The new US 82 bypass will run from Greenville's new MS river bridge to present-day 82 near Leland. Grading and draining is now underway between the bridge and MS Hwy 1, and this segment apparently will include a couple cloverleaf interchanges.
Here's the relevant section of the poorly-written MDOT press release (http://www.gomdot.com/Home/MediaRoom/newsreleases/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?ID=924201033356):
Highway 82 bypass in Washington County - This is the first stage of a four stage project to construct a by-pass from the Mississippi River to Leland in Washington County. This project swings south of Greenville and is the grade, drain and bridge portion of the first project which stretches from the Mississippi River to Highway 1. This particular project consists of bridges at Highway 454, Wilcox Road, Redman Road, Main Extended, and Highway 1. It will contain two clover leaf interchanges at Highway 454 and Highway 1. When completed, the Highway 82 by-pass will be a four-lane facility which will take most of the truck traffic out of Greenville by providing a corridor for those trucks to travel from Highway 61 to the newly constructed Mississippi River Bridge. This will help with traffic congestion on the undivided section of Highway 82 in the urban areas of Greenville. This project was awarded to Tanner Construction Company, Inc. at a cost of $32,418,017 and the project is approximately 70% complete.
I find that interesting considering that both the 1996 FONSI and the 2004 and 2008 re-evaluations showed standard diamond interchanges.
Based on NAIP aerials, MS 454 is definitely a diamond and MS 1 is probably one.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.3179&lon=-91.0873&zoom=14&layers=M
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5056%2F5582251622_b7fb562177_z_d.jpg&hash=042addedcb02c2b3d37037dd2f585cbce156c30b)
US 82 Bypass at MS 454 July 2010
Didn't have a chance to check out MS 1
Maybe I just don't know what to look for, but I can't tell what type of interchange is being built from that picture.
I remember thinking when I first read the press release I quoted above how odd it was to build a cloverleaf on this bypass anywhere other than, maybe, at MS 1. But this state has a history of building them at what I would consider odd places, so I wasn't incredulous. Two other examples right on US 82 would be the ones at Leland and Greenwood. There are other places along that highway where I think a cloverleaf might have made more sense than at those two spots.
Why wouldn't a cloverleaf make sense at Leland? A major east-west road (US 82) and a major north-south road (US 61), with 3 of the 4 legs being 4 lanes.
Quote from: berberry on April 10, 2011, 01:15:42 AM
Maybe I just don't know what to look for, but I can't tell what type of interchange is being built from that picture.
The photo was taken in 2010, so I don't think ramp construction had started yet. I may try to pop down there this Summer for some updated photos.
NAIP imagery of the west end:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2Fjffej6.jpg&hash=e11c42a101c1d6c573e7f50f852f715caa3d6d34)
Quote from: froggie on April 10, 2011, 08:16:31 AM
Why wouldn't a cloverleaf make sense at Leland? A major east-west road (US 82) and a major north-south road (US 61), with 3 of the 4 legs being 4 lanes.
The interaction with 61 toward Vicksburg has always appeared to be minimal at that spot. Seems like that interchange might just as well have been a parclo, with the left-turns on 61. I've never been through there at a time when the traffic going to/from the south was heavy, and I lived in Greenville for a couple years.
For the same reason, though, a cloverleaf might make more sense on the new freeway at MS 1, even though the map posted above would suggest there won't be one. People travelling to or from Vicksburg are more likely to use that route, and development south of that interchange is bound to increase once the new road is in place.
May 6 update from MDOT on two sections of the project:
http://www.gomdot.com/Home/MediaRoom/newsreleases/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?ID=56201121801
"Highway 82 Bypass from Highway 454 to Highway 1
The project is for the grade drain and bridge construction of a new four-lane section. The contract amount is $32,418,017 and the contractor is Tanner Construction Company. The project is 80 percent complete.
U.S. 82 Greenville Bypass from SR 1 to Leland
The project includes a four-lane roadway, grade drain and bridge construction on the U.S. 82 Greenville Bypass. The construction estimate is $51,900,000. The design is complete and utility relocation is ongoing at this time, mainly in the Leland area. "
Is it a I-69 project or?
Nope...it's more associated with the new US 82 bridge across the Mississippi River.
The proposed I-169 spur extending to Greenville, though, is supposed to connect with the bypass when it is completed.
Anthony
Quote from: Buummu on May 10, 2011, 06:37:59 PM
Is it a I-69 project or?
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2011, 08:00:32 PM
Nope...it's more associated with the new US 82 bridge across the Mississippi River.
The proposed I-169 spur extending to Greenville, though, is supposed to connect with the bypass when it is completed.
Anthony
Here is a description (from MDOT website) of the Greenville Connector (proposed I-169 spur) with a map that shows how the Greenville Connector would connect the US 82 and I-69 corridors:
http://www.gomdot.com/Home/Projects/Studies/Central/GreenvilleConnector/pdf/MapOfAlternatives.pdf
and froggie's webpage from a few years ago (I don't think much has happened in the interim) ...:
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/i169.htm
Also, here's a map of I-69 SIU 11 through Mississippi:
http://www.gomdot.com/Home/Projects/I69/pdf/I69-SIU11-Map.pdf
awesome! thanks for the links!
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2011, 08:00:32 PM
Nope...it's more associated with the new US 82 bridge across the Mississippi River.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4122%2F4855408367_7967eb7d99_z_d.jpg&hash=71cc0a5a3846624f9fb6089d367dfe6386bde1ec)
This is taken from the Greenville Bypass. 82/278 currently swing around to connect to their older alignment that crossed the old bridge.
Quoteand froggie's webpage from a few years ago (I don't think much has happened in the interim)
They've started a new location study to look at some different alignments, but that's about it...
Quote from: US71 on May 10, 2011, 11:30:49 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2011, 08:00:32 PM
Nope...it's more associated with the new US 82 bridge across the Mississippi River.
This is taken from the Greenville Bypass. 82/278 currently swing around to connect to their older alignment that crossed the old bridge.
Are the gates in that photo from when the bridge was under construction (just completed) or more recent?
Quote from: Adam Smith on May 12, 2011, 12:57:04 AM
Quote from: US71 on May 10, 2011, 11:30:49 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2011, 08:00:32 PM
Nope...it's more associated with the new US 82 bridge across the Mississippi River.
This is taken from the Greenville Bypass. 82/278 currently swing around to connect to their older alignment that crossed the old bridge.
Are the gates in that photo from when the bridge was under construction (just completed) or more recent?
During construction. It was about 98 percent finished (July 2010), but MDOT was doing some minor finishing work on 82.
Does anyone have any updates on this project? When I was in the area around New Year's, the road bed was complete, but nothing else had been laid. It's disappointing that the eastern half south of Leland may not be done.
The way MDOT typically works for new highway or widening projects, they'll first do a project to grade the road, build drainage, and build bridges. Then they'll come in later with a contract to pave the road.
Unfortunately, all I could find in the draft 2012-15 STIP is the existing contract to grade and bridge between the river and MS 1. Nothing east of MS 1, and nothing on paving what's currently under construction.
Thanks Froggie. The new MDOT website has zero info in the project update section. I could get better updates from the old website. It'd be nice to drive on 4 lane roads all the way from Little Rock to Starkville, MS one day. I can only dream I guess.
Quote from: msunat97 on June 18, 2012, 10:50:16 AM
It'd be nice to drive on 4 lane roads all the way from Little Rock to Starkville, MS one day. I can only dream I guess.
You actually can now. Just a little out the way, though. I-40 to Memphis, then 78 east to Tupelo and then south on US 45.
Thanks Golden Eagle. I try to avoid the Little Rock - Memphis corridor on I-40. It's always busy & slowed by construction. It's a much easier drive through South Arkansas.
QuoteThe new MDOT website has zero info in the project update section. I could get better updates from the old website.
I fully agree.
Does anyone have an update on how this is progressing? I'll be heading through there in about a month & just wanted to know how things are or aren't moving along.
Quote from: US71 on May 10, 2011, 11:30:49 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2011, 08:00:32 PM
Nope...it's more associated with the new US 82 bridge across the Mississippi River.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4122%2F4855408367_7967eb7d99_z_d.jpg&hash=71cc0a5a3846624f9fb6089d367dfe6386bde1ec)
This is taken from the Greenville Bypass. 82/278 currently swing around to connect to their older alignment that crossed the old bridge.
I have never seen this type of bridge before! Is there a name for it?
Quote from: Henry on October 23, 2012, 11:30:18 AM
Quote from: US71 on May 10, 2011, 11:30:49 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2011, 08:00:32 PM
Nope...it's more associated with the new US 82 bridge across the Mississippi River.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4122%2F4855408367_7967eb7d99_z_d.jpg&hash=71cc0a5a3846624f9fb6089d367dfe6386bde1ec)
This is taken from the Greenville Bypass. 82/278 currently swing around to connect to their older alignment that crossed the old bridge.
I have never seen this type of bridge before! Is there a name for it?
It's what they call a "cable stayed bridge". If there's a fancier term, I'm not aware of it ;)
Yeah, the only thing that makes it appear unusual is having cable stays on both sides of the bridge, rather than only down the middle.
I had an email exchange with Kevin Magee, MDOT District Engineer about the progress of this project. See below...
The first phase of the Hwy 82 Bypass construction is almost complete. This phase cost $32.5 million and included all the earthwork, bridges, and drainage structures for the section beginning at the new MS River Bridge to SR 1. Our contractor is currently doing final cleanup, grass mowing, etc. in order to complete the project.
The next phase (phase 2) will include the earthwork, bridges, and drainage structures from SR 1 to Leland. It is projected to cost $52 million. Unfortunately, budget shortfalls and other economic factors have made it difficult to predict when we will be able to begin the next phase.
After phase 2 is complete, we will then pave the entire bypass project at a projected cost of $75 million.
The project remains at the top of my priority list and I look forward to getting the next phase underway as quickly as our budget constraints allow.
If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me.
Thanks,
J. Kevin Magee, P.E.
District Engineer
MDOT District III, Yazoo City
(662) 746-2513
I asked him a few follow-up questions about the timing of the funding for Phase 2 & if they would pave Phase 1 if no funding was availble for Phase 2. I'll post his answers when I receive them.
Replies from the district engineer...
#1 — Phase 2 of the Bypass is "shovel ready" ... meaning that all plans are complete, all the necessary rights of way have been acquired, and we have already relocated the affected utilities. No further approvals are needed. The one and only issue is funding. It is still in line for funding... it's just that the line isn't moving nearly fast as we would like. Rising construction costs along with stagnant/decreasing revenues from fuel taxes leave MDOT will far less "buying power" than we have enjoyed in past years. Maintenance activities are costing a lot more as well so as more and more money is diverted to take care of what we have already built, it leaves less and less for new construction. Honestly, I can't forecast when the next phase will be built, but we are in good shape should some "one time money" (stimulus money, etc.) come along. Otherwise, we will have to wait until economic conditions improve.
#2 — It would cost roughly $33 million to pave the first section. If I could get that amount of money, I would be interested in letting another section of the next phase. Maybe not the whole thing, but whatever we could afford. The Greenville bypass is an interstate type facility with very limited access. I'm afraid it would not be very useful until we can get the whole thing opened at one time.
In this September 10 guest column (http://www.deltabusinessjournal.com/index.php/guest-column-a-taxing-problem-sp-1632091666.html), Dick Hall, transportation commissioner of the Central District for the state of Mississippi, refers to this project as having been "abandoned":
Quote
The future of construction of new and badly needed highways and bridges is even bleaker. There could be no better example than the abandoned Highway 82 Bypass Project. There has already been over $57 million spent on this project, but we don't have the $135 million needed to finish it.
Mississippi needs to find a way to identify a more plentiful funding source.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 20, 2013, 11:57:16 AM
In this September 10 guest column (http://www.deltabusinessjournal.com/index.php/guest-column-a-taxing-problem-sp-1632091666.html), Dick Hall, transportation commissioner of the Central District for the state of Mississippi, refers to this project as having been "abandoned":
Quote
The future of construction of new and badly needed highways and bridges is even bleaker. There could be no better example than the abandoned Highway 82 Bypass Project. There has already been over $57 million spent on this project, but we don't have the $135 million needed to finish it.
Mississippi needs to find a way to identify a more plentiful funding source.
Sounds like ALDOT with the U.S. 98 bypass of Semmes in Mobile County. They made headway then a lawsuit halted work and now they have no funds to complete it.
Minus the lawsuit (no lawsuit against the Greenville bypass), that would be an appropriate analogy.
I'm sensing another Alabama Corridor X situation in the making.
One possible workaround would be for Washington County to do a HELP Bond issue to complete the work (like DeSoto is doing for I-269), but Washington County doesn't have near the tax base that DeSoto does to get the bonds. Maybe they can get the legislature to divert some casino money...
Is Corridor V also stalled northeast of Fulton?
Quote from: NE2 on November 20, 2013, 10:21:30 PM
Is Corridor V also stalled northeast of Fulton?
AFAIK it's a low priority but once the Pontotoc-Tupelo section of Corridor V is done next year, it will be the only segment to complete, since the Red Bay bypass to MS 23 is now open. The Toyota plant may produce enough impetus to get it done, although a project that might be perceived to help suppliers locate in Alabama probably will be a tougher sell.
To my mind the open question is to what extent MDOT's plans to widen MS 25 coincide with Corridor V; if there's no overlap (i.e. an online widening of MS 25, which is pretty curvy between Corridor V and Tishomingo County), it's less likely to happen than if MDOT plans to use a lengthy chunk of Corridor V and then strike off on new terrain north toward Belmont near MS 23. For now though MDOT's focus seems to be on MS 25 between US 45 and US 78, rather than the north-of-78 section.
Quote from: lordsutch on November 21, 2013, 12:35:52 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 20, 2013, 10:21:30 PM
Is Corridor V also stalled northeast of Fulton?
AFAIK it's a low priority but once the Pontotoc-Tupelo section of Corridor V is done next year, it will be the only segment to complete, since the Red Bay bypass to MS 23 is now open. The Toyota plant may produce enough impetus to get it done, although a project that might be perceived to help suppliers locate in Alabama probably will be a tougher sell.
The Toyota engine plant in Huntsville, AL supplies engines to the Toyota plant in Sherman, MS, so there could be a push from that end to get it finished, but that probably wouldn't amount to a lot of traffic.
Quote from: lordsutch on November 21, 2013, 12:35:52 AM
To my mind the open question is to what extent MDOT's plans to widen MS 25 coincide with Corridor V; if there's no overlap (i.e. an online widening of MS 25, which is pretty curvy between Corridor V and Tishomingo County), it's less likely to happen than if MDOT plans to use a lengthy chunk of Corridor V and then strike off on new terrain north toward Belmont near MS 23. For now though MDOT's focus seems to be on MS 25 between US 45 and US 78, rather than the north-of-78 section.
I am wondering whether MS 76/Corridor V will intersect with the end of the MS 25 four-lane at a T-intersection or if the four lane will just continue straight onto Corridor V with MS 25 traffic having to turn off of or onto Corridor V?
QuoteI am wondering whether MS 76/Corridor V will intersect with the end of the MS 25 four-lane at a T-intersection or if the four lane will just continue straight onto Corridor V with MS 25 traffic having to turn off of or onto Corridor V?
Haven't seen nor heard of plans, but given precedent elsewhere in the state, my guess would be the latter.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 20, 2013, 11:57:16 AM
In this September 10 guest column (http://www.deltabusinessjournal.com/index.php/guest-column-a-taxing-problem-sp-1632091666.html), Dick Hall, transportation commissioner of the Central District for the state of Mississippi, refers to this project as having been "abandoned":
Quote
The future of construction of new and badly needed highways and bridges is even bleaker. There could be no better example than the abandoned Highway 82 Bypass Project. There has already been over $57 million spent on this project, but we don't have the $135 million needed to finish it.
Mississippi needs to find a way to identify a more plentiful funding source.
That isn't likely, given that we've put a bunch of teabaggers in charge of the state!
Quote from: codyg1985 on November 21, 2013, 05:38:41 AM
I am wondering whether MS 76/Corridor V will intersect with the end of the MS 25 four-lane at a T-intersection or if the four lane will just continue straight onto Corridor V with MS 25 traffic having to turn off of or onto Corridor V?
Based on the configuration of the Old Highway 25 and MS 25 intersection (https://maps.google.com/?ll=34.333886,-88.319746&spn=0.005892,0.007789&t=h&z=17), it could end up being a four-way intersection; you can sorta-kinda see grading for an eastward extension. Again I think it will depend on what MDOT decides to do with the northern section of MS 25; there is precedent for new terrain projects as part of the four-lane program (not just APD corridors), most notably US 49W north of Yazoo City.
If you zoom in enough to see property lines, there's a pretty wide road ROW at that grading. Ends pretty quickly though (but the data's not recent enough to show the ROW of the completed (?) Corridor V near the state line).
Quote from: Grzrd on November 20, 2013, 11:57:16 AM
In this September 10 guest column (http://www.deltabusinessjournal.com/index.php/guest-column-a-taxing-problem-sp-1632091666.html), Dick Hall, transportation commissioner of the Central District for the state of Mississippi, refers to this project as having been "abandoned":
Quote
The future of construction of new and badly needed highways and bridges is even bleaker. There could be no better example than the abandoned Highway 82 Bypass Project. There has already been over $57 million spent on this project, but we don't have the $135 million needed to finish it.
Quote from: Grzrd on January 22, 2014, 05:13:58 PM
This article (http://msbusiness.com/blog/2014/01/22/transportation-task-force-provides-funding-answers/) reports that not even the Task Force itself, which concluded its work yesterday, could offer funding solutions:
Quote
A transportation study task force has concluded that the state does not generate enough money to take care of its highway needs.
But the task force, which completed its work yesterday, offered no funding solution.
(bottom quote from Mississippi (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=97.msg273199#msg273199) thread)
In this article (http://www.vicksburgpost.com/article_13837df6-844a-11e3-9b83-001a4bcf6878.html), Hall describes the Mississippi highway crisis as "real", focuses on the gas tax as a funding solution, and notes that the Greenville bypass is "stuck with no money":
Quote
"Ladies and gents, this is real," said Dick Hall, the Mississippi Department of Transportation's Central District Commissioner, during an address to the Vicksburg Lions Club. "The system is going to deteriorate severely." ....
Hall said he favors increasing the gas tax either for inflation or a calculation that reflects daily vehicle use. One reason, he said, is the federal highway trust fund, of which the state had received about 92 cents back for each dollar paid in, has run dry the past two or three years and has been supplemented only with general funds from Congress ....
Projects to ... reconfigure the bypass along U.S. 82 near the Greenville bridge across the Mississippi River are also stuck "with no money" to proceed for the time being if the tax isn't adjusted, Hall said.
It is a shame that the bypass is now stuck & basically abandoned. I wish it had gone through, but the lack of funds is a real & serious issue across every state.
Quote from: msunat97 on February 04, 2014, 01:06:30 PM
It is a shame that the bypass is now stuck & basically abandoned. I wish it had gone through, but the lack of funds is a real & serious issue across every state.
Bump. MDOT has embarked on a public relations campaign to increase funding by $400 million per year (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Fiscal%20Year%20Reports/FY%202017/Better%20Funding%20Better%20Roads/Funding%20for%20Roads%20and%20Bridges%20-%20Why%20is%20it%20important%20to%20taxpayers.pdf). The Greenville Bypass is featured in the effort (p. 2/3 of pdf):
Quote
There is a need to create multiple bypasses across the state. Constructing a U.S. Highway 82 bypass around Greenville in Washington County and a Highway 15 bypass around Ripley in Tippah County would add capacity to the existing roadways and remove commercial vehicle traffic from downtown areas and off city streets. Economic developers say businesses and industries have not located to these areas because of the lack of adequate infrastructure to carry the increase in commercial traffic.
At least it is in the discussion.
Anything new on this?
How bad is traffic on existing US 82/278 in Greenville? Could another reason for abandoning the project, besides lack of funding, might be that existing traffic counts on 82/278 are insufficient to warrant a bypass at present (and over the last 10 years)?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 04, 2020, 03:48:18 PM
How bad is traffic on existing US 82/278 in Greenville? Could another reason for abandoning the project, besides lack of funding, might be that existing traffic counts on 82/278 are insufficient to warrant a bypass at present (and over the last 10 years)?
The one time I drove this a few years ago the stoplights on US 82 seemed to be poorly timed. It felt like it took a long time to get through the Greenville area.
Quote from: msunat97 on February 04, 2014, 01:06:30 PM
It is a shame that the bypass is now stuck & basically abandoned. I wish it had gone through, but the lack of funds is a real & serious issue across every state.
This road is in a cyclone anyway. After this bypass was started, It dawned on Mississippi that a potential freeway is coming 20 miles north. The idea for the bypass is to route 82 and 278 around town. 278 is supposed to not even be there after the Dean Bridge is built. 82 trafic should diminish as well. If the proposed route of I-69 is followed, the bridge and the loop both will be underutilized.
Quote from: msunat97 on June 20, 2012, 09:56:39 AM
Thanks Golden Eagle. I try to avoid the Little Rock - Memphis corridor on I-40. It's always busy & slowed by construction. It's a much easier drive through South Arkansas.
A drive across south Arkansas on US 82 is a nightmare with no speed limits above 55 except the ElDorado loop. You go through every village along the route at 30 to 35 mph (and there are several.) The road condition is much improved from a decade ago, but it still is predominately two lane without paved shoulders. I am not a fan of this route,
As to Starkville, it is better to use US 82 instead of going through Memphis if you are coming from SW Arkansas. it is generally faster going through Jackson, From Texarkana west. From Hot Springs east, Memphis is generally faster,
Quote from: msunat97 on November 05, 2012, 04:40:25 PM
I had an email exchange with Kevin Magee, MDOT District Engineer about the progress of this project. See below...
The first phase of the Hwy 82 Bypass construction is almost complete. This phase cost $32.5 million and included all the earthwork, bridges, and drainage structures for the section beginning at the new MS River Bridge to SR 1. Our contractor is currently doing final cleanup, grass mowing, etc. in order to complete the project.
The next phase (phase 2) will include the earthwork, bridges, and drainage structures from SR 1 to Leland. It is projected to cost $52 million. Unfortunately, budget shortfalls and other economic factors have made it difficult to predict when we will be able to begin the next phase.
After phase 2 is complete, we will then pave the entire bypass project at a projected cost of $75 million.
The project remains at the top of my priority list and I look forward to getting the next phase underway as quickly as our budget constraints allow.
If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me.
Thanks,
J. Kevin Magee, P.E.
District Engineer
MDOT District III, Yazoo City
(662) 746-2513
I asked him a few follow-up questions about the timing of the funding for Phase 2 & if they would pave Phase 1 if no funding was availble for Phase 2. I'll post his answers when I receive them.
That was 8 years ago... Nothing since...
The project will be awarded a $71.4 million INFRA grant to help complete the bypass.
https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2020-06/INFRA%202020%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf - Page 10
QuoteGreenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement Project
Mississippi Department of Transportation
Washington County, Mississippi
Proposed Award: $71,460,000
Estimated Future Eligible Project Costs: $144,100,000
Estimated Minimum Non-Federal Funding: $28,820,000
Urban-Rural Designation: Rural
Project Description
The Mississippi Department of Transportation (DOT) will be awarded $71,460,000 to complete the construction of the 15.6-mile Greenville Bypass, which will carry US 82 from near the Greenville Bridge over the Mississippi River to the town of Leland, east of Greenville. The project builds on work initiated by Mississippi DOT to grade, drain, and bridge 6.2 miles from the Mississippi River bridge to the future interchange with MS 1, completing construction on that segment, and extending the bypass a further 9.4 miles east.
Project Benefits
The project supports economic vitality by reducing travel times for freight and personal vehicles traveling through western Mississippi on US 82, which is currently routed through 12 signalized intersections in downtown Greenville. These vehicles will have a more direct and faster east-west route through the region. The project supports innovative project delivery through the incorporation of multiple Every Day Counts initiative innovations, including conducting a data-driven safety analysis, allowing warm mix asphalt during construction, and implementing rumble striping and a safety edge on the side of the highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2020, 04:08:34 PM
The project will be awarded a $71.4 million INFRA grant to help complete the bypass.
https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2020-06/INFRA%202020%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf - Page 10
QuoteGreenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement Project
Mississippi Department of Transportation
Washington County, Mississippi
Proposed Award: $71,460,000
Estimated Future Eligible Project Costs: $144,100,000
Estimated Minimum Non-Federal Funding: $28,820,000
Urban-Rural Designation: Rural
Project Description
The Mississippi Department of Transportation (DOT) will be awarded $71,460,000 to complete the construction of the 15.6-mile Greenville Bypass, which will carry US 82 from near the Greenville Bridge over the Mississippi River to the town of Leland, east of Greenville. The project builds on work initiated by Mississippi DOT to grade, drain, and bridge 6.2 miles from the Mississippi River bridge to the future interchange with MS 1, completing construction on that segment, and extending the bypass a further 9.4 miles east.
Project Benefits
The project supports economic vitality by reducing travel times for freight and personal vehicles traveling through western Mississippi on US 82, which is currently routed through 12 signalized intersections in downtown Greenville. These vehicles will have a more direct and faster east-west route through the region. The project supports innovative project delivery through the incorporation of multiple Every Day Counts initiative innovations, including conducting a data-driven safety analysis, allowing warm mix asphalt during construction, and implementing rumble striping and a safety edge on the side of the highway.
Gonna be interesting to see what MDOT can accomplish with this money given that the dirtwork and everything was completely many years ago to my knowledge.
I suspected that lottery proceeds would be used to fund bigger projects like this but it seems that MDOT has earmarked lottery money for specifically maintenance on the state's existing rural highways.
WOW...I never thought that I'd see anything posted about the completion of the Greenville bypass. That's great news.
I wonder how many INFRA grants it would take to build the rest of I-69 in MS (since that's what it took to try to finish this project)? :hmmm: ;-)
Over on the southeast thread. There is discussion of the interchange with US-278 and Old US-61 on the west edge of Leland. They are indeed putting grade separation at this intersection, but there does not seem to be any work going on on the graded with bridges just there that goes from near the US-278 / MS-454 intersection to just east of MS-1 or the portion from there to the current US-278.
To me it just looks like an improvement in the current road as opposed to anything new.
The newest Google Sat view doesn't show anything else.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/i41Dzx6LQ5NAQeT4A
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on August 06, 2020, 04:38:26 PM
I wonder how many INFRA grants it would take to build the rest of I-69 in MS (since that's what it took to try to finish this project)? :hmmm: ;-)
As with I 49 in Arkansas, they need to do I 69 through Arkansas and Mississippi as their own standalone projects that have money fully funded by Congress earmarked.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 11:21:38 PM
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on August 06, 2020, 04:38:26 PM
I wonder how many INFRA grants it would take to build the rest of I-69 in MS (since that's what it took to try to finish this project)? :hmmm: ;-)
As with I 49 in Arkansas, they need to do I 69 through Arkansas and Mississippi as their own standalone projects that have money fully funded by Congress earmarked.
As to the earmarked funds for both, especially the I-69 corridor should be revisited. Even the I-69 advisory group does not believe it is set in stone. They call it "the preferred corridor".
^^^ right. I don't see a way I-69 gets done in our lifetimes without it. I'm sure the states would get serious about it even if they have to kick in 10-20 percent of funds. I'd rather see states fund 10% and feds 90%.
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on August 06, 2020, 04:38:26 PM
I wonder how many INFRA grants it would take to build the rest of I-69 in MS (since that's what it took to try to finish this project)? :hmmm: ;-)
From Tunica to Greenville, US 61 is largely 4-lane although it ranges widely from freeways to city streets. What would be necessary:
* Robinsonville: A new alignment will be needed to make a smooth connection from MS 713 to US 61, with a new interchange to US 61 North and the Tunica casinos.
* South of Robinsonville to Tunica: Upgrading the existing expressway alignment makes most sense, as it would be a lot cheaper than building a new corridor.
* Tunica: Options exist - short bypass to east, long bypass to west, short bypass to west or upgrade through town. I think the least expensive and least disruptive is likely a short bypass to the east.
* South of Tunica to north of Clarksdale: Again, the most sensible is upgrading the existing alignment to Interstate standards, not very difficult.
* Clarksdale bypass: Only minimal changes (such as pavement/shoulder upgrades) needed, as it is already a freeway and just under Interstate standards.
* South of Clarksdale to Merigold: As several towns are bypassed already, the existing alignment again is where to go here - upgrading the expressway to an Interstate-standard freeway makes the most sense.
* Merigold to Leland: Here's where it is most difficult. I'd start by building a new bypass of Cleveland (to the east) starting from where the Merigold bypass joins into the original corridor. From there, I'd return to the current alignment for a short distance before swinging northwest around Shaw (less disruptive than a through-town routing). South of Shaw, I'd return to the existing US 61 alignment.
* Leland/US 82 interchange: I don't like the cloverleaf there, especially since through traffic would be forced onto a tight loop ramp. I'd remove some of the loops as follows with the movements changed:
** SB 61 to WB 82 (I-69 South): Replaced with a sweeping curve that allows for high speed movement.
** SB 61 to EB 82: Loop ramp widened and improved, as a moderately busy movement.
** NB 61 to WB and EB 82: Loop ramp and curving ramp retained, as traffic is not particularly heavy on US 61 south of Leland.
** WB 82 to NB 61: A higher-radius ramp would be introduced for a moderately busy movement.
** WB 82 to SB 61: Access removed at interchange. A new interchange farther east (presumably at Dunleith Road on US 82 via Trippett Road) would direct traffic to US 61 south. That isn't a major traffic movement and maintaining the loop ramp introduces too much weaving..
** EB 82 to NB 61 (I-69 North): Replaced with a flyover that doesn't climb too high, to allow for through traffic utilization while keeping costs reasonable, avoiding a loop ramp and avoiding weaving.
** EB 82 to SB 61: Replaced with a new adjacent ramp near the new loop ramp. That is to keep the ramp with the new SB to EB ramp constructed.
This is a very good write-up of what's needed for I-69 in Mississippi; but isn't the I-69 bridge over the Mississippi River going to be approximately due west of Shaw? Unless Mississippi wants an I-169 going down to Greenville, there wouldn't need to be anything built south of Shaw, just the new terrain highway to the bridge.
A couple things worth noting:
MDOT completed its EIS for I-69 between the Great River Bridge and the existing I-69 stretch in DeSoto County back in 2010. A map showing the recommended corridor was posted at the beginning of this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4783.0). Unlike most of what RoadMaster suggested, the preferred plan is to go all on new alignment well east of US 61 from about Rich (US 49/MS 315) north, as well as a new alignment west of existing 61 from Bobo to the south end of the Clarksdale bypass.
Also, in 2000, both Washington County and the city of Greenville commissioned a study on a "Greenville Connector Route", intended to connect the city to I-69. Although I lost my physical copy of the study to Hurricane Katrina, I wrote and posted a webpage (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/i169.htm) many years ago on the connector, including a rough map of the recommended corridor alignment.
Quote from: Finrod on December 25, 2023, 06:48:34 PM
This is a very good write-up of what's needed for I-69 in Mississippi; but isn't the I-69 bridge over the Mississippi River going to be approximately due west of Shaw? Unless Mississippi wants an I-169 going down to Greenville, there wouldn't need to be anything built south of Shaw, just the new terrain highway to the bridge.
I think there is too much new-terrain highway on there that really isn't necessary - and brings up costs compared to using the existing US 61 corridor and its existing 4-lane highway. Also, by using the Greenville Bridge, it can be redirected to a bridge and a new bypass that is (or will be) already Interstate-standard, saving several billion dollars while serving more traffic options (Greenville has always been the largest city in the Delta, even though it has seen significant population decline in the last 40 years).
North of Clarksdale, that would be a very significant change (Tunica would be bypassed but not that far away, and a through-town route is feasible but probably more expensive due to property acquisition). The double-swing from east of Cleveland to west of Shaw provides the best connectivity for both communities and the straightest route as it runs around a diagonal.
My recollection is that MDOT went with mostly new terrain routing for I-69 due to historical properties and cemeteries abutting existing US 61, as well as having abutting residential and commercial property. Buying out the access rights, upgrading in place, and spot deviations probably wouldn't save much over a new terrain routing through cotton fields.
That said this is all fairly academic since nobody seems terribly bothered by leaving the Delta to its fate.
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on December 25, 2023, 04:31:48 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on December 01, 2023, 03:20:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 01, 2023, 02:44:13 PM
The US 82/US 278 Greenville Bypass should have been completed a long time ago. It looks like it will finally be completed in Fall 2025.
It should have been.
It fell on the back burner when it looked like I-69 was coming fairly soon and fairly close. Now that I -69 looks half a century away (if ever) and not necessarily close. If that had happened, it would have been duplicitous and likely under utilized. Completion of this road from MS-1 to US-61 (near Leland) signifies that Mississippi has no interest in the Great River Crossing (Dean Bridge). It probably signifies the last nail in its coffin.
I need to add one thing. This is just the upgrade of US-82 and US-278 from Greenville to Leland.Not so much part of the bypass
The largest Arkansas proponent for it being in that location is pretty much out of the picture now. Following a ROUGH US-82 route from El Dorado to the Mississippi River (at US-82) is relatively (if not a few less road miles) AND there is already a bridge there. There is absolutely NO REASON for there to be two crossings within less than 30 miles of one another in a countryside (total population on both sides of the river) of less than 100,000 people.
IMO, the Dean Bridge should be killed, and I-69 extended along the US 61 corridor to Greenville, then the US 82 corridor in Arkansas. While somewhat less direct, it helps provide better use of the Greenville Bridge and existing four-lane highways in Mississippi. Greenville is also somewhat larger and gets a central position too. While the Monticello Bypass loses its value, the El Dorado Bypass would become part of I-69.
Better idea is to forgo I-69 in Mississippi altogether south of the Memphis metro and run it roughly along US-79 north of El Dorado (stupid Dickey Split). Mississippi isn't going to anything more until they upgrade US-49 from Jackson to Gulfport as literally the only part of the state with any growth is the suburbs of Memphis. The US-79 corridor once north of El Dorado a straighter route, serves Pine Bluff, which despite it being the criminal armpit of Arkansas, serves a larger population than routing along US-61. Cross the river at Tunica to tie into I-269, and we have a much more useful Mississippi River crossing, and logical extension across the river to the Arkansas side for a beltway to continue around the Memphis metro back up to I-40 and eventually I-55 on the north side. For all of Arkansas' faults, it at least figures out how to pay for new terrain roads. Leave I-530 south of Pine Bluff down to Monticello to develop organically to Rayville, LA as Louisianna gets past their I-10/I-20/I-49/I-69 priorities.
Not Rayville. Monroe, to be further extended to Alexandria/Pineville and ultimately to I-10 east of Lake Charles along US 165.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 28, 2023, 07:05:44 PM
Not Rayville. Monroe, to be further extended to Alexandria/Pineville and ultimately to I-10 east of Lake Charles along US 165.
I agree that the Monroe o Alex route is prime. My thoughts are that It should go to Natchez instead though.
In a perfect world, it would go from Bastrop to Monroe then to Columbia and fork with one going to Alex and the other to Ferriday.
I am not sure what is between Columbia and US-425, but the Ouachita river is between them unless it forked furter north.
Quote from: MikieTimT on December 28, 2023, 05:50:16 PM
Better idea is to forgo I-69 in Mississippi altogether south of the Memphis metro and run it roughly along US-79 north of El Dorado (stupid Dickey Split). Mississippi isn't going to anything more until they upgrade US-49 from Jackson to Gulfport as literally the only part of the state with any growth is the suburbs of Memphis. The US-79 corridor once north of El Dorado a straighter route, serves Pine Bluff, which despite it being the criminal armpit of Arkansas, serves a larger population than routing along US-61. Cross the river at Tunica to tie into I-269, and we have a much more useful Mississippi River crossing, and logical extension across the river to the Arkansas side for a beltway to continue around the Memphis metro back up to I-40 and eventually I-55 on the north side. For all of Arkansas' faults, it at least figures out how to pay for new terrain roads. Leave I-530 south of Pine Bluff down to Monticello to develop organically to Rayville, LA as Louisianna gets past their I-10/I-20/I-49/I-69 priorities.
I'm not sure I like the idea of diverting "I-69" traffic that far south towards the Greenville bridge, since that would add more length and not be nearly as effective as the I-30/I-440/I-40 routing, and it would require Mississippi to upgrade more of US 61 or build more new-terrain freeway...and they can't even handle building their share of existing I-69 in the first place.
Besides, wouldn't US 82/278 from Texarkana east make more sense as an I-28 going east to Starkville and probably even Muscle Shoals/Tuscaloosa?
(Sorry for that Fictional diversion.)
I wouldn't even use US 79 in El Dorado....just extend AR 530 as freeway into Louisiana and connect it with I-20 in Monroe via US 165, then build a connector from Pine Bluff NE to an extension of a proposed Southern Crossing of I-69 at Tunica. Let I-20 between Haughton and Monroe be concurrent with I-69, then use the proposed I-69 "bypass" of Shreveport to Woods to connect with the I-69/I-369 Split near Woods or Tenaha or wherever.
4-laning US 82 to the Greenville-Leland bypass and bridge and existing US 61 is more than adequate for them.
Quote from: bwana39 on December 29, 2023, 02:58:16 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 28, 2023, 07:05:44 PM
Not Rayville. Monroe, to be further extended to Alexandria/Pineville and ultimately to I-10 east of Lake Charles along US 165.
I agree that the Monroe o Alex route is prime. My thoughts are that It should go to Natchez instead though.
In a perfect world, it would go from Bastrop to Monroe then to Columbia and fork with one going to Alex and the other to Ferriday.
I am not sure what is between Columbia and US-425, but the Ouachita river is between them unless it forked furter north.
Forking in the vicinity of Bastrop/Mer Rouge makes more sense to me, it seems like more of a natural splitting point and utilizes more of the existing US-425. The Ouachita River is just north of Columbia, so a split in that area would need to be north of the river crossing. Going from Columbia toward US-425/Natchez could roughly follow LA-4 to LA-562 and reconnect to US-425 around Peck Sicily Island, with lots of expansion needed since it's all rural 2-lane roads. Not to mention the new terrain road needed to connect from, at a minimum, Holly Grove to Peck. US-425 already exists and it's all 4-lane divided south of Rayville.
Quote from: debragga on December 31, 2023, 08:33:01 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on December 29, 2023, 02:58:16 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 28, 2023, 07:05:44 PM
Not Rayville. Monroe, to be further extended to Alexandria/Pineville and ultimately to I-10 east of Lake Charles along US 165.
I agree that the Monroe o Alex route is prime. My thoughts are that It should go to Natchez instead though.
In a perfect world, it would go from Bastrop to Monroe then to Columbia and fork with one going to Alex and the other to Ferriday.
I am not sure what is between Columbia and US-425, but the Ouachita river is between them unless it forked furter north.
Forking in the vicinity of Bastrop/Mer Rouge makes more sense to me, it seems like more of a natural splitting point and utilizes more of the existing US-425. The Ouachita River is just north of Columbia, so a split in that area would need to be north of the river crossing. Going from Columbia toward US-425/Natchez could roughly follow LA-4 to LA-562 and reconnect to US-425 around Peck Sicily Island, with lots of expansion needed since it's all rural 2-lane roads. Not to mention the new terrain road needed to connect from, at a minimum, Holly Grove to Peck. US-425 already exists and it's all 4-lane divided south of Rayville.
You are going at this with a TxDOT mentality. Louisiana has never built freeways, Interstate or otherwise over existing US highways with the exception of a small amount of I-49 around Alexandria. I-49 south of Lafayette as seemingly planned is an outlier. It is Louisiana's first real highway to freeway expansion. In a lot of cases building greensheet without frontage roads is as cheap or cheaper than upgrading an existing route to freeway WITH frontage roads. There would only be around 30 miles from the big curve north of Columbia on US-165 to around Gilbert on US-425. It can be less a little farther north. From Bastrop it would take around 60 miles to Gilbert.
The bottom line is that both should go through Monroe. The 425 route is valuable for Hurricane evacuation. Monroe has hotel rooms.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 30, 2023, 06:51:58 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on December 28, 2023, 05:50:16 PM
Better idea is to forgo I-69 in Mississippi altogether south of the Memphis metro and run it roughly along US-79 north of El Dorado (stupid Dickey Split). Mississippi isn't going to anything more until they upgrade US-49 from Jackson to Gulfport as literally the only part of the state with any growth is the suburbs of Memphis. The US-79 corridor once north of El Dorado a straighter route, serves Pine Bluff, which despite it being the criminal armpit of Arkansas, serves a larger population than routing along US-61. Cross the river at Tunica to tie into I-269, and we have a much more useful Mississippi River crossing, and logical extension across the river to the Arkansas side for a beltway to continue around the Memphis metro back up to I-40 and eventually I-55 on the north side. For all of Arkansas' faults, it at least figures out how to pay for new terrain roads. Leave I-530 south of Pine Bluff down to Monticello to develop organically to Rayville, LA as Louisianna gets past their I-10/I-20/I-49/I-69 priorities.
I'm not sure I like the idea of diverting "I-69" traffic that far south towards the Greenville bridge, since that would add more length and not be nearly as effective as the I-30/I-440/I-40 routing, and it would require Mississippi to upgrade more of US 61 or build more new-terrain freeway...and they can't even handle building their share of existing I-69 in the first place.
Besides, wouldn't US 82/278 from Texarkana east make more sense as an I-28 going east to Starkville and probably even Muscle Shoals/Tuscaloosa?
(Sorry for that Fictional diversion.)
I wouldn't even use US 79 in El Dorado....just extend AR 530 as freeway into Louisiana and connect it with I-20 in Monroe via US 165, then build a connector from Pine Bluff NE to an extension of a proposed Southern Crossing of I-69 at Tunica. Let I-20 between Haughton and Monroe be concurrent with I-69, then use the proposed I-69 "bypass" of Shreveport to Woods to connect with the I-69/I-369 Split near Woods or Tenaha or wherever.
4-laning US 82 to the Greenville-Leland bypass and bridge and existing US 61 is more than adequate for them.
I-30/440/40 is the exact reason that I-69 is so badly needed. I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is hopelessly congested with trucks - there are more than 25,000 trucks that use that corridor every day, among the highest in the nation. US 61 also runs somewhat diagonally in the Delta (it is more than 50 miles from I-55 once it gets to Leland) so it isn't a big shift.
Regardless, other than in El Dorado, a big lift is needed in Arkansas, since US 82 is primarily a 2-lane highway across the state.
Is I - 40 now completely six laned from Little Rock to W Memphis? The sorry state of infrastructure in the Memphis metro seems to point towards major improvements there, to ease the transcontinental choke points that exist there. A poster here, created and posted a scenario for a completely new I - 55 bridge, which straightens the roadway, eliminates Crump, and adds capacity on the new bridge across the river. That would be a worthy goal to pursue. Extending the I-269 southern leg, westward, across the river could give long distance trucking an alternative to bypass the Memphis metro area as well. So two new bridges in the Memphis metro. Frankly think that makes more sense, that attempting to build the redundant central I - 69 section.
QuoteIs I - 40 now completely six laned from Little Rock to W Memphis?
No, and I am unaware of any immediate plans of ARDOT widening the entire corridor to 6 lanes.
Quote from: DJStephens on January 10, 2024, 12:54:14 PM
Is I - 40 now completely six laned from Little Rock to W Memphis? The sorry state of infrastructure in the Memphis metro seems to point towards major improvements there, to ease the transcontinental choke points that exist there. A poster here, created and posted a scenario for a completely new I - 55 bridge, which straightens the roadway, eliminates Crump, and adds capacity on the new bridge across the river. That would be a worthy goal to pursue. Extending the I-269 southern leg, westward, across the river could give long distance trucking an alternative to bypass the Memphis metro area as well. So two new bridges in the Memphis metro. Frankly think that makes more sense, that attempting to build the redundant central I - 69 section.
Not yet. Only the urban portions of West Memphis where there is an I-40/I-55 concurrency, and in Little Rock where there is an I-40/US-67 concurrency. Arkansas has projects in the 3 year STIP to start extending to Jennette (Exit 265) from I-55 North (Exit 277) on the eastern end and from US-67 North (Exit 155) to Kerr Rd. (Exit 165) on the western end. Those will take a few years, and Arkansas can't afford too many projects in flight with current funding levels and an entire state worth of other desperately needed projects. The Little Rock area already gets the lion's share of road funding and has a large chunk of the major construction projects all to itself with other parts of the state starving for road attention. So, it'll be quite some time before the 100 mile gap in between gets address on eastern I-40. I'd bet on I-57 being completed before 6-laning eastern I-40 does. That would do a fair amount of good in offloading the portion that travels east I-40/north I-55 in Arkansas bound for north I-57 in Sikeston and Chicagoland/Indianapolis and points beyond. Outside of some of the states surrounding Arkansas banding together with Arkansas' political delegation and drumming up some old-fashioned earmark/"pork" to add federal heft to the funding since this in reality is a national priority at the end of the day, I-40 in eastern AR is done progressively from the current ends towards the middle. Thankfully, most of the major river crossings were recently done for 6 lanes, but striped for 4, so they're ready.
Considering all of the Interstate corridor projects on AR DOT's plate, the federal government would need to step up big time in terms of providing funding for a proper expansion of I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.
That part of I-40 has so much commercial truck traffic on it that I wonder if a standard 6-lane expansion would be adequate. If it was up to me I'd probably build separate cars-only and trucks-only lanes, at least 2 lanes for each separated roadway in both directions. That would greatly improve safety. Even with commercial trucks and private vehicles mixed together that section of I-40 needs to be a mix of 3 and 4 lanes in both directions.
I-57 could potentially act as a relief valve for I-40, drawing at least some traffic away from Memphis. But it may be another 10-20 years before it is completed between North Little Rock and Sikeston.
Regardless of what happens with I-57, it looks like I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis will be carrying ever more traffic, certainly if I-369 is completed up to Texarkana.
If the powers that be actually shifted the I-69 alignment in Mississippi as far South as Greenville the very anti-direct routing would cause a lot of vehicles to stick with the I-30/I-40 combo across Arkansas. If they decided to scrap the Great River Bridge idea and build more of I-69 in Arkansas the feds would still need to provide an enormous amount of funding help.
The Dean Bridge or the current US-82 bridge are a toss-up for mileage.
Using the current Mileage from ElDorado to Clarksdale is 183 miles.
ElDorado to Arkansas city is 105 miles. It would be around 35 more miles to Cleveland MS. Cleveland to Clarksdale 32 more.
Not a significant difference. Bypasses / cutoffs might add or subtract some (mostly adds on 278 subtracts on 82). 260 miles give or take from ElDorado to Memphis
US-167/ US-79 to Memphis is is about 240. Could probably be shaved some.
The whole trip is a toss up between Texarkana and any of the I-69 routes. The real advantage for I-69 regardless of how it approaches Memphis is how it is the advantage leaving Memphis to the east and to a lesser extent north.
You would not need to go through Texarkana, Little Rock or Memphis
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 10, 2024, 01:55:47 PM
Considering all of the Interstate corridor projects on AR DOT's plate, the federal government would need to step up big time in terms of providing funding for a proper expansion of I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.
That part of I-40 has so much commercial truck traffic on it that I wonder if a standard 6-lane expansion would be adequate. If it was up to me I'd probably build separate cars-only and trucks-only lanes, at least 2 lanes for each separated roadway in both directions. That would greatly improve safety. Even with commercial trucks and private vehicles mixed together that section of I-40 needs to be a mix of 3 and 4 lanes in both directions.
I-57 could potentially act as a relief valve for I-40, drawing at least some traffic away from Memphis. But it may be another 10-20 years before it is completed between North Little Rock and Sikeston.
Regardless of what happens with I-57, it looks like I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis will be carrying ever more traffic, certainly if I-369 is completed up to Texarkana.
If the powers that be actually shifted the I-69 alignment in Mississippi as far South as Greenville the very anti-direct routing would cause a lot of vehicles to stick with the I-30/I-40 combo across Arkansas. If they decided to scrap the Great River Bridge idea and build more of I-69 in Arkansas the feds would still need to provide an enormous amount of funding help.
I'm not sure of what I-69 routings you are talking about, but the currently proposed I-69 and the proposed I-369 to I-30 / I-40 combo are around the same mileage. A completed I-69 would be far superior to I-30 and I-40, even if I-40 is widened to 6 lanes, given it would bypass Texarkana, Little Rock, and Memphis entirely.
I-30 between Texarkana and Little Rock has traffic issues of itself too. Ideally, the entirety of I-30 between Dallas and Little Rock, and I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis needs to be expanded to 6 lanes minimum.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2024, 06:05:49 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 10, 2024, 01:55:47 PM
Considering all of the Interstate corridor projects on AR DOT's plate, the federal government would need to step up big time in terms of providing funding for a proper expansion of I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.
That part of I-40 has so much commercial truck traffic on it that I wonder if a standard 6-lane expansion would be adequate. If it was up to me I'd probably build separate cars-only and trucks-only lanes, at least 2 lanes for each separated roadway in both directions. That would greatly improve safety. Even with commercial trucks and private vehicles mixed together that section of I-40 needs to be a mix of 3 and 4 lanes in both directions.
I-57 could potentially act as a relief valve for I-40, drawing at least some traffic away from Memphis. But it may be another 10-20 years before it is completed between North Little Rock and Sikeston.
Regardless of what happens with I-57, it looks like I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis will be carrying ever more traffic, certainly if I-369 is completed up to Texarkana.
If the powers that be actually shifted the I-69 alignment in Mississippi as far South as Greenville the very anti-direct routing would cause a lot of vehicles to stick with the I-30/I-40 combo across Arkansas. If they decided to scrap the Great River Bridge idea and build more of I-69 in Arkansas the feds would still need to provide an enormous amount of funding help.
I'm not sure of what I-69 routings you are talking about, but the currently proposed I-69 and the proposed I-369 to I-30 / I-40 combo are around the same mileage. A completed I-69 would be far superior to I-30 and I-40, even if I-40 is widened to 6 lanes, given it would bypass Texarkana, Little Rock, and Memphis entirely.
I-30 between Texarkana and Little Rock has traffic issues of itself too. Ideally, the entirety of I-30 between Dallas and Little Rock, and I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis needs to be expanded to 6 lanes minimum.
It's assuming the Dean Bridge is canceled and the routing shifted to use (primarily) US 61 and US 82, taking advantage of the Greenville Bridge and the new Greenville Bypass.
^ I'm not aware of any official plans proposing such.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 11, 2024, 03:55:10 PM
^ I'm not aware of any official plans proposing such.
The folks in ARKANSAS are still calling the US 278 / Dean Bridge the PREFERRED ROUTE or PROPOSED ROUTE.
Nothing is set in stone.THere are some upgrades to US-278, recent or upcoming, that were / are needed to get it out of the 1940's /1950's. These were needed decades ago. THe existent US-278 is just a renumbered AR-4 with a new layer of asphalt. THe average speed limit on it is 46 mph.
It would appear that when it looked like the Dean Bridge was going to be completed by 2025 or 2030 that Mississippi let the loop around Greenville languish in a semi-built state. Now that it is doubtful it will happen by 2050, that Mississippi is back to upgrading and completing the Greenville bypass. With Bob Moore off the highway commission, it is all up for grabs anyway. THe reality is the Dean Bridge's location was picked by Bob Moore who lives in Desha County.
The highway commission sets all of the highway priorities in Arkansas. ARDOT just carries out the Commission's decisions. It is as powerful as the governor and in its own way more powerful than the legislature.
MDOT is working on letting a project in its January letting for the grade and pave of the Greenville bypass between the Mississippi River bridge and MS 1. The apparent bid was $79,427,094.34 by Eutaw Construction Company.
This project will complete the US 82 Greenville bypass.
You can see the new bridges and ramps on Google Maps Street View. Haxton Rd.: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3347364,-91.0148135,3a,75y,357.25h,82.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLP9YTp9nSz9g3dRSlXYyDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (NB), https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3389005,-91.0149144,3a,75y,182.46h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smFxXJObbJdd_a5AWreuizw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (SB). VF Rd. is still a work-in-progress: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3570418,-90.9781733,3a,75y,191.05h,75.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swwaBKFsosESbM3s-JDZbZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Black Bayou Rd.: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3677838,-90.9573019,3a,75y,330.88h,83.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6pEC3z7Y-JcJvKOYEOvsBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (NB), https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3683063,-90.9580175,3a,75y,134.24h,105.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scofwFBJh5z0Kx4RHPRoEOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (SB). Kuhn Rd.: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3784966,-90.9373343,3a,75y,349.89h,87.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-Se5tzJ1DsgvtGZ-1c2yKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (NB), https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3796657,-90.9373265,3a,75y,161.29h,97.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUTYd3WRXIiHkDRsfjciSZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (SB). Old Hwy. 61 interchange: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3938593,-90.9068307,3a,75y,3.57h,77.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saQAPteYxTeyD3H3gt4scKw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (NB), https://www.google.com/maps/@33.396416,-90.905917,3a,75y,169.08h,79.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIRpc7YA0RQi1OI5SwILx6Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (SB). And finally, the eastern terminus (looking west from the eastbound lanes): https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3974088,-90.8991452,3a,75y,229.78h,75.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_KuOfxMDkPN9kk3CN6AutA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 01, 2024, 04:35:56 PM
You can see the new bridges and ramps on Google Maps Street View. Haxton Rd.: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3347364,-91.0148135,3a,75y,357.25h,82.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLP9YTp9nSz9g3dRSlXYyDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (NB), https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3389005,-91.0149144,3a,75y,182.46h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smFxXJObbJdd_a5AWreuizw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (SB). VF Rd. is still a work-in-progress: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3570418,-90.9781733,3a,75y,191.05h,75.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swwaBKFsosESbM3s-JDZbZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Black Bayou Rd.: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3677838,-90.9573019,3a,75y,330.88h,83.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6pEC3z7Y-JcJvKOYEOvsBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (NB), https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3683063,-90.9580175,3a,75y,134.24h,105.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scofwFBJh5z0Kx4RHPRoEOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (SB). Kuhn Rd.: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3784966,-90.9373343,3a,75y,349.89h,87.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-Se5tzJ1DsgvtGZ-1c2yKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (NB), https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3796657,-90.9373265,3a,75y,161.29h,97.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUTYd3WRXIiHkDRsfjciSZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (SB). Old Hwy. 61 interchange: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3938593,-90.9068307,3a,75y,3.57h,77.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saQAPteYxTeyD3H3gt4scKw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (NB), https://www.google.com/maps/@33.396416,-90.905917,3a,75y,169.08h,79.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIRpc7YA0RQi1OI5SwILx6Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (SB). And finally, the eastern terminus (looking west from the eastbound lanes): https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3974088,-90.8991452,3a,75y,229.78h,75.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_KuOfxMDkPN9kk3CN6AutA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu.
Some of these bridges have been there just hanging out for a decade or more.
Quote from: bwana39 on February 01, 2024, 07:14:14 PM
Some of these bridges have been there just hanging out for a decade or more.
Maybe they'll actually get 50 good years out of them before they need replacing. Age and weathering wears out bridges as much as semi traffic.
Quote from: MikieTimT on February 02, 2024, 08:23:59 AM
Maybe they'll actually get 50 good years out of them before they need replacing. Age and weathering wears out bridges as much as semi traffic.
In the north more than the south. No road salt and less freeze-thaw cycles means longer life.