News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-69 in MS

Started by Grzrd, June 08, 2011, 11:38:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

abqtraveler

Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 05, 2020, 10:15:18 AM
Just for reference, I'm reposting the map of Future(?) I-69 in Mississippi from the first page of this thread, nine pages and nine years ago...



That map used to be on MDOT's I-69 SIU-11 project website, which is now long gone.
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

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


Stephane Dumas

Quote from: abqtraveler on August 10, 2020, 11:22:32 AM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 05, 2020, 10:15:18 AM
Just for reference, I'm reposting the map of Future(?) I-69 in Mississippi from the first page of this thread, nine pages and nine years ago...



That map used to be on MDOT's I-69 SIU-11 project website, which is now long gone.

Was it that one from what I saw on the Wayback Machine? https://web.archive.org/web/20070709075319/http://www.msdoti69.net/news/index.html

froggie

Quote from: I-55 on August 09, 2020, 02:17:39 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 05, 2020, 08:59:04 PM
Mississippi doesn't even need any new roads like this.

Mississippi's road network is good enough for what it is. The only places that may require attention are Jackson, Gulfport, and Southaven metros. Divided highways connecting major cities, no major traffic problems anywhere in the state, sparse rural highway traffic, and no winter weather like the midwest or northeast to create potholes leave no demands for more new routes. What is I-69 going to do for US-61? Nothing other than raise the speed limit by 5 mph. I consider the signing of I-22 to be the completion of Mississippi's highway network. Until there is a dramatic traffic or population change, things ain't broke, so don't fix em.

Volumes on 49 between Gulfport and Jackson are arguably high enough to warrant systematic improvement.  Perhaps not the entire corridor, but there are lengthy enough segments with high enough traffic to warrant at least limited-access, if not fully-controlled access...especially Gulfport-Wiggins and Magee-Jackson.

Otherwise, I generally agree with your assessment.

Grzrd

In this article about the Greenville Bypass, some have speculated about changing the routing of I-69 to cross the Mississippi at Greenville:

QuoteSome have speculated the completion of the bypass might be an opportunity for the re-routing of I-69 through Greenville instead of at the currently planned river crossing in Benoit.
Crossing in Benoit would require the construction of a new bridge.
"The department hasn't really talked about a change in the routing of I-69,"  Simmons said. "We want to get this project finished for its own sake."

https://www.ddtonline.com/front-page-slideshow/construction-greenville-bypass-will-take-year-or-longer-pick-back#sthash.AOXJPgzw.dpbs

I-55

Quote from: Grzrd on August 12, 2020, 10:45:24 AM
In this article about the Greenville Bypass, some have speculated about changing the routing of I-69 to cross the Mississippi at Greenville:

QuoteSome have speculated the completion of the bypass might be an opportunity for the re-routing of I-69 through Greenville instead of at the currently planned river crossing in Benoit.
Crossing in Benoit would require the construction of a new bridge.
"The department hasn't really talked about a change in the routing of I-69,"  Simmons said. "We want to get this project finished for its own sake."

https://www.ddtonline.com/front-page-slideshow/construction-greenville-bypass-will-take-year-or-longer-pick-back#sthash.AOXJPgzw.dpbs

I think the author of the article failed to recognize that Arkansas has a plan to route 69 north of Greenville and has already begun construction. Routing 69 through Greenville would be a mistake because the route becomes far less direct between Shreveport and Southaven. If the route goes through Greenville AND on the Monticello Bypass, then it becomes 30 miles LONGER to take I-69 than it would on I-40/I-30/I-49 (based off Google Maps estimation). If I-69 is ever going to bring development to the region it needs to be attractive for longer distance travel and trade, otherwise it will be an empty route with little chance of development. If Greenville really wants an interstate, they should opt for an x69 spur and swing it by the airport. US-82 has enough capacity to handle traffic form the east, they should finish the bypass, and a spur checks the box for an interstate.

Lest we forget the money issues Mississippi has, there needs to be plenty of federal money for this to happen, because as I've said, Mississippi will not do anything until Arkansas' I-69 is knocking on the doorstep.
Let's Go Purdue Basketball Whoosh

Stephane Dumas

Quote from: froggie on August 10, 2020, 06:12:46 PM
Quote from: I-55 on August 09, 2020, 02:17:39 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 05, 2020, 08:59:04 PM
Mississippi doesn't even need any new roads like this.

Mississippi's road network is good enough for what it is. The only places that may require attention are Jackson, Gulfport, and Southaven metros. Divided highways connecting major cities, no major traffic problems anywhere in the state, sparse rural highway traffic, and no winter weather like the midwest or northeast to create potholes leave no demands for more new routes. What is I-69 going to do for US-61? Nothing other than raise the speed limit by 5 mph. I consider the signing of I-22 to be the completion of Mississippi's highway network. Until there is a dramatic traffic or population change, things ain't broke, so don't fix em.

Volumes on 49 between Gulfport and Jackson are arguably high enough to warrant systematic improvement.  Perhaps not the entire corridor, but there are lengthy enough segments with high enough traffic to warrant at least limited-access, if not fully-controlled access...especially Gulfport-Wiggins and Magee-Jackson.

Otherwise, I generally agree with your assessment.

Speaking of Wiggins and Magee, I'm surprised they haven't upgraded these gaps of US-49 into freeways around these towns since they have service roads along US-49 who could be upgraded into one-way service roads Texas style.

bwana39



Quote from: I-55 on August 12, 2020, 12:41:44 PM
If the route goes through Greenville AND on the Monticello Bypass, then it becomes 30 miles LONGER to take I-69 than it would on I-40/I-30/I-49 (based off Google Maps estimation).

Arkansas has "sort of" started some work. Nothing that is not needed if I-69 and the great river bridge never happen.
This said from around ElDorado to to Benoit MS is around around 140 miles going through McGehee with the great river bridge.

This is very similar to the distance routing on US -82 through  Greenville to Benoit.  It actually is CLOSER going this way to Cleveland MS.   

That leaves the Monticelo bypass hanging.  It is a two lane road without grade separation. It is a bypass to get the heavy trucks out of downtown. It is NOT an orphaned interstate segment.

Sure there would be about 30 more miles of I-530 to have them join one another, but that still is far less  than the cost of just the Arkansas portion of the bridge cost. (Actually doing it this way only adds about ten total miles

The Great River Bridge is an afront to every taxpayer in the US.  If ANYONE can show me where building it makes any economic sense outside Arkansas County, Desha County , and Drew County Arkansas whose TOTAL populations added together is around 50,000.

National transportation is just as well served by following US82 to Greenville and 61 / 278 northward. Two bridges across the Mississippi River about thirty miles apart are not justified in this rural area.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: bwana39 on August 12, 2020, 10:07:03 PM


Quote from: I-55 on August 12, 2020, 12:41:44 PM
If the route goes through Greenville AND on the Monticello Bypass, then it becomes 30 miles LONGER to take I-69 than it would on I-40/I-30/I-49 (based off Google Maps estimation).

Arkansas has "sort of" started some work. Nothing that is not needed if I-69 and the great river bridge never happen.
This said from around ElDorado to to Benoit MS is around around 140 miles going through McGehee with the great river bridge.

This is very similar to the distance routing on US -82 through  Greenville to Benoit.  It actually is CLOSER going this way to Cleveland MS.   

That leaves the Monticelo bypass hanging.  It is a two lane road without grade separation. It is a bypass to get the heavy trucks out of downtown. It is NOT an orphaned interstate segment.

Sure there would be about 30 more miles of I-530 to have them join one another, but that still is far less  than the cost of just the Arkansas portion of the bridge cost. (Actually doing it this way only adds about ten total miles

The Great River Bridge is an afront to every taxpayer in the US.  If ANYONE can show me where building it makes any economic sense outside Arkansas County, Desha County , and Drew County Arkansas whose TOTAL populations added together is around 50,000.

National transportation is just as well served by following US82 to Greenville and 61 / 278 northward. Two bridges across the Mississippi River about thirty miles apart are not justified in this rural area.

Here here, that is a perfectly good newer bridge. Extend 230(or I 57) to the LA line on down to Bastrop, Monroe, Alexandra.

I strongly believe in running a parallel interstate down both sides of the Mississippi in case of The Big One. Growing up on top of the New Madrid  does that. You lose that whe I-55 jumps across at Memphis. I-57 to at least Monroe addresses that. Right is interesting that it picks up.where I-55 would leave off and it running just west of the ridge  in NEA.

Any new bridge should be around Memphis to replace the Old Bridge and at least create 3/4s of a loop around Memphis proper and possible prompt more economic activity on the Arkansas side. It should damn well include rail. If Memphisnpullsnoffnthat proposed container port at 5he old powerplant, maybe run it over at Presidents Island.  I suggest it go from Lehi to near the current terminus of I- 69 in Tunica it is relief route around Memphis when BLM shuts a bridge or other events that close one of the bridges. Even I-40 could then circle south and up I-269 back to I-40 in case of such events. Idealmworld there would be two new Memphis Bridges. The other connecting to I-69 in  Millington and I-555 at Turrell. I'm a fan of including US 412 as an extension of I-22 to Tulsa via I-555

Anthony_JK

Quote from: bwana39 on August 12, 2020, 10:07:03 PM


Quote from: I-55 on August 12, 2020, 12:41:44 PM
If the route goes through Greenville AND on the Monticello Bypass, then it becomes 30 miles LONGER to take I-69 than it would on I-40/I-30/I-49 (based off Google Maps estimation).

Arkansas has "sort of" started some work. Nothing that is not needed if I-69 and the great river bridge never happen.
This said from around ElDorado to to Benoit MS is around around 140 miles going through McGehee with the great river bridge.

This is very similar to the distance routing on US -82 through  Greenville to Benoit.  It actually is CLOSER going this way to Cleveland MS.   

That leaves the Monticelo bypass hanging.  It is a two lane road without grade separation. It is a bypass to get the heavy trucks out of downtown. It is NOT an orphaned interstate segment.

Sure there would be about 30 more miles of I-530 to have them join one another, but that still is far less  than the cost of just the Arkansas portion of the bridge cost. (Actually doing it this way only adds about ten total miles

The Great River Bridge is an afront to every taxpayer in the US.  If ANYONE can show me where building it makes any economic sense outside Arkansas County, Desha County , and Drew County Arkansas whose TOTAL populations added together is around 50,000.

National transportation is just as well served by following US82 to Greenville and 61 / 278 northward. Two bridges across the Mississippi River about thirty miles apart are not justified in this rural area.

No, it's not an affront, and yes, the Great River Bridge is justifiable.

There is no crossing of the Mississippi between Helena (US 49) and Greenville (US 82). 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.

I'd say that upgrading the Delta region with improved transportation is not a waste whatsoever.

If you are going to divert I-69 down to Greenville (or eliminate Tenaha-Shreveport-El Dorado-Monticello-Benoit-Cleveland-Tunica entirely and divert all national I-69/I-369 traffic through I-30/I-40 or an upgraded US 82/US 61), you might as well go full YOLO and upgrade all of US 61 through Vicksburg and Natchez down to Baton Rouge (via I-110). Or, simply extend I-530/AR 530 (more like I-51) down to Lake Charles through Alexandria and Monroe, and let I-10 through LC and Beaumont carry some of the I-69 relief.

In the meantime, though, there is still a full commitment nationally for I-69 to be built as planned and as set. The Great River Bridge, however offensive to some folks here, is still a part of that corridor. Just get the money and build it. The Greenville Bypass does not need I-69 to defend its purpose, and US 82 is fine as a 4-lane with bypasses.



froggie

Quote from: Anthony_JKthere is still a full commitment nationally for I-69 to be built as planned and as set.

I'd argue this is not the case due to the lack of a funding plan.

rte66man

Quote from: froggie on August 13, 2020, 07:41:34 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JKthere is still a full commitment nationally for I-69 to be built as planned and as set.

I'd argue this is not the case due to the lack of a funding plan.

I agree with Froggie. I hear a lot from certain regional groups but nothing on a national basis from any group that has the influence to make it happen. I know there are certain lobbying groups but they don't seen to be able to get a NATIONAL commitment from the Feds that I've seen.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

sparker

Quote from: rte66man on August 13, 2020, 09:17:08 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 13, 2020, 07:41:34 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JKthere is still a full commitment nationally for I-69 to be built as planned and as set.

I'd argue this is not the case due to the lack of a funding plan.

I agree with Froggie. I hear a lot from certain regional groups but nothing on a national basis from any group that has the influence to make it happen. I know there are certain lobbying groups but they don't seen to be able to get a NATIONAL commitment from the Feds that I've seen.

Quite right.  It seems the federal approach is to get the corridors legislatively established -- which they've had no problems doing (there are about 90 HPC's right now with a handful attached to Interstate designation) over the years through periodic "omnibus" bills from  1991's ISTEA down through 2005's SAFETEA-LU (each of which established multiple corridors) and more recent sporadic efforts -- and also via the process of simply using the yearly USDOT outlay legislation to add or append corridors thusly.   But like with everything post-1973, there's no funding attached; the corridors are simply a place for future funding to be applied -- a process that requires efforts to do so enduring a tortuous path through both Congress and local jurisdictions trying to cobble together a funding package acceptable to all. 

Did some basic arithmetic here -- if the 1500 miles added to the Interstate System in 1968 were to be repeated once per decade (in '78, '88, '98, '08, and finally 2018), we'd have about 50K miles -- all chargeable as per the original 1956 legislation -- rather than the approximately 46+K out there today -- and it, except for the last batch, would likely be in service today.  And remember that that 1500 miles was whittled down from an original 4500 by a prioritization of Vietnam-era military expenditures -- so it conceivably could be more except for the "block grant" efforts in '72-'73 intended, in a back-handed way, to effectively curtail Federal initiation of expenditures.  Thus any manifestations of "national effort" have been truncated in scope, limited to the compilation of a series of "wish lists" -- sort of the public-sector version of "Go Fund Me" pools -- but with a bounded set of donors (mainly Congress) who eke out funds for political expediency rather than a broader view of a comprehensive and ever-changing transportation environment.  And that now means that other modes compete for those same funds, often on a mutually exclusionary basis (which may be rational regarding urban settings but a bit dicey when it comes to intercity/interregional corridor concepts).  Currently it doesn't seem likely that any comprehensive and adequately funded Interstate-related package will see the light of day for the foreseeable future.  The Interstate System is now 64 years old -- and, with apologies to Sir Paul McCartney, it seems to be up in the air whether at that age it's considered to be either needed or fed! 

bwana39

Quote

There is no crossing of the Mississippi between Helena (US 49) and Greenville (US 82). 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?

Quote

If you are going to divert I-69 down to Greenville (or eliminate Tenaha-Shreveport-El Dorado-Monticello-Benoit-Cleveland-Tunica entirely and divert all national I-69/I-369 traffic through I-30/I-40 or an upgraded US 82/US 61),

Diverting "DOWN to Greenville"... No!  simply just not go UP to Monticello. The mileage from West of El Dorado AR  to Cleveland MS following US-82 and US 61/278  is the same MAYBE a little bit closer than the proposed (some would argue approved) I-69 route using the Great River Bridge.   The point is not against the freeway, it is against the bridge. I MIGHT be convinced if a railroad component were added, but simply I don't see that happening. When the costs add up, that will be the first thing they cut.

Quote
...A Benoit crossing not only provides another 4-lane Interstate grade crossing to more directly connect Shreveport with Memphis..
It is ANOTHER Crossing, but it is not more direct. Going through Monticello, the road actually has a southerly (northbound) route out of Monticello (even on a new more direct routing.)  While this is near to as far north as you can put it without having to cross the White and Ouachita rivers, it is by no means direct. Direct would cross them both and cross the Mississippi river NORTH of Helena. I will agree that some towns will miss out on I-69, but  That is supposed to be the point. Go fairly straight from point to point.   The Arkansas  part of this road evidently DOES NOT.

The simple fact is using the existing bridge at Greenville can be accomplished without adding any distance to the route.

Quote
Just get the money and build it.
I think I will just get the money and buy a Ferrari?

Quote
There is no crossing of the Mississippi between Helena (US 49) and Greenville (US 82)

Yes between US-49 crossing and US-82 / 278 Crossing is a little more than the average of ~70 miles.  That said, the extended distance is as much because of the confluence of the Arkansas & White Rivers as anything else. From the Arkansas side, the Charles W Dean bridge would not make the trip to Mississippi closer for much of anyone outside of the said same Arkansas, Desha, and Drew counties in Arkansas. 

The direct route from Minden would have been to follow US-79  more or less to Mariana AR  then cross the river.


Here is the problem with all of this. You cannot incrementally build a $1B+ bridge.  Arkansas and Mississippi cannot afford the bridge.  Sure in a perfect world, you have a bridge every 30 miles. That isn't the case on the SULPHUR River much less the Mississippi.






Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sprjus4

^

A southern corridor following US-82 and the existing southern bridge would be around the same mileage as the current proposal, minus the need to construct a new bridge.

It would require an additional 30 - 35 miles of I-530 construction though to meet I-69, which could easily be at least a billion dollars.

One option to fund construction of a new bridge could be tolling, but that could easily divert through traffic towards the I-30 / I-40 routing, and it likely wouldn't be sufficient to pay itself off. It could be funded with bonds to be repaid by an increased gas tax, which could overall help to accelerate its construction through Arkansas and Mississippi, but the likelihood of those states approving any such measure is likely moot. Until they decide to get to pass such increases or if a major government spending program is authorized to accelerate projects such as I-69, we probably won't be seeing much construction anytime soon except super-2 segments around towns, which is a good start with a limited budget. It secures right of way and a path for future 4 laning and freeway efforts.

sparker

Quote from: rte66man on August 13, 2020, 09:17:08 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 13, 2020, 07:41:34 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JKthere is still a full commitment nationally for I-69 to be built as planned and as set.

I'd argue this is not the case due to the lack of a funding plan.

I agree with Froggie. I hear a lot from certain regional groups but nothing on a national basis from any group that has the influence to make it happen. I know there are certain lobbying groups but they don't seen to be able to get a NATIONAL commitment from the Feds that I've seen.

A large part of the problem is that I-69 is for all intents & purposes the proverbial camel -- i.e., a horse assembled by a committee.  The corridor has two major backing groups with disparate interests -- one in SW Indiana, the other based in Houston, TX.  Each is principally concerned with their sections of the corridor as extended SIU's (not to be confused with the 28 separate SIU's in the corridor's definition).  The intervening states essentially had it shoved down their throats, with KY taking the most practical approach and simply deploying it over their existing parkway system, with what funds can be gleaned used for upgrades.  Otherwise, TN is moving at what could be described as a glacial pace with their section, while MS built their short SIU simply to reach casino territory (aside from I-269, which was a regionally needed project).  And precious little is happening along the long-derided center section save half of the Monticello bypass and planning for an extension to US 65.  And parts of 530 (which seems to draw more AR interest than any other I-69-related segment)!  That's simply due to the lack of any sense of urgency between Tenaha, TX and Fulton, KY; it seems the prevailing sentiment is that "it'll get done when it gets done".  Aside from the DOT's, most of which likely consider it just another unfunded mandate, there's no packs of boosters, official or ad hoc, clamoring for more corridor mileage in their bailiwicks.  Thus, being largely out of the public eye and the hoopla surrounding more immediaely useful corridor sections, its priority is well down any state's agenda   

Bobby5280

I really dislike the idea of routing I-69 clear down to the US-82 bridge in Greenville. It makes the I-69 route between Memphis and Shreveport more of a pointless, crooked L-shape. It would go really well with the dopey L-shaped route in Kentucky. If I-69 used the US-82 bridge then the I-69 route might as well go to Monroe rather than Shreveport.

I have nearly zero enthusiasm for the I-69 leg between Shreveport and Memphis. Even Memphis to Indianapolis is a pretty big dud of a corridor. Indiana will finish its portion of I-69 soon. The bulk of the remaining activity for I-69 in the foreseeable future will be down in Texas. They might as well give the I-69 routes in Texas a different number (or numbers).

bwana39

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2020, 02:37:42 PM
I really dislike the idea of routing I-69 clear down to the US-82 bridge in Greenville. It makes the I-69 route between Memphis and Shreveport more of a pointless, crooked L-shape. It would go really well with the dopey L-shaped route in Kentucky. If I-69 used the US-82 bridge then the I-69 route might as well go to Monroe rather than Shreveport.

OK, I kinda agree with you BUT!!!

The Routing at Arkansas City is the same shape. It just goes further north in Arkansas before it goes east to Mississippi.  The only real difference is the Arkansas City route passes adjacent a few more towns and requires a new bridge. The US 82 route is only about 30 miles further south. As to "going down" I certainly am not advocating Eldorado to Monticello to McGehee and then down to Lake Village. 

My personal preference is crossing the Mississippi north of the White River.  I also understand that the additional bridging the White and Arkansas Rivers has significant cost as well. 

As to Monroe: I-20 cannot support a duplex from Shreveport (or anywhere really. It is over capacity as it is.)
While I-49 went cross country from Alexandria to Shreveport it was a real hurricane escape route. There is not urgency to run it cross country (IE Mansfield to Jonesboro to Monroe). Shreveport is a population center. Shreveport-Bossier wants / needs a Red River Bridge at the port.  Monroe might be moderately straighter for either an Arkansas City or a Lake Village Crossing, getting it to Monroe was ruled out early.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2020, 02:37:42 PM
I really dislike the idea of routing I-69 clear down to the US-82 bridge in Greenville. It makes the I-69 route between Memphis and Shreveport more of a pointless, crooked L-shape. It would go really well with the dopey L-shaped route in Kentucky. If I-69 used the US-82 bridge then the I-69 route might as well go to Monroe rather than Shreveport.

I have nearly zero enthusiasm for the I-69 leg between Shreveport and Memphis. Even Memphis to Indianapolis is a pretty big dud of a corridor. Indiana will finish its portion of I-69 soon. The bulk of the remaining activity for I-69 in the foreseeable future will be down in Texas. They might as well give the I-69 routes in Texas a different number (or numbers).

One of the more negative aspects of a possibly US 82 routing is that it's just too damn close to I-20 -- almost to the point of being, in long-range terms, functional duplication of service.   But it's the presence of that relatively new and physically appropriate US 82 Mississippi River bridge that seems to have prompted much of the speculation of that route as an alternative to building the "Great River" bridge some 30-odd miles north.  In this case, it's too little, too late.  The only way this could be possibly useful as a I-69 crossing would be if (a) the MS section of the corridor would be brought south to and across the bridge, then heading west along US 82 to about Hamburg, where (b) AR 530 would be extended south to meet it there.  Then (c) the corridor could turn south on US 425 and US 165 to I-20 at Monroe, multiplexing west from there to Shreveport (with appropriate widening/expansion); the presently proposed I-69 corridor would functionally cease to exist in AR while the extant portion of the Monticello bypass becomes a local server.

But all that is, of course, speculative to the point of being pretty much fictional.  While it does leave some corridor segments within AR, and the Monticello university still gets served by the extended AR 530, the likelihood of AR entertaining such a change at this late date is miniscule.  It's probable that the center leg of I-69 will eventually be fully developed -- but that will lag behind the TX and Memphis>Indy segments by decades. 

sprjus4

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2020, 02:37:42 PM
I really dislike the idea of routing I-69 clear down to the US-82 bridge in Greenville. It makes the I-69 route between Memphis and Shreveport more of a pointless, crooked L-shape.
He already explained a routing down there would follow the US-82 corridor fully, it would not divert back north. I drew a conceptual southern route in Google My Maps compared to the current proposal, and the distance is around the same.

The only downside is having to build another ~30 miles of I-530 which may make it more worthwhile to build the current proposal and new bridge.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2020, 02:37:42 PM
It would go really well with the dopey L-shaped route in Kentucky. If I-69 used the US-82 bridge then the I-69 route might as well go to Monroe rather than Shreveport.
Well, what were they supposed to do? Build 70-80 miles of new terrain freeway for a couple billion dollars just to shave off 15-20 miles when there's already around 100 miles of existing freeway that adequately handles the traffic? Using existing segments and reducing new construction and costs while potentially adding some mileage overall isn't a new concept and was even used in the original interstate system. Look at I-64 in West Virginia. I-90 in Wyoming. I-65 in Alabama.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2020, 02:37:42 PM
I have nearly zero enthusiasm for the I-69 leg between Shreveport and Memphis. Even Memphis to Indianapolis is a pretty big dud of a corridor. Indiana will finish its portion of I-69 soon. The bulk of the remaining activity for I-69 in the foreseeable future will be down in Texas. They might as well give the I-69 routes in Texas a different number (or numbers).
Tennessee is pushing ahead, albeit slowly. As gaps are filled in, I-69 will likely be a continuous interstate from Port Huron, MI to Dyersburg, TN by the end of this decade, with potentially upgrade work beginning south towards Memphis.

The benefits of the interstate cannot be reaped until its fully complete. It would provide an alternate and similar routing to congested segments of I-40, I-30, I-55, I-57, and I-70, along with a needed interstate connection between I-20 and I-30 (via I-369) and Houston, Corpus Christi, and the Rio Grande Valley.

It's been questioned on this forum before why US-61 in Mississippi, for example, needs an interstate upgrade when it's an adequate 4 lane highway. It's not necessarily about improving that highway, but it's the bigger picture. Not constructing an interstate between Memphis and Clarksdale, but rather an interstate between Port Huron, MI and Brownsville, TX. The traffic demands don't exist today, but a completed interstate would show otherwise. If you completed all segments of interstate except, for example, that portion, traffic volumes would likely increase as people begin to use that route over I-40 / I-30. Perhaps completing Arkansas' and Louisiana's portions of I-69 will be necessary for Mississippi to push ahead with its segment.

bwana39

Quote
One of the more negative aspects of a possibly US 82 routing is that it's just too damn close to I-20 -- almost to the point of being, in long-range terms, functional duplication of service.   But it's the presence of that relatively new and physically appropriate US 82 Mississippi River bridge that seems to have prompted much of the speculation of that route as an alternative to building the "Great River" bridge some 30-odd miles north.

I agree  fully  I-20 and a US-82 routing  are a little close as is the proposed Mississippi I-69 segment  to  I-55. (the distance between I-69 at Cleveland to I-55 at Grenada would be about 55 miles.   It tapers closer as it goes north.)

While as someone said, Trent Lott wanted the pork for Mississippi. The current funding schemes don't give us the free ride we had for decades. It makes the states make hard choices.  Is Interstate 69 in mississippi something Mississippi is going to make a hard choice for?

My real issue with any of this is during the next forty years, there will probably only be one new bridge built across the  Mississippi River in Mississippi. Does it go in this rural area linking two mostly duplicative stretches of road or should it go in Northwest Mississippi linking the southern suburbs of Memphis?

As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sparker

Quote from: bwana39 on August 15, 2020, 07:30:48 PM
As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.

That N-S section of the I-69 "cluster" seems to garner prioritization from ADOT and its handlers, since it links the two major cities in the center of the state (LR, Pine Bluff) down to South Arkansas; the state is certainly taking advantage of their "consolation prize" re the loss of the Dickey Split routing.  And I agree that if plans are afoot to extend it down into LA, there will likely be pressure to make it a 2di -- such would possibly attract more LA interest that an overlong 3di based on an trunk interstate not even serving that state.  And an extension of I-57 could be sold to the powers that be as a singular or even direct Chicago-Louisiana conduit.  I think that if such an extension ever comes to pass the I-57 designation is a slam dunk.   

Bobby5280

Quote from: sprjus4Well, what were they supposed to do? Build 70-80 miles of new terrain freeway for a couple billion dollars just to shave off 15-20 miles when there's already around 100 miles of existing freeway that adequately handles the traffic?

What are they supposed to do? My answer: at this point they might as well just build out the Texas I-69 system to Texarkana and then use I-30 and I-40 instead. Add more lanes to those routes if need be. They're far more straight and direct. Pull the plug on I-69 in LA, AR and MS. It's a waste of money.

Also, "100 miles of existing freeway"? Where? Is that in reference to US-61? IIRC, the I-69 route in MS will still require a good bit of new terrain routing. It can't just all be plopped onto the existing US-61 ROW. It's not wide enough in various places and has a decent number of businesses and homes built right up next to it.

If it was up to me, I'd have I-69 cross the Mississippi River up by Tunica and have I-69 run diagonally across Southern Arkansas toward Shreveport from there. But that much more direct route would involve additional bridges over the White and Arkansas Rivers, which is why the Benoit-McGehee area was chosen for an I-69 crossing. It's just south of the confluence of those two rivers into the Mississippi. Nevertheless, a Mississippi River bridge by Tunica is badly needed. The I-55 bridge over the Mississippi in Memphis totally sucks. And the I-40 bridge isn't much better. That kind of makes the Great River Bridge look like a wasteful extravagance.

sprjus4

#247
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2020, 12:53:03 PM
What are they supposed to do? My answer: at this point they might as well just build out the Texas I-69 system to Texarkana and then use I-30 and I-40 instead. Add more lanes to those routes if need be. They're far more straight and direct. Pull the plug on I-69 in LA, AR and MS. It's a waste of money.
The proposed I-69 routing between Memphis and Tenaha is around the same distance that the proposed I-369, I-30, and I-40 are.

Traffic following I-30 and I-40 from Memphis towards Little Rock, Dallas-Fort Worth, Fort Smith, Oklahoma City, etc. would continue using that route while traffic heading south along the I-69 corridor would be diverted off of I-30 and I-40 onto I-69 and even if carrying as low as 20,000 - 30,000 AADT, that's still less traffic on I-30 and I-40, especially trucks heading south towards Houston, Corpus Christi, Laredo, San Antonio, Brownsville, etc.

Distance won't be a competitive factor as they're the same for both routes (if complete). It's a factor of where traffic is destined to.

As for money, widening I-30 and I-40 has costs too. It isn't free. Over 200 miles of widening required, 400+ lane miles if you're adding 1 lane in each direction, and up to 800+ lane miles if you're adding 2 lanes in each direction. Not cheap. Easily over $2 billion, with all the costs pressed on Arkansas. With I-69, it's largely split between Arkansas and Mississippi.

The federal government needs to get their game together and resume the process of providing significant federal funding towards projects of these natures, and really towards new interstate corridors and improvements / widenings on existing corridors. This would involve increasing the federal gas tax which should've happened decades ago.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2020, 12:53:03 PM
Also, "100 miles of existing freeway"? Where?
Pennyrile Pkwy, Western Kentucky Pkwy, I-24.

You called the routing in Kentucky "crooked", and while this may be the case due to the location of existing infrastructure, why would they spend billions of dollars just to shave off 15-20 miles on an already adequate routing just to build a new terrain routing along the US-60 corridor?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2020, 12:53:03 PM
Is that in reference to US-61? IIRC, the I-69 route in MS will still require a good bit of new terrain routing. It can't just all be plopped onto the existing US-61 ROW. It's not wide enough in various places and has a decent number of businesses and homes built right up next to it.
I never was referring to US-61. US-61 will require parts built on new location, other upgrade, to bring it to full interstate standards. Most of the route is not freeway except a couple bypasses.

edwaleni

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 16, 2020, 01:10:38 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2020, 12:53:03 PM
What are they supposed to do? My answer: at this point they might as well just build out the Texas I-69 system to Texarkana and then use I-30 and I-40 instead. Add more lanes to those routes if need be. They're far more straight and direct. Pull the plug on I-69 in LA, AR and MS. It's a waste of money.
The proposed I-69 routing between Memphis and Tenaha is around the same distance that the proposed I-369, I-30, and I-40 are.

Traffic following I-30 and I-40 from Memphis towards Little Rock, Dallas-Fort Worth, Fort Smith, Oklahoma City, etc. would continue using that route while traffic heading south along the I-69 corridor would be diverted off of I-30 and I-40 onto I-69 and even if carrying as low as 20,000 - 30,000 AADT, that's still less traffic on I-30 and I-40, especially trucks heading south towards Houston, Corpus Christi, Laredo, San Antonio, Brownsville, etc.

Distance won't be a competitive factor as they're the same for both routes (if complete). It's a factor of where traffic is destined to.

As for money, widening I-30 and I-40 has costs too. It isn't free. Over 200 miles of widening required, 400+ lane miles if you're adding 1 lane in each direction, and up to 800+ lane miles if you're adding 2 lanes in each direction. Not cheap. Easily over $2 billion, with all the costs pressed on Arkansas. With I-69, it's largely split between Arkansas and Mississippi.

The federal government needs to get their game together and resume the process of providing significant federal funding towards projects of these natures, and really towards new interstate corridors and improvements / widenings on existing corridors. This would involve increasing the federal gas tax which should've happened decades ago.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2020, 12:53:03 PM
Also, "100 miles of existing freeway"? Where?
Pennyrile Pkwy, Western Kentucky Pkwy, I-24.

You called the routing in Kentucky "crooked", and while this may be the case due to the location of existing infrastructure, why would they spend billions of dollars just to shave off 15-20 miles on an already adequate routing just to build a new terrain routing along the US-60 corridor?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2020, 12:53:03 PM
Is that in reference to US-61? IIRC, the I-69 route in MS will still require a good bit of new terrain routing. It can't just all be plopped onto the existing US-61 ROW. It's not wide enough in various places and has a decent number of businesses and homes built right up next to it.
I never was referring to US-61. US-61 will require parts built on new location, other upgrade, to bring it to full interstate standards. Most of the route is not freeway except a couple bypasses.

As I noted in another thread. It's not always about how many miles on the certain route.

There is also capacity and resiliency. There can be many routes from A to B, all with the same miles.

But if one route goes out of service for an extended period of time, that capacity has to be absorbed somewhere.

If looking at routes regionally, one route may provide the miles and the capacity, but has no alternative if it fails for whatever reason.

Clearly there are routes that even if pushed for commercial reasons may also have regional or military goals as well.

I think everyone on these boards could find a route that seems completely irrational at first blush and then later discover it served a purpose above just simply supplying a safe way to travel.

MikieTimT

Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2020, 07:54:51 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 15, 2020, 07:30:48 PM
As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.

That N-S section of the I-69 "cluster" seems to garner prioritization from ADOT and its handlers, since it links the two major cities in the center of the state (LR, Pine Bluff) down to South Arkansas; the state is certainly taking advantage of their "consolation prize" re the loss of the Dickey Split routing.  And I agree that if plans are afoot to extend it down into LA, there will likely be pressure to make it a 2di -- such would possibly attract more LA interest that an overlong 3di based on an trunk interstate not even serving that state.  And an extension of I-57 could be sold to the powers that be as a singular or even direct Chicago-Louisiana conduit.  I think that if such an extension ever comes to pass the I-57 designation is a slam dunk.   

I think that Arkansas, much like Texas with I-369, hedged their bets knowing the struggle to fund and complete I-69 would be in the middle stretch, so Arkansas puts the emphasis on what serves its needs without having to involve Louisiana and Mississippi, which are just as broke, if not more so.  Trouble is, I-30/I-40 East in Arkansas will be unbearable if I-369 gets finished before a 3x3 upgrade of I-30/I-40 East.



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