I-69 in MS

[Grzrd]

Scott Bennett's "Wish list" for Governor Hutchinson and President Trump: the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge and the I-49 Arkansas River Bridge:  http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/115718/fort-smith-great-river-bridges-comprise-arkansas-wish-list

(above quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) thread)

This Jan. 25 article reports that I-69 in Obion County (SIU 7) was among seven projects submitted to the Trump Administration for consideration in the infrastructure plan

(above quote from I-69 in TN thread)

This article reports that Mississippi has submitted 120 miles (I think all of SIU 11) of I-69 for the Trump Administration to consider under the infrastructure plan:

... Melinda McGrath, executive director of the Mississippi Department of Transportation ...
Mississippi also wants to build a 120-mile stretch of I-69 from Benoit to Robinsonville. McGrath said the $1.83 billion project, which would run through the  Mississippi Delta, would "definitely help our most blighted region of the state."
"This would be a breath of life to that community because every bit of that goes through a very impoverished area," she said ....
McGrath said Mississippi officials also zeroed in on projects ready to go.
"It's not like we would be starting from scratch," she said.

Even though it is new construction instead of improving an existing road, and even though in Mississippi (and Arkansas and Tennessee) tolling is not feasible, it provides a tremendous opportunity to make progress on I-69. Louisiana has not submitted an I-69 project, but there are a lot of other more important projects.

[Grzrd]

From the 2017-20 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (p. 50/385 of pdf):

The local press has has picked up the story (behind paywall):

The 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan recently released by the Mississippi Department of Transportation includes funds for the engineering and design phase of an extension of Interstate 69 in Tunica County.
Project No. 720212 is the construction of four lanes of I-69 from the Desoto county line to Arkabutla Dam Road in Tunica County. The engineering phase is projected to cost $3 million and is slated to get underway this year. Eighty percent of the cost of this phase will come from federal funds.
The project realigns MS 713 to create a new crossing of the railroad and Highway 3, bypassing the Banks community. A map of the proposed I-69 extension shows the road will swing south of Banks before turning west, paralleling the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard for a distance before turning southwest to intersect Arkabutla Dam Road west of Highway 3.
No major construction is expected on this section of I-69 through at least 2019.

The map accompanying the article provides a little more detail than the one in the STIP:

Also from the Details page, here is a snip showing the current $495 million estimated cost to complete SIU 11:

This article reports that Mississippi has submitted 120 miles (I think all of SIU 11) of I-69 for the Trump Administration to consider under the infrastructure plan:

... Melinda McGrath, executive director of the Mississippi Department of Transportation ...
Mississippi also wants to build a 120-mile stretch of I-69 from Benoit to Robinsonville. McGrath said the $1.83 billion project, which would run through the  Mississippi Delta, would "definitely help our most blighted region of the state."

I emailed MDOT to confirm that the the $1.83 billion was the amount for SIU 11 and it is (I assume the $495 million figure in the graph is strictly the cost of actual construction):

The $1.8 billion includes costs for I-69 SIU #11 only as Mississippi is the lead State for that portion of I-69. Arkansas is the lead State for I-69 SIU #12.

With Mississippi's share of the Great River Bridge being $390 million, Mississippi's cost to complete I-69 is approximately $2.22 billion.

[Grzrd]

The local press has has picked up the story (behind paywall):

The 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan recently released by the Mississippi Department of Transportation includes funds for the engineering and design phase of an extension of Interstate 69 in Tunica County.
Project No. 720212 is the construction of four lanes of I-69 from the Desoto county line to Arkabutla Dam Road in Tunica County ... No major construction is expected on this section of I-69 through at least 2019.

This article reports that MDOT has submitted a FASTLANE grant application for the Desoto County line to Arkabutla Dam Road section of I-69, which could speed up the construction schedule:

DeSoto County and its cities, through membership in the six-state Interstate 69 Mid-Continent Coalition, back a state-federal application for $85.2 million for Fiscal 2017 to extend I-69 in the county, and welcome reported progress along the corridor ....DeSoto Supervisor Mark Gardner of Southaven .... Coalition President Kenneth Murphree .... said a federal Fastlane grant of $85.5 million is being sought for an MDOT proposal that would extend I-69 from the DeSoto County line to the Arkabutla Dam road project. It would serve as a key connector to the Tier I Interstate 55/CN Railway and Tier II U.S. 61 corridors within Mississippi, he said.
Murphree noted that all recent presidents have backed stimulus packages, "and when President Trump gets ready with his, we want to be prepared." .... Murphree noted that Mississippi has benefited from strong local and congressional support for I-69 from the earliest days. Gardner recalled that when Trent Lott was in the U.S. Senate leadership and the route was in play, "he said flat out if that highway doesn't go through Mississippi, it's not going to go anywhere."

[sparker]

The local press has has picked up the story (behind paywall):

The 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan recently released by the Mississippi Department of Transportation includes funds for the engineering and design phase of an extension of Interstate 69 in Tunica County.
Project No. 720212 is the construction of four lanes of I-69 from the Desoto county line to Arkabutla Dam Road in Tunica County ... No major construction is expected on this section of I-69 through at least 2019.

This article reports that MDOT has submitted a FASTLANE grant application for the Desoto County line to Arkabutla Dam Road section of I-69, which could speed up the construction schedule:

DeSoto County and its cities, through membership in the six-state Interstate 69 Mid-Continent Coalition, back a state-federal application for $85.2 million for Fiscal 2017 to extend I-69 in the county, and welcome reported progress along the corridor ....DeSoto Supervisor Mark Gardner of Southaven .... Coalition President Kenneth Murphree .... said a federal Fastlane grant of $85.5 million is being sought for an MDOT proposal that would extend I-69 from the DeSoto County line to the Arkabutla Dam road project. It would serve as a key connector to the Tier I Interstate 55/CN Railway and Tier II U.S. 61 corridors within Mississippi, he said.
Murphree noted that all recent presidents have backed stimulus packages, "and when President Trump gets ready with his, we want to be prepared." .... Murphree noted that Mississippi has benefited from strong local and congressional support for I-69 from the earliest days. Gardner recalled that when Trent Lott was in the U.S. Senate leadership and the route was in play, "he said flat out if that highway doesn't go through Mississippi, it's not going to go anywhere."

The problem is that Trent Lott's not around anymore to "grease the skids", so to speak -- he was indeed masterful at getting porcine-related $$ directed to in-state projects.  The push for I-22 almost foundered when he lost his Senate leadership post in the 2001-02 race-related scandal (it was up to Alabama's Sen. Shelby to pick up the slack a year or two later).  MS' current Congressional delegation doesn't seem to have the same desire -- or even skill set -- regarding directing available federal dollars into the state.  It'll be interesting to see if local pressure re I-69 development can somehow overcome the seeming lack of interest (or even intertia) occurring at the national level.

[silverback1065]

The local press has has picked up the story (behind paywall):

The 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan recently released by the Mississippi Department of Transportation includes funds for the engineering and design phase of an extension of Interstate 69 in Tunica County.
Project No. 720212 is the construction of four lanes of I-69 from the Desoto county line to Arkabutla Dam Road in Tunica County ... No major construction is expected on this section of I-69 through at least 2019.

This article reports that MDOT has submitted a FASTLANE grant application for the Desoto County line to Arkabutla Dam Road section of I-69, which could speed up the construction schedule:

DeSoto County and its cities, through membership in the six-state Interstate 69 Mid-Continent Coalition, back a state-federal application for $85.2 million for Fiscal 2017 to extend I-69 in the county, and welcome reported progress along the corridor ....DeSoto Supervisor Mark Gardner of Southaven .... Coalition President Kenneth Murphree .... said a federal Fastlane grant of $85.5 million is being sought for an MDOT proposal that would extend I-69 from the DeSoto County line to the Arkabutla Dam road project. It would serve as a key connector to the Tier I Interstate 55/CN Railway and Tier II U.S. 61 corridors within Mississippi, he said.
Murphree noted that all recent presidents have backed stimulus packages, "and when President Trump gets ready with his, we want to be prepared." .... Murphree noted that Mississippi has benefited from strong local and congressional support for I-69 from the earliest days. Gardner recalled that when Trent Lott was in the U.S. Senate leadership and the route was in play, "he said flat out if that highway doesn't go through Mississippi, it's not going to go anywhere."

The problem is that Trent Lott's not around anymore to "grease the skids", so to speak -- he was indeed masterful at getting porcine-related $$ directed to in-state projects.  The push for I-22 almost foundered when he lost his Senate leadership post in the 2001-02 race-related scandal (it was up to Alabama's Sen. Shelby to pick up the slack a year or two later).  MS' current Congressional delegation doesn't seem to have the same desire -- or even skill set -- regarding directing available federal dollars into the state.  It'll be interesting to see if local pressure re I-69 development can somehow overcome the seeming lack of interest (or even intertia) occurring at the national level.

and earmarks don't exist anymore.

[Scott5114]

and earmarks don't exist anymore.

This. I've heard it suggested that lack of earmarks is one of the causes of the current inability of Congress to work together to get anything done.  Previously, you could talk a rep into supporting your bill by tossing some money for a project in his state into it. Money, after all, is bipartisan.

[Rothman]

How do earmarks not exist anymore? 

[silverback1065]

How do earmarks not exist anymore?

all i remember is people getting upset about it a few yrs ago (bridge to nowhere in alaska was one of the big stories of the time), they got rid of it as a measure to reform things in congress. 

[Rothman]

I do not believe that is true.  Although they may have been scaled back, I am pretty sure earmarks still exist in one forn or another.

States have even recently gone through an earmark repurposing effort to use up outstanding earmark obligation limitation.

[silverback1065]

I do not believe that is true.  Although they may have been scaled back, I am pretty sure earmarks still exist in one forn or another.

States have even recently gone through an earmark repurposing effort to use up outstanding earmark obligation limitation.

if they do exist anymore, they must be very different than before.

[froggie]

States have even recently gone through an earmark repurposing effort to use up outstanding earmark obligation limitation.

This was to address pre-existing earmarks that had not seen their funding encumbered, but there have been no new transportation earmarks out of Congress since 2011.

Here's some reading on the subject.  First is a Heritage Foundation article from early 2011, after President Obama publicly endorsed House Republican's push from the previous November elections to eliminate transportation earmarks.  This article suggests that earmarks actually hurt the states more than they helped, and that's not entirely far off since most earmark funding was taken from each state's federal highway funding apportionment.  In other words, Congress forced the states to spend money they were getting anyway on the "earmarked" project.

Second is a paper from the Congressional Research Service from 3 months ago about how the ban on earmarks has influenced transportation spending, and suggests that there have been ways for astute Senators and Congressmen to influence where Federal transportation funding has gone, even down to specific districts.

[Rothman]

Heh.  My statistics courses in grad school used a variety of Heritage Foundation "studies"...to show how not to interpret statistics.

The second paragraph is what I was referring to:  We may not have specified lists in the bills any longer, but the FAST Act certainly established other mechanisms that can be heavily influenced by Congress.

Earmarks were ridiculously ineffective in NY, anyway.  A congressperson would secure a tenth of what was needed for a low-priority project and the earmark would just hang around, unused.

[sparker]

Heh.  My statistics courses in grad school used a variety of Heritage Foundation "studies"...to show how not to interpret statistics.

The second paragraph is what I was referring to:  We may not have specified lists in the bills any longer, but the FAST Act certainly established other mechanisms that can be heavily influenced by Congress.

Earmarks were ridiculously ineffective in NY, anyway.  A congressperson would secure a tenth of what was needed for a low-priority project and the earmark would just hang around, unused.

Every omnibus act since the '91 ISTEA is a project-related (as opposed to funding-related) earmark, particularly in the delineation of high priority corridors, many of which are written specifically to benefit roads in a particular state or area.  Technically, they're supposed to be eligible for the maximum 80/20 federal/other funding share -- but typically securing actual funds is like pulling teeth, particularly with most of the Congresses we've had since the mid-90's.  A Congressperson can get a corridor or corridor cluster established, disseminate maps of his new pet project, and claim that his intentions are to bring facilities and, by extension, jobs to his district -- and often that becomes the end of it unless he or she consistently presses for funding of projects within the corridor definition.  In this particular case, pretty much the entire regional (and national, for that matter) transportation "community" is well aware of I-69 and the fact that the Shreveport-Memphis part of that corridor may not pose the most effectual deployment of funds, but that localized pressures, for better or worse, prompted that alignment as well as any work that's being done on it.  Local interests got the I-55-to-Tunica segment done (the very definition of a SIU!); it seems the nascent Monticello bypass in Arkansas has some independent value in getting traffic off the streets of a college town.  But other than that -- absent a renewed push for I-69 completion from both above and below -- it's likely that any progress to be made on this corridor will come at the end of the funding queue -- after other projects are prioritized.   

[lordsutch]

The I-55 to Tunica segment (SIU 10) was a state gaming roads program project that got folded into I-69; I believe that's where the state share came from for it.

That said, every DOT on the corridor except Louisiana (whose environmental process was the slowest of any of the states and where I-49 has been a greater priority, for understandable reasons) has an I-69 project under construction today (I-269 is part of SIU 9), which is not what you'd expect if the project's priority was at the "end of the funding queue." Yes, the projects generally serve local needs - bypasses of Union City and Monticello, Memphis outer loop, upgrading freight corridors in Texas, etc. - but that's no different from any other interstate where segments were prioritized on the basis of immediate need or cost.

As for earmarking: In theory (so went the ideological argument that was made against earmarks) you could argue that by reducing the opportunity to take credit for projects of members, it creates some downward pressure on overall spending levels, but the evidence of that actually happening in practice isn't there. In practice the end of earmarking transfers discretion over special project funding (think TIGER, Fastlane, etc.) from Congress to the executive branch, who are just as likely to deploy it for political reasons but obviously in different ways (away from states/districts with senior members of Congress who could earmark enough to make a difference, toward key reelection states and to reward the president's political supporters).

[sparker]

The I-55 to Tunica segment (SIU 10) was a state gaming roads program project that got folded into I-69; I believe that's where the state share came from for it.

That said, every DOT on the corridor except Louisiana (whose environmental process was the slowest of any of the states and where I-49 has been a greater priority, for understandable reasons) has an I-69 project under construction today (I-269 is part of SIU 9), which is not what you'd expect if the project's priority was at the "end of the funding queue." Yes, the projects generally serve local needs - bypasses of Union City and Monticello, Memphis outer loop, upgrading freight corridors in Texas, etc. - but that's no different from any other interstate where segments were prioritized on the basis of immediate need or cost.

As for earmarking: In theory (so went the ideological argument that was made against earmarks) you could argue that by reducing the opportunity to take credit for projects of members, it creates some downward pressure on overall spending levels, but the evidence of that actually happening in practice isn't there. In practice the end of earmarking transfers discretion over special project funding (think TIGER, Fastlane, etc.) from Congress to the executive branch, who are just as likely to deploy it for political reasons but obviously in different ways (away from states/districts with senior members of Congress who could earmark enough to make a difference, toward key reelection states and to reward the president's political supporters).

Even though it's part of SIU 9, I-269 is, functionally, a "stand-alone" regional project whose purpose is (a) completion of the outer loop bypass of metro Memphis, and (b) a way to connect I-22 to the other trunk Interstates in the area.  However, IMO the remainder of I-69 in MS, the parts not currently under development in AR, and certainly the portion north of I-20 in LA, will lag the rest of the corridor in receipt of funding.  There's a bundle of political will behind the I-269 project that translated into available dollars; unless such level of support for the remainder of the route paralleling US 61 is demonstrated, it's likely what funds MS can generate and/or acquire will likely be utilized on other projects (the southern section of US 49 has been cited as one likely usage).  At the outside, I-69 may extend south at least to Clarksdale in the near term; but until funding can be identified (and possibly sequestered!) for the remainder of MS' share of the corridor -- including the Great River Bridge -- further development is likely to be shunted to the not-so-near term!

I'll hedge my prediction a little -- if Arkansas proceeds with development of their part of the corridor from Monticello to the Mississippi River (as has been mentioned in some quarters), then there might be some pressure on MS to advance their schedule to match that effort -- in which case I for one would be pleasantly surprised (I don't particularly like having to take cynical stances, but sometimes the record of progress -- or lack thereof -- speaks for itself).   

[codyg1985]

A MS River bridge and the interstate between US 65 and US 61 would be a very good thing for the region by itself. Unfortunately, that is probably the single most expensive piece of the entire length of I-69, and I would hardly say that the project would be of such national significance than it would warrant some sort of special grant.

[froggie]

A MS River bridge and the interstate between US 65 and US 61 would be a very good thing for the region by itself.

Given the presence of a fairly new 4-lane crossing at Greenville, one could argue that the I-69 "Great River Bridge" is unnecessary duplication, especially since the two states involved will need to seriously start looking at paying for a US 49 Helena Bridge replacement in the not-too-distant future.

[codyg1985]

A MS River bridge and the interstate between US 65 and US 61 would be a very good thing for the region by itself.

Given the presence of a fairly new 4-lane crossing at Greenville, one could argue that the I-69 "Great River Bridge" is unnecessary duplication, especially since the two states involved will need to seriously start looking at paying for a US 49 Helena Bridge replacement in the not-too-distant future.

In that light, routing I-69 down to the US 82 bridge would have made more sense. As a bonus, I-69 would have also served Greenville.

[sparker]

A MS River bridge and the interstate between US 65 and US 61 would be a very good thing for the region by itself.

Given the presence of a fairly new 4-lane crossing at Greenville, one could argue that the I-69 "Great River Bridge" is unnecessary duplication, especially since the two states involved will need to seriously start looking at paying for a US 49 Helena Bridge replacement in the not-too-distant future.

In that light, routing I-69 down to the US 82 bridge would have made more sense. As a bonus, I-69 would have also served Greenville.

I'm going to take a guess that in-state Arkansas politics determined the alignment of I-69 along US 278 rather than US 82.  There's also the likelihood that if US 82 would have been selected as the alignment, it would draw criticism as being too close to the parallel I-20 in LA -- and thus unnecessarily redundant.  If that criticism were to result in action, it would essentially remove Arkansas -- or at least a significant portion of it -- from the mix.  Bringing it farther north into the state lessened the perception of service duplication and added insurance against resultant route alteration.  Besides, it shortened the I/AR-530 connection by about 30 miles vis-a-vis a US 82 routing. 

[Anthony_JK]

A MS River bridge and the interstate between US 65 and US 61 would be a very good thing for the region by itself.

Given the presence of a fairly new 4-lane crossing at Greenville, one could argue that the I-69 "Great River Bridge" is unnecessary duplication, especially since the two states involved will need to seriously start looking at paying for a US 49 Helena Bridge replacement in the not-too-distant future.

In that light, routing I-69 down to the US 82 bridge would have made more sense. As a bonus, I-69 would have also served Greenville.

A routing through Greenville would have only been consistent with a routing of I-69 further south through Monroe to Winnfield, Leesville, and south of Lufkin, or a splitting of the I-69 corridor into two by freewayizing US 165 to I-10 east of Lake Charles and building up US 59 to Texarkana without the Tenaha-Shreveport-Monticello-GRB-Clarksdale connection. That would have taken Shreveport and southern Arkansas out of the mix, and probably necessitated a further extension of I-530 into Louisiana as well. At least with the current alignment of proposed I-69, those regions are covered.

[silverback1065]

I feel like 69 should have crossed the Mississippi where it is planned, go straight east to i-55, then be cosigned with 55 up to Memphis. 

[codyg1985]

I feel like 69 should have crossed the Mississippi where it is planned, go straight east to i-55, then be cosigned with 55 up to Memphis. 

The decision to route I-69 more through the delta probably stems from giving Clarksdale more access to the interstate.

If it did follow the route your suggest (roughly along MS 32), then at least the Grenada control city along NB I-55 out of Jackson would make a little more sense.

[silverback1065]

i just don't see miss finishing this any time soon, that river bridge seems like a pipe dream.

[Henry]

A MS River bridge and the interstate between US 65 and US 61 would be a very good thing for the region by itself.

Given the presence of a fairly new 4-lane crossing at Greenville, one could argue that the I-69 "Great River Bridge" is unnecessary duplication, especially since the two states involved will need to seriously start looking at paying for a US 49 Helena Bridge replacement in the not-too-distant future.

In that light, routing I-69 down to the US 82 bridge would have made more sense. As a bonus, I-69 would have also served Greenville.

Well, it still could serve Greenville through the spur route, I-169.

[sparker]

Well, it still could serve Greenville through the spur route, I-169.

Any x69 spur is purely speculative at this time; let's wait until 69 itself is finalized and funded before deploying additions (unless within the Fictional realm).