News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-69 in Arkansas

Started by AcE_Wolf_287, March 18, 2020, 06:53:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

splashflash

Westerman hears ARDoT pitch for federal funding
I-69, Hwy. 82 "˜critical' projects, congressman says by Caitlan Butler | June 29, 2023 at 5:00 a.m.

https://www.camdenarknews.com/news/2023/jun/29/westerman-hears-ardot-pitch-for-federal-funding/

We just provided the congressman with an update of where we're at on the future Interstate-69 corridor through Arkansas... The Mississippi River bridge is an issue because it's so expensive. It's about a $2 billion price tag; $1.2 billion is Arkansas's portion," Tudor said. "For a small, rural state like Arkansas, there's just no way we can really fund that without federal assistance."

However, work has started on Arkansas's portion of the interstate, with two-lane sections under construction in Drew County and work scheduled to start on additional length on that road in 2025. Environmental approval has been secured for the part of the road that will run through Union County.


The Ghostbuster

Does anyone else get the impression that Interstate 69 in Arkansas, when more of it is eventually built, will be an underutilized freeway? Since the only significantly-populated towns 69 will go past are El Dorado and Monticello, future 69 may not need more than two lanes total.

sprjus4

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 11, 2023, 08:31:28 PM
Does anyone else get the impression that Interstate 69 in Arkansas, when more of it is eventually built, will be an underutilized freeway? Since the only significantly-populated towns 69 will go past are El Dorado and Monticello, future 69 may not need more than two lanes total.
If I-69 is ever fully complete between Shreveport and Memphis, I think it will have decent utilization and be a viable alternative to I-30 and I-40 for southeast Texas / Mexico bound traffic. Even with the "curvy"  routing, the distance will be around the same as I-30 / I-40.

In the mean time, I-69 will be perfectly adequate at 2 lanes until it is fully linked to I-20 and I-269.

Bobby5280

I'm skeptical I-69 will ever be completed thru Arkansas and Mississippi. The Feds would pretty much have to cover all of Mississippi's obligation. Meanwhile Arkansas has more important fish to fry in other parts of the state. I-49 and I-57 are far more plausible, realistic projects to finish.

The fact the proposed I-69 route offers little if any mileage savings versus the I-30/I-40 combo would more than likely depress traffic counts on the highway. There will be far less road-side services along I-69 than I-30 or I-40 for a long time. And it seems like a sure bet the Great River Bridge will carry a pretty hefty toll. The proposed bridge's cost is now tipping the scales over $2 billion. I'd be shocked if it was built as a free-to-cross structure. Meanwhile, IIRC, I-40 has no tolls on it for its entire length. I-30 is free with the exception of express lanes in the DFW area.

Strider

If funding is an issue for I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, why isn't US 82/US 278 Greenville bridge used to connect both states? I know it would mean I-69 would dip south and then back north after entering Mississippi, but that bridge is barely new. Or was that one of the alternatives before being eliminated in favor for a new Mississippi River crossing?

abqtraveler

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 12, 2023, 11:10:01 AM
I'm skeptical I-69 will ever be completed thru Arkansas and Mississippi. The Feds would pretty much have to cover all of Mississippi's obligation. Meanwhile Arkansas has more important fish to fry in other parts of the state. I-49 and I-57 are far more plausible, realistic projects to finish.

The fact the proposed I-69 route offers little if any mileage savings versus the I-30/I-40 combo would more than likely depress traffic counts on the highway. There will be far less road-side services along I-69 than I-30 or I-40 for a long time. And it seems like a sure bet the Great River Bridge will carry a pretty hefty toll. The proposed bridge's cost is now tipping the scales over $2 billion. I'd be shocked if it was built as a free-to-cross structure. Meanwhile, IIRC, I-40 has no tolls on it for its entire length. I-30 is free with the exception of express lanes in the DFW area.
In addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69. The recently-completed new bridge that carries I-40 over the White River has been built to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction, plus full inside and outside shoulders, although the bridge is currently striped for two lanes each way.
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

Bobby5280

Quote from: StriderIf funding is an issue for I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, why isn't US 82/US 278 Greenville bridge used to connect both states?

Because that would bend I-69 into an even more ridiculous "L" shape route than it already is. The currently proposed I-69 route going through McGehee and Arkansas City offers little if any mileage savings over the I-30/I-40 combo as it is. The Greenville Bridge is another 25 miles farther South from the proposed Great River Bridge location. If I-69 was routed over that bridge then all of I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi would only be of value to local traffic. The long distance traffic would stay on I-40 and I-30. It might still work out that way anyway.

Quote from: abqtravelerIn addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69.

It's ridiculous I-40 isn't already built in a 3x3 lanes or greater configuration between Little Rock and Memphis. The amount of truck traffic on that segment is unreal. A completed I-57 might work as a pressure valve to relieve some of the congestion. But that stretch of I-40 has to be upgraded regardless. If it weren't for the I-57 and I-69 projects either proposed or under construction I'd be calling for I-40 to be built 4x4 all the way from Little Rock to Memphis.

MikieTimT

Quote from: abqtraveler on July 12, 2023, 01:17:17 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 12, 2023, 11:10:01 AM
I'm skeptical I-69 will ever be completed thru Arkansas and Mississippi. The Feds would pretty much have to cover all of Mississippi's obligation. Meanwhile Arkansas has more important fish to fry in other parts of the state. I-49 and I-57 are far more plausible, realistic projects to finish.

The fact the proposed I-69 route offers little if any mileage savings versus the I-30/I-40 combo would more than likely depress traffic counts on the highway. There will be far less road-side services along I-69 than I-30 or I-40 for a long time. And it seems like a sure bet the Great River Bridge will carry a pretty hefty toll. The proposed bridge's cost is now tipping the scales over $2 billion. I'd be shocked if it was built as a free-to-cross structure. Meanwhile, IIRC, I-40 has no tolls on it for its entire length. I-30 is free with the exception of express lanes in the DFW area.
In addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69. The recently-completed new bridge that carries I-40 over the White River has been built to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction, plus full inside and outside shoulders, although the bridge is currently striped for two lanes each way.

I-40 has 2023-2026 STIP items for 6 laning from the I-55 concurrency in West Memphis (Exit 277) in West Memphis to the Jennette exit (Exit 265) and for the LR end from I-440 (Exit 159) to Kerr Rd. (Exit 165).  That leaves 100 miles in between to grow the ends toward the middle eventually, but unlikely to happen completely for decades at this rate barring some earmark love unless LOS decay/AADT counts mandates otherwise.  Good news is that other than a handful of overpasses that may be narrow on the underside and one of the St. Francis River bridges, most of the rest of the bridging is already wide enough.  Just will need to build some wider berms through the ricelands.

I-69 has utility in providing another connection and bypass to Shreveport if Louisiana gets their act together, but also for avoiding the bottlenecks of Little Rock and Memphis/W. Memphis with the I-269 loop around the south and east sides of Memphis.  With all of the onshoring/nearshoring of manufacturing that's in the process of really accelerating now that it's been discovered that China really isn't our friend, but Mexico really is and can take on a chunk of the inexpensive goods along with SE Asia, which means more truck and rail traffic coming from South Texas.  Those with foresight to see where freight flows are going to be growing for the next 3 decades would be wise to invest in the road and rail links coming out of Texas.  And Louisiana needs to do more value added processing of petrochemicals to grow their economy rather than load oil and gas onto ships for overseas customers.

Bobby5280

Mexico could absorb a great deal of the manufacturing production the US has based in China currently. But Mexico has to modernize somehow into a more safe, stable and less corrupt environment in order to take on much of what was based in China. It's a pretty difficult challenge for American companies to build manufacturing plants in Mexico under the current circumstances. If the US didn't have so many drug addicts Mexico would be a much safer place to visit.

Regardless of what happens in Mexico, a great deal of business is going to exit China. The regime there is increasingly authoritarian and less friendly to international business. Worse yet, China appears to be locked in a generational demographic decline. Marriage rates and birth rates have been hitting record lows due to several economic and cultural factors. Not nearly enough young people are being born to balance out the enormous size of aging/elderly generations. China isn't going to have enough working age manpower to get a lot of things done.

Currently, political conditions are pushing businesses to move production out of China to places like Vietnam or other nations in SE Asia. Nations in Africa could benefit immensely, only if more of those nations could maintain stable governments. Africa is on the verge of being home to the majority of the world's youth (if it isn't there already). The Chinese government is already trying to establish "beach heads" there so they can emulate America's outsourcing game. Africa has great and scary possibilities for the future. It can become an economic powerhouse. Or it could be the thing that gets World War III started.

Mexico and other countries in Central America and South America are being affected by the drug trade to the US. If we could only get a handle on that situation Mexico could be the primary landing spot for businesses leaving China.

Road Hog

Quote from: MikieTimT on July 12, 2023, 02:42:44 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 12, 2023, 01:17:17 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 12, 2023, 11:10:01 AM
I'm skeptical I-69 will ever be completed thru Arkansas and Mississippi. The Feds would pretty much have to cover all of Mississippi's obligation. Meanwhile Arkansas has more important fish to fry in other parts of the state. I-49 and I-57 are far more plausible, realistic projects to finish.

The fact the proposed I-69 route offers little if any mileage savings versus the I-30/I-40 combo would more than likely depress traffic counts on the highway. There will be far less road-side services along I-69 than I-30 or I-40 for a long time. And it seems like a sure bet the Great River Bridge will carry a pretty hefty toll. The proposed bridge's cost is now tipping the scales over $2 billion. I'd be shocked if it was built as a free-to-cross structure. Meanwhile, IIRC, I-40 has no tolls on it for its entire length. I-30 is free with the exception of express lanes in the DFW area.
In addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69. The recently-completed new bridge that carries I-40 over the White River has been built to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction, plus full inside and outside shoulders, although the bridge is currently striped for two lanes each way.

I-40 has 2023-2026 STIP items for 6 laning from the I-55 concurrency in West Memphis (Exit 277) in West Memphis to the Jennette exit (Exit 265) and for the LR end from I-440 (Exit 159) to Kerr Rd. (Exit 165).  That leaves 100 miles in between to grow the ends toward the middle eventually, but unlikely to happen completely for decades at this rate barring some earmark love unless LOS decay/AADT counts mandates otherwise.  Good news is that other than a handful of overpasses that may be narrow on the underside and one of the St. Francis River bridges, most of the rest of the bridging is already wide enough.  Just will need to build some wider berms through the ricelands.
Best advice for through traffic is to exit halfway through at Brinkley, get yourself a bite and if it's a fall Friday, go watch an 8-man football game.

MikieTimT

iDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now.  Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569.  Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.

sprjus4

Quote from: MikieTimT on May 10, 2024, 04:58:27 PMiDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now.  Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569.  Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.
I'd say it's a SIU... it's a very quick connection to US-278 from SR-293.

MikieTimT

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2024, 02:05:23 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 10, 2024, 04:58:27 PMiDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now.  Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569.  Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.
I'd say it's a SIU... it's a very quick connection to US-278 from SR-293.

And serves literally dozens of people in Selma.  I assume dozens.  It's unincorporated, so could be any population between 1 and possibly 3 digits.  I guess since they lost their school and consolidated with another district down by Monticello, the bus(ses) will appreciate the better road.

sprjus4

Quote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 03:54:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2024, 02:05:23 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 10, 2024, 04:58:27 PMiDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now.  Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569.  Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.
I'd say it's a SIU... it's a very quick connection to US-278 from SR-293.

And serves literally dozens of people in Selma.  I assume dozens.  It's unincorporated, so could be any population between 1 and possibly 3 digits.  I guess since they lost their school and consolidated with another district down by Monticello, the bus(ses) will appreciate the better road.
And how would extending it to US-65 increase its traffic anymore? It's as much as SIU than extending it to US-65 would be.

MikieTimT

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2024, 03:59:54 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 03:54:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2024, 02:05:23 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 10, 2024, 04:58:27 PMiDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now.  Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569.  Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.
I'd say it's a SIU... it's a very quick connection to US-278 from SR-293.

And serves literally dozens of people in Selma.  I assume dozens.  It's unincorporated, so could be any population between 1 and possibly 3 digits.  I guess since they lost their school and consolidated with another district down by Monticello, the bus(ses) will appreciate the better road.
And how would extending it to US-65 increase its traffic anymore? It's as much as SIU than extending it to US-65 would be.

I would say it would increase dramatically by virtue of traffic counts AADT 2022 by County (Drew, Lincoln, Desha).  AR-293 has a whopping AADT of 93.  US-65 south of Dumas to McGehee has an AADT of at least 6800.  Odds are good that there are a much higher number of people traveling between Dumas and Monticello than Selma and Monticello.  The other roads between Dumas and Monticello are either out of the way comparatively, or narrow and winding compared to the Super-2 facility.

Quite frankly, I think it's stupid for them to be heading east with the next segment anyway, when they could do the segment west of US-425 and complete the Monticello Bypass portion with Super-2.  I somehow get the feeling that Monticello really doesn't want to be bypassed yet, which limits the utility of all of this until more segments are completed between higher traffic areas.

sprjus4

Quote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 05:18:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2024, 03:59:54 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 03:54:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2024, 02:05:23 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 10, 2024, 04:58:27 PMiDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now.  Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569.  Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.
I'd say it's a SIU... it's a very quick connection to US-278 from SR-293.

And serves literally dozens of people in Selma.  I assume dozens.  It's unincorporated, so could be any population between 1 and possibly 3 digits.  I guess since they lost their school and consolidated with another district down by Monticello, the bus(ses) will appreciate the better road.
And how would extending it to US-65 increase its traffic anymore? It's as much as SIU than extending it to US-65 would be.

I would say it would increase dramatically by virtue of traffic counts AADT 2022 by County (Drew, Lincoln, Desha).  AR-293 has a whopping AADT of 93.  US-65 south of Dumas to McGehee has an AADT of at least 6800.  Odds are good that there are a much higher number of people traveling between Dumas and Monticello than Selma and Monticello.  The other roads between Dumas and Monticello are either out of the way comparatively, or narrow and winding compared to the Super-2 facility.
Agreed. Traffic going between the two towns (which is likely a very low volume to begin with) could use US-65 South, AR-277, then use 1,500 ft of AR-293 to access the new super-two.

Sure, it only extends to AR-293, but it's quite easy to see on a map it's a quick jump over to US-278 and can act as a relief route for that highway.

abqtraveler

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2024, 05:27:52 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 05:18:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2024, 03:59:54 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 03:54:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2024, 02:05:23 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 10, 2024, 04:58:27 PMiDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now.  Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569.  Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.
I'd say it's a SIU... it's a very quick connection to US-278 from SR-293.

And serves literally dozens of people in Selma.  I assume dozens.  It's unincorporated, so could be any population between 1 and possibly 3 digits.  I guess since they lost their school and consolidated with another district down by Monticello, the bus(ses) will appreciate the better road.
And how would extending it to US-65 increase its traffic anymore? It's as much as SIU than extending it to US-65 would be.

I would say it would increase dramatically by virtue of traffic counts AADT 2022 by County (Drew, Lincoln, Desha).  AR-293 has a whopping AADT of 93.  US-65 south of Dumas to McGehee has an AADT of at least 6800.  Odds are good that there are a much higher number of people traveling between Dumas and Monticello than Selma and Monticello.  The other roads between Dumas and Monticello are either out of the way comparatively, or narrow and winding compared to the Super-2 facility.
Agreed. Traffic going between the two towns (which is likely a very low volume to begin with) could use US-65 South, AR-277, then use 1,500 ft of AR-293 to access the new super-two.

Sure, it only extends to AR-293, but it's quite easy to see on a map it's a quick jump over to US-278 and can act as a relief route for that highway.
The last time I read the STIP, ArDOT plans to start construction on the section from AR-293 to US-65 in 2026. Again, it looks like it will be just the first two lanes; not sure if interchanges will be built, or put off until later.
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

MikieTimT

When Arkansas plans on completing the other lanes and thus making it limited access in a reasonably short period after the Super-2 construction, they generally go ahead and do the interchanges and also the other 2 lanes under any overpasses constructed, at least between the exit/entrance ramps.  Given that it's likely a while before anything else is constructed in that part of the state given population and traffic counts other than continued segments of Super-2, I'd bet on doing interchanges only really at the endpoints of each project and leaving the rest as on-grade intersections until closer to time to flesh out the other 2 lanes.  I'd love to be wrong though.

bwana39

Quote from: MikieTimT on May 20, 2024, 10:05:38 AMWhen Arkansas plans on completing the other lanes and thus making it limited access in a reasonably short period after the Super-2 construction, they generally go ahead and do the interchanges and also the other 2 lanes under any overpasses constructed, at least between the exit/entrance ramps.  Given that it's likely a while before anything else is constructed in that part of the state given population and traffic counts other than continued segments of Super-2, I'd bet on doing interchanges only really at the endpoints of each project and leaving the rest as on-grade intersections until closer to time to flesh out the other 2 lanes.  I'd love to be wrong though.

It appears that Arkansas is doing this as part of a much needed upgrade to AR-4 (oops, I meant US-278). My take is while they are holding out hope that I-69 will eventually run along this route, the construction is proceeding as if it will not. US-278 has an average speed limit of 47 MPH between McGehee and Hope. Stretches go from a HIGH of 55 mph to as low as 35 through some of the unincorporated villages.

Arkansas itself has said they will NEVER be able to afford their 20% of the bridge complex at Arkansas City (their portion as much as $200M for the bridge and elevated approaches.  The total being around $1.5B with Arkansas being responsible for 60% of the 20% match.)
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

MikieTimT

Quote from: bwana39 on May 21, 2024, 08:01:15 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 20, 2024, 10:05:38 AMWhen Arkansas plans on completing the other lanes and thus making it limited access in a reasonably short period after the Super-2 construction, they generally go ahead and do the interchanges and also the other 2 lanes under any overpasses constructed, at least between the exit/entrance ramps.  Given that it's likely a while before anything else is constructed in that part of the state given population and traffic counts other than continued segments of Super-2, I'd bet on doing interchanges only really at the endpoints of each project and leaving the rest as on-grade intersections until closer to time to flesh out the other 2 lanes.  I'd love to be wrong though.

It appears that Arkansas is doing this as part of a much needed upgrade to AR-4 (oops, I meant US-278). My take is while they are holding out hope that I-69 will eventually run along this route, the construction is proceeding as if it will not. US-278 has an average speed limit of 47 MPH between McGehee and Hope. Stretches go from a HIGH of 55 mph to as low as 35 through some of the unincorporated villages.

Arkansas itself has said they will NEVER be able to afford their 20% of the bridge complex at Arkansas City (their portion as much as $200M for the bridge and elevated approaches.  The total being around $1.5B with Arkansas being responsible for 60% of the 20% match.)

With the other, much more pressing priorities around the state even taking decades to fund, we won't live long enough to see it, so the estimated cost is moot as inflation will triple the cost they are currently estimating before both Arkansas and Mississippi can come up with their 20%.  It either becomes a federal priority with earmarks funding another 10%, or we don't live to see it.

The Ghostbuster

Arkansas should strive to completing Interstates 49 and 57 before tackling Interstate 69 (which might not ever exist beyond two-lane segments constructed in a piecemeal format).

MikieTimT

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 21, 2024, 11:33:56 AMArkansas should strive to completing Interstates 49 and 57 before tackling Interstate 69 (which might not ever exist beyond two-lane segments constructed in a piecemeal format).

Those would be the priorities previously referred to.  I think I-57 gets done much sooner than I-49 due to mileage and terrain making it much less costly.  And there's that old saying that "All roads in Arkansas lead to Little Rock", so I-49 will always get less priority, leaving I-57 the winning horse to get completed first.

I-69 pretty much facilitates bypassing Little Rock, so it will never be anything other than back burner by ARDOT.  However, it is for that very reason that I think that it actually has merit, stupid jagged routing notwithstanding.

bwana39

I have talked about this before. When Bob Moore was on the Highway Commission, and before that speaker of the Arkansas House of Representatives, he pushed I-69. It went through his extremely rural home town / county.  With him retired from both now, it will languish and die. They MIGHT  eventually run I-69 along US-82 and use the existing bridge south of Greenville, but the route through Desha county is pretty much dead in the water.

If you route it easterly at ElDorado and cut off the dog-leg via Hamburg and Lake Village, it would actually be shorter.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Avalanchez71

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 12, 2023, 01:56:03 PM
Quote from: StriderIf funding is an issue for I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, why isn't US 82/US 278 Greenville bridge used to connect both states?

Because that would bend I-69 into an even more ridiculous "L" shape route than it already is. The currently proposed I-69 route going through McGehee and Arkansas City offers little if any mileage savings over the I-30/I-40 combo as it is. The Greenville Bridge is another 25 miles farther South from the proposed Great River Bridge location. If I-69 was routed over that bridge then all of I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi would only be of value to local traffic. The long distance traffic would stay on I-40 and I-30. It might still work out that way anyway.

Quote from: abqtravelerIn addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69.

It's ridiculous I-40 isn't already built in a 3x3 lanes or greater configuration between Little Rock and Memphis. The amount of truck traffic on that segment is unreal. A completed I-57 might work as a pressure valve to relieve some of the congestion. But that stretch of I-40 has to be upgraded regardless. If it weren't for the I-57 and I-69 projects either proposed or under construction I'd be calling for I-40 to be built 4x4 all the way from Little Rock to Memphis.

Use US 70.

bwana39

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 12, 2023, 01:56:03 PM
Quote from: StriderIf funding is an issue for I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, why isn't US 82/US 278 Greenville bridge used to connect both states?

Because that would bend I-69 into an even more ridiculous "L" shape route than it already is. The currently proposed I-69 route going through McGehee and Arkansas City offers little if any mileage savings over the I-30/I-40 combo as it is. The Greenville Bridge is another 25 miles farther South from the proposed Great River Bridge location. If I-69 was routed over that bridge then all of I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi would only be of value to local traffic. The long distance traffic would stay on I-40 and I-30. It might still work out that way anyway.

Quote from: abqtravelerIn addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69.

It's ridiculous I-40 isn't already built in a 3x3 lanes or greater configuration between Little Rock and Memphis. The amount of truck traffic on that segment is unreal. A completed I-57 might work as a pressure valve to relieve some of the congestion. But that stretch of I-40 has to be upgraded regardless. If it weren't for the I-57 and I-69 projects either proposed or under construction I'd be calling for I-40 to be built 4x4 all the way from Little Rock to Memphis.

The overpasses are not wide enough. It would be a complete rebuild, not just a widening project. They could almost build I-69 for what it would cost to rebuild I-40 itself much less I-30. Just to go to three lanes would be as expensive or more than widening US-75 from Plano to Denison.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.



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.