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

[sparker]

My thought is in spite of the ROW purchases in Arkansas, this route is not set in stone.

I think from a Missippi perspective, it would be less expensive to build freeway out from the current Greenville Bridge. This would mandate following an even more east / west route through southern Arkansa than is currently proposed.

Mississippi / Arkansas  also is staring at  another bridge eventually. There seems almost surely to be a need for another bridge for metropolitan Memphis. Population growth would suggest in North Mississippi.  This would be an eventual I-X55 or I-22 extension.  Tennessee might could better afford it, but the location with the missing.

As others have said from time-to-time, the US 79 corridor from Pine Bluff looks better in spite of the need for a bridge or bridges across the Arkansas and White Rivers.

If they bought ROW, that's where it's going

IIRC, ARDOT has the right of way

The longstanding knock on the US 79 routing was that it duplicated the current I-30/40 route from TX to Memphis too closely;  in a similar vein US 82 was thought of as too close to I-20; part of the rationale for this I-69 section was to address parts of both AR and MS bypassed by existing Interstates (admittedly part of that was regional politics raising its head!).  Also, the corridor portion following US 278 would serve the U of A Monticello campus -- which was additionally one of the driving forces behind the SIU 28/AR 530 corridor "branch" up to Pine Bluff and LR; the junction point between the main line and the south end of AR 530 is just north of the campus.  A lot of factors involving local benefit figured into the final corridor location; but the Monticello area was where the initial ROW acquisition occurred.   

[bjrush]

Honestly I think all of I-69 duplicates I-30 & I-40. We could spend billions building the whole thing and the existing road may still get you down around Texarkana faster.

Cut the budget in half, add two lanes along I-30/I-40 and call it a day. Sorry south Arkansas

[sprjus4]

Cut the budget in half, add two lanes along I-30/I-40 and call it a day. Sorry south Arkansas

Still -very- expensive to do that for hundreds of miles. Billions of billions of dollars. Would have to study the cost of widening vs. new interstate to determine which is cheaper.

[sparker]

Honestly I think all of I-69 duplicates I-30 & I-40. We could spend billions building the whole thing and the existing road may still get you down around Texarkana faster.

Cut the budget in half, add two lanes along I-30/I-40 and call it a day. Sorry south Arkansas

Not politically feasible; besides, a finished I-69 would obviate the chokepoint that is Little Rock (despite the I-440 bypass).  At present, ARDOT is "all in" on at least the portion along US 278 (and AR 4 to the east); the "dip" into LA, from what I understand, is still in the initial planning phase (it, along with LA's portion north of I-20, will likely be the last piece to be developed -- save the big bridge, of course).  With the I-69 and I-57 corridors, AR politicos and administrators are attempting to debunk the reputation that states that if it isn't in greater LR or NWA, it doesn't get priority.  While that may have actually been the de facto state of affairs in the past, enough negative reaction from the remainder of the state appears to have been received and acknowledged to expedite major projects away from the prior favorites. 

[US71]

Honestly I think all of I-69 duplicates I-30 & I-40. We could spend billions building the whole thing and the existing road may still get you down around Texarkana faster.

Cut the budget in half, add two lanes along I-30/I-40 and call it a day. Sorry south Arkansas

They just did that between LR and Conway along I-40, but east of LR needs it bad.

[edwaleni]

Honestly I think all of I-69 duplicates I-30 & I-40. We could spend billions building the whole thing and the existing road may still get you down around Texarkana faster.

Cut the budget in half, add two lanes along I-30/I-40 and call it a day. Sorry south Arkansas

The issue isn't always duplication of routing.

- Route capacity
- Alternate routes in the event of a disaster
- Economic Development

Some routes may not support increased capacity for the entire way they duplicate another.  In some cases it might cost just as much to widen an existing route due to all of the bridge replacements, exit ramp relocation, environmental constraints they may run into.

The US population is clearly shifting to the south and southwest.  This demands that considerations for the free movement of citizens and commerce be considered now and into the future to support this shift. Small manufacturing which for 100 years were required to be located near a railroad to be sustainable (and near water for the 100 years before that) are now locating to be near high capacity national routes as railroads continue to shrink into only serving large industry and transcon containers.

So in cases of "add a lane or two" might not the strategic course of action. That would be like putting an asphalt layer on a concrete base that is breaking up to buy you a few more years of utility.

[sprjus4]

Additionally, having two routes would split two types of interstate traffic.

I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis would be for traffic coming to/from I-40 west of Little Rock or to/from I-30 bound to Texarkana, Dallas, or beyond.

I-69 south of Memphis would take traffic to/from Memphis and beyond going to/from southern Texas and off of I-40 and I-30.

[bjrush]

Honestly I think all of I-69 duplicates I-30 & I-40. We could spend billions building the whole thing and the existing road may still get you down around Texarkana faster.

Cut the budget in half, add two lanes along I-30/I-40 and call it a day. Sorry south Arkansas

The issue isn't always duplication of routing.

- Route capacity
- Alternate routes in the event of a disaster
- Economic Development

Item 1 would indeed be addressed by adding lanes. Item 2 has been addressed throughout South Arkansas over the years, see Sheridan bypass and all the monies that have been spent widening roads with 2000 vehicles per day down there. Item 3 would be better accomplished by direct investment in the communities, instead of spending billions and getting a few Love's and XXX rated film stores along a few exits and saying it's economic development

[bjrush]

Honestly I think all of I-69 duplicates I-30 & I-40. We could spend billions building the whole thing and the existing road may still get you down around Texarkana faster.

Cut the budget in half, add two lanes along I-30/I-40 and call it a day. Sorry south Arkansas

With the I-69 and I-57 corridors, AR politicos and administrators are attempting to debunk the reputation that states that if it isn't in greater LR or NWA, it doesn't get priority.  While that may have actually been the de facto state of affairs in the past, enough negative reaction from the remainder of the state appears to have been received and acknowledged to expedite major projects away from the prior favorites. 

Disagree. This sounds like a talking point. Who is talking about it in real life? Redistricting in 2020 will give NWA much greater political power, further gutting the delta. Even LR has basically acceded the throne to NWA in the past few years. You can just feel it walking the capitol and talking to people in my opinion. But I'd love to hear what makes you think otherwise

[CoreySamson]

We all know there is no way Arkansas, Louisiana, or Mississippi are going to do a lot of work on 69 in the next 20, maybe 30 years. So Arkansas, I have a 3-point plan for you.

1. Don't work on the 69 corridor until Louisiana or Mississippi builds it up to the border.

2. Until then, work out something with Texas making the 369/30/40 corridor temporary I-69.

3. Upgrade 30 and 40 to 3 lanes each way.

I see no need for 69 in south Arkansas without 69 in Louisiana or Mississippi; I think they should just let 69 rest for a couple decades or so and focus on 49, 30, and 40.

[AcE_Wolf_287]

We all know there is no way Arkansas, Louisiana, or Mississippi are going to do a lot of work on 69 in the next 20, maybe 30 years. So Arkansas, I have a 3-point plan for you.

1. Don't work on the 69 corridor until Louisiana or Mississippi builds it up to the border.

2. Until then, work out something with Texas making the 369/30/40 corridor temporary I-69.

3. Upgrade 30 and 40 to 3 lanes each way.

I see no need for 69 in south Arkansas without 69 in Louisiana or Mississippi; I think they should just let 69 rest for a couple decades or so and focus on 49, 30, and 40.

yea, I've hear Arkansas has a low Budget/Funds so i would really have Arkansas worry about I-57/US 67, and I-49 from Texrakana to Fort Smith,

Louisiana's been working on upgrading US 90 from I-10 in New Orleans to Layette so i agree on you with see no plans in future for I-69 in these States

[edwaleni]

Honestly I think all of I-69 duplicates I-30 & I-40. We could spend billions building the whole thing and the existing road may still get you down around Texarkana faster.

Cut the budget in half, add two lanes along I-30/I-40 and call it a day. Sorry south Arkansas

The issue isn't always duplication of routing.

- Route capacity
- Alternate routes in the event of a disaster
- Economic Development

Item 1 would indeed be addressed by adding lanes. Item 2 has been addressed throughout South Arkansas over the years, see Sheridan bypass and all the monies that have been spent widening roads with 2000 vehicles per day down there. Item 3 would be better accomplished by direct investment in the communities, instead of spending billions and getting a few Love's and XXX rated film stores along a few exits and saying it's economic development

Today perhaps, in the future, probably less so.

Economic development isn't always measured in what an exit can create in the near term.  Though a single Love's Truck Stop can bring employment to over 150 people locally and contribute millions to a local economy.  This helps a county pay for better roads, which makes it better for school buses, which gets more kids to school. As stupid as some may think it, a single Taco Bell or McDonalds can raise employment levels in a town by 25%. These are working people who no longer have to rely on assistance. Studies have shown that 1 new food chain that enters a small town can lower teen crime because they are working, not hanging.

If you measure your rate of return in merely 15-20 years, even 30 years, the lifespan of one slab of freeway....then obviously it would be a loss. If you drove most of the original interstate system in 1969, you could easily say most of the exits were pretty empty unless co-located with its former US route. But no one stood around and said, this is a waste...USxx is right next to it. Look at most of them 60 years later and most would say it was well worth it.

There are still parts of the interstate system where I would agree that they serve very little local or even regional economic benefit. I-55 south of Memphis all the way to Jackson is a wasteland. Lots of exits, very few businesses.  I have been on I-90, I-94, I-80, I-70 and I-40 across the vast emptiness of the west. But their strategic importance to the commerce of the nation is considered vital.

I-69 was brought about to develop a commerce highway between Mexico and Canada. I can see a future (especially in and around Memphis)  where manufacturers and logistics operators will find it extremely beneficial.

Are there effective routes today? Sure. But will they still be effective 30, 40 or 50 years from now? Probably less so or not at all.

Waste of money? Well, it all depends on what you are looking at, the near term or the long one.

[bwana39]

We all know there is no way Arkansas, Louisiana, or Mississippi are going to do a lot of work on 69 in the next 20, maybe 30 years. So Arkansas, I have a 3-point plan for you.

1. Don't work on the 69 corridor until Louisiana or Mississippi builds it up to the border.

2. Until then, work out something with Texas making the 369/30/40 corridor temporary I-69.

3. Upgrade 30 and 40 to 3 lanes each way.

I see no need for 69 in south Arkansas without 69 in Louisiana or Mississippi; I think they should just let 69 rest for a couple decades or so and focus on 49, 30, and 40.

yea, I've hear Arkansas has a low Budget/Funds so i would really have Arkansas worry about I-57/US 67, and I-49 from Texrakana to Fort Smith,

Louisiana's been working on upgrading US 90 from I-10 in New Orleans to Layette so i agree on you with see no plans in future for I-69 in these States

I agree with the analysis on Louisiana and even the Arkansas financial realities.

I do not agree that widening I-30 and I-40 are as painless as you seem to think. Arkansas made their bridges and overpasses as narrow as possible. Widening the road by two lanes (1 each direction) means replacing every overpass. It means replacing most of the bridges.  It often means ROW purchases.  The cost + the traffic disruption would be better served in a new freeway even it if started at the two lane US 79, US-167, or 371 at the state line and went to the current Greenville Bridge, leaving Mississippi and Louisiana with their I-69 problem.

[bwana39]

I posted this in relation to interstate 49 is western Arkanasas and copied it here.

I don't really think I-49 is going to be held up for I-69. The I-69 bridge is decades in the future if ever. Common sense is to take I-69 from south of US 82 (west of ElDorado) to the current US278 (US 82 Greenville) bridge, extend the future I-530 (US 425 / 278 or US-65) from Pine Bluff to Lake Village. A few miles more of freeway, but no half billion+dollar  bridge.

Here is what it takes to get the Dean bridge built.

1) I-69 in Louisiana.
2) I-69 in Arkansas.
3) I-530 Finished to Monticello AR
4) Missippi Coming up with money for their part of the bridge (which they may want in a different location or not at all.)
5) Arkansas having funding to build the bridge.

I-69 in LA doesn't start until AFTER I-69 is complete past Nacogdoches in Texas.  That is just the component from US-59 to US-71. The part north of I-20 may be 30 years in the future.

[Anthony_JK]

Louisiana's been working on upgrading US 90 from I-10 in New Orleans to Layette so i agree on you with see no plans in future for I-69 in these States

1) *Lafayette*.

2) I-49 South uses the Evangeline Thruway (US 167/US 190) to connect US 90 south of Lafayette to the existing I-49 terminus. US 90 doesn't connect directly with I-10; it diverges from the Evangeline Thruway at Mudd Avenue, then follows Cameron Street west to out of the city to serve towns like Scott, Duson, and ultimately Rayne, Crowley, and Jennings.

US 167 does use the Evangeline Thruway from Johnston Street northward to I-10, and is overlaid by existing I-49 north of I-10.

[bwana39]

If they bought ROW, that's where it's going

IIRC, ARDOT has the right of way

Yes ARDOT has the vast majority of the ROW including the part leading to the river.  Just like the Greenville MS bypass, it has lain unused for over a decade.  Mississippi has bought ZERO R.O.W. on the east bank. Just because you buy a wedding ring doesn't mean you have an engagement.

[sprjus4]

If they bought ROW, that's where it's going

IIRC, ARDOT has the right of way

Yes ARDOT has the vast majority of the ROW including the part leading to the river.  Just like the Greenville MS bypass, it has lain unused for over a decade.  Mississippi has bought ZERO R.O.W. on the east bank. Just because you buy a wedding ring doesn't mean you have an engagement.

At least the Greenville Bypass was graded and structures were constructed.

[sparker]

I posted this in relation to interstate 49 is western Arkanasas and copied it here.

I don't really think I-49 is going to be held up for I-69. The I-69 bridge is decades in the future if ever. Common sense is to take I-69 from south of US 82 (west of ElDorado) to the current US278 (US 82 Greenville) bridge, extend the future I-530 (US 425 / 278 or US-65) from Pine Bluff to Lake Village. A few miles more of freeway, but no half billion+dollar  bridge.

Here is what it takes to get the Dean bridge built.

1) I-69 in Louisiana.
2) I-69 in Arkansas.
3) I-530 Finished to Monticello AR
4) Missippi Coming up with money for their part of the bridge (which they may want in a different location or not at all.)
5) Arkansas having funding to build the bridge.

I-69 in LA doesn't start until AFTER I-69 is complete past Nacogdoches in Texas.  That is just the component from US-59 to US-71. The part north of I-20 may be 30 years in the future.

The metholology that will in all probability be used in AR for their portion(s) of the I-69 corridor (and the ancillary AR 530) is analogous to the old adage about how to eat an elephant: one bite at a time.  That can already be seen with the Monticello bypass -- half of it done with only the initial 2 lanes.  From what I've gathered, that format will be continued on the portion east of there extending to US 65 near McGehee.   That'll allow ADOT to spread any budgetary allocations for the project over a longer period of time so as to both (a) minimize effect on other major state projects such as I-49 or I-57 as well as (b) demonstrate commitment to the I-69 corridor concept.  It seems they've internalized the fact that I-69 will be more of a "long haul" developmental process than the other in-state Interstate projects.  Of course the basic I-49 corridor through NWA is complete save the remaining section to and over the MO line; addressing suboptimal features of that region's portion of that corridor will be an incremental process -- also done one interchange and/or one section at a time in order to not bite off more than they can chew at any given point in time.  I-49 south of I-40, once the Arkansas River bridge project is in the rear view mirror, will probably proceed in similar fashion albeit at a likely accelerated schedule (it's on a major commercial corridor already in use) -- starting with bypasses of towns like De Queen, Mena, and Greenwood -- getting the segments requiring more structures done first to avoid as much as possible the onset of inflation; these will also be well away from the existing route, keeping traffic disruption to a minimum (like with Monticello vis-a-vis US 278).  The intervening segments, even the one "over the top" near Y City/US 270, will see construction later. 

But with the I-69 corridor the major strictly in-state obstacle to be overcome is the Ouachita River floodplain, which will invariably require a series of bridges and berms (not too different from I-40 LR to Memphis); it's more than likely that won't be attacked until most of I-49 and I-57 are at least let and under way.  If a state doesn't seem to be able to raise an infinite amount of funding, such a "round-robin" incremental approach becomes necessary.   But both LR and NWA have the luxury of having much of their system already in place; even with augmented political power, their various remaining "wish list" doesn't have the import of the longer-distance corridors. 

That being said, it's likely that I-57 will see full completion prior to either of the other planned I-corridors simply because MO seems to be willing to address their end of things, combined with the fact that overall there's less mileage to develop than with the other two corridors -- and once completed, the pressure to expand I-40 east of LR will be considerably lessened. 

[sprjus4]

^

Arkansas is building all these 2-lane segments, but are there any ever plans to 4-lane any of them?

It almost reminds me of Texas's super-twos, even the toll ones.

[sparker]

^

Arkansas is building all these 2-lane segments, but are there any ever plans to 4-lane any of them?

It almost reminds me of Texas's super-twos, even the toll ones.

They're being built on 4-lane ROW's (with Interstate geometry); how much 2-lane mileage is constructed before going back to expand the older segments out to full 4-lane freeways is yet TBD;  my own guess is the only divided section for quite some time will be at the 69/530 interchange, which will probably be built to full standards but be reduced to 2 lanes (in all open directions) once past the interchange itself.   Best guesstimate -- the 2-lane sections will serve "as-is" for at least 15 years before expansion is undertaken.

[US71]

^

Arkansas is building all these 2-lane segments, but are there any ever plans to 4-lane any of them?

It almost reminds me of Texas's super-twos, even the toll ones.

IIRC, they have ROW for 4 lanes should the money ever become available

[bwana39]

I posted this in relation to interstate 49 is western Arkanasas and copied it here.

I don't really think I-49 is going to be held up for I-69. The I-69 bridge is decades in the future if ever. Common sense is to take I-69 from south of US 82 (west of ElDorado) to the current US278 (US 82 Greenville) bridge, extend the future I-530 (US 425 / 278 or US-65) from Pine Bluff to Lake Village. A few miles more of freeway, but no half billion+dollar  bridge.

Here is what it takes to get the Dean bridge built.

1) I-69 in Louisiana.
2) I-69 in Arkansas.
3) I-530 Finished to Monticello AR
4) Missippi Coming up with money for their part of the bridge (which they may want in a different location or not at all.)
5) Arkansas having funding to build the bridge.

I-69 in LA doesn't start until AFTER I-69 is complete past Nacogdoches in Texas.  That is just the component from US-59 to US-71. The part north of I-20 may be 30 years in the future.

The metholology that will in all probability be used in AR for their portion(s) of the I-69 corridor (and the ancillary AR 530) is analogous to the old adage about how to eat an elephant: one bite at a time.  That can already be seen with the Monticello bypass -- half of it done with only the initial 2 lanes.  From what I've gathered, that format will be continued on the portion east of there extending to US 65 near McGehee.   That'll allow ADOT to spread any budgetary allocations for the project over a longer period of time so as to both (a) minimize effect on other major state projects such as I-49 or I-57 as well as (b) demonstrate commitment to the I-69 corridor concept.  It seems they've internalized the fact that I-69 will be more of a "long haul" developmental process than the other in-state Interstate projects.  Of course the basic I-49 corridor through NWA is complete save the remaining section to and over the MO line; addressing suboptimal features of that region's portion of that corridor will be an incremental process -- also done one interchange and/or one section at a time in order to not bite off more than they can chew at any given point in time.  I-49 south of I-40, once the Arkansas River bridge project is in the rear view mirror, will probably proceed in similar fashion albeit at a likely accelerated schedule (it's on a major commercial corridor already in use) -- starting with bypasses of towns like De Queen, Mena, and Greenwood -- getting the segments requiring more structures done first to avoid as much as possible the onset of inflation; these will also be well away from the existing route, keeping traffic disruption to a minimum (like with Monticello vis-a-vis US 278).  The intervening segments, even the one "over the top" near Y City/US 270, will see construction later. 

But with the I-69 corridor the major strictly in-state obstacle to be overcome is the Ouachita River floodplain, which will invariably require a series of bridges and berms (not too different from I-40 LR to Memphis); it's more than likely that won't be attacked until most of I-49 and I-57 are at least let and under way.  If a state doesn't seem to be able to raise an infinite amount of funding, such a "round-robin" incremental approach becomes necessary.   But both LR and NWA have the luxury of having much of their system already in place; even with augmented political power, their various remaining "wish list" doesn't have the import of the longer-distance corridors. 

That being said, it's likely that I-57 will see full completion prior to either of the other planned I-corridors simply because MO seems to be willing to address their end of things, combined with the fact that overall there's less mileage to develop than with the other two corridors -- and once completed, the pressure to expand I-40 east of LR will be considerably lessened.

I think the Highway Comission is pretty much comitted to I-69. The question is about the legislature's comittment. The current build out on future I-69 is realistically the highway department scraping uncommitted funds together to build it. The legislature DID authorize the ROW aquisition and funding for it. The construction dollars are not allocated for this project as some of the other projects have allocated dollars. Until the Legislature gets behind it. They may go about eating the elephant, but the meat is gonna get spoiled before the eating is finished.

[Bobby5280]

The biggest problem with I-69 in Southern Arkansas is the Great River Bridge and how or if that project will ever be funded. There's really little point at all in building out I-69 in NW Mississippi or Southern Arkansas without getting that bridge project built some time soon. If they keep putting it off the cost of that bridge will soar past the $2 billion mark. The bridge is really the make or break factor on this.

If they can't get the Great River Bridge project moving then AR DOT is going to be better off concentrating on I-49 and I-57.

The real bottleneck along I-40 East of Little Rock is the very outdated bridge crossings in Memphis. The I-55 bridge is terrible and its approach in Memphis is pathetic. Both bridges need to be re-built. Plus two more are needed in the Memphis area, one farther north and another to the South near Tunica. That's several billion dollars worth of bridges and related road work. The Great River Bridge quite a ways farther South seems like an extravagance compared to those more immediate needs in the Memphis area.

Regarding the choice to build I-69 in Southern Arkansas or widen I-40 from Little Rock to Memphis, I would personally choose the latter for the near term. It would easier and less expensive to do.

The existing I-40 ROW already has enough room to expand to 4 lanes in both directions. It could be widened in a 4x4 manner from the US-67 split in North Little Rock to the I-55 interchange in West Memhis. Far less in terms of Draft EIS and EIS hassles are needed in widening an existing freeway, especially when no extra ROW is needed. There are no properites to buy and clear. Sure, a decent number of bridges and ramps would have to be updated. But an I-69 route in Southern Arkansas needs all the same new stuff that goes into an Interstate along with all the legal headaches that come with building any new terrain freeway route.

And then there's the matter of the I-69 route being so crooked. How much time/mileage will it save versus using the I-30/40 combo coming up from I-369? I really don't see the value of I-69 between the I-369 split in Texas all the way up to Indianapolis as being a primary highway to move traffic between Mexico and Canada.

[sprjus4]

And then there's the matter of the I-69 route being so crooked. How much time/mileage will it save versus using the I-30/40 combo coming up from I-369? I really don't see the value of I-69 between the I-369 split in Texas all the way up to Indianapolis as being a primary highway to move traffic between Mexico and Canada.

Curious as well, I decided to draw the proposed routing as accurately as possible based on state maps and compared the distance / time of Future I-69 and I-269 to Future I-369, I-30, and I-40, for a routing between Tenaha and I-40 east of Memphis at I-269.

Tenaha -> Memphis
I-369 -> I-30 -> I-40 = 6 hours, 4 minutes; 426 miles
I-69 -> I-269 = 6 hours, 8 minutes; 430 miles

So ultimately, both routes would have about the same mileage and travel times, with I-69 also avoiding the Little Rock, Memphis, and Texarkana metros. The traffic load would additionally be split. I-69 would serve southeastern Texas traffic whereas I-40 and I-30 would serve Oklahoma and northern Texas traffic. If I-69 could reasonably get completed through Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi, it indeed would take traffic off of I-40 and I-30 and relieve congestion, especially those high truck percentages, over 50% of the traffic volumes.

Additionally, Google's time calculations tend to assume a slightly higher speed than the actual speed limit, so I would have to go through each segment of I-40 and I-30, notably in the urban areas, and get an accurate time calculation based on the posted speed limit. The I-30 and I-40 time estimate could be ~5 minutes off. I assumed a consistent 70 mph speed limit on the I-69 route, whereas Google may have assumed a consistent 75 mph driving speed on I-30 / I-40.

[bwana39]

The biggest problem with I-69 in Southern Arkansas is the Great River Bridge and how or if that project will ever be funded. There's really little point at all in building out I-69 in NW Mississippi or Southern Arkansas without getting that bridge project built some time soon. If they keep putting it off the cost of that bridge will soar past the $2 billion mark. The bridge is really the make or break factor on this.

If they can't get the Great River Bridge project moving then AR DOT is going to be better off concentrating on I-49 and I-57.

The real bottleneck along I-40 East of Little Rock is the very outdated bridge crossings in Memphis. The I-55 bridge is terrible and its approach in Memphis is pathetic. Both bridges need to be re-built. Plus two more are needed in the Memphis area, one farther north and another to the South near Tunica. That's several billion dollars worth of bridges and related road work. The Great River Bridge quite a ways farther South seems like an extravagance compared to those more immediate needs in the Memphis area.

Regarding the choice to build I-69 in Southern Arkansas or widen I-40 from Little Rock to Memphis, I would personally choose the latter for the near term. It would easier and less expensive to do.

The existing I-40 ROW already has enough room to expand to 4 lanes in both directions. It could be widened in a 4x4 manner from the US-67 split in North Little Rock to the I-55 interchange in West Memhis. Far less in terms of Draft EIS and EIS hassles are needed in widening an existing freeway, especially when no extra ROW is needed. There are no properites to buy and clear. Sure, a decent number of bridges and ramps would have to be updated. But an I-69 route in Southern Arkansas needs all the same new stuff that goes into an Interstate along with all the legal headaches that come with building any new terrain freeway route.

And then there's the matter of the I-69 route being so crooked. How much time/mileage will it save versus using the I-30/40 combo coming up from I-369? I really don't see the value of I-69 between the I-369 split in Texas all the way up to Indianapolis as being a primary highway to move traffic between Mexico and Canada.

The biggest problem with I-69 in Southern Arkansas is the Great River Bridge and how or if that project will ever be funded. There's really little point at all in building out I-69 in NW Mississippi or Southern Arkansas without getting that bridge project built some time soon. If they keep putting it off the cost of that bridge will soar past the $2 billion mark. The bridge is really the make or break factor on this.

If they can't get the Great River Bridge project moving then AR DOT is going to be better off concentrating on I-49 and I-57.

The real bottleneck along I-40 East of Little Rock is the very outdated bridge crossings in Memphis. The I-55 bridge is terrible and its approach in Memphis is pathetic. Both bridges need to be re-built. Plus two more are needed in the Memphis area, one farther north and another to the South near Tunica. That's several billion dollars worth of bridges and related road work. The Great River Bridge quite a ways farther South seems like an extravagance compared to those more immediate needs in the Memphis area.

Regarding the choice to build I-69 in Southern Arkansas or widen I-40 from Little Rock to Memphis, I would personally choose the latter for the near term. It would easier and less expensive to do.

The existing I-40 ROW already has enough room to expand to 4 lanes in both directions. It could be widened in a 4x4 manner from the US-67 split in North Little Rock to the I-55 interchange in West Memhis. Far less in terms of Draft EIS and EIS hassles are needed in widening an existing freeway, especially when no extra ROW is needed. There are no properites to buy and clear. Sure, a decent number of bridges and ramps would have to be updated. But an I-69 route in Southern Arkansas needs all the same new stuff that goes into an Interstate along with all the legal headaches that come with building any new terrain freeway route.

And then there's the matter of the I-69 route being so crooked. How much time/mileage will it save versus using the I-30/40 combo coming up from I-369? I really don't see the value of I-69 between the I-369 split in Texas all the way up to Indianapolis as being a primary highway to move traffic between Mexico and Canada.

I think overall you are right. I69 is not a better route than 369/30/40. It might even be an inferior one. (Or eventully I-369 /49/44) or I 30/40/55  (or 57). All the redundant talk I have heard here about the I-69 being redundant to I-20  or I-30/40, the real redundancy is I-69 and I-55. They run on either side of the Mississippi River.


The point is that I-30 / I-40 upgrades are for more expensive than you give it credit. It isn't glue a new lane on each side and go. It is replace every overpass and most of the bridges along them. Yes the ROW is at least minimally wide enough. The problem is the overpasses are too narrow for three lanes to go under and the bridges are too narrow for three lanes to go over.  Look at US 75 from I-635 to Sherman. Replace the overpass, replace the bridges... 100% of the ones built before 1995 that is the case. Most of them on I-30 & 40 were built long before 1995.