansas (including the Mississippi River bridge).
As of 2014, it was estimated that completing I-69 would cost $3.5 billion* and that completing I-49 would cost $2.7 billion (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg304148#msg304148).
With that being said, I agree that I-49 is more important than I-69. When I first looked at the projects submitted by AHTD to the Trump Administration (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg2221456#msg2221456), the thing that jumped out at me was the absence of I-49 projects from Texarkana to Chaffee Crossing. AHTD may have decided to put all their I-49 eggs in the Bella Vista Bypass and the Arkansas River Bridge. However, the Arkansas River Bridge will not be ready for letting until 2022. Why did AHTD not hedge their bet with "shovel-ready" bypasses along Texarkana to Chaffee Crossing? The uncomfortable conclusion I reached (I hope I'm wrong) is that respective FEISes will have to be redone because so much time has elapsed and the projects really are not "shovel ready". The I-57 project is in the same boat; 2023 is the earliest letting date
I come back to the Great River Bridge because it is "shovel ready". It may be Arkansas' best bet for a "big bang" from the Trump infrastructure plan. However, i would feel more confident if Arkansas would persuade Mississippi to join in and remove any doubt. $390 million is still a lot of money.
* edit
The $3.5 billion figure combined the figures for the I-69 Connector (SIU 28) and I-69 in Arkansas (SIUs 12-14). It will cost roughly $3 billion to finish i-69 in Arkansas, which is still more expensive than I-49:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg2230501#msg2230501
Quote from: Grzrd on May 25, 2017, 11:23:20 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 08:50:18 PM
I agree. I-49 is needed much more than I-69. If I were Arkansas, I'd be focusing all my attention on completing I-49 and finishing the US 67 freeway from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line (in preparation for I-57). Those two projects I bet could be completed for less than it would take to build the entire I-69 section in Arkansas (including the Mississippi River bridge).
As of 2014, it was estimated that completing I-69 would cost $3.5 billion and that completing I-49 would cost $2.7 billion (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg304148#msg304148).
With that being said, I agree that I-49 is more important than I-69. When I first looked at the projects submitted by AHTD to the Trump Administration (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg2221456#msg2221456), the thing that jumped out at me was the absence of I-49 projects from Texarkana to Chaffee Crossing. AHTD may have decided to put all their I-49 eggs in the Bella Vista Bypass and the Arkansas River Bridge. However, the Arkansas River Bridge will not be ready for letting until 2022. Why did AHTD not hedge their bet with "shovel-ready" bypasses along Texarkana to Chaffee Crossing? The uncomfortable conclusion I reached (I hope I'm wrong) is that respective FEISes will have to be redone because so much time has elapsed and the projects really are not "shovel ready". The I-57 project is in the same boat; 2023 is the earliest letting date
I come back to the Great River Bridge because it is "shovel ready". It may be Arkansas' best bet for a "big bang" from the Trump infrastructure plan. However, i would feel more confident if Arkansas would persuade Mississippi to join in and remove any doubt. $390 million is still a lot of money.
Exactly. Both I-49 and I-57 could be completed for less than I-69.
I thought I-49 had it's ROW acquired and ready to go, it's just the construction funding that is the hold up?
Doesn't matter if it already has right-of-way (which, to my knowledge, most of I-49 outside of Bella Vista and Fort Smith does NOT). As Grzrd alluded to, environmental and permit documentation has a "shelf life". I-49 was studied sufficiently long ago to where it would likely need a supplemental EIS (and an Environmental Assessment at a minimum) before construction could begin.
Quote from: froggie on May 26, 2017, 03:42:16 PM
Doesn't matter if it already has right-of-way (which, to my knowledge, most of I-49 outside of Bella Vista and Fort Smith does NOT). As Grzrd alluded to, environmental and permit documentation has a "shelf life". I-49 was studied sufficiently long ago to where it would likely need a supplemental EIS (and an Environmental Assessment at a minimum) before construction could begin.
Interesting. Why is there a big push for construction funding if they wouldn't be able to turn any dirt in that corridor yet? Or is that just for the Arkansas River bridge?
For I-49, they need to get the Arkansas River bridge and stretch from Alma to Fort Chafee done ASAP. Cost inflation on road construction is still high. The more years they push this project off into the future will equal a much more difficult prospect of ever getting the project completed at all.
They already know this reality. Things like bridges are the most expensive parts of a road project and those tend to get built first. The exits on the Arkansas portions of the Belle Vista Bypass are a good example. They're correctly getting most of the difficult stuff out of the way first, even if most of the bypass is only built in 2 lane configuration (however, building a temporary round-a-bout at the intersection of existing I-49/US-71 is a bit of a head scratcher).
Quote from: I-39Interesting. Why is there a big push for construction funding if they wouldn't be able to turn any dirt in that corridor yet? Or is that just for the Arkansas River bridge?
The area around Fort Smith has had more recent environmental and location documentation, plus part of it already built (from US 71 to AR 22), so across the Arkansas River and up to I-40 is still "shovel ready". South of US 71/Fort Smith is where additional study will likely be required.
This March 5, 2018 article (http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/120982/delta-still-waits-for-i-69-game-changer) states that construction of the I-69 Mississippi River bridge would be a "game changer" for southeast Arkansas and hints that it would be a prime candidate for a federal infrastructure plan:
Quote
The economic transformation of the Arkansas Delta is only $910 million away.
That's the expected price tag attached to the construction of a 23-mile stretch of Interstate 69 in eastern Arkansas that would connect Arkansas City with Benoit, Mississippi. The stretch, which would include the Great River Bridge over the Mississippi River, would become part of an interstate highway that is designed to run from Michigan to Texas.
On the national level, the extension of I-69 would have major economic benefits for trade both within the U.S. and with Mexico and Canada. In Arkansas, Delta boosters envision it opening up the fertile but economically depressed region to more business development.
"I-69 would be awesome," said Gene Higginbotham, the executive director of the Southeast Arkansas Economic Development District. "The basic need – I guess the best way to explain it – is when anybody looking to expand or relocate their business, one of the first things they ask is "˜Are you on an interstate?' Most of southeast Arkansas is not.
"Interstate 69 is a game changer for southern Arkansas. It stretches all the way across Arkansas. It will impact southern Arkansas, not just southeast Arkansas. It is going to help every city within 25 miles of that interstate, maybe even a little farther out."
Improving infrastructure and economic development in the Delta has been a focus for Gov. Asa Hutchinson and Mike Preston, the executive director of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. Hutchinson is the state's co-chair of the Delta Regional Authority's board of directors, and the DRA recently announced $2.8 million in grants for nine Arkansas cities.
"People throw this term out too loosely, but that really is the game changer for southeast Arkansas," Preston said of the completion of I-69. "If you have I-69 built and running through that part of the state ... it's around those interstates where opportunities lie for business and, thus, for jobs and created wealth. You get that in southeast Arkansas, and you're going to see it really just transform the state.
"If there was $1 billion that fell from the sky or the federal government or wherever and we were able to get that bridge built and the rest of I-69, that's game changing."
Sounds like Mr. Preston needs to go shopping for a nice thesaurus. He's stuck on 'game changing' like many in the biz world were too reliant on 'going forward' in recent years. Not trying to derail, but his quote was a big cringe.
People shouldnt forget why I-69 was pushed out beyond Indy in the first place.
It was called the "NAFTA Highway" to facilitate traffic (mostly auto parts) between Mexico and US.
With President Trump looking to put the kabash on Nafta in some form, ongoing funding in I-69 could be in doubt.
That was the political justification for it, but the reality is folks in Washington, IN & Evansville, IN politically lobbied for it for years and came up with the "NAFTA Highway" idea to get other politicians on board along the route.
Quote from: edwaleni on May 31, 2018, 01:48:02 PM
People shouldnt forget why I-69 was pushed out beyond Indy in the first place.
It was called the "NAFTA Highway" to facilitate traffic (mostly auto parts) between Mexico and US.
With President Trump looking to put the kabash on Nafta in some form, ongoing funding in I-69 could be in doubt.
Quote from: thefro on May 31, 2018, 03:01:05 PM
That was the political justification for it, but the reality is folks in Washington, IN & Evansville, IN politically lobbied for it for years and came up with the "NAFTA Highway" idea to get other politicians on board along the route.
Hence the division of the corridor into multiple SIU's: done in part so localized politicos (including Congressional folks, of course) could take "ownership" of a specific section of that route and "massage" it through the funding, design, and construction process. As it has turned out, the original corridor instigators -- the Evansville folks and their Texas counterparts -- have managed to translate this into actual functioning facilities within their spheres of influence (with KY entities and the Tunica folks in MS not being too far behind the IN & TX powers that be).
NAFTA or not, there's still a hell of a lot of cross-border traffic through Laredo and the lower Rio Grande; it's likely an "official" dimunition of that agreement would only have marginal effects on what is already an established set of international commercial corridors; proposing anything more drastic would bring TX-based "sharp knives" out squarely aimed at the Trump administration -- with most of those from members of his own party!
With all new these tariffs going into effect (as of today) the traffic levels at the border could start to drop noticeably. If our country's government gets into a full blown trade war with China and European nations we could see port traffic drop a good bit as well. If the policies are sustained for significant lengths of time both I-69 and I-49 projects could be affected. The stuff with Mexico and Canada will have more immediate effects on I-69 though.
QuoteAs it has turned out, the original corridor instigators -- the Evansville folks and their Texas counterparts -- have managed to translate this into actual functioning facilities within their spheres of influence (with KY entities and the Tunica folks in MS not being too far behind the IN & TX powers that be).
Regarding Mississippi, that existing section of I-69 in DeSoto County was already planned and funded pre-69-extension as the MS 304 freeway, hence why it actually came into existance before either the Texas or Indiana extensions.....it didn't take much for MDOT to get that section designated as I-69 since it was already in the pipeline as a new freeway. The only question at the time was whether I-69 would go through Memphis or bypass around.
Quote from: froggie on June 01, 2018, 02:16:02 PM
QuoteAs it has turned out, the original corridor instigators -- the Evansville folks and their Texas counterparts -- have managed to translate this into actual functioning facilities within their spheres of influence (with KY entities and the Tunica folks in MS not being too far behind the IN & TX powers that be).
Regarding Mississippi, that existing section of I-69 in DeSoto County was already planned and funded pre-69-extension as the MS 304 freeway, hence why it actually came into existance before either the Texas or Indiana extensions.....it didn't take much for MDOT to get that section designated as I-69 since it was already in the pipeline as a new freeway. The only question at the time was whether I-69 would go through Memphis or bypass around.
That makes perfect sense, considering that the MS 304 lanes -- serving, of course, the Tunica gaming/recreational area -- constitute the through portion of the split with I-69; which exits via a TOTSO to (maybe/eventually?) extend SW parallel to US 61. Looks like the stub-end of I-69 was simply grafted onto the existing MS 304 plans.
IIRC (I was stationed in Meridian, MS at the time), it wasn't "grafted onto the existing plans" per se. That MS 713 spur was part of the original freeway plans. But the continuation of MS 304 to US 61 was seen as primary (there were already rumors of a southern Memphis area river crossing, which MS 304 would have theoretically tied into), with MS 713 as a secondary spur intended as a "more direct link" to the Tunica casinos and to encourage the casino traffic to use a route other than US 61. When I-69 came about, it was routed onto the MS 713 spur so as to reduce the amount of US 61 mileage needing Interstate upgrading.
Quote from: froggie on June 03, 2018, 03:46:04 PM
IIRC (I was stationed in Meridian, MS at the time), it wasn't "grafted onto the existing plans" per se. That MS 713 spur was part of the original freeway plans. But the continuation of MS 304 to US 61 was seen as primary (there were already rumors of a southern Memphis area river crossing, which MS 304 would have theoretically tied into), with MS 713 as a secondary spur intended as a "more direct link" to the Tunica casinos and to encourage the casino traffic to use a route other than US 61. When I-69 came about, it was routed onto the MS 713 spur so as to reduce the amount of US 61 mileage needing Interstate upgrading.
It sounds like pre-I-69, MS 713 was slated to turn west to serve the southern portion of the Tunica recreational area -- essentially creating a set of "pincers" intended to ferry gaming traffic to as many of the recreational destinations as possible; I-69 planners simply "appropriated" the 304/713 continuum as a foothold for future plans -- as well as a viable way to get the corridor over to I-55. Tunica interests must absolutely
love the I-269 concept -- a new regional corridor essentially funneling traffic to their doorsteps! Welcome to the realities of Interstate development in the 21st Century!
How far along is AR with its own section of I-69? It looks like the #3 priority here, behind I-49 and I-57. And I'm sure that MS is holding out until the final route has been determined and built. However, at least there's a way for casino traffic to bypass the traffic lights on US 61!
Quote from: Henry on June 04, 2018, 10:35:40 AM
How far along is AR with its own section of I-69? It looks like the #3 priority here, behind I-49 and I-57. And I'm sure that MS is holding out until the final route has been determined and built. However, at least there's a way for casino traffic to bypass the traffic lights on US 61!
The only progress on the AR section of I-69 is the eastern portion of the Monticello bypass (essentially a bypass of existing US 278); this is a SE-quadrant facility which will be initially a 2-lane rural expressway. The only other activity regarding this corridor is identification of a specific routing east from the Monticello section to US 65 near McGehee; apparently that will be similarly constructed over the next decade. As far as any activity at the east (north?) end of the segment -- where the Mississippi River bridge is situated -- it seems any approach segments are not being considered until funding for the bridge itself is identified and secured (can't fault either AR or MS for that; approach work would be premature until bridge details are finalized). Haven't heard a peep about anything veering down into LA toward Shreveport at the west end of the AR segment; that will likely be the last segment on the whole I-69 shooting match to see development, as it doesn't have much independent value as a SIU. At the moment, AR
does have bigger fish to fry with its other nascent Interstate routes whose development is significantly farther advanced.
Quote from: sparker on June 04, 2018, 12:47:22 AM
It sounds like pre-I-69, MS 713 was slated to turn west to serve the southern portion of the Tunica recreational area -- essentially creating a set of "pincers" intended to ferry gaming traffic to as many of the recreational destinations as possible;
It already does that. What now exists between Robinsonville and Hernando is basically what was planned 20 years ago.
Quote from: sparker on June 04, 2018, 02:43:07 PM
Quote from: Henry on June 04, 2018, 10:35:40 AM
How far along is AR with its own section of I-69? It looks like the #3 priority here, behind I-49 and I-57. And I'm sure that MS is holding out until the final route has been determined and built. However, at least there's a way for casino traffic to bypass the traffic lights on US 61!
The only progress on the AR section of I-69 is the eastern portion of the Monticello bypass (essentially a bypass of existing US 278); this is a SE-quadrant facility which will be initially a 2-lane rural expressway. The only other activity regarding this corridor is identification of a specific routing east from the Monticello section to US 65 near McGehee; apparently that will be similarly constructed over the next decade. As far as any activity at the east (north?) end of the segment -- where the Mississippi River bridge is situated -- it seems any approach segments are not being considered until funding for the bridge itself is identified and secured (can't fault either AR or MS for that; approach work would be premature until bridge details are finalized). Haven't heard a peep about anything veering down into LA toward Shreveport at the west end of the AR segment; that will likely be the last segment on the whole I-69 shooting match to see development, as it doesn't have much independent value as a SIU. At the moment, AR does have bigger fish to fry with its other nascent Interstate routes whose development is significantly farther advanced.
They will take I-69 west as far as the intersection of the Monticello Bypass and the south extension of AR-530, the Super 2 version of I-530 south of Pine Bluff.
No land acquisition has taken place between there and El Dorado.
Planning has started for the Shreveport bypass up to the Arkansas state line, but I havent found anything definitive going back east to El Dorado.
Unless oil or diamonds are discovered in one of those SIU's, it will be at least 20 years before anything happens.
Quote from: Henry on June 04, 2018, 10:35:40 AM
How far along is AR with its own section of I-69? It looks like the #3 priority here, behind I-49 and I-57. And I'm sure that MS is holding out until the final route has been determined and built. However, at least there's a way for casino traffic to bypass the traffic lights on US 61!
I do recall seeing that land acquisition from McGehee to the MS river is underway. It is probably relatively cheap to acquire, and shows progress.
Quote from: froggie on June 04, 2018, 03:48:36 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 04, 2018, 12:47:22 AM
It sounds like pre-I-69, MS 713 was slated to turn west to serve the southern portion of the Tunica recreational area -- essentially creating a set of "pincers" intended to ferry gaming traffic to as many of the recreational destinations as possible;
It already does that. What now exists between Robinsonville and Hernando is basically what was planned 20 years ago.
What is interesting here is that except for a single reassurance shield assembly in either direction along the I-69 "stub" (signage shared with I-69) and the approach BGS on WB I-69/MS 304, MS 713 garners nary a mention; its intersections with both US 61 and MS 3 are signed in both directions from both N-S highways simply as "TO I-69" with an east-pointing trailblazer. Between MS 3 and US 61 the 5-lane facility is completely unmarked. Because the MS 304 & 713 freeways were completed ('06) well after the decision to route I-69 over them was made, it appears that MS 713, at least as a signed route, is presently considered superfluous for localized navigation, and that I-69 trailblazer signage is sufficient to funnel traffic out of the casino area and onto the regional freeway network.
As a 7xx series, 713 would under normal circumstances be a hidden route number to begin with. Most MS 7xx routes (as with the 8xx and 9xx ones) are similarly unmarked.
Quote from: froggie on June 04, 2018, 09:52:23 PM
As a 7xx series, 713 would under normal circumstances be a hidden route number to begin with. Most MS 7xx routes (as with the 8xx and 9xx ones) are similarly unmarked.
And yet it's up front sharing space on the I-69 exit sign from westbound MS 304. Go figure! In any case, the previous overhead gantry at that exit (showing 2 lanes exiting to 69/713) sure didn't last long. I suppose, since plans for any further I-69 extension from that area are tentative/speculative at best, maintaining a gantry for a stub-end -- particularly since they restriped the exit for a single lane -- might not be the most cost-effective signage option; a standard exit roadside BGS would suffice for the time being.
From 2013:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1723/27814626277_bc560b43fe.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JnTem2)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1735/27814627217_2d45690516.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JnTeCe)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1758/27814627667_684a1555de.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JnTeKZ)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1757/41965182304_8581cddc3e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26WjwDW)
Wow! State-named shields on BGS's -- not the most common practice. Wonder if this is current MDOT practice, or simply a way to save money (affix stock shield to the signs)? I remember seeing pix of the "END I-69" sign back circa 2006-7; that seems to be the only one sans state name -- likely a holdover from when the facility was opened. In any case, this is the first illustration of the ovehead gantry ahead of the 69/713/304 split (the one just ahead of the overpass); at least the junction is deemed worthy of at least one overhead sign! In any case, nice pix!
The shields on the smaller BGS's might be stock Interstate shields to normally mount directly on reassurance sign posts. I don't know about the larger ones though. At either way, I really detest neutered Interstate highway shields. I totally understand why so many DOT agencies use that method: it makes the numerals just as big as those on plain US highway and state highway markers. Nevertheless the end result on neutered shields if often hideous. Numerals are often crammed into the shield. Some signs literally have the numerals hugging the edge of the shield, which ruins any legibility benefit that would come from the larger numerals. Tight spacing between numerals also harms legibility.
Quote from: bwana39 on August 13, 2020, 07:07:06 PM
Quote
... A Benoit crossing not only provides another 4-lane Interstate grade crossing to more directly connect Shreveport with Memphis, but also provides a possibility of a rail crossing between Memphis and Vicksburg.
A rail component would be a GREAT addition. This said, to the uninformed, a railroad bridge built by government is "supporting private business" and a highway bridge is not. I disagree with that idea as most of the traffic on the highway is business traffic as well. I like rail, I really do. A rail bridge across the Mississippi river here could revitalize the low usage Class-III Columbus and Greenville Line (Most of which is currently out of service). A bridge here adds virtually nothing to to the north/south rail lines that exist. Is there a railroad company or coalition that wants a bridge IN Desha County? I cannot see it. UP has overcapacity in Memphis. A rail bridge is interesting, but is it something the class I railroads want or need?
(above quote from I-69 in MS (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4783.msg2525062#msg2525062) thread)
I'm dusting off this thread to show the old plans for the rail bridge at the Great River Crossing:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg279462#msg279462
BUT, seeing that the plans are close to 25 years old (and the post from AHTD is from 2014) it does not seem to be something the Class I railroads want or need.
The only real cross-river regional RR need would have been to connect the UP line that essentially parallels US 65 and 165 from Pine Bluff via Monroe to Lake Charles, LA, with the rail network in MS to expedite traffic from Pascagoula and Mobile to the UP hub in North Little Rock. While that may have been a priority 15-20 years ago, UP has revamped their network; that line is now being used for slower freights from the TX coast so as not to hinder fast container traffic on their Texas-St. Louis main that takes the more direct route via Little Rock; adding transfers from other lines such as CN (which dominates N-S in MS) wouldn't enhance much of anything. Right now E-W high-priority traffic is handled by KCS from Shreveport to Meridian, MS, and that's not even nearing capacity as of yet; a "relief" line is hardly necessary. So the potential for adding back a rail component to make the bridge more salable just isn't on the horizon.
I think this makes a point. The longer we get away from the plans that were made around the turn of this century, the more we are going to look at their viability. The more we should look at their viability.
If we build this road like it is designed, We go back to the 1930's. How is that? Building a road that hits almost every town. This design is an INTRA-State design.
Quote from: bwana39 on August 14, 2020, 05:31:32 PM
I think this makes a point. The longer we get away from the plans that were made around the turn of this century, the more we are going to look at their viability. The more we should look at their viability.
If we build this road like it is designed, We go back to the 1930's. How is that? Building a road that hits almost every town. This design is an INTRA-State design.
How so? Except for the three towns arrayed along US 278, the I-69 corridor, coming NE from LA, threads between the major SW AR cities (Camden, El Dorado); the only reasons that it follows US 278 as it does are (a) that's the latitude of the proposed Mississippi River bridge, the site selected so it doesn't impinge on the confluence of the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers (which would tie it up in EIS hell for decades!), and (b) Monticello is the site of UAM, the only significant university in the south part of the state (and bending I-69 to serve college towns has been done before in IN -- without the more extreme alignment convolutions seen in IN). Now -- running it up US 79 as the AR congressional delegation wanted back in the '90's would actually have been a "town-to-town" affair (Camden, Pine Bluff, Stuttgart, etc.), right up the old Cotton Belt main line. But one must remember that then-Senator Trent Lott and his buddies got the corridor rerouted so it had considerable mileage in MS (probably hoping to provide not only infrastructure improvement in the Mississippi Delta country but also a sizeable number of construction jobs). Actually, the MS folks wanted it to go down US 61 all the way to Vicksburg/I-20, which would have left AR out in the cold, so a compromise including the new bridge was cobbled together. The only state in "mid-south" that was relatively indifferent to the corridor was LA, although once it was aligned to serve the Shreveport area, they got on board for at least the portion south of I-20 (to, more or less, complete a SE bypass of the city and Barksdale AFB). Haven't heard much about even any preliminary surveys of the portion between I-20 and the AR state line except acknowledgement that it's still under active consideration. Face it -- the center section of the I-69 corridor is a prime example of the proverbial "camel" -- i.e., a horse designed by a committee! No one party got everything they wanted (although AR whined enough and got AR 530 as a consolation prize) -- but the result was something no one is particularly enthused with, so it invariably gets shunted to the back of the priority line. Unlike with TX and IN, there is no
Alliance for I-69/LA, AR, MS, and TN, so no one to consistently browbeat the various states into action. But an
intra-state facility -- hardly, thanks to former Sen. Lott and associates.
As far as the movement of freight is concerned, this country needs another rail crossing over the Mississippi River between Memphis and Baton Rouge. The only one that exists currently is the KCS's crossing in Vicksburg. The bridge is owned by the Warren County Bridge Commission. It is almost 100 years old. One day, it will need to be shut down for either major repairs or complete replacement. What happens then?? More bottlenecking in Memphis & possibly Baton Rouge.
About 40 years ago, there use to be a rail ferry in the Vidalia, LA/Natchez, MS area that shuffled cars across between the IC/ICG & the MP railroads. But that ended when the MP abandoned the line between Vidalia & Tallulah. I'm not sure if the Louisiana Midland ever used it before they died in 1986.
Quote from: cjk374 on August 15, 2020, 07:43:38 AM
As far as the movement of freight is concerned, this country needs another rail crossing over the Mississippi River between Memphis and Baton Rouge.
I might agree with you but again not at Arkansas City. One of the North / South Rail lines here is disused and being repurposed for rails to trails. https://www.traillink.com/trail/delta-heritage-trail-state-park/
Just because you build a bridge, highway, or even rail line does not mean a demand will instantaneously or even gradually develop. A well planned I-69 might lessen the traffic on I-30 / I-40 or maybe even I-20. A redundant route that is no closer and lacks good support services (fuel, food, lodging, etc.) should be a non-starter.
If it is ever built boils down to one variable. If the federal government dedicates a large majority of the costs and Arkansas and Mississippi cannot reprioritize them. In that case, they probably will not leave said money on the table.