News:

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

Main Menu

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

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

Previous topic - Next topic

bugo

What segments of I-69 are completed in Arkansas?


AHTD

Currently we are constructing the eastern portion of the Monticello bypass. From U.S. Highway 425 to U.S. Highway 278. We are constructing the first two lanes of the ultimate four-lane facility. See this map:

http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/monticello-bypass.png
Travel and construction information available at www.idrivearkansas.com

AHTD

Quote from: Grzrd on April 24, 2014, 12:18:27 AM
Although the recent good news about progress on I-49 in Arkansas is dominating recent news coverage, this April 21 article reports that the Southeast Arkansas Intermodal Facility Authority Board wants the Arkansas Congressional delegation and the Arkansas Highway Commission to be more aggressive in seeking funding for I-69 and AR 530/Future I-530:

Quote
During the monthly meeting of the Southeast Arkansas Intermodal Facility Authority Board April 16th conducted in Monticello ....
The meeting concluded with a general discussion about the need to see progress made on the I-530 and I-69 interstate highway projects.  Intermodal Chairman John Lipton taled at lenth about the need for the Arkansas Congressional delegation to work to secure federal funding to get both projects moving.  He made the point that without federal assistance neither would ever be completed.  Nita McDaniel, a board member representing Monticello, voiced her concern that the Arkansas Highway Commission needs to be more aggressive in pushing for both projects.

Unfortunately, the federal money fairy does not seem to have much wherewithal at the moment .....


This does seem to be the case, however 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
Travel and construction information available at www.idrivearkansas.com

Grzrd

#103
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

AHTD, thanks for posting the pamphlet!

On the "Representative Corridor" page, shouldn't SIU 14 in AR/LA be the yellow color since FHWA has issued a Record of Decision?:

http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69_SIUs_14_and_15/I-69%20SIU%2014/I-69%20SIU%2014%20Signed%20ROD%20%2004-27-2012.pdf

Changing that would help the Congressional members demonstrate that a Record of Decision has been issued for every proposed mile of I-69 in Arkansas.

Similarly, several sections of I-69 in Texas have been approved and are open to traffic; they should have the same purple color as SIU 10 in Mississippi. The sections that are open are listed on this page:

http://www.i69texasalliance.com/

Showing the "purple" in Texas should do nothing but help the case for Arkansas.

I know these are small details, but it tends to be easier to obtain funding if you have good visual representations of any type of progress.

edit

Also, SIU 15 in LA has a Final EIS that has been issued since the Draft EIS:

http://www.i69dotd.com/FEIS.htm

thefro

The date says Feb 2012 on the I-69 representative coordinator map, so that's why it's out of date.

Other changes
1) SIU 3 in Indiana should show "open" all the way to where the 3 circle is
2) Most of SIU 4 should probably be green or "open" since I-164 is already approved to be re-designated I-69 in the fall.
3) SIU 5 should probably be green.

All sorts of stuff going on in Texas as well.

Mr. Hughes

#105
 
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf

[/quote]


I-69 in Arkansas is supposed to connect Memphis, TN to Shreveport, LA, correct?

I-40, I-30, I-49 in AR, & I-49 in LA under construction also connects Memphis, TN to Shreveport, LA, correct?

Perhaps it's been discussed before, but why the need for I-69 in MS & AR? Looking at the map in this document just reminds me of something I don't understand.

Furthermore, minus the US 67 section between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO, Indianapolis is already connected to Shreveport. Can somebody explained to me what I'm missing? Seems like I-69 shouldn't be a high priority right now, especially south of Memphis.

thefro

Quote from: Mr. Hughes on May 02, 2014, 02:06:28 PMFurthermore, minus the US 67 section between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO, Indianapolis is already connected to Shreveport. Can somebody explained to me what I'm missing? Seems like I-69 shouldn't be a high priority right now, especially south of Memphis.

Evansville, IN, a decent-sized city in Indiana (along with several small towns in Indiana like Washington) wanted a direct Interstate connection to Indianapolis.  Studies showed this wouldn't be cost-effective on its own so the idea was cooked up for I-69 to be extended all the way down to Texas as a "Canada to Mexico" road to get Federal $$$$ and political support.

I agree that there's not much independent utility in the current Memphis to Shreveport route.

rte66man

Quote from: thefro on May 02, 2014, 04:01:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Hughes on May 02, 2014, 02:06:28 PMFurthermore, minus the US 67 section between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO, Indianapolis is already connected to Shreveport. Can somebody explained to me what I'm missing? Seems like I-69 shouldn't be a high priority right now, especially south of Memphis.

Evansville, IN, a decent-sized city in Indiana (along with several small towns in Indiana like Washington) wanted a direct Interstate connection to Indianapolis.  Studies showed this wouldn't be cost-effective on its own so the idea was cooked up for I-69 to be extended all the way down to Texas as a "Canada to Mexico" road to get Federal $$$$ and political support.

I agree that there's not much independent utility in the current Memphis to Shreveport route.

If you've ever driven I40 from Memphis to Little Rock, you would understand the need for a relief route.. It's not the Memphis to Shreveport, but Memphis to Dallas rout that needs the relief.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Anthony_JK

Actually, I-69's main national objective is to have a transnational route connecting South Texas/Mexico with the Great Lakes/Detroit/Canada. The routing through South Texas via Houston and Corpus Christi is supposed to promote access to the main Texas ports. Shreveport just happens to be on the path of least resistance.

Personally, I think that I-69 should have been broken up into three segments:

1) A Laredo/Corpus Christi/Houston/Lufkin/Texarkana freeway along US 59, with an extension of I-37 along US 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville

2) A freeway along the US 165/US 425 corridor from E of Lake Charles through Alexandria and Monroe to meet the existing I-530/AR 530 extension, then splitting off at Monticello along the proposed I-69 route towards Memphis

3) The proposed Memphis/Evansville/Bloomington/Indianapolis segment.

Shreveport can be served just as well by I-20, I-49, and fourlaning US 84 and US 79.

Road Hog

I'm not high on I-69 myself. Memphis to Shreveport is probably shorter and quicker via Little Rock than it will be via the future route that plunges way south before it cuts west and meanders to pick up every South Arkansas town of any size.

bjrush

Just think of how many miles of I-49 could be built with the gigantic sum of cash that will go to the Charles Dean Bridge...
Woo Pig Sooie

RBBrittain

Quote from: bjrush on May 03, 2014, 11:44:24 AM
Just think of how many miles of I-49 could be built with the gigantic sum of cash that will go to the Charles Dean Bridge...
(a) IIRC only Mississippi calls it the "Charles W. Dean Bridge"; AHTD still calls it the "Great River Bridge".  I doubt anyone here in Arkansas cares a flying rat's behind about Dean; IMO, if we ever name it it's more likely to be for Robert S. Moore, Jr., a highway commissioner from nearby Arkansas City, much like the Bobby Hopper Tunnel.  (Maybe it'll be the Dean-Moore or Moore-Dean Bridge, like the Hoover Dam Bypass' O'Callaghan-Tillman Bridge which also crosses a state line and was hyphenated to honor each state's wishes.)

(b) And let's not forget the Arkansas *and* Red River bridges on I-49 (I understand the Arkansas River one alone will likely be >$500M), *plus* upgrading the Little River crossing thru Pond Creek NWR (on or next to existing US 71).  It'll take big bucks for AHTD to complete both I-49 & I-69, plus a lot of political maneuvering so the rest of Arkansas either (a) doesn't pay for it or (b) gets some pittance (North Belt, finish US 67, etc.) so they will accept a statewide tax hike.  (Our GOP leaders will accept it eventually; too many of them live near I-49, and too many Tom Cotton fans live near I-69 or the Connector. ;) )  Not to mention playing hardball with the surrounding DOTs on completing their pieces, ETC interoperability if tolls are used, etc.

bugo

Arkansas is building I-69 through the southeastern part of the state before they build the rest of I-49 because the terrain is flatter and the road is easier and cheaper to build.  They are notorious for doing such.

RBBrittain

Quote from: bugo on May 06, 2014, 09:19:35 PM
Arkansas is building I-69 through the southeastern part of the state before they build the rest of I-49 because the terrain is flatter and the road is easier and cheaper to build.  They are notorious for doing such.
That could change easily if there's more demand for I-49 than I-69.  Since I-49 is a NWA priority and the vast majority of its unbuilt portion is in AR, I see more political will to build that than I-69 with unbuilt pieces in multiple states.  Still, it'll be a huge challenge to get either one built in AR.

US71

Quote from: Mr. Hughes on May 02, 2014, 02:06:28 PM

I-69 in Arkansas is supposed to connect Memphis, TN to Shreveport, LA, correct?

I-40, I-30, I-49 in AR, & I-49 in LA under construction also connects Memphis, TN to Shreveport, LA, correct?


I-49 won't directly connect to Memphis: you'd have to jump off 49 onto I-30 to I-40 or simply I-49 to I-40

I-49 will connect New Orleans to Kansas City via Shreveport and Fort Smith.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

richllewis

As far as the section of I-69 through the Mississippi Delta, as well as the Bridge across the Mississippi, the MDOT money crisis will have to be solved first. And I do not know how far the legislature will kick this can down the road. Also, I hope that our congressional delegation is working for some funds to contribute to the cause.

bugo

Quote from: US71 on May 06, 2014, 11:03:48 PM
Quote from: Mr. Hughes on May 02, 2014, 02:06:28 PM

I-69 in Arkansas is supposed to connect Memphis, TN to Shreveport, LA, correct?

I-40, I-30, I-49 in AR, & I-49 in LA under construction also connects Memphis, TN to Shreveport, LA, correct?


I-49 won't directly connect to Memphis: you'd have to jump off 49 onto I-30 to I-40 or simply I-49 to I-40

I think he meant 49-30-40.

US 41

Has Oklahoma ever showed interest in building I-49 along the eastern edge of the state?
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

rte66man

Quote from: US 41 on May 10, 2014, 11:14:24 PM
Has Oklahoma ever showed interest in building I-49 along the eastern edge of the state?

Actually, yes.  Back in the late 80's/early 90's there was a proposal backed by the chair of the OK House Appropriations committee to build a freeway/tollway from the I40/Muskogee Turnpike south and west to near Shady Point, where it would connect with a extension of I540 roughly parallel to OK112. From there, the road would run generally along US 59 to south of Heavener. At some point, it would veer east into Arkansas and end up near DeQueen.  Preliminary studies showed IT was a bigger boondoggle than the Chickasaw, but he almost pulled it off.  ODOT bought him off with a promise to four lane US59 south from Sallisaw as well as build a Poteau bypass.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

bugo

Quote from: rte66man on May 11, 2014, 09:54:18 PM
Quote from: US 41 on May 10, 2014, 11:14:24 PM
Has Oklahoma ever showed interest in building I-49 along the eastern edge of the state?

Actually, yes.  Back in the late 80's/early 90's there was a proposal backed by the chair of the OK House Appropriations committee to build a freeway/tollway from the I40/Muskogee Turnpike south and west to near Shady Point, where it would connect with a extension of I540 roughly parallel to OK112. From there, the road would run generally along US 59 to south of Heavener. At some point, it would veer east into Arkansas and end up near DeQueen.  Preliminary studies showed IT was a bigger boondoggle than the Chickasaw, but he almost pulled it off.  ODOT bought him off with a promise to four lane US59 south from Sallisaw as well as build a Poteau bypass.

I had never heard that the Muskogee extension was supposed to go past Poteau, and I had never heard of the OK 112 upgrade (that highway really needs to be at least a 4 lane expressway if not a freeway).

A highway running from Poteau to DeQueen would likely enter Arkansas where 59/270 does now because the mountains south of Page and especially south of Big Cedar are brutal.

cbalducc

What is the purpose of Highway 530 in Arkansas?  It looks unnecessary to me.

Bobby5280

I have problems with the overall intended purpose of I-69 -mainly the whole trans Mexico to Canada thing.

If I-69 is really supposed to function as a "direct" Interstate link tailored for trans-continental traffic, why is the route so freaking crooked and wasteful in terms of distance? This is particularly true for the segments running South of Indianapolis all the way into Arkansas. Even some of the segments in Texas aren't exactly all that straight. With the route running so crooked and its overall completion being perhaps 20-30 or more years in the future (if ever) I have a hard time believing I-69 will pull long haul trucks off some other cross country routes.

I don't think there's any problem with most of what is proposed for I-69 in Texas, except for there being two Interstates going down to the South end of Texas. However, that area of Texas has been gaining population pretty rapidly. When I-69 gets past Shreveport and Texarkana it gets a little more difficult to justify building some of those sections. I-30 is pretty close to the proposed I-69 route. With Mississippi showing little, if any, sign at all they'll build more of their part of I-69 anytime in the near future it seems wasteful to me for Arkansas to direct a bunch of its resources into building I-69 rather than I-49. I hear the arguments about making a relief route between Dallas and Memphis. I-69 will be significantly out of the way for Dallas bound traffic. With the Great River Bridge being a giant question mark I have to wonder if adding additional lanes to I-40 and I-30 would be a better idea.

Completing I-49 in Arkansas will have a much better near term payoff economically than messing with I-69. If I was running things in Arkansas I wouldn't mess around much with I-69 until Texas was well on the way to completing its sections between Houston and Texarkana. A completed I-49 would tie directly into I-369 and Texas' portion of I-69 -creating a direct Interstate highway link between the ports of Houston and all the development going on in NW Arkansas. The ports of Houston will soon get more busy with a newly expanded Panama Canal.

US71

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 22, 2014, 12:16:11 PM
I have problems with the overall intended purpose of I-69 -mainly the whole trans Mexico to Canada thing.

If I-69 is really supposed to function as a "direct" Interstate link tailored for trans-continental traffic, why is the route so freaking crooked and wasteful in terms of distance? This is particularly true for the segments running South of Indianapolis all the way into Arkansas. Even some of the segments in Texas aren't exactly all that straight. With the route running so crooked and its overall completion being perhaps 20-30 or more years in the future (if ever) I have a hard time believing I-69 will pull long haul trucks off some other cross country routes.

IMO, a lot is probably politics: everyone wanting a hand in the cookie jar.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

bjrush

Quote from: cbalducc on May 22, 2014, 10:37:21 AM
What is the purpose of Highway 530 in Arkansas?  It looks unnecessary to me.

it is part of a future Interstate 530 extension to meet I-69 in Monticello
Woo Pig Sooie

cbalducc

Quote from: bjrush on May 22, 2014, 02:21:08 PM
Quote from: cbalducc on May 22, 2014, 10:37:21 AM
What is the purpose of Highway 530 in Arkansas?  It looks unnecessary to me.

it is part of a future Interstate 530 extension to meet I-69 in Monticello

Couldn't US Highway 425 have been upgraded between Monticello and Pine Bluff?



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.