AARoads Forum

Quote from: jbnv on July 28, 2018, 01:20:11 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 27, 2018, 07:23:52 PM
With that being said, I-69 in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi is much harder to justify when I-69/I-369 and I-30 serves the same purpose in an arguably straighter route. The I-49 and I-57 corridors will make I-369 more attractive to traffic coming from Houston.

I-14 doesn't offer the same "big picture" compliments to the larger Interstate highway system. That's probably why this is being pitched by politicians with the angle of linking military posts/bases. Most heavy military equipment gets moved by rail or by air. Not so much gets moved on the highways. And if Fort Hood really needed an Interstate link to another important Army post they would do better by upgrading US-281 to Interstate standards between Lampasas and Wichita Falls -that would provide a high speed road link between Fort Hood and Fort Sill here in Lawton. There's a lot more close activity going on between those two posts than with Fort Polk.

I truncated your post to stay on task, which is comparing the I-69 connector in Louisiana to I-14. I agree completely that it makes more sense to take I-69 through the I-369/I-30/I-40 route than through the new territory. The Louisiana-Arkansas routing is mostly wishful thinking and ego stroking for southern Arkansas.

As for I-14, the key question is this: Why is a link to Fort Polk and central Louisiana important to Fort Hood in particular and Texas in general? Ford Polk is a lot closer to the Gulf of Mexico than either Fort Hood or Fort Sill. We're more likely to be attacked by an enemy from without than from within. So it makes sense to have easy access to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.

The current best route from Fort Hood to the Gulf passes through several small towns and directly through Houston, Beaumont and Lake Charles. I-14 would bypass all of that. I-14 can go all the way to the Atlantic Ocean without passing through any major cities at all (except maybe Alexandria). It's far enough inland that it would be less threatened by an external invader. That sounds strategic to me. However, I have no experience with the military. Feel free to correct me if it's irrelevant.

I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2018, 07:48:08 PM

Quote from: jbnv on July 28, 2018, 01:20:11 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 27, 2018, 07:23:52 PM
With that being said, I-69 in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi is much harder to justify when I-69/I-369 and I-30 serves the same purpose in an arguably straighter route. The I-49 and I-57 corridors will make I-369 more attractive to traffic coming from Houston.

I-14 doesn't offer the same "big picture" compliments to the larger Interstate highway system. That's probably why this is being pitched by politicians with the angle of linking military posts/bases. Most heavy military equipment gets moved by rail or by air. Not so much gets moved on the highways. And if Fort Hood really needed an Interstate link to another important Army post they would do better by upgrading US-281 to Interstate standards between Lampasas and Wichita Falls -that would provide a high speed road link between Fort Hood and Fort Sill here in Lawton. There's a lot more close activity going on between those two posts than with Fort Polk.

I truncated your post to stay on task, which is comparing the I-69 connector in Louisiana to I-14. I agree completely that it makes more sense to take I-69 through the I-369/I-30/I-40 route than through the new territory. The Louisiana-Arkansas routing is mostly wishful thinking and ego stroking for southern Arkansas.

As for I-14, the key question is this: Why is a link to Fort Polk and central Louisiana important to Fort Hood in particular and Texas in general? Ford Polk is a lot closer to the Gulf of Mexico than either Fort Hood or Fort Sill. We're more likely to be attacked by an enemy from without than from within. So it makes sense to have easy access to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.

The current best route from Fort Hood to the Gulf passes through several small towns and directly through Houston, Beaumont and Lake Charles. I-14 would bypass all of that. I-14 can go all the way to the Atlantic Ocean without passing through any major cities at all (except maybe Alexandria). It's far enough inland that it would be less threatened by an external invader. That sounds strategic to me. However, I have no experience with the military. Feel free to correct me if it's irrelevant.

I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.

Here's where I disagree with you on I-69 and eliminating the Tenaha-Memphis segment.

I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock and I-40 from NLR to Memphis already carry a huge load, even with widening to 3x3 ongoing and the AR 440 bypass around Little Rock. I don't think that you'd want to add an additional load to that with I-69 interregional traffic just to save $$$$.

Also, there's the issue of bypassing Memphis, particular if you expand this truncated route to include I-40 to I-55 North at West Memphis to I-155 at Dyersburg. How do you connect the city of Memphis to this if you completely bypass them? How do you connect I-22 to this? A new Southern Crossing through Tunica? And, what happens to I-269, which loses its connection to its parent?

I agree that TX wants to get that SoTX/Houston/Texarkana corridor finished pronto to get maximum benefit, and that the Tenaha-Shreveport-Monticello-Tunica segment of I-69 will be put on ice for a while. But, Shreveport has plenty of skin in this game to lose if they lose I-69; they lose the only Interstate access to their main port, and they lose an opportunity to complete their Inner Loop. Also, South AR would probably want the growth that the originally approved path for I-69 would bring to their region.

Yeah, there are far bigger priorities for LA right now (I-10 though BTR, I-49 South, Lafayette Connector, Shreveport ICC...and I'd add to that I-10 through Lake Charles and the Calcasieu River Bridge and 3x3'ing I-10 from the Texas line to the Atchafalaya Swamp elevated section). But putting I-69 through LA/AR/MS in cold storage for now is not the same as eliminating it altogether; it simply means doing planning and environmental studies for now and holding steady for the future when funds may become available.

I-14...I'm a "meh" on that. I still don't see the need for an expensive Interstate corridor bisecting the north, and there's still the issue of how you get that sucka through Alexandria/Pineville and Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez. I still say that a Lake Charles-Alexandria-Monroe-Bastrop-Monticello (Super I-69 Extender) freeway would have more bang for the bucks...but, that's only me.

Quote from: jbnv on July 28, 2018, 10:08:22 PM

Quote from: jbnv on July 28, 2018, 01:20:11 PM
I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2018, 07:48:08 PM
I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock and I-40 from NLR to Memphis already carry a huge load, even with widening to 3x3 ongoing and the AR 440 bypass around Little Rock. I don't think that you'd want to add an additional load to that with I-69 interregional traffic just to save $$$$.

How much additional traffic is I-69 going to create? The traffic will be there (or not be there) whether or not I-69 routes through Little Rock or through nowhere.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2018, 07:48:08 PM
Shreveport has plenty of skin in this game to lose if they lose I-69; they lose the only Interstate access to their main port, and they lose an opportunity to complete their Inner Loop. Also, South AR would probably want the growth that the originally approved path for I-69 would bring to their region.

But does Shreveport have the clout to win it in Baton Rouge? I've never lived in north Louisiana (aside from 2 school years at LSMSA) so I have no idea what the economy is like up there. A quick search suggests it's not exactly booming: industry is gone and the main draw are casinos. They need a better argument for I-69 than "I-69 is going to bring more cross-country traffic through here." I asked this question earlier: What benefit does the Louisiana-Arkansas route bring to Texas that the Little Rock route does not? If they can't argue that it brings long-term benefit beyond being a pass-through, they have little chance of winning against projects from the south at the Capitol.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2018, 07:48:08 PM
I-14...I'm a "meh" on that. I still don't see the need for an expensive Interstate corridor bisecting the north, and there's still the issue of how you get that sucka through Alexandria/Pineville and Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez. I still say that a Lake Charles-Alexandria-Monroe-Bastrop-Monticello (Super I-69 Extender) freeway would have more bang for the bucks...but, that's only me.

Funny that you should bring up that corridor. Because if I were a south Louisiana legislator, and I wanted to make friends in central and north Louisiana, I'd pitch them the US 165 corridor, not I-69. An interstate along that route (presumably an extension of I-57) would strengthen the bond between Lake Charles and Monroe, link provide an alternate route for northbound traffic from Texas, link that area to St. Louis and Chicago (I-57), and improve hurricane evacuation. I-69 provides little or none of those benefits.

The advantage of I-14 over I-69 and the US 165 corridor is that it gives Texas a reason to invest in Louisiana. Texas does not need I-69 to go through Louisiana.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2018, 10:55:08 PM

Quote from: jbnv on July 28, 2018, 10:08:22 PM

Quote from: jbnv on July 28, 2018, 01:20:11 PM
I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2018, 07:48:08 PM
I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock and I-40 from NLR to Memphis already carry a huge load, even with widening to 3x3 ongoing and the AR 440 bypass around Little Rock. I don't think that you'd want to add an additional load to that with I-69 interregional traffic just to save $$$$.

How much additional traffic is I-69 going to create? The traffic will be there (or not be there) whether or not I-69 routes through Little Rock or through nowhere.

Enough to add to the corridor that's already stressed with DFW-LR-Memphis traffic. You are adding the additional traffic from heavy trucks from Texarkana NE through Little Rock, and then up I-40 which is already crammed even as it's being widened.

Plus, I-69 is a national High Priority corridor that will ease the load of traffic from SoTX/Houston northeastward. I'm guessing Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee will have plenty to say about abandoning that corridor.

Quote

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2018, 07:48:08 PM
Shreveport has plenty of skin in this game to lose if they lose I-69; they lose the only Interstate access to their main port, and they lose an opportunity to complete their Inner Loop. Also, South AR would probably want the growth that the originally approved path for I-69 would bring to their region.

But does Shreveport have the clout to win it in Baton Rouge? I've never lived in north Louisiana (aside from 2 school years at LSMSA) so I have no idea what the economy is like up there. A quick search suggests it's not exactly booming: industry is gone and the main draw are casinos. They need a better argument for I-69 than "I-69 is going to bring more cross-country traffic through here." I asked this question earlier: What benefit does the Louisiana-Arkansas route bring to Texas that the Little Rock route does not? If they can't argue that it brings long-term benefit beyond being a pass-through, they have little chance of winning against projects from the south at the Capitol.

Maybe right now I-69 in LA should be a lower priority, but I'm talking about the future here. Texas should not be the sole mediator in determining the final route for I-69; it's already set by Congressional fiat. There is still plenty of time to develop a funding plan, since the upgrades for the I-69 system in Texas will be ongoing for quite a while.

Quote

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2018, 07:48:08 PM
I-14...I'm a "meh" on that. I still don't see the need for an expensive Interstate corridor bisecting the north, and there's still the issue of how you get that sucka through Alexandria/Pineville and Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez. I still say that a Lake Charles-Alexandria-Monroe-Bastrop-Monticello (Super I-69 Extender) freeway would have more bang for the bucks...but, that's only me.

Funny that you should bring up that corridor. Because if I were a south Louisiana legislator, and I wanted to make friends in central and north Louisiana, I'd pitch them the US 165 corridor, not I-69. An interstate along that route (presumably an extension of I-57) would strengthen the bond between Lake Charles and Monroe, link provide an alternate route for northbound traffic from Texas, link that area to St. Louis and Chicago (I-57), and improve hurricane evacuation. I-69 provides little or none of those benefits.

I've been pitching a US 165/US 465 freeway upgrade for the past 10 years for local and statewide benefits (alternative hurricane evac route; adds a SW/NE tangent to the LA freeway system; could be a "Super I-69/I-530 Extender"). If it was actually built, I could agree with removing the Tenaha to Memphis segment (or truncating it to end at the "Extender"), because at least an alternative relief corridor would exist for traffic and goods from SoTX/LA to the north and east. Until that happens, though, I'd rather any corridor that adds relief.

Like I said before, Texas might not need the Tenaha to Memphis segment, but it is locked in as part of the original agreement to merge HPC Corridor #18 (the overall I-69 extension from South Texas to Indy) and HPC Corridor #20 (the US 59 upgrade from Laredo to Texarkana). All of the states involved in this corridor have input here, not just Texas; they should have as much a say over the final product.

Quote
The advantage of I-14 over I-69 and the US 165 corridor is that it gives Texas a reason to invest in Louisiana. Texas does not need I-69 to go through Louisiana.

IIRC, I-14 was originally designed as an interregional corridor to link military bases throughout the South, along with energizing the Black Belt corridor through MS, AL, and GA. Initially it was to terminate at Natchez, but when they discovered that that wasn't possible because there was no Interstate there to terminate it at, they extended it to I-49 at Alexandria. That, along with the original Trans-Texas Corridor plans for a toll route along the US 190 corridor, is more likely the spur for I-14. It's still up for grabs how TX will develop I-14; it will take years of study and acquisition before the final alignments are established and built. That's plenty of time to prioritize more needed projects.

The key element here is patience, and the willingness to allow the process to develop on its own. Rushing to pull I-69 onto I-30/I-40 (and I-55/I-155) and to build I-14 just to save money and spite LA and AR seems to me counterproductive to that consensus.

I agree with jbnv about the uselessness of I-69 through LA & AR,  and I agree with Anthony's viewpoint on needing an interstate running from Lake Charles through Elek (Louisiana's local dialect for Alexandria), Monroe on up to Pine Bluff. LADOTD has far more important projects than I-69 or I-14. Some have been mentioned, some have yet to be thought of by people more important than me:  (in no certain order)

1. I-49 ICC.

2. I-49 NOLA to Lafayette.

3. I-10 through Baton Rouge.

4. I-220/Barksdale project.

5. I-12 widening Baton Rouge to Slidell.

6. I-10 widening Texas to Mississippi (yes, the whole damn thing).

7. I-20 widening Texas to Mississippi (it needs it whether people realize it or not).

8. US 165/US 425 conversion to interstate quality to AR state line.

9. Twinning the Jimmie Davis bridge (LA 511) over the Red River in Shreveport/Bossier.

Some of the above listed are upcoming projects. The others need to be upcoming projects in the future. I believe all of these will be more beneficial to Louisiana than any piece of I-69. I also think that I-14...if carried all the way across into Georgia...will benefit Louisiana more than 69.

The port of Shreveport/Bossier has access to I-49 via either of these routes:

1. LA 1 NORTH to LA 523 (Flournoy-Lucas Rd.) to LA 3132 to I-49. Or....

2. LA 1 SOUTH to LA 175 to I-49.

Either of the above routes can be improved at a much lower price than trying to build I-69.

As far as diverting traffic off of I-30 & 40: My opinion is the truck traffic will still take 30 & 40 from Texarkana whether or not I-69 is built in LA & AR.

I could seen I-69 being run along I-30 from Texarkana and I-40 for some of the way across Arkansas, but there really needs to be another Mississippi River crossing south of I-55 as Memphis is an absolute nightmare of traffic and perpetual construction that I always dread navigating.  There desperately needs to be a southern bypass of Memphis, whether it's I-69 splitting off I-40 around Brinkley and going south and east of Memphis, or the same road being called I-22 and tying in to the current end of I-22.  Or better yet, co-locate both I-69 and I-22 on the same stretch to pull more traffic around the south of Memphis.  There's just too much congestion on the current bridges with no upgrade path other than new construction.  Little Rock might be a little tight for about 20 miles along I-30 to add lanes what with the businesses hemming in very close access roads, though.

Quote from: MikieTimT on July 29, 2018, 06:27:16 PM
I could seen I-69 being run along I-30 from Texarkana and I-40 for some of the way across Arkansas, but there really needs to be another Mississippi River crossing south of I-55 as Memphis is an absolute nightmare of traffic and perpetual construction that I always dread navigating.  There desperately needs to be a southern bypass of Memphis, whether it's I-69 splitting off I-40 around Brinkley and going south and east of Memphis, or the same road being called I-22 and tying in to the current end of I-22.  Or better yet, co-locate both I-69 and I-22 on the same stretch to pull more traffic around the south of Memphis.  There's just too much congestion on the current bridges with no upgrade path other than new construction.  Little Rock might be a little tight for about 20 miles along I-30 to add lanes what with the businesses hemming in very close access roads, though.

I don't know what to do with I-69, but I can see a good case for extending I-22 along the south loop past Memphis, across the river, and tying it into I-40 somewhere west of Memphis area. This seems like an obvious gap in the interstate system.

Widen I-10, I-12, I-20, I-30, and I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.

Extend I-57 along US 60/67 to Little Rock, then I-530 to Pine Bluff, then US 165 to Lake Charles.

Extend the southern arc of the I-269 loop across the river.

Voila, no more need for I-69 across new terrain between Tehana and Memphis.

I-69 should end at Memphis.  There is no need further south.

I had a post in Fictional Highways that routes I-57 from its terminus in Missouri, through AR, Multiplexing with I-30, and then head on what is I-369 and I-69 through Texas down to Mexico to replace the I-69 proposals.

What about two sections of I-69, similar to some other Interstate Highways in the U.S.? One I-69 from Brownsville to Texarkana and another one from Memphis to Port Huron.

According to the Wikipedia article, I-69 in Arkansas receives almost no funding, with an 8 mile segment around Monticello being under construction for 7 years now and that is apparently only a two-lane road. That doesn't bode well for any large-scale freeway construction in that region.

For Arkansas, getting I-49 and I-57 completed seems like a more urgent priority than I-69.

Quote from: Chris on July 30, 2018, 03:17:59 PM
What about two sections of I-69, similar to some other Interstate Highways in the U.S.? One I-69 from Brownsville to Texarkana and another one from Memphis to Port Huron.

According to the Wikipedia article, I-69 in Arkansas receives almost no funding, with an 8 mile segment around Monticello being under construction for 7 years now and that is apparently only a two-lane road. That doesn't bode well for any large-scale freeway construction in that region.

For Arkansas, getting I-49 and I-57 completed seems like a more urgent priority than I-69.

I-49 is the utmost priority with the current governor, who is from NWA. The previous governor, who is from Searcy,  favored I-57, which runs through his hometown (although he wanted I-30 as the designation).

Huckabee just wanted something for the whole state because they're all Baptists.

Here is where I disagree and I do think that the Tenaha-Shreveport-El Dorado-Monticello-Greenwood-Tunica-Memphis segments of I-69 are legitimately needed.

As Sparker said in another thread, I-30 is already loaded enough between DFW and Little Rock with heavy container traffic from BNSF's major container yard, and the upcoming Tex-Americas Center in Texarkana will certainly add to the flow. I'm not so sure you want to add I-69 SoTX traffic to that corridor as well.

Secondly, one of the main factors of I-69 is to connect major city centers. At least the currently envisioned path of I-69 goes through downtown Memphis via I-55 and I-240, and has a viable outer loop in I-269. Diverting to I-30/I-40 and then I-55 north of West Memphis would have I-69 completely bypass Memphis, unless you were willing to extend both termini of I-269 north and west to meet I-40/I-55 and I-55/I-555/US 63.

Third, Shreveport would raise holy hell if their segment of I-69 was removed because they would lose their link to their port, as well as a chance to complete, at least indirectly, the Inner Loop freeway. The original plans for a full I-220/LA 3132 loop were stymied by Barksdale Air Force Base, which is now getting a gate access to I-20 and I-220 East as consolation. Even if the I-49 Inner City Connector is Priority 1 right now, that doesn't mean they won't fight to keep I-69 viable through their city, even if they defer to the future. And I'm sure Monticello with their proposed bypass and the connection with the I-530/AR 530 extension would feel the same way.

Obviously, if the I-530 extension is pushed all the way to Lake Charles (as an I-51 or I-53), that would change the game completely and make that segment of I-69 less viable. But, even at that, I'd still at least build a truncated version of I-69 from Monticello northeastward to Memphis, while adding a 4-lane connection between Texarkana and Monticello along US 82 as an ancillary.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Quote from: jbnv on July 30, 2018, 01:53:35 PM
Widen I-10, I-12, I-20, I-30, and I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.

Extend I-57 along US 60/67 to Little Rock, then I-530 to Pine Bluff, then US 165 to Lake Charles.

Extend the southern arc of the I-269 loop across the river.

Voila, no more need for I-69 across new terrain between Tehana and Memphis.

I-10, I-12 and I-20 between Little Rock and Memphis? The rest of the stuff I agree with but those three Interstates go nowhere near either city.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 09, 2018, 11:53:04 AM
Here is where I disagree and I do think that the Tenaha-Shreveport-El Dorado-Monticello-Greenwood-Tunica-Memphis segments of I-69 are legitimately needed.

As Sparker said in another thread, I-30 is already loaded enough between DFW and Little Rock with heavy container traffic from BNSF's major container yard, and the upcoming Tex-Americas Center in Texarkana will certainly add to the flow. I'm not so sure you want to add I-69 SoTX traffic to that corridor as well.

Secondly, one of the main factors of I-69 is to connect major city centers. At least the currently envisioned path of I-69 goes through downtown Memphis via I-55 and I-240, and has a viable outer loop in I-269. Diverting to I-30/I-40 and then I-55 north of West Memphis would have I-69 completely bypass Memphis, unless you were willing to extend both termini of I-269 north and west to meet I-40/I-55 and I-55/I-555/US 63.

Third, Shreveport would raise holy hell if their segment of I-69 was removed because they would lose their link to their port, as well as a chance to complete, at least indirectly, the Inner Loop freeway. The original plans for a full I-220/LA 3132 loop were stymied by Barksdale Air Force Base, which is now getting a gate access to I-20 and I-220 East as consolation. Even if the I-49 Inner City Connector is Priority 1 right now, that doesn't mean they won't fight to keep I-69 viable through their city, even if they defer to the future. And I'm sure Monticello with their proposed bypass and the connection with the I-530/AR 530 extension would feel the same way.

Obviously, if the I-530 extension is pushed all the way to Lake Charles (as an I-51 or I-53), that would change the game completely and make that segment of I-69 less viable. But, even at that, I'd still at least build a truncated version of I-69 from Monticello northeastward to Memphis, while adding a 4-lane connection between Texarkana and Monticello along US 82 as an ancillary.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

I-69 would still go through Memphis, and have no need to extend I-269, unless you also eliminated the new terrain route from Memphis to Dyersburg.

I would say that Tenaha-Shreveport is more valuable than I-369.

Quote from: Flint1979 on August 09, 2018, 01:33:06 PM

Quote from: jbnv on July 30, 2018, 01:53:35 PM
Widen I-10, I-12, I-20, I-30, and I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.

I-10, I-12 and I-20 between Little Rock and Memphis? The rest of the stuff I agree with but those three Interstates go nowhere near either city.

Use common sense. My clear meaning is to widen I-10, and to widen I-12, and to widen I-20, and to widen I-30, and to widen I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 09, 2018, 11:53:04 AM
As Sparker said in another thread, I-30 is already loaded enough between DFW and Little Rock with heavy container traffic from BNSF's major container yard, and the upcoming Tex-Americas Center in Texarkana will certainly add to the flow. I'm not so sure you want to add I-69 SoTX traffic to that corridor as well.

That can be mitigated by widening I-30 and I-20, and upgrading US 82 to an expressway.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 09, 2018, 11:53:04 AM
Secondly, one of the main factors of I-69 is to connect major city centers. At least the currently envisioned path of I-69 goes through downtown Memphis via I-55 and I-240, and has a viable outer loop in I-269. Diverting to I-30/I-40 and then I-55 north of West Memphis would have I-69 completely bypass Memphis, unless you were willing to extend both termini of I-269 north and west to meet I-40/I-55 and I-55/I-555/US 63.

OK, extend I-269.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 09, 2018, 11:53:04 AM
Third, Shreveport would raise holy hell if their segment of I-69 was removed...

Yes they will. The question is whether they have the political clout to matter.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 09, 2018, 11:53:04 AM
Obviously, if the I-530 extension is pushed all the way to Lake Charles (as an I-51 or I-53), that would change the game completely and make that segment of I-69 less viable. But, even at that, I'd still at least build a truncated version of I-69 from Monticello northeastward to Memphis, while adding a 4-lane connection between Texarkana and Monticello along US 82 as an ancillary.

This is where the political clout comes into play. Why should Lake Charles, Alexandria and Monroe support I-69 when they could potentially get an interstate along US 165 which is already an expressway? Would Monticello trade I-69 for the I-530 extension and US 82? Could any of these cities make a deal with Lafayette and Houma to fully support I-49 in exchange for support for their corridors? It's basically a real-life game of Risk at this point.

As a side note:  US 82 is being widened across Arkansas as we speak into a 4-lane no-access-controlled highway. Work is ongoing in Magnolia.

Quote...no-access-controlled...

Foolish as that is...

Quote from: cjk374 on August 09, 2018, 10:07:04 PM
As a side note:  US 82 is being widened across Arkansas as we speak into a 4-lane no-access-controlled highway. Work is ongoing in Magnolia.

US 82 should have been the I-69 route through Arkansas to begin with and using the new bridge at Lake Village across the Mississippi as the I-69 Bridge. If Arkansas is going to make US 67 into I -57, might as well push it to the LA line. Any new bridge across the Mississippi needed to be at Memphis, one that ran from around Lehi (just west of West of West Memphis) to the current  terminus of I-69 at Tunica. Arkansas could have rerouted I- 55 from Jerichoto meet up with this at Lehi. It would have put it real close to the industrial par and the intermodal yard. It would have allowed for a completely new I-40/I-55 exchange and provided a relief route for I-55 through Memphis due to the situation at the Old Bridge. It would simply be a continuation of an I-269 loop, later on anot her bridge connecting the I-55/I-555 area at Turrell to the I-69/I-269 area at Millington would complete the I-269 loop.

I will not get into make I-555 into an extension of I-22 to at least Walnut Ridge with a grand design of running it to Tulsa via US 412 in the far distant future.

Quote from: Flint1979 on August 09, 2018, 01:33:06 PM

Quote from: jbnv on July 30, 2018, 01:53:35 PM
Widen I-10, I-12, I-20, I-30, and I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.

Extend I-57 along US 60/67 to Little Rock, then I-530 to Pine Bluff, then US 165 to Lake Charles.

Extend the southern arc of the I-269 loop across the river.

Voila, no more need for I-69 across new terrain between Tehana and Memphis.

I-10, I-12 and I-20 between Little Rock and Memphis? The rest of the stuff I agree with but those three Interstates go nowhere near either city.

Edited: Widen... (a) I-10, (b) I-12, (c) I-20, (d) I-30, and (e) I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis. Clear now?

I-49 s/b the priority in Arkansas in the near term followed by connecting I-57  to Pocahontas.

AR-530 should stay as a Super 2 south of Pine Bluff and should be finished to Monticello.

They have already diverted funding from finishing the Monticello Bypass, to converting US-278 from Monticello Bypass east to McGehee into a Super 2 bypass and ending it where the future alignment of I-69 will cross the Mississippi.

With the US-82 Greenville Bridge the only river crossing from Vicksburg all the way north to Helena, I can see why Arkansas wants to improve cross river access.

Quote from: cjk374As a side note:  US 82 is being widened across Arkansas as we speak into a 4-lane no-access-controlled highway. Work is ongoing in Magnolia.

I thought the bond issue was only going to bring US-82 to 4-lane expressway standards across the state. There are spots where US-82 is or will be freeway quality, but I don't see that happening for its entire path across the state (especially when Arkansas has other priorities like I-49).

Quote from: Wayward MemphianUS 82 should have been the I-69 route through Arkansas to begin with and using the new bridge at Lake Village across the Mississippi as the I-69 Bridge

The proposed I-69 crossing East of McGehee (the Great River Bridge) is already too far South as it is. Moving the crossing to US-82 would be a shift of 25 more miles farther South. That would transform the I-69 route in Mississippi and Arkansas into an even more ridiculous L-shape path. It would be bigger and considerably worse L-shape path than the stupid L-shape path I-69 has farther North in Kentucky.

I understand the choice of having I-69 cross near McGehee. If I-69 traveled a more direct path between Shreveport and Memphis it would have to span more rivers (like the Arkansas River), more swamp land and more wetlands.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2018, 11:32:41 PM

Quote from: cjk374As a side note:  US 82 is being widened across Arkansas as we speak into a 4-lane no-access-controlled highway. Work is ongoing in Magnolia.

I thought the bond issue was only going to bring US-82 to 4-lane expressway standards across the state. There are spots where US-82 is or will be freeway quality, but I don't see that happening for its entire path across the state (especially when Arkansas has other priorities like I-49).

Quote from: Wayward MemphianUS 82 should have been the I-69 route through Arkansas to begin with and using the new bridge at Lake Village across the Mississippi as the I-69 Bridge

The proposed I-69 crossing East of McGehee (the Great River Bridge) is already too far South as it is. Moving the crossing to US-82 would be a shift of 25 more miles farther South. That would transform the I-69 route in Mississippi and Arkansas into an even more ridiculous L-shape path. It would be bigger and considerably worse L-shape path than the stupid L-shape path I-69 has farther North in Kentucky.

I understand the choice of having I-69 cross near McGehee. If I-69 traveled a more direct path between Shreveport and Memphis it would have to span more rivers (like the Arkansas River), more swamp land and more wetlands.

In addition to this, there is an ACE (Army Corps of Engineers) requirement that there be no structures within a certain distance of the confluence of major rivers (here the Mississippi and Arkansas rivers); the Great River bridge was sited more or less at the minimum allowable distance from the confluence. 

In response to those whose complaint about the central part of the I-69 corridor is that it doesn't serve any major populated areas between Shreveport and Memphis -- that very fact is part of the raison d'etre of the basic corridor alignment.  Absent this route, traffic between those points (and Houston beyond the southern end) is now reliant largely on a combination of I-49, I-30, and I-40 -- all of which were predicated upon and functioning as "point-to-point" servers -- with Texarkana, Little Rock, and greater Memphis as the "dots" of the connecting system.  While this is the historic method of laying out a transportation network -- first with trails, then with railroads, with highways and, later, Interstate or quasi-Interstate freeways following suit -- and it remains a valid method when addressing territories previously unserved/underserved but now enhanced due to demographic shifts -- the concept of "relief routes" connecting specific points noted for being commercial destinations or traffic origins without intervening "chokepoints" is additionally valid.  Not entirely a new concept; I-5 in CA's San Joaquin Valley and I-80 across north-central PA were included in the first "final" Interstate iteration as more or less "direct" servers between major regions that avoided major populated areas en route.  The central section of I-69, despite some evidence of political intervention from the area it traverses being partially responsible for its routing, is a more modern example of this concept; the largest town along its path is Clarksdale, MS.  Obviously, there are drawbacks to this -- not much in the way of local contribution to traffic counts; plowing through previously unsullied territory, especially in new-terrain segments, and second-guessing by the very agencies responsible for its deployment, usually right up to the time that contracts are let -- which more often than not places those efforts at the bottom of the "to-do" pile. 

In the case of I-69, the SIU that seems to matter most to ARDOT and its handlers is not the main "trunk" across the state's southern tier, but the "530" connector between Monticello and Little Rock via Pine Bluff.  From all appearances the state is utilizing the inclusion of that branch in the I-69 "portfolio" as a funding mechanism for a project that they've likely wanted to undertake for some time; the progress in getting a basic facility (the initial 2-lane segments now in service) deployed outstrips the work done on the E-W trunk, which is being developed at what could be described as a "leisurely pace".  Maybe the I/AR-530 corridor is AR's way of compensating for the FHWA denial of the "Dickey Split", which would have provided a I-69 branch up US 79 through Pine Bluff; the 530 branch may be serving as a "consolation prize" of sorts; the chances are that something will be in place on that entire N-S corridor before even the Monticello-McGehee initial I-69 segment (in whatever form it initially is) is opened to traffic.   

While relief routes may increasingly be the focus of future intercity (Interstate or not) corridors; the issue is constituency and the subsequent ability, or lack thereof, to provide consistent pressure to complete a project.   Without major areas to traverse, these relief corridors (unless dictated from above like I-5 and I-80 in the '50's) have little in the way of historically intrinsic support, at least initially.  It usually takes external circumstances -- such as traffic "meltdowns" on the existing routes -- to kick the relief efforts into gear.  Here, that seems to be a situation that is gradually deteriorating on I-30 and I-40 (particularly the latter east of Little Rock); when it comes to a head, the funneling of funds to I-69 may expand beyond the trickle it is presently.                                                                                 

Quote from: sparker on August 14, 2018, 01:06:24 PM
In addition to this, there is an ACE (Army Corps of Engineers) requirement that there be no structures within a certain distance of the confluence of major rivers (here the Mississippi and Arkansas rivers); the Great River bridge was sited more or less at the minimum allowable distance from the confluence. 

In response to those whose complaint about the central part of the I-69 corridor is that it doesn't serve any major populated areas between Shreveport and Memphis -- that very fact is part of the raison d'etre of the basic corridor alignment.  Absent this route, traffic between those points (and Houston beyond the southern end) is now reliant largely on a combination of I-49, I-30, and I-40 -- all of which were predicated upon and functioning as "point-to-point" servers -- with Texarkana, Little Rock, and greater Memphis as the "dots" of the connecting system.  While this is the historic method of laying out a transportation network -- first with trails, then with railroads, with highways and, later, Interstate or quasi-Interstate freeways following suit -- and it remains a valid method when addressing territories previously unserved/underserved but now enhanced due to demographic shifts -- the concept of "relief routes" connecting specific points noted for being commercial destinations or traffic origins without intervening "chokepoints" is additionally valid.  Not entirely a new concept; I-5 in CA's San Joaquin Valley and I-80 across north-central PA were included in the first "final" Interstate iteration as more or less "direct" servers between major regions that avoided major populated areas en route.  The central section of I-69, despite some evidence of political intervention from the area it traverses being partially responsible for its routing, is a more modern example of this concept; the largest town along its path is Clarksdale, MS.  Obviously, there are drawbacks to this -- not much in the way of local contribution to traffic counts; plowing through previously unsullied territory, especially in new-terrain segments, and second-guessing by the very agencies responsible for its deployment, usually right up to the time that contracts are let -- which more often than not places those efforts at the bottom of the "to-do" pile. 

In the case of I-69, the SIU that seems to matter most to ARDOT and its handlers is not the main "trunk" across the state's southern tier, but the "530" connector between Monticello and Little Rock via Pine Bluff.  From all appearances the state is utilizing the inclusion of that branch in the I-69 "portfolio" as a funding mechanism for a project that they've likely wanted to undertake for some time; the progress in getting a basic facility (the initial 2-lane segments now in service) deployed outstrips the work done on the E-W trunk, which is being developed at what could be described as a "leisurely pace".  Maybe the I/AR-530 corridor is AR's way of compensating for the FHWA denial of the "Dickey Split", which would have provided a I-69 branch up US 79 through Pine Bluff; the 530 branch may be serving as a "consolation prize" of sorts; the chances are that something will be in place on that entire N-S corridor before even the Monticello-McGehee initial I-69 segment (in whatever form it initially is) is opened to traffic.   

While relief routes may increasingly be the focus of future intercity (Interstate or not) corridors; the issue is constituency and the subsequent ability, or lack thereof, to provide consistent pressure to complete a project.   Without major areas to traverse, these relief corridors (unless dictated from above like I-5 and I-80 in the '50's) have little in the way of historically intrinsic support, at least initially.  It usually takes external circumstances -- such as traffic "meltdowns" on the existing routes -- to kick the relief efforts into gear.  Here, that seems to be a situation that is gradually deteriorating on I-30 and I-40 (particularly the latter east of Little Rock); when it comes to a head, the funneling of funds to I-69 may expand beyond the trickle it is presently.                                                                                 

Nothing is likely to happen other than a couple of bypasses in south Arkansas until Texas finishes I-69/I-369.  Then, the cork pops and LOS goes down a couple of notches on I-30, I-440, and I-40 east of Little Rock in Arkansas.  Will have to add lanes at that point to those segments to resolve the service levels without I-69.

Isn't I-40 between Little Rock and West Memphis already being widened to 3x3 to handle the existing bottleneck traffic? Add potential I-69/I-369 traffic to that and you can sense the nightmare (especially through Little Rock itself).


Waiting until existing facilities are choked to near strangulation to increase capacity is a bit like waiting until water infrastructure corrodes and pipes blow before upgrading and renovating. Spending money now can save money later. Plus, I don't believe that the money can't be made available. Increase the gas tax and fund public infrastructure properly.

^^^ any chance of them straightening the curve on I-40 through the I-55 North Interchange?

I voted not necessary. I agree with wrapping a third river crossing corridor around the south side of Memphis, and adding capacity between Memphis and Texarkana.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 19, 2019, 10:11:06 AM
^^^ any chance of them straightening the curve on I-40 through the I-55 North Interchange?

The one in West Memphis? I never thought it was that bad.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 19, 2019, 05:32:09 AM
Isn't I-40 between Little Rock and West Memphis already being widened to 3x3 to handle the existing bottleneck traffic? Add potential I-69/I-369 traffic to that and you can sense the nightmare (especially through Little Rock itself).

I think that new bridges are being built to accommodate 3x3 traffic, but I don't think it is being actively widened.

That was my same thought. Those bridges on IH 40 were seriously outdated and in need of repair but I'm all for making it 6 lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. 3 lanes in one direction when there are a lot of trucks makes the drive so much easier on the stress level. I 22 outside of Birmingham is a perfect example IMO

Quote from: Tomahawkin on January 22, 2019, 06:07:12 PM
That was my same thought. Those bridges on IH 40 were seriously outdated and in need of repair but I'm all for making it 6 lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. 3 lanes in one direction when there are a lot of trucks makes the drive so much easier on the stress level. I 22 outside of Birmingham is a perfect example IMO

Those bridges in Jefferson County were built for a future 4x4 setup. I doubt it will ever need it, but at least it is somewhat future proof.

Quote from: Tomahawkin on January 22, 2019, 06:07:12 PM
That was my same thought. Those bridges on IH 40 were seriously outdated and in need of repair but I'm all for making it 6 lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. 3 lanes in one direction when there are a lot of trucks makes the drive so much easier on the stress level. I 22 outside of Birmingham is a perfect example IMO

It's especially helpful when trucks are excluded from the leftmost lane.  Thankfully there aren't any elevation changes of significance between Little Rock and Memphis.  There's not many things more aggravating than 2 trucks running a moving roadblock for 5-6 miles, especially when the speeds drop below 50.

A small piece already exists across the state line, so I say finish the damn thing!

Perfectly put MikeyTim...

If Interstate 69 is not built along its proposed alignment from Memphis to Texas, other routes should be considered. Maybe it could follow US 61 to Interstate 20; Interstate 20 across state to Shreveport; Shreveport to the existing Interstate 69 in Texas.

Follow US-61 clear down to Vicksburg and then I-20 across to Shreveport? That's an even worse, even longer distance "L" shape than the idea of having I-69 follow US-82 across Southern Arkansas.

Putting that much mileage of I-69 within Mississippi is a non-starter anyway considering the state's finances. The proposed stretch from Tunica to Benoit would probably be one of the last segments between East Texas and Memphis. Vicksburg is another 70 miles South of the proposed Great River Bridge crossing.

I think chances would be better for the whole thing to get built if more of I-69 was in Arkansas. The route could take a more direct path toward Shreveport. If they scratched the Great River Bridge concept and moved the crossing farther North to either West Helena or (even better) just South of Memphis to patch directly into the I-269 loop it would leave Mississippi with less of a financial burden.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 23, 2019, 09:16:20 PM
I think chances would be better for the whole thing to get built if more of I-69 was in Arkansas. The route could take a more direct path toward Shreveport. If they scratched the Great River Bridge concept and moved the crossing farther North to either West Helena or (even better) just South of Memphis to patch directly into the I-269 loop it would leave Mississippi with less of a financial burden.

You know what, that wouldn't be a bad idea!

Quote from: Henry on January 24, 2019, 10:06:58 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 23, 2019, 09:16:20 PM
I think chances would be better for the whole thing to get built if more of I-69 was in Arkansas. The route could take a more direct path toward Shreveport. If they scratched the Great River Bridge concept and moved the crossing farther North to either West Helena or (even better) just South of Memphis to patch directly into the I-269 loop it would leave Mississippi with less of a financial burden.

You know what, that wouldn't be a bad idea!

Especially if they threw in a spur over to I-40 to enable a southern bypass of Memphis over to I-22.  That would pull a pretty large chunk of development over the river to the Arkansas side as well.  Unfortunately, Arkansas isn't much better off than Mississippi, but we have taxed ourselves in the recent past to do some pretty big projects to elevate our standing a little, so after I-49/I-57, who knows?

Quote from: MikieTimT on January 24, 2019, 01:43:50 PM

Quote from: Henry on January 24, 2019, 10:06:58 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 23, 2019, 09:16:20 PM
I think chances would be better for the whole thing to get built if more of I-69 was in Arkansas. The route could take a more direct path toward Shreveport. If they scratched the Great River Bridge concept and moved the crossing farther North to either West Helena or (even better) just South of Memphis to patch directly into the I-269 loop it would leave Mississippi with less of a financial burden.

You know what, that wouldn't be a bad idea!

Especially if they threw in a spur over to I-40 to enable a southern bypass of Memphis over to I-22.  That would pull a pretty large chunk of development over the river to the Arkansas side as well.  Unfortunately, Arkansas isn't much better off than Mississippi, but we have taxed ourselves in the recent past to do some pretty big projects to elevate our standing a little, so after I-49/I-57, who knows?

At the MS-304 termination at US-61 west of the I-69 flyover, the bridges over US-61 were built for a future 4 lane use.

If there were no plans to ever have a west side bypass of Memphis, these bridges would have only been 1 lane in design and turned differently.

I have never seen any plans/discussion for a west Memphis bypass on the Arkansas side, but this bridge design was clearly done in the event something is built in some future.

IMHO, the end of MS-304 at US-61 near Tunica is really the most logical place to build a new Mississippi River crossing. I think development around the casinos in Tunica would blow-up big time if a new crossing was built there and attached up into I-40. It would probably take a lot of stress off those old I-40 and I-55 bridges.

If I-69 in Arkansas was re-directed to a Mississippi crossing at Tunica the path of I-69 could still go from Shreveport to Monticello as proposed. But from the end of the Monticello bypass the path would go up to DeWitt, Marianna then go along US-79 for a few miles before going East over the river. This Shreveport to Tunica path would be about 270 miles.

Quote from: Bobby5280I think chances would be better for the whole thing to get built if more of I-69 was in Arkansas.

I don't.  ARDOT's having trouble finding funding as it is for I-49, the I-530 extension, and their already proposed leg of I-69.  It's not going to be any better with more of I-69 in the state.

Nevermind pre-existing needs on I-30 and I-40 that will remain regardless of whether I-69 gets built...

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 24, 2019, 03:25:30 PM
IMHO, the end of MS-304 at US-61 near Tunica is really the most logical place to build a new Mississippi River crossing. I think development around the casinos in Tunica would blow-up big time if a new crossing was built there and attached up into I-40. It would probably take a lot of stress off those old I-40 and I-55 bridges.

If I-69 in Arkansas was re-directed to a Mississippi crossing at Tunica the path of I-69 could still go from Shreveport to Monticello as proposed. But from the end of the Monticello bypass the path would go up to DeWitt, Marianna then go along US-79 for a few miles before going East over the river. This Shreveport to Tunica path would be about 270 miles.

If MS just can't come up with their share of I-69 funding (a distinct possibility unless a sea change in state revenue policy occurs), it wouldn't be surprising if Arkansas -- down the line of course, after I-49 and/or I-57 is well under way -- suggests a revisitation of the old "Dickey Split" -- or at least the west leg of that concept.  The only problem with a De Witt/Marianna route is crossing the White River wetlands at the "fattest" point of the NWR along that river.  Since one of the problems with the current I-30/40 commercial corridor is the Little Rock chokepoint, it would be conceivable that I-69 could come north from LA as currently planned -- but shift to the AR 530 corridor north to Pine Bluff, then follow US 79 from north of there to Clarendon, essentially duplicating 79's alignment through the NWR.  From there the most efficient path would be to head right up to I-40 near Brinkley -- well east of the multiple bridges across the White and the north end of the NWR, where I-40 could be 6 (or even 8) laned east to the Memphis area to accommodate the additional traffic.  In MS, I-269 would take over the I-69 alignment to Tunica (yeah, it ends in a spur; so does I-635 in TX and I-495 in NY!).  If anyone complains about Fed money being used for Monticello-McGehee, consider it something like I-569, on paper only -- unsigned if ever built out. 

But all this is speculation only; how I-69 ends up is anyone's guess at this point.  But I'd be willing to make a wager that there will be quite a few options on the table before plans for Shreveport-Memphis are finalized.

Quote from: sparkerThe only problem with a De Witt/Marianna route is crossing the White River wetlands at the "fattest" point of the NWR along that river.

The road would need to cross the White River and wetlands area near St Charles, upgrading the existing segment of AR-1 through there to Interstate standards. Such a thing would be do-able since St Charles isn't built up all over the existing AR-1 ROW. It could be widened relatively easily. But new bridges and some new berms would be needed. A little ways to the South a new bridge crossing over the Arkansas River would be needed. The existing AR-1/US-165 crossing at Pendleton could be upgraded or an entirely new crossing could be built a little farther West over a more narrow stretch of the river.

Quote from: sparkerBut all this is speculation only; how I-69 ends up is anyone's guess at this point.  But I'd be willing to make a wager that there will be quite a few options on the table before plans for Shreveport-Memphis are finalized.

I think the segment from Shreveport up through El Dorado, Warren and Monticello will (eventually) get built as proposed. Sending I-69 up to Pine Bluff would require cutting off Monticello, if not Warren as well. Pine Bluff is a little too far North and West to really work as part of the I-69 corridor. It's not quite as bad an out of the way angle as something like sending I-69 clear down to Vicksburg to double up with I-20, but it's still not great. The out of the way bend I-69 has to take just getting to the proposed Great River Bridge crossing is bad enough.

^^^^^^^^
Regardless of the precise alignment, the central section of I-69 is going to be more than a little convoluted.  The environmental/ACE requirements for a Mississippi River crossing (which resulted in the present site for the Great River bridge) render a large portion of the river functionally "uncrossable".  But if AR would be willing to go to the expense of constructing the DeWitt/Marianna alignment as Bobby suggests (including any mitigation within the NWR), that may actually be a feasible alternative -- especially if the various jurisdictions can have a "meeting of the minds" regarding a 3rd Greater Memphis bridge down by Tunica.  But as of right now, it doesn't seem like the plans to route the corridor through MS via US 61 have changed -- just put on what seems like infinite hold!  And even if MS can't find the funding, the legal definition of the corridor (the HPC #18 language from 1991 and revised in 1995) would have to be legislatively changed before the corridor could be rerouted through eastern AR -- and it's more than likely MS interests (including the state itself) would engage in a major "piss & moan" session if and when the revised concept was forwarded -- which could have the effect of thwarting such a move.  But anything concerning this portion of the corridor is still a bit fluid -- so, as I iterated upthread, stay tuned -- given time, anything might happen!

Regardless of what happens with I-69, I think there is a significant chance (if not a really good chance) that a new Mississippi River bridge crossing will be built either North or South of Memphis before the Great River Bridge is ever built.

I don't know how well the casino resorts in Tunica are doing. I have friends who have driven clear from Oklahoma to gamble there. I don't think they're going quite as often since the tribes here (and "white" companies associated with them) got into a kind of arms race with building new casinos. WinStar next to the Red River is the biggest casino in the nation in terms of square footage. If Tunica is doing well and adds more casinos, hotels, resorts, etc that would certainly press the need for building a new bridge just on its own. Never mind the bigger regional issue like giving long distance I-40 traffic heading for places like Atlanta a fast bypass of Memphis and its two obsolescent bridge crossings.

Regardless of warrant or rationale, the simple fact is that any Mississippi River crossing will be a multijurisdictional project -- and I for one can't conceive of any three jurisdictions that are more likely to throw the proverbial monkey wrench into such a concept than AR, MS, and TN -- AR since it has a table full of other projects that would be prioritized in terms of both funding and timeframe, MS simply because it's perennially broke and has little chance of remedying that situation in the near term (and even if they were to attempt to raise taxes to fund projects such as this, they just may not have an adequate tax base from which to draw) -- and TN, which has a history of short-changing the Memphis area (this would only be applicable for a bridge north of Memphis) and otherwise procrastinating on projects.  Unless a specific funding method for a bridge were to emerge (dedicated bonds for example), it's hard to see much impetus for a regional bridge project in the foreseeable future.

With a Tunica crossing Tennessee would be cut out of that situation. Still, none of these Mississippi River crossings will be possible to build if the states involved have to shoulder the financial burden on their own. Without a great deal of federal help it has zero chance of happening. Big bridges like that cost too much for states to build them on their own. Even the Arkansas River bridge crossing at Fort Smith (a much more "modest" level project) ain't gonna happen without some serious federal help. That's why it keeps being pushed off indefinitely.

The states can try to sell bonds or take other approaches, but I don't think it would ever be enough. I think the only realistic option without federal help is building a toll bridge. And even that might not work if the tolls are too high. If a motorist is looking at a $15-$20 fee just to cross a bridge he'll likely take another route.

The whole "NAFTA Superhighway" thing was a federal idea when it was first proposed well over 20 years ago. The project was intended to complement the entire Interstate highway system, not be a bunch of itty bitty local projects strung together in a crooked, non-direct manner.

Even if federal help/funding could theoretically be obtained for some of these projects I still think odds are good a Tunica crossing would get built before that Great River Bridge even though there are no concrete plans for it at this point.

Quote from: Bobby5280The whole "NAFTA Superhighway" thing was a federal idea when it was first proposed well over 20 years ago.

It wasn't proposed at the Federal level, though...unless you want to count some of the local Congresscritters getting it into a later-approved bill (TEA-21, though it had its beginnings as two separate corridors in ISTEA) as "Federal" involvement.  No...the idea came from politicians in some of the states involved.  FHWA had zero to do with it until ISTEA was passed.

QuoteThe project was intended to complement the entire Interstate highway system, not be a bunch of itty bitty local projects strung together in a crooked, non-direct manner.

Then those same Congresscritters who pushed to get I-69 included in Federal legislation should have figured out a way to pay for it.  The "itty bitty local projects" is all the relevant state DOTs have been able to afford thus far.

Mainline new terrain I-69 should at least run from Tenaha up to I-20.

Widening I-20 needs to happen anyway, and I-69 could multiplex with it from that junction east to Monroe. From there I-69 could turn north and multiplex along the proposed interstate corridor to Monticello where it could turn east back on the I-69 alignment toward Memphis.

Once Arkansas gets other higher priority projects finished, the currently proposed mainline I-69 could always be built north from I-20 and east to Monticello to eliminate the long multiplexes.

Quote from: r15-1 on January 26, 2019, 11:44:18 PM
Mainline new terrain I-69 should at least run from Tenaha up to I-20.

Widening I-20 needs to happen anyway, and I-69 could multiplex with it from that junction east to Monroe. From there I-69 could turn north and multiplex along the proposed interstate corridor to Monticello where it could turn east back on the I-69 alignment toward Memphis.

Once Arkansas gets other higher priority projects finished, the currently proposed mainline I-69 could always be built north from I-20 and east to Monticello to eliminate the long multiplexes.

Something tells me that building a "temporary" I-69 from Monroe north to Monticello to handle traffic from Shreveport is never going happen.  Now -- if a N-S corridor functioning essentially as a southern extension of the AR-based "530" project (as suggested by multiple posters) would be conceived (and legislated into conceptual reality a la I-14 et. al.) from Monticello south to at least Alexandria, that'd be another story altogether -- but here, we're delving into the fictional realm for now.  If it's going to be I-69, it'll stay the present course -- albeit on a very "relaxed" schedule -- at least while funding is eked out per current practice (and how state DOT's miss the chargeable days gone by!). 

Quote from: sparker on January 27, 2019, 04:38:52 AM

Quote from: r15-1 on January 26, 2019, 11:44:18 PM
Mainline new terrain I-69 should at least run from Tenaha up to I-20.

Widening I-20 needs to happen anyway, and I-69 could multiplex with it from that junction east to Monroe. From there I-69 could turn north and multiplex along the proposed interstate corridor to Monticello where it could turn east back on the I-69 alignment toward Memphis.

Once Arkansas gets other higher priority projects finished, the currently proposed mainline I-69 could always be built north from I-20 and east to Monticello to eliminate the long multiplexes.

Something tells me that building a "temporary" I-69 from Monroe north to Monticello to handle traffic from Shreveport is never going happen.  Now -- if a N-S corridor functioning essentially as a southern extension of the AR-based "530" project (as suggested by multiple posters) would be conceived (and legislated into conceptual reality a la I-14 et. al.) from Monticello south to at least Alexandria, that'd be another story altogether -- but here, we're delving into the fictional realm for now.  If it's going to be I-69, it'll stay the present course -- albeit on a very "relaxed" schedule -- at least while funding is eked out per current practice (and how state DOT's miss the chargeable days gone by!).

If the proposed corridor from Monroe to Monticello is built before the proposed I-69 from I-20 north and east to Monticello, there is no reason why I-69 couldn't be multiplexed on I-20 and the new corridor to close the I-69 gap. But I-69 will have a gap until one of those two corridors gets built.

My main point is that I-69 from Tenaha to I-20 east of Haughton needs to happen even if neither of the other proposals is ever completed.

Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2019, 04:55:56 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280I think chances would be better for the whole thing to get built if more of I-69 was in Arkansas.

I don't.  ARDOT's having trouble finding funding as it is for I-49, the I-530 extension, and their already proposed leg of I-69.  It's not going to be any better with more of I-69 in the state.

Nevermind pre-existing needs on I-30 and I-40 that will remain regardless of whether I-69 gets built...

I checked the West Memphis MPO and they are mostly into what they call "bridge preservation" efforts. Most of the bridges in Crittenden County are at or near 50 years old and want to fund extended maintenance.

Most of the rest are for grade separation projects for the railroads coming and going into Memphis proper. The only new construction was the extension of Loop Road south to Waverly Road.

I did see planning dollars for I-55 widening to Turrell (I-555).

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 19, 2019, 10:11:06 AM
^^^ any chance of them straightening the curve on I-40 through the I-55 North Interchange?

You mean where I-40 EB (into West Memphis) drops to one lane?!
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4869/33026218358_1f1005dfc5_z.jpg)

Quote from: sparker on January 27, 2019, 04:38:52 AM

Quote from: r15-1 on January 26, 2019, 11:44:18 PM
Mainline new terrain I-69 should at least run from Tenaha up to I-20.

Widening I-20 needs to happen anyway, and I-69 could multiplex with it from that junction east to Monroe. From there I-69 could turn north and multiplex along the proposed interstate corridor to Monticello where it could turn east back on the I-69 alignment toward Memphis.

Once Arkansas gets other higher priority projects finished, the currently proposed mainline I-69 could always be built north from I-20 and east to Monticello to eliminate the long multiplexes.

Something tells me that building a "temporary" I-69 from Monroe north to Monticello to handle traffic from Shreveport is never going happen.  Now -- if a N-S corridor functioning essentially as a southern extension of the AR-based "530" project (as suggested by multiple posters) would be conceived (and legislated into conceptual reality a la I-14 et. al.) from Monticello south to at least Alexandria, that'd be another story altogether -- but here, we're delving into the fictional realm for now.  If it's going to be I-69, it'll stay the present course -- albeit on a very "relaxed" schedule -- at least while funding is eked out per current practice (and how state DOT's miss the chargeable days gone by!).

I have long aregued that a new I-69 bridge is a wast of resources as a nrarly new one exist just south and that should be used instead. I think a new river crossing near Memphis is much more imperative followed by a new bridge at Helena before any billion dollar Great River Bridge folly. In fact, Arkansas should push for two new crossings at Memphis before spending a dime for that I-69  bridge to basically complete a western loop of Memphis. The much talked about West of West Memphis to Tunica corridor AND a I-55/I-555(Turrell to Jericho)to I-69/I-269 in Millington. This would connect Arkansas' super site and intermodal facility up more better for development.and would allow for the Old Bridge issues to be fixed.

I contend that it is important to have two interstates running along each side of the Mississippi and double the bridge crossings connecting to two in case of a major seismic event along the New Madrid. Those bridges should have a rail component as well as all the eggs are placed in one very old basket at Memphis.

Ark 1 is mostly 4 lane from Forrest City to West Helena. A new bridge there could make that a nice 4 lane corridor that would eventually be upgraded all the way to Batesville MS. I contend that this xiuld be the outer ring loop of Memphis using a combition of Ark 1, US 412,US 45 and US 278.

I'd even rather see Future I-57 pushed down I-530 to Monroe i stead of buildi g the I-69 bridge and Arkansas focus on connecting Texarkana, El Dorado and Monticello with all divided highway.

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on January 28, 2019, 10:35:49 AM
I'd even rather see Future I-57 pushed down I-530 to Monroe i stead of buildi g the I-69 bridge and Arkansas focus on connecting Texarkana, El Dorado and Monticello with all divided highway.

As I've said before, that I-57 could then follow US 165 all the way down to just east of Lake Charles. That would give three major Louisiana cities their second interstate and give those three cities I-69 traffic that they won't get with the current I-69. Once Louisiana politicians become aware of the prospect, it's going to be much harder to get them to abandon that idea for I-69 which benefits only the northwest corner of the state.

I like the idea of a McGehee bridge because then US278 wouldn't have to dip so far south just to come back north again.  But a bridge as far north-south as the current MS-304/I-69 combo would be an excellent idea too.

Also, I-55 is the highway that needs rebuilding on the south side of Memphis  :awesomeface: :awesomeface: