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

[MikieTimT]

I-69 in Arkansas, as currently proposed, is indeed a crooked route. And shifting the Mississippi crossing farther South to US-82 will make it even more stupidly crooked. It will make I-69 in Arkansas a mostly East-West route and the path in Mississippi very much a North-South route. The path would be a stupid, giant backwards L-shape route. Just worthless.

The I-30/I-40 combo is a long established route with lots of services along its exits. I-69 doesn't have any guarantees of attracting similar amounts of development along its path, especially if it runs an even more out of the way angle to re-purpose the US-82 crossing. Most of the traffic will likely keep using I-30 and I-40.

There's no official proposal to re-route it to US-82.

For the existing proposed route, it's just as long as the current I-30 / I-40 routing. Look above.

yeah i Haven't seen anything of US 82 being the Bridge of I-69, But i do believe they might have to due to low funding for both Arkansas and Mississippi

There used to be a lot of discussion of routing it over the Greenville Bridge before the ROW aquisitions in Arkansas. Then again the original proposals for the Great River Bridge were further north. As to distance, the distance of I-69 is nominally different (as few as 3 miles) with a realigned US 82 from ElDorado to Greenville versus through Monticello and McGeehee and across the proposed Dean bridge.  It just transfers the east / west flat spot farther south and moves the virtually north / south portion from south central Arkansas to  Mississippi.

As to the I-30 / I -40 being similar in length. It is indeed less than 50 miles farther.  This said, the congestion inside Metro Litttle Rock is one issue.  Crossing the Bridge(s) into Memphis is another.  So, starting in Nacogdoches, I-69 would have a similar distance to the north side of Memphis as going through Texarkana and Little Rock. It is like a circle, whatever way you go around  the semicircle the distance is the same.

As to a giant L. It would indeed be a lazy L so is the I-369- I-30 route.  If you want straight. You would follow US 84 to the Red River more or less then go near Jonesboro to near Monroe to cross the Mississippi at Greenville or even farther south.  Freeways are never straight. Sometimes they make detours that are more political than practical (IE routing I-69 through Shelby County , Texas)

The current routing versus a rough US 82 path boils down to this. Economic development for Camden and routing through Desha and Arkansas Counties.  Redevelopment of the former Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot is a really big deal and the Interstate is perceived as a huge piece of that endevor. This all said the base has been closed for several decades.

The point is. This freeway is not REDUNDANT or Duplacative. It would be additive. The question is how to build it within the budgets of the governmental entities that are paying. The Dean Bridge only gets built if the FEDERAL government pays a significant amount of it (whether from dedicated or generic funds).

As to services, LOVES, PILOT, and others will build on it. Traffic will populate it.  When it is finished, it will be an economic development tool at times in spite of the wishes of the locals.

All good points.  As much as roadgeeks may cringe at the dogleg routing to get within spitting distance of some under-served cities in SE Arkansas (although I-369 is just as much out of the diagonal with its straight North instead of the straight E/W dogleg across a major river that for some reason offends sensibilities more), in the absence of more federal funding, those outside the state don't have a vote anyway.  It makes more sense to take it across the river further south as Arkansas just has too many navigable rivers to bridge, and too poor to bridge them.  The roadbuilding will be cheaper in Mississippi with only creeks to bridge on the east side of the Mississippi River.  And I think that people forget that during major floods, the Mississippi River floodplain gets wider than 30 miles in spots, mostly toward the Arkansas side.  That's why there's so few people and roads there, whereas MS 1 runs fairly close to the river channel.

[bjrush]

I don't see how it's worth the billions for a duplicate route. There is no shortage of cheap land along interstates in rural areas with cheap labor and right to work legislation on the books. What drives companies to locate in the towns along a proposed I-69? What geographic advantage does being in South Arkansas get you? Because that's basically the only thing the route offers.

[sprjus4]

I don't see how it's worth the billions for a duplicate route.

To get the equivalent to a new interstate, you'd need to add 4 lanes (2 each way) along over 200 miles of I-40 and I-30. Not cheap.

With split routes, southern Texas traffic has one corridor (I-69), northern / western Texas and Oklahoma & beyond traffic have the other (I-30 / I-40). You'd ease the truck traffic on I-30 / I-40 allowing a better free-flow along I-30 and I-40 even during peak travel periods.

[bwana39]

The redundancy arguement misses the fact that the current routes are not just at reasonable capacity but above them. They seem to think it is as simple as glueing an additional lane each direction and going. 

TO get the same capacity as I-69 would require two additional lanes each direction.  I realize that does not consider local traffic on I-69, but that is in the short run going to be nominal.

Building two separate 4 (2x2) lane freeways from scratch is almost as expensive as building ONE 8 (2x4) lane freeway. To expand the capacity of the existing freeway is going to be tantamount to building a new one. The idea a third lane could be crammed under the existing overpasses and the bridges could be widened is at best optimistic, at worst impossible. More likely possible but dangerous. 

I think the Great River (Dean) bridge is planned in a less than desirable position. It is just over thirty road miles from the Greenville bridge.  The Humphries (old Greenville bridge) need to be replaced due to some navigation issues on the river. Had that not been the case, leaving it in place and building a single new bridge between Arkansas City and Benoit would have been prudent.  The corps wanted the Humphries bridge out of the river. There is a less than a decade old bridge south of Greenville forty miles is not a normal distance between rural bridges on the mississippi.

Either they should go across with 82 and follow MS 1 more or less or they should bite the Bullet and  follow US 79 to north of Pine Bluff and cross the river either near Helena or further upriver near Harrah's Casino. (Where I-69 stubs across I-55).

[sprjus4]

The idea a third lane could be crammed under the existing overpasses and the bridges could be widened is at best optimistic, at worst impossible. More likely possible but dangerous.

It's quite standard actually, if you have plenty of room under a bridge, you can easily put a lane in there. Likewise, a bridge can be widened. Not foreign.

[bwana39]

The idea a third lane could be crammed under the existing overpasses and the bridges could be widened is at best optimistic, at worst impossible. More likely possible but dangerous.

It's quite standard actually, if you have plenty of room under a bridge, you can easily put a lane in there. Likewise, a bridge can be widened. Not foreign.

Yes, you can widen a bridge IF. If the existing bridge is in good condition and the remaining life cycle of the older part makes it worthwhile to widen it as opposed to replace. The bottom line is if the existing bridge is worth the upgrade. In this case more likely the substructure condition as opposed to the superstructure or pavement,

I am about to admit something. You probably could put an extra lane under most of the I-30 bridges in Arkansas. I envisioned them as a similar width to the ones in Texas that would be cramped if even possible. They appear from a fairly decent review to mostly be more than wide enough. SOME of them would not be a fit (SH37 ex) but again most would.

Now. I hate 6-lane rural freeways. I just think the amount of traffic will overwelm the services.

[sprjus4]

Now. I hate 6-lane rural freeways. I just think the amount of traffic will overwelm the services.

Better than those 4 lane ones like I-30 or I-40 where you are stuck behind trucks micropassing at 62 - 64 mph for miles on end in a 70 mph zone with no place to maneuver around them.

I-35 between Dallas and Austin is a major trucking corridor, though it has been fully expanded to at least 6 lanes, and while the trucks played micro passing games at those slower speeds in the right two lanes, the left lane breezed by at 80+ mph.

[Bobby5280]

What the f### is wrong with a 6-lane "rural" freeway? If the traffic counts justify 3 lanes in each direction then build the damn highway that wide there.

I can tell you this for one thing. I vastly prefer driving on I-35 down to the Austin area with it being 3 to 4 lanes in both directions. That overwhelmingly beats the old, outdated I-35 that was way past capacity in a puny 2 lanes in each direction configuration. When the corridor is a seriously major corridor, like I-35 between DFW, Austin and San Antonio, that freeway needs to be built out as wide as it needs to be. Any interests of upholding rural character anywhere near the highway just falls subservient to that. The new highway is wider, smoother, has far better geometry, far better ramps, far better sight lines, far better lighting at night and on and on.

The stretch of I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is every bit as serious an Interstate commerce arterial as I-35 between DFW and San Antonio. It's probably even more important considering a whole lot of long distance traffic from DFW is merging with cross country traffic on I-40. I've looked pretty close at the route. It really wouldn't take all that giant an undertaking to improve all of I-40 in that zone to a 4x4 configuration. With the existing I-40 corridor already established there would be no extra properties to demolish and no extra ROW to secure. At worst, some bridges would have to be replaced. But overall, widening I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis would be much easier to do than building out I-69 in Southern Arkansas from scratch.

[sprjus4]

But overall, widening I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis would be much easier to do than building out I-69 in Southern Arkansas from scratch.

Adding two lanes in each direction (four lanes) to over 200 miles of interstate isn't an easy task. Maybe one lane for I-40, but two lanes on each is a lot more. At that point, a significant amount of bridges would need full replacement, easily racking cost up. The only thing you're saving on at that point is right of way, which is a minuscule cost compared to construction.

I'd argue splitting two different traffic loads, southeastern Texas vs. northern Texas / Oklahoma would relieve significant pressure as far as truck traffic is concerned.

[sparker]

But overall, widening I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis would be much easier to do than building out I-69 in Southern Arkansas from scratch.

Adding two lanes in each direction (four lanes) to over 200 miles of interstate isn't an easy task. Maybe one lane for I-40, but two lanes on each is a lot more. At that point, a significant amount of bridges would need full replacement, easily racking cost up. The only thing you're saving on at that point is right of way, which is a minuscule cost compared to construction.

I'd argue splitting two different traffic loads, southeastern Texas vs. northern Texas / Oklahoma would relieve significant pressure as far as truck traffic is concerned.

Quite correct.  Houston and the "Chemical Coast" comprise one region of traffic generation and destination, while DFW and, by extension via I-20, West Texas, comprises another.  Right now the latter is reasonably well served (although a 2+2 I-30 can get a bit dicey at times); the former not so much except for E-W movement and, of course, getting up to DFW on I-45.  The desire of Houston interests (represented by the Alliance for I-69/TX) is primarily getting that northeastern outlet constructed; for them the I-69/369 combination "hits the spot" in that respect.  But adding that traffic to I-30 and I-40 east of LR will likely overwhelm the facility unless both corridor segments are brought out to at least 3+3 (that being said, a completed I-57 would take up some of the I-40 slack).  But the 69/369/30 composite corridor is still only a stop-gap;  a fully completed I-69 would be more apt to provide a long-term regional solution.  It's just too bad that big new bridge is so damn expensive (and that MS has to cough up half of it -- a prospect that may take virtually forever!).  So in 30-odd years we may actually see two corridors connecting TX with Memphis (I'll have to live to 100+ to drive/ride on the newer of those).  In the long haul, both corridors will be well-utilized -- and Waffle House will have a bunch of new places to put roadside eateries!   

[edwaleni]

As I said earlier, its not always about capacity, it is also about redundancy of that capacity.

Redundancy is typically not inexpensive, and defines its worth when an emergency occurs.

If a hard freeze came across central Arkansas and caused massive backups and route closure, or one of the Memphis bridges fail (for what ever reasons), I-69 then becomes a major arterial for cross national traffic in and out of Texas.

While it may take 20+ years to get it financed, and it may take 30+ years to develop the economics of the route, it only takes 1 event to have it pay off.

[MikieTimT]

As I said earlier, its not always about capacity, it is also about redundancy of that capacity.

Redundancy is typically not inexpensive, and defines its worth when an emergency occurs.

If a hard freeze came across central Arkansas and caused massive backups and route closure, or one of the Memphis bridges fail (for what ever reasons), I-69 then becomes a major arterial for cross national traffic in and out of Texas.

While it may take 20+ years to get it financed, and it may take 30+ years to develop the economics of the route, it only takes 1 event to have it pay off.

And that event is a not-insignificant chance of a major New Madrid fault awakening.  The last time it happened, the Mississippi River rerouted significantly and flowed backwards for a bit.  Bound to be some river crossing issues when that happens again.  And a fair number of pavement issues to boot.

[Life in Paradise]

If the government wants to include infrastructure projects in its next stimulus, the Mississippi River bridge would be welcomed by Arkansas and Mississippi to be federally funded.  Perhaps they could get a kick in the pants to fast track everything with the bridge and both approaches.  Note:  I for one am also of the opinion that the McGehee crossing is too far south and local and national traffic would be better served crossing farther up river, even though they would also have to build an Arkansas River bridge.

[MikieTimT]

If the government wants to include infrastructure projects in its next stimulus, the Mississippi River bridge would be welcomed by Arkansas and Mississippi to be federally funded.  Perhaps they could get a kick in the pants to fast track everything with the bridge and both approaches.  Note:  I for one am also of the opinion that the McGehee crossing is too far south and local and national traffic would be better served crossing farther up river, even though they would also have to build an Arkansas River bridge.

It'll take a federal grant for sure to make any of it happen, especially for Mississippi, but I wouldn't think they can take it much further north than Rosedale without getting into a whole lot of issues on the Arkansas side.  They could fairly easily bridge the Arkansas River at that point as barge traffic departs the river to the Arkansas Post Canal to join the Mississippi River by way of the White River.  A bridge over the Arkansas River at that point need not be very high, but would likely be quite long and then go high to cross the Mississippi River at Rosedale.  Taking I-69 any further north in Arkansas would triple the tall bridges built over navigable rivers as the Arkansas, White, and Mississippi all 3 have barge/sailboat traffic that would have to be cleared both horizontally and vertically.  And the terrain through the White River National Wildlife Refuge would have to be transited, which presents its own permitting and roadbed height issues since it is regularly flooded this time of year especially with the White and Arkansas Rivers both roaring near or at flood stage that close to their mouths.  That being said, if the political and financial realities did allow for the "Dickey Split" to actually enable the Arkansas routing along US-79, it would make for a better situation for bypassing Memphis to the south and make a more diagonal routing from Monticello on.  The routing is pretty well set in stone from Monticello to the southwest once the bypasses that make up the initial parts of I-69 in Arkansas progress.

[bwana39]

As I said earlier, its not always about capacity, it is also about redundancy of that capacity.

Redundancy is typically not inexpensive, and defines its worth when an emergency occurs.

If a hard freeze came across central Arkansas and caused massive backups and route closure, or one of the Memphis bridges fail (for what ever reasons), I-69 then becomes a major arterial for cross national traffic in and out of Texas.

While it may take 20+ years to get it financed, and it may take 30+ years to develop the economics of the route, it only takes 1 event to have it pay off.

I-20 has little if any less days of ice / snow than I-30.  With I-69 between them, it is doubtful this makes any significant difference.  Even if there were a minimal difference, LA closes their freeways at the first sign of ice. Arkansas and Texas RARELY close freeways due to ice. I-69 is scheduled to have over 100 miles in Louisiana.

[edwaleni]

As I said earlier, its not always about capacity, it is also about redundancy of that capacity.

Redundancy is typically not inexpensive, and defines its worth when an emergency occurs.

If a hard freeze came across central Arkansas and caused massive backups and route closure, or one of the Memphis bridges fail (for what ever reasons), I-69 then becomes a major arterial for cross national traffic in and out of Texas.

While it may take 20+ years to get it financed, and it may take 30+ years to develop the economics of the route, it only takes 1 event to have it pay off.

I-20 has little if any less days of ice / snow than I-30.  With I-69 between them, it is doubtful this makes any significant difference.  Even if there were a minimal difference, LA closes their freeways at the first sign of ice. Arkansas and Texas RARELY close freeways due to ice. I-69 is scheduled to have over 100 miles in Louisiana.

Ice was just an example.

Sinkholes, terrorist attacks, fog, floods, toxic chemical spill, chem plant explosions, forest fires, the point was that a number of events can occur to make a well traveled route inaccessible.

This requires safe alternate routes designed to handle a diversion.

[MikieTimT]

As I said earlier, its not always about capacity, it is also about redundancy of that capacity.

Redundancy is typically not inexpensive, and defines its worth when an emergency occurs.

If a hard freeze came across central Arkansas and caused massive backups and route closure, or one of the Memphis bridges fail (for what ever reasons), I-69 then becomes a major arterial for cross national traffic in and out of Texas.

While it may take 20+ years to get it financed, and it may take 30+ years to develop the economics of the route, it only takes 1 event to have it pay off.

I-20 has little if any less days of ice / snow than I-30.  With I-69 between them, it is doubtful this makes any significant difference.  Even if there were a minimal difference, LA closes their freeways at the first sign of ice. Arkansas and Texas RARELY close freeways due to ice. I-69 is scheduled to have over 100 miles in Louisiana.

Ice was just an example.

Sinkholes, terrorist attacks, fog, floods, toxic chemical spill, chem plant explosions, forest fires, the point was that a number of events can occur to make a well traveled route inaccessible.

This requires safe alternate routes designed to handle a diversion.

Case in point, the Webber's Fall bridge on I-40 over the Arkansas River in OK caused I-40 to have to be rerouted through a small town when the bridge was destroyed by a barge strike.  Happened recently on I-10 in Houston as well.

[sparker]

As I said earlier, its not always about capacity, it is also about redundancy of that capacity.

Redundancy is typically not inexpensive, and defines its worth when an emergency occurs.

If a hard freeze came across central Arkansas and caused massive backups and route closure, or one of the Memphis bridges fail (for what ever reasons), I-69 then becomes a major arterial for cross national traffic in and out of Texas.

While it may take 20+ years to get it financed, and it may take 30+ years to develop the economics of the route, it only takes 1 event to have it pay off.

I-20 has little if any less days of ice / snow than I-30.  With I-69 between them, it is doubtful this makes any significant difference.  Even if there were a minimal difference, LA closes their freeways at the first sign of ice. Arkansas and Texas RARELY close freeways due to ice. I-69 is scheduled to have over 100 miles in Louisiana.

Ice was just an example.

Sinkholes, terrorist attacks, fog, floods, toxic chemical spill, chem plant explosions, forest fires, the point was that a number of events can occur to make a well traveled route inaccessible.

This requires safe alternate routes designed to handle a diversion.

Case in point, the Webber's Fall bridge on I-40 over the Arkansas River in OK caused I-40 to have to be rerouted through a small town when the bridge was destroyed by a barge strike.  Happened recently on I-10 in Houston as well.

Out here in CA, we're damn glad that when I-5 over Tejon Pass is shut down because of snow (which has happened more often in recent years), there's either the CA 14/58 combination to get from L.A. to Bakersfield and the Valley or US 101 to the Bay Area.   Neither is optimal in terms of mileage (and the slog through Mojave makes one wonder why that last three miles of freeway between 14 and 58 haven't been built!), but they work in a pinch.   We've got mountains; AR has river systems that flood regularly;  redundancy in an area where those rivers comprise most of the obstacles between origin and destination is generally a working concept that produces benefits over the long haul. 

[rte66man]

...(and the slog through Mojave makes one wonder why that last three miles of freeway between 14 and 58 haven't been built!)...

So why hasn't it been built?

[sprjus4]

I-26, completed in the early 2000s, provides a detour route for I-40, 1960s build, in Western North Carolina when it's closed due to rockslides. It's longer, though is effective when I-40 is closed. Asides from redundancy, the route has merits of its own.

[MikieTimT]

I-26, completed in the early 2000s, provides a detour route for I-40, 1960s build, in Western North Carolina when it's closed due to rockslides. It's longer, though is effective when I-40 is closed. Asides from redundancy, the route has merits of its own.

As I-69 will.  Bypassing Little Rock and Memphis now are reasons enough on their own.  And Texarkana is poised to be a major Interstate and shipping hub, probably before I-69 gets built.  I-69 will likely be able to support a 75MPH speed limit over much of its length, as is fixing to be allowed on rural Interstate highways, which is a speed unlikely to be attainable on I-369/I-30/I-40 other than short spurts.

[ibthebigd]

When you look at a map and see Houston has no Interstate going northeast has to be one of the biggest gaping holes in the Interstate System

Direct Interstate between Bay Area and LA has to be the most gaping hole.

I wish Congress would pass a Infrastructure bill based on the Electoral College so 1 Billion dollars per Electoral vote.

SM-G950U

[edwaleni]

...(and the slog through Mojave makes one wonder why that last three miles of freeway between 14 and 58 haven't been built!)...

So why hasn't it been built?

@sparker asked the same question several times over in the California thread and didn't get a straight answer.

In simple terms it looks like Caltrans simply changed their minds and emphasized the Barstow-Bakersfield Freeway (CA-58) over the upgrades to Sierra Highway (CA-14).

Looking at the maps, it appear Caltrans originally did try to bypass Mojave with CA-14. But they have allowed the proposed ROW to fall into private hands ( a solar farm blocks it at the south end)

Now CA-58 goes north of Mojave and CA-14 is just an arterial with an exit ramp north of town.

[sprjus4]

I-69 will likely be able to support a 75MPH speed limit over much of its length, as is fixing to be allowed on rural Interstate highways, which is a speed unlikely to be attainable on I-369/I-30/I-40 other than short spurts.

While I agree I-69 will be able to handle 75 mph, I'd also say I-30 / I-40 / I-369 would be able to, at least depending on how the state looks at it. With the introduction of 75 mph speed limits beginning in July, the state may opt to reserve it for the lightest traveled, lowest traffic counts routes, or post it on virtually all freeway mileage such as how Texas does it. For example, I-30 is 75 mph immediately west to Texarkana all the way to Dallas. On the other hand, Louisiana has 75 mph speed limits authorized, but is only posted on I-49 north of Opelousas / US-190. All the other interstates, I-10, I-12, I-20, I-55, and I-59 only have 70 mph, all segments that could realistically be 75 mph. I've managed to travel along I-40 and not hit as much as truck traffic as it can sometime be, and was easily able to maintain 80 mph across the majority of the route, having to slow down for a truck here and there. It all depends on how the state opts to use the speed limit increase - exclusively or for all highways.

When you look at a map and see Houston has no Interstate going northeast has to be one of the biggest gaping holes in the Interstate System

That, and to the southwest towards Corpus Christi and the Rio Grande Valley. I-69 will fill a major hole once complete, in both directions.

Direct Interstate between Bay Area and LA has to be the most gaping hole.

I-580 and I-5? Direct interstate between I-80 at Oakland to Downtown Los Angeles.

[sparker]

...(and the slog through Mojave makes one wonder why that last three miles of freeway between 14 and 58 haven't been built!)...

So why hasn't it been built?

@sparker asked the same question several times over in the California thread and didn't get a straight answer.

In simple terms it looks like Caltrans simply changed their minds and emphasized the Barstow-Bakersfield Freeway (CA-58) over the upgrades to Sierra Highway (CA-14).

Looking at the maps, it appear Caltrans originally did try to bypass Mojave with CA-14. But they have allowed the proposed ROW to fall into private hands ( a solar farm blocks it at the south end)

Now CA-58 goes north of Mojave and CA-14 is just an arterial with an exit ramp north of town.

(......note......this really belongs in Southwest!)

That was the original 1971-built grading for the first bypass iteration, which was to go around the west side.  At that time, CA 58 was to head west to meet it south of town, with the freeways splitting west of the location where CA 14 turns northeast north of the town center.  But when the CA 58 bypass was located north of town around the airfield, proposals for a freeway connection have centered around a connection point east of the airfield (keeping flyovers to a minimum, since it's an active airport) just north of where the bypass curves north from the old 58 trajectory.  The western bypass could conceivably be revived; there's just enough room to squeeze a few lanes between the solar facility and the old highway plus a clear pathway through the sparsely-developed west side of town, segueing onto the CA 14 expressway south of the CA 58 interchange.  Either east or west option will require a bridge over the RR tracks.   But such a project has yet to be programmed, much less let.  Maybe in my lifetime; likely not!

Direct Interstate between Bay Area and LA has to be the most gaping hole.

I-580 and I-5? Direct interstate between I-80 at Oakland to Downtown Los Angeles.

The primary reason for the I-5 alignment shift away from US 99.  Works for the big metros; not so much for the cities in the Valley (hence the reason for the sporadic push to designate CA 99 as an Interstate).