News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

I-69 in MS

Started by Grzrd, June 08, 2011, 11:38:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

codyg1985

Quote from: sparker on April 06, 2017, 04:21:22 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 06, 2017, 09:40:21 AM
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). 

I think there was local interest for such a spur.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States


froggie

There was.  After the Great River Bridge location was announced, Greenville actively pursued an I-169 spur in the late '90s and early '00s, going as far as getting a feasibility study done which recommended an I-169 spur from west of Benoit down to the planned US 82 Greenville Bypass.  Elements of that study have been on my website for years.

sparker

Quote from: codyg1985 on April 06, 2017, 07:34:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 06, 2017, 04:21:22 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 06, 2017, 09:40:21 AM
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). 

I think there was local interest for such a spur.
Quote from: froggie on April 06, 2017, 08:48:13 PM
There was.  After the Great River Bridge location was announced, Greenville actively pursued an I-169 spur in the late '90s and early '00s, going as far as getting a feasibility study done which recommended an I-169 spur from west of Benoit down to the planned US 82 Greenville Bypass.  Elements of that study have been on my website for years.


Interesting!  From the map shown, it seems the spur not only follows MS 1 for much of its length, but also closely parallels the Columbus & Greenville rail line as well.  IIRC, one of the iterations of the bridge featured a rail crossing either in the median or alongside the Interstate lanes -- and that the C & G was specifically mentioned as the line to be continued across the river to connect with the rail network west of the Mississippi River.  I'm wondering if the plans for the spur also included a potential bridge approach for the rail line -- possibly in the median of the spur.  If anyone more familiar with that aspect of localized planning can shed some light on this, please do so. 

silverback1065

this seems completely unnecessary, do they really even need another interstate?  69 is a complete stretch as it is!

froggie

The I-169 spur never got to the level of preliminary engineering that you're asking for.  As for a rail connection across the river, it was initially looked at but did not survive the EIS process as no railroad offered to sponsor it.  You can see more information on this thread.

sparker

Quote from: froggie on April 07, 2017, 07:37:02 AM
The I-169 spur never got to the level of preliminary engineering that you're asking for.  As for a rail connection across the river, it was initially looked at but did not survive the EIS process as no railroad offered to sponsor it.  You can see more information on this thread.


Actually, that's not surprising.  While the C & G does provide an efficient path across MS and into AL, its lack of connection to the west rendered it, even during rail's heyday early in the 20th century, useful as a local server only.  No corresponding E-W line existed in southern Arkansas to serve as a logical outlet to the major distribution points in the DFW area; and the KCS line paralleling I-20 and crossing the river at Vicksburg already handles most of the E-W traffic in the area.  If rail were to be incorporated into the Great River bridge, it would have to dissipate at or near McGehee, AR onto the UP network (and AFAIK UP never expressed much interest in expediting such traffic).  So c'est la vie to rail prospects at this venue -- at least it will simplify the bridge design process if & when that materializes.

codyg1985

Quote from: sparker on April 07, 2017, 04:49:25 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 07, 2017, 07:37:02 AM
The I-169 spur never got to the level of preliminary engineering that you're asking for.  As for a rail connection across the river, it was initially looked at but did not survive the EIS process as no railroad offered to sponsor it.  You can see more information on this thread.


Actually, that's not surprising.  While the C & G does provide an efficient path across MS and into AL, its lack of connection to the west rendered it, even during rail's heyday early in the 20th century, useful as a local server only.  No corresponding E-W line existed in southern Arkansas to serve as a logical outlet to the major distribution points in the DFW area; and the KCS line paralleling I-20 and crossing the river at Vicksburg already handles most of the E-W traffic in the area.  If rail were to be incorporated into the Great River bridge, it would have to dissipate at or near McGehee, AR onto the UP network (and AFAIK UP never expressed much interest in expediting such traffic).  So c'est la vie to rail prospects at this venue -- at least it will simplify the bridge design process if & when that materializes.

Actually the C&G doesn't cross the state right now because the line is out of service between Greenwood and West Point. I think a bridge washed out and the railroad could not afford to replace it.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

sparker

Quote from: codyg1985 on April 07, 2017, 07:43:47 PM
Actually the C&G doesn't cross the state right now because the line is out of service between Greenwood and West Point. I think a bridge washed out and the railroad could not afford to replace it.

And again not surprising considering the line's owner -- shortline conglomerate Genesee and Wyoming, which historically would rather wring as much business as they can from the parts of their acquisitions that are functional than put $$ into capital projects to get their properties back into full-scale operation.  If they can act as a local conveyor from Greenville to Greenwood (where they would pass off traffic to the N-S CN main line) and turn a profit doing so, then G & W will continue to do that until (a) the line ceases being profitable, at which time they would likely attempt to offload it to another shortline operator or, failing that, simply file to abandon that line; or (b) if traffic increased where they could see reconstructing the cross-state line to serve as an additional outlet, they may even consider doing so (provided the sunk costs weren't prohibitive).  That firm acquired several Oregon lines (ex-SP and ex-BN) in the early '90's when I was living in Portland; their penchant for operating "on the cheap" could be seen in the maintenance (or lack thereof) of their rights-of-way.  They did do something somewhat admirable, however -- they gave Doyle McCormack (the curator/operator of the SP 4449 and SP&S 700, both owned by the City of Portland) carte blanche (for a price) to operate steam excursions over their rails -- mostly Portland-Albany or Portland-Corvallis and return when SP declined to permit operation over their lines due to insurance issues. 

froggie

Quote from: sparkerat least it will simplify the bridge design process if & when that materializes.

It already has.  Even before it was dropped, the rail component of the Great River Bridge was looked at as a separate bridge structure and not on the same structure as the vehicle lanes.

sparker

Quote from: froggie on April 07, 2017, 09:22:26 PM
Quote from: sparkerat least it will simplify the bridge design process if & when that materializes.

It already has.  Even before it was dropped, the rail component of the Great River Bridge was looked at as a separate bridge structure and not on the same structure as the vehicle lanes.


OK -- it's now a moot point about a RR crossing at the Great Bridge location.  But in retrospect it seems to be a bit inefficient to consider constructing two individual structures at the site rather than incorporate the composite plans into a single structure.  The only efficiency that would have been realized with a 2nd parallel bridge would be the process of transporting equipment and labor to one general site for both projects.  Material costs certainly wouldn't have been reduced with a 2nd crossing dedicated to railroad use.   

Hot Rod Hootenanny

For those interested, I saw (two weeks back) that MDOT has started moving earth, and placed orange barrels on the eastside of US 61/49 between the north end of Clarksdale and the Clarksdale Airport.
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

Grzrd

#161
In light of an upcoming special session being called June 5, to deal in part with transportation issues, Dick Hall, the Central District Transportation Commissioner of MDOT, points toward other states raising the gas tax and partially invokes I-69 as a potential economic boon for the Delta:

Quote
By the time this information is read, the Mississippi Legislature may have returned to attempt to complete their 2017 annual session–hopefully so.  As you know, when they last left town, neither the Mississippi Department of Transportation nor the Office of Attorney General were funded for fiscal year 2018, which begins July 1, 2017 ....
The first of this month, the most expensive gasoline was in a city in California.  The least expensive in the nation was listed to be in Jackson, Mississippi.  All of our neighboring states–Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana–have a higher fuel tax than Mississippi, and Louisiana's legislature is now in session dealing with the fuel tax increase recommended by their Governor.
There is nothing more fundamental for government support than our transportation system.  This is not unique to Mississippi.  The only difference is others are dealing with it. We aren't.  And the Mississippi Delta is suffering because of it
....
What I'm not proud of are those concrete structures rising out of the dirt, which was supposed to be the Greenville Highway 82 Bypass.  Likewise, Interstate 69, which we planned to construct through the heart of the Delta that promises such great economic opportunity, is yet to be funded.
Why can we not provide the resources necessary to take advantage of all of this?
Why do we insist on being last?

If Louisiana's gas tax hike passes by June 8, the pressure will gradually increase on Mississippi's legislators to do something.

codyg1985

While MS's gas tax is low, their tag registration is not. I wonder where all of that money goes?
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Rick Powell

Quote from: sparker on April 07, 2017, 09:10:01 PM
And again not surprising considering the line's owner -- shortline conglomerate Genesee and Wyoming, which historically would rather wring as much business as they can from the parts of their acquisitions that are functional than put $$ into capital projects to get their properties back into full-scale operation.  If they can act as a local conveyor from Greenville to Greenwood (where they would pass off traffic to the N-S CN main line) and turn a profit doing so, then G & W will continue to do that until (a) the line ceases being profitable, at which time they would likely attempt to offload it to another shortline operator or, failing that, simply file to abandon that line; or (b) if traffic increased where they could see reconstructing the cross-state line to serve as an additional outlet, they may even consider doing so (provided the sunk costs weren't prohibitive). 

I have several railroaders in my family from MS and know some ex-C&G employees. To G&W's credit, they have sat on the West Point-Greenwood corridor for years and not filed for abandonment, where there are probably several million $$ worth of rail and steel bridges that could be liquidated for scrap. But they will probably not be motivated to do anything until the government comes in with some kind of cost-sharing scheme. The Grenada Railway between Southaven and Canton got a lot of state aid to keep open, and control was finally wrested away from A&K to Iowa Pacific, where the former owner was obviously looking to abandon and scrap the line after getting it for a bargain from CN.

To the point of a combination Great River bridge being more cost efficient than two side-by-side rail-highway bridges, the primary savings would be in not having to build separate foundations for the water crossing part, although the savings wouldn't be as great as you might think. There are complications and extra materials required for combination bridges that aren't the case for separate structures.

sparker

Quote from: Rick Powell on May 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
To the point of a combination Great River bridge being more cost efficient than two side-by-side rail-highway bridges, the primary savings would be in not having to build separate foundations for the water crossing part, although the savings wouldn't be as great as you might think. There are complications and extra materials required for combination bridges that aren't the case for separate structures.

Point well taken; you're absolutely correct regarding multi-mode structure requirements and issues.  I recently talked to my cousin -- who's a bridge engineer with Caltrans -- and mentioned multimode -- and I could almost see his eyes roll over the phone!  He launched into a rant about how much it takes to maintain the two combination bridges on the Caltrans books (the I-5 Pit River Bridge north of Redding and the CA 70 West Branch bridge over an arm of Lake Oroville, both of which feature major UP rail lines through the truss superstructure, with the roadway perched atop the upper truss grid).  He went on about load-bearings, the need to inspect the piers and bolts at much greater frequency than strictly highway bridges (a lot of lateral shear due to vibration), and other pitfalls to the combination concept.  I mentioned the Great River Bridge to him; he was somewhat familiar with the project, and opined that if rail were to be incorporated it would severely limit the design parameters, as both approach grades and curvature would have to be based on the needs of the rail line; the roadway would have to be "modified" to follow suit.  He followed by noting that the ground structure would be similar to that found in the Sacramento delta region -- and that the underpinnings of the Mississippi River loops where the bridge anchorages would be located might be a bit too water-permeable to support a high-capacity rail line where substantial weight would be applied to any particular segment for an extended period of time (i.e., heavy container or unit-coal trains, which currently tend to dominate long-distance rail cargo).  When I told him that the rail plans had been tentatively dropped, his thoughts were that now they may be able to design a workable bridge whereas a combination would pose both construction and maintenance issues.   

froggie

QuoteWhile MS's gas tax is low, their tag registration is not. I wonder where all of that money goes?

Their tag registration is actually pretty low (IIRC, ~$30 when I was last stationed there in 2008).  Where Mississippi hits you is that they require the personal property tax on vehicles to be paid at the same time as vehicle registration.

mwb1848

Quote from: froggie on May 24, 2017, 02:48:11 PM
QuoteWhile MS's gas tax is low, their tag registration is not. I wonder where all of that money goes?

Their tag registration is actually pretty low (IIRC, ~$30 when I was last stationed there in 2008).  Where Mississippi hits you is that they require the personal property tax on vehicles to be paid at the same time as vehicle registration.

COMPLETELY DISAGREE!

Mississippians routinely pay hundreds (sometimes, high hundreds) of dollars annually for their registration.

rte66man

Quote from: mwb1848 on May 24, 2017, 03:30:35 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 24, 2017, 02:48:11 PM
QuoteWhile MS's gas tax is low, their tag registration is not. I wonder where all of that money goes?

Their tag registration is actually pretty low (IIRC, ~$30 when I was last stationed there in 2008).  Where Mississippi hits you is that they require the personal property tax on vehicles to be paid at the same time as vehicle registration.

COMPLETELY DISAGREE!

Mississippians routinely pay hundreds (sometimes, high hundreds) of dollars annually for their registration.

from http://www.dor.ms.gov/Pages/MotorVehicle-FAQs.aspx#402

"How much will my car tag cost?
​To determine how much your tag will cost, you will need to contact your local county Tax Collector.

In Mississippi, you pay privilege tax, registration fees, ad valorem taxes and possibly sales or use tax when you tag your vehicle. Registration fees are $12.75 for renewals and $14.00 for first time registrations. All the other taxes are based on the type of vehicle, the value of that vehicle, and where you live (city, county).​"
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

froggie

Quote from: mwb1848COMPLETELY DISAGREE!

Mississippians routinely pay hundreds (sometimes, high hundreds) of dollars annually for their registration.

I'm fully aware, having been stationed in that state twice (technically 3 times).  However, as rte66man demonstrated, most of that is in the form of the personal property tax (what his link calls the "ad valorem tax").  The actual registration fee is quite small, also as he demonstrated.

mwb1848

Ah, I see the distinction.

However, I'm intrigued by the question – where does all that other stuff go.

froggie

As a form of property tax, the "ad valorem tax" basically goes straight to the county.

The "privilege tax" part goes to what is effectively a "state aid" fund for county roads and bridges.

Registration fees, I'm pretty sure, go to MDOT.

Any sales taxes go to the state.

Grzrd

#171
Quote from: sparker on June 05, 2018, 12:39:45 AM
I suppose, since plans for any further I-69 extension from that area are tentative/speculative at best, maintaining a gantry for a stub-end -- particularly since they restriped the exit for a single lane -- might not be the most cost-effective signage option; a standard exit roadside BGS would suffice for the time being.
(above quote from I-69 Mississipi River Bridge thread)

For what it's worth, Mississippi included preliminary engineering for I-69 from the DeSoto County line to Arkabutla Dam Road in the 2017-20 STIP:
Quote from: Grzrd on December 06, 2016, 01:37:46 PM
MDOT has more preliminary engineering planned for I-69 in 2017, this time from the DeSoto county line to Arkabutla Dam Road:

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

MDOT also submitted this project for a FASTLANE grant (and presumably converted it into a non-granted INFRA grant):

Quote from: Grzrd on April 04, 2017, 02:28:35 PM
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:
Quote
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."

Although this article warns that construction won't start through 2019, it still provides a good visual of the project by this map:

Quote from: Grzrd on March 29, 2017, 01:02:02 PM
The local press has has picked up the story (behind paywall):
Quote
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:

Wading through all of this, it appears that the DeSoto County line to Arkabutla Dam Road is the next I-69 new terrain project after I-269 (I-69 SIU 9b).  Of course, it could still be many years away .........

seicer

That's almost overkill for an area that's already stagnated or declining. There is one spur road to the top that will remain vastly underused. There are three interchanges all feeding the same area - farmland, with the casinos further to the west. And many of those early casinos are abandoned or demolished - and even some of the newer casinos are now abandoned or closed. The boom has come and gone.

silverback1065

Quote from: seicer on June 06, 2018, 03:29:35 PM
That's almost overkill for an area that's already stagnated or declining. There is one spur road to the top that will remain vastly underused. There are three interchanges all feeding the same area - farmland, with the casinos further to the west. And many of those early casinos are abandoned or demolished - and even some of the newer casinos are now abandoned or closed. The boom has come and gone.

this entire project is overkill for this state

sparker

Quote from: silverback1065 on June 07, 2018, 11:20:23 AM
Quote from: seicer on June 06, 2018, 03:29:35 PM
That's almost overkill for an area that's already stagnated or declining. There is one spur road to the top that will remain vastly underused. There are three interchanges all feeding the same area - farmland, with the casinos further to the west. And many of those early casinos are abandoned or demolished - and even some of the newer casinos are now abandoned or closed. The boom has come and gone.

this entire project is overkill for this state

If indeed the casinos in the region are in decline, then the I-69/MS 304 extension is simply a way to shunt through traffic to and from US 61 over to I-55 (and, soon, the I-269 metro bypass).  Obviously originally deployed to provide access to the then-growing gaming facilities, it's been open for 12 years now and isn't going anywhere (literally or figuratively) unless either I-69 funding can be identified (not likely anytime soon) or actual plans for a southern Mississippi River crossing are forthcoming (again, unlikely in the foreseeable future).  Drivers will use the facility as a really long ramp to the connecting Interstates and will continue to do so for the time being.  So it has some purpose -- just not to the extent figured by its original planners.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.