AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)  (Read 208840 times)

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1176
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:06 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #500 on: December 28, 2021, 05:38:17 PM »

Only things I can see LA completing in my remaining lifetime is:



Rest of I-69? Probably not until they settle on a final route in TX and AR, if ever.

I think they may be able to blame Arkansas and Texas for now, but I think Louisiana is less inclined than the other two.  Texas has offered several options to LA for the part from Shelby  or Panola County. The just out of Joaquin to Just north of Logansport (roughly following US-84), A greenfield route from US-59 near Woods Community via Galloway with the entire Sabine River crossing from Texas to Texas. There would only be 14 miles in LA  to I-49, and finally from Carthage to Bethany LA (this is the most Texas miles not duplicated by I-369.) The folks in DeSoto Parish and Shelby County all hate anything except the US-84 routing. From a cost perspective for Louisiana, either of the other two are dramatically less expensive than the US-84 route. The folks in Shreveport / Bossier don't want the US-79 route because it really makes skipping the port connector and Red River port bridge easier .
« Last Edit: February 21, 2022, 11:24:08 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3778
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 46
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: April 28, 2022, 09:05:52 AM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #501 on: December 29, 2021, 01:55:39 AM »

Louisiana is hardly inclined to build I-69 at all beyond the I-20/49 stretch. It just doesn't serve our interests. And we have enough real needs on the table as it is. We *may* build the I-20/49 stretch because it serves multiple interests: bypassing Shreveport-Bossier, better access to Barksdale, another Red River crossing. We *may* even build something connecting Logansport to the route and/or a direct route from Minden to El Dorado. But that's it.
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3746
  • Age: 32
  • Last Login: Today at 02:05:44 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #502 on: December 29, 2021, 08:52:54 AM »

Louisiana is hardly inclined to build I-69 at all beyond the I-20/49 stretch. It just doesn't serve our interests. And we have enough real needs on the table as it is. We *may* build the I-20/49 stretch because it serves multiple interests: bypassing Shreveport-Bossier, better access to Barksdale, another Red River crossing. We *may* even build something connecting Logansport to the route and/or a direct route from Minden to El Dorado. But that's it.

IMO 69 doesn't need to exist in Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, or Louisiana. In Texas it should be various other numbers. it should just end in Memphis.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 814
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 02:31:51 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #503 on: December 29, 2021, 11:31:24 AM »

Louisiana is hardly inclined to build I-69 at all beyond the I-20/49 stretch. It just doesn't serve our interests. And we have enough real needs on the table as it is. We *may* build the I-20/49 stretch because it serves multiple interests: bypassing Shreveport-Bossier, better access to Barksdale, another Red River crossing. We *may* even build something connecting Logansport to the route and/or a direct route from Minden to El Dorado. But that's it.

IMO 69 doesn't need to exist in Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, or Louisiana. In Texas it should be various other numbers. it should just end in Memphis.
I don't disagree, but that horse has been beaten to death.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3428
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 01:22:28 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #504 on: December 29, 2021, 02:31:08 PM »

I doubt any of us will live to see a completed Interstate 69 from Texas-to-Canada, but I predict the entire route will eventually be completed, even though it likely will take at least 50-100 years.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1563
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 12:43:06 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #505 on: December 29, 2021, 03:43:11 PM »

Louisiana is hardly inclined to build I-69 at all beyond the I-20/49 stretch. It just doesn't serve our interests. And we have enough real needs on the table as it is. We *may* build the I-20/49 stretch because it serves multiple interests: bypassing Shreveport-Bossier, better access to Barksdale, another Red River crossing. We *may* even build something connecting Logansport to the route and/or a direct route from Minden to El Dorado. But that's it.

IMO 69 doesn't need to exist in Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, or Louisiana. In Texas it should be various other numbers. it should just end in Memphis.

Disagree. As long as it is assumed to be a needed national and/or international corridor, it will be retained and ultimately constructed. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but it will happen.
Logged

Life in Paradise

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 517
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: Today at 12:20:23 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #506 on: December 30, 2021, 01:28:51 PM »

Louisiana is hardly inclined to build I-69 at all beyond the I-20/49 stretch. It just doesn't serve our interests. And we have enough real needs on the table as it is. We *may* build the I-20/49 stretch because it serves multiple interests: bypassing Shreveport-Bossier, better access to Barksdale, another Red River crossing. We *may* even build something connecting Logansport to the route and/or a direct route from Minden to El Dorado. But that's it.

IMO 69 doesn't need to exist in Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, or Louisiana. In Texas it should be various other numbers. it should just end in Memphis.

Disagree. As long as it is assumed to be a needed national and/or international corridor, it will be retained and ultimately constructed. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but it will happen.
We can basically agree that I-69 is on course to at least get to Memphis and also most likely from Shreveport, LA to south Texas.  There is a need in some of the very rural areas of Arkansas plus some of Mississippi and Louisiana for an interstate to go through there, but not as much as others.  The major need can be to reduce some of the high traffic on I-30 and I-40 through Arkansas and NE Texas (I-30).
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3106
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 10:08:04 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #507 on: December 30, 2021, 02:21:24 PM »

I expect most of the I-69 system in Texas to be complete by 2040. Some non-freeway gaps may still remain though. The Tenaha to Shreveport leg seems less certain. The segments in Southern Arkansas and NW Mississippi are even less certain than that.

The proposed routing of I-69 thru Southern Arkansas seems pretty goofy to me. Why does it go so far around El Dorado? A Shreveport to El Dorado to Monticello diagonal route would have made more sense than the curvy nonsense that has been planned. When looking at the entire Arkansas-Mississippi segment it looks like another big "L" shape. The combination of I-30 and I-40 across Arkansas looks much more straight. In some respects I kind of hope I-69 through that part of the country never gets finished.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7511
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:10:52 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #508 on: December 30, 2021, 03:34:34 PM »

^ The proposed routing of I-69 through Arkansas and Mississippi results in around the same mileage between Tenaha and Memphis via either that route or I-30/I-40.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1083
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 03:52:28 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #509 on: December 30, 2021, 03:41:52 PM »

I expect most of the I-69 system in Texas to be complete by 2040. Some non-freeway gaps may still remain though. The Tenaha to Shreveport leg seems less certain. The segments in Southern Arkansas and NW Mississippi are even less certain than that.

The proposed routing of I-69 thru Southern Arkansas seems pretty goofy to me. Why does it go so far around El Dorado? A Shreveport to El Dorado to Monticello diagonal route would have made more sense than the curvy nonsense that has been planned. When looking at the entire Arkansas-Mississippi segment it looks like another big "L" shape. The combination of I-30 and I-40 across Arkansas looks much more straight. In some respects I kind of hope I-69 through that part of the country never gets finished.

I kind of hope that it does, but from Minden to El Dorado to Pine Bluff and along US-79 corridor and make a southern Memphis crossing to I-69/MS-304 around Tunica.  Serves more people, straightens things out, makes a quicker route for south Texas to the Memphis area, bypassing LR and Texarkana, and gives the Memphis area a 3rd crossing that can be parlayed into an I-22 concurrency as well.  Monticello can make due with a 3di for now unless traffic counts make sense to push I-57 down it to I-20.  History will show that the Dickey Split was a mistake that would never actually get funded as the route was mandated.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2021, 03:46:08 PM by MikieTimT »
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3778
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 46
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: April 28, 2022, 09:05:52 AM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #510 on: January 02, 2022, 06:54:34 PM »

I do not believe that Louisiana will ever build its complete stretch of I-69, at least not as an untolled interstate, without federal or external funding specifically designated for the route. Again, I do not see how it will ever move high enough up the state's priority list. Any effort to fund it at the expense of southern projects will meet resistance from southern legislators and the southern legislators will more likely win as long as the population of Louisiana tends to cluster along the I-10/12 corridor versus north of I-10.

We will PROBABLY build I-69 between I-49 and I-20 as a bypass of Shreveport-Bossier and to improve access to Barksdale.

We will PROBABLY build something between Logansport and Shreveport. MAYBE an expressway.

We will PROBABLY build something that connects Minden to El Dorado. MAYBE an expressway.

But I don't see enough incentive to make that route an interstate without federal funding or tolls.

And if anyone in power ever figures out that we could use the expressways that we already have to get an interstate from Lake Charles to Arkansas via Alexandria and Monroe, then we will not build I-69 until well after that interstate is built.

The main thing giving I-69 hope in Louisiana is the will of the Shreveport-Bossier-Barksdale constituency to have a role in the distribution pipeline from Texas. The only way they can win support among the massive south Louisiana constituency is to demonstrate that they will be relevant enough to justify giving them I-69. Maybe the right leader will emerge from that area and do that. I don't see that happening in our next election cycle. I also don't see Shreveport-Bossier managing to become a magnet for the state's population.
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1176
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:06 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #511 on: January 02, 2022, 09:37:45 PM »



But I don't see enough incentive to make that route an interstate without federal funding or tolls.

I don't think tolls are a viable option either from the utilization actually paying for it or the palatability of it to Louisiana drivers.
 
Quote
And if anyone in power ever figures out that we could use the expressways that we already have to get an interstate from Lake Charles to Arkansas via Alexandria and Monroe, then we will not build I-69 until well after that interstate is built.

.

Because there is not a hard proposal by (????)  the people on here seem to completely dismiss this. It is what I have been saying on here forever and they treat it like fantasy.  It is a viable hurricane evacuation route. It is a good plan. I-69 has marginal utility to Louisiana as a whole and outside the southern loop and port bridge maybe even Shreveport / Bossier. I believe after the "real" priorities in Louisiana are closer to finished and when they actually update their priorities from there, that the Alexandria to Monroe and maybe even the Ferriday to Delhi routes look to get serious upgrades in urgency as evacuation routes.  I -69 will likely fall back to the same general priority as now: Low to none.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2022, 10:33:27 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1176
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:06 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #512 on: January 02, 2022, 09:43:28 PM »

^ The proposed routing of I-69 through Arkansas and Mississippi results in around the same mileage between Tenaha and Memphis via either that route or I-30/I-40.

I think we all understand that. The issue is there is a huge need for additional capacity. It seemingly should cost close to the same to do it either way . I-69 adds service to additional areas, avoids Little Rock ( btw missing Little Rock is a negative in the eyes of the greatest percentage of Arkansans), and provides relief when one or the other would be slowed for construction, etc.



 
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7511
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:10:52 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #513 on: January 02, 2022, 09:58:14 PM »

^ The proposed routing of I-69 through Arkansas and Mississippi results in around the same mileage between Tenaha and Memphis via either that route or I-30/I-40.

I think we all understand that. The issue is there is a huge need for additional capacity. It seemingly should cost close to the same to do it either way . I-69 adds service to additional areas, avoids Little Rock ( btw missing Little Rock is a negative in the eyes of the greatest percentage of Arkansans), and provides relief when one or the other would be slowed for construction, etc.
I agree completely, and is why I support its completion between Texas and Memphis.

I was pointing this out, because Bobby5280 criticized its “goofy”, “curvy nonsense”, and “L shape” routing, and how I-30 and I-40 is much more straight.

Both routes equal out to the same ultimately, and I-69 would offer a significant amount of relief to I-30 and I-40, and direct southeastern Texas traffic destined to the northeast off of those corridors and onto I-69.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1176
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:06 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #514 on: January 02, 2022, 10:09:41 PM »

^ The proposed routing of I-69 through Arkansas and Mississippi results in around the same mileage between Tenaha and Memphis via either that route or I-30/I-40.

I think we all understand that. The issue is there is a huge need for additional capacity. It seemingly should cost close to the same to do it either way . I-69 adds service to additional areas, avoids Little Rock ( btw missing Little Rock is a negative in the eyes of the greatest percentage of Arkansans), and provides relief when one or the other would be slowed for construction, etc.
I agree completely, and is why I support its completion between Texas and Memphis.

I was pointing this out, because Bobby5280 criticized its “goofy”, “curvy nonsense”, and “L shape” routing, and how I-30 and I-40 is much more straight.

Both routes equal out to the same ultimately, and I-69 would offer a significant amount of relief to I-30 and I-40, and direct southeastern Texas traffic destined to the northeast off of those corridors and onto I-69.

I agree with Bobby on the route. I get the expense of crossing the White and Arkansas Rivers, but the currently proposed route makes little sense. The currently proposed bridge location makes little sense, and even if Arkansas were all in for building it along said route (and I am not sure they are) Mississippi has ZERO interest in either the bridge or their portion of the mileage. Mississippi is less invested than Louisiana and Louisiana has (keeps) it nearly at the bottom of a periodically rejiggered priority list.

This all said, I do think it should be built somewhere across Arkansas and perhaps northward through Mississippi.  Just on a seemingly better route.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2022, 10:21:16 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1176
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:06 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #515 on: January 27, 2022, 10:49:13 AM »

I went to Arkansas City yesterday. Man is it a desolate place. I get why they want the Freeway. I drove up from Bonita LA to Arkansas City (US-165 / 82/165 / AR4.)  What I saw was lots of small towns with perhaps one convenience store each. There was more in McGehee and Lake Village, but even then...Not that much more.

Back to the freeway and the proposed Dean Bridge. The bridge will be expensive. The APPROACHES will be worse. At least two miles elevated from just outside the Arkansas side levees to the river bridge itself. On the Mississippi side, there is probably less than a mile of approach to get outside the levees, then you have to cross Lake Bolivar (an oxbow former channel.) I am not sure you ever get down to ground level construction until you get close to Benoit. This very likely could be 10 miles of bridge and elevated approach from Arkansas City to Benoit.  This, by no stretch of the imagination, would be a crossing like the one at Greenville / Lake Village.  It will be both a wider river bottom and a wider crossing of the river itself (probably made even wider by shifting it further south to offset the upstream curve.)

People nix following US-79 because of the crossing of the Arkansas and White rivers, but crossing the Arkansas is pretty much cross the river and be done. The White is a little more involved but it would probably just require a parallel span to the current US-79 bridge.

Will it cost more in raw dollars to build I-69 along US-79 and cross the Mississippi  into far south Desoto County or the northwest corner of Tunica County than to cross at Arkansas City?  Absolutely.  Will it cost as much as a new bridge across the Mississippi at both places?  Almost surely not.

By the way, I have said this before and I will say it again. US-278 needs major improvements if there is never going to be a freeway at all. There is almost as much RURAL 45 mph mileage is there is 55mph.  The road is in generally good condition (all the way from McGehee to Hope.)  While the pavement is good, it probably would be a FM road in Texas.  The road design is the problem. Too many curves, too many small communities and towns, just not a great route for anything.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1083
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 03:52:28 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #516 on: January 27, 2022, 11:40:15 AM »

I went to Arkansas City yesterday. Man is it a desolate place. I get why they want the Freeway. I drove up from Bonita LA to Arkansas City (US-165 / 82/165 / AR4.)  What I saw was lots of small towns with perhaps one convenience store each. There was more in McGehee and Lake Village, but even then...Not that much more.

Back to the freeway and the proposed Dean Bridge. The bridge will be expensive. The APPROACHES will be worse. At least two miles elevated from just outside the Arkansas side levees to the river bridge itself. On the Mississippi side, there is probably less than a mile of approach to get outside the levees, then you have to cross Lake Bolivar (an oxbow former channel.) I am not sure you ever get down to ground level construction until you get close to Benoit. This very likely could be 10 miles of bridge and elevated approach from Arkansas City to Benoit.  This, by no stretch of the imagination, would be a crossing like the one at Greenville / Lake Village.  It will be both a wider river bottom and a wider crossing of the river itself (probably made even wider by shifting it further south to offset the upstream curve.)

People nix following US-79 because of the crossing of the Arkansas and White rivers, but crossing the Arkansas is pretty much cross the river and be done. The White is a little more involved but it would probably just require a parallel span to the current US-79 bridge.

Will it cost more in raw dollars to build I-69 along US-79 and cross the Mississippi  into far south Desoto County or the northwest corner of Tunica County than to cross at Arkansas City?  Absolutely.  Will it cost as much as a new bridge across the Mississippi at both places?  Almost surely not.

By the way, I have said this before and I will say it again. US-278 needs major improvements if there is never going to be a freeway at all. There is almost as much RURAL 45 mph mileage is there is 55mph.  The road is in generally good condition (all the way from McGehee to Hope.)  While the pavement is good, it probably would be a FM road in Texas.  The road design is the problem. Too many curves, too many small communities and towns, just not a great route for anything.

Arkansas City.  You really had to want to go there, unless you've got family in the area.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1176
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:06 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #517 on: January 27, 2022, 01:05:13 PM »

I went to Arkansas City yesterday. Man is it a desolate place. I get why they want the Freeway. I drove up from Bonita LA to Arkansas City (US-165 / 82/165 / AR4.)  What I saw was lots of small towns with perhaps one convenience store each. There was more in McGehee and Lake Village, but even then...Not that much more.

Back to the freeway and the proposed Dean Bridge. The bridge will be expensive. The APPROACHES will be worse. At least two miles elevated from just outside the Arkansas side levees to the river bridge itself. On the Mississippi side, there is probably less than a mile of approach to get outside the levees, then you have to cross Lake Bolivar (an oxbow former channel.) I am not sure you ever get down to ground level construction until you get close to Benoit. This very likely could be 10 miles of bridge and elevated approach from Arkansas City to Benoit.  This, by no stretch of the imagination, would be a crossing like the one at Greenville / Lake Village.  It will be both a wider river bottom and a wider crossing of the river itself (probably made even wider by shifting it further south to offset the upstream curve.)

People nix following US-79 because of the crossing of the Arkansas and White rivers, but crossing the Arkansas is pretty much cross the river and be done. The White is a little more involved but it would probably just require a parallel span to the current US-79 bridge.

Will it cost more in raw dollars to build I-69 along US-79 and cross the Mississippi  into far south Desoto County or the northwest corner of Tunica County than to cross at Arkansas City?  Absolutely.  Will it cost as much as a new bridge across the Mississippi at both places?  Almost surely not.

By the way, I have said this before and I will say it again. US-278 needs major improvements if there is never going to be a freeway at all. There is almost as much RURAL 45 mph mileage is there is 55mph.  The road is in generally good condition (all the way from McGehee to Hope.)  While the pavement is good, it probably would be a FM road in Texas.  The road design is the problem. Too many curves, too many small communities and towns, just not a great route for anything.

Arkansas City.  You really had to want to go there, unless you've got family in the area.


I have been almost verbose on my disdain for building a bridge there. I felt like i needed to actually see what is actually there. I really didn't expect it to be quite as remote / desolate as it is.  It didn't change my mind, but at the same time, I see why the locals want it.

I was working for part of the day outside Bonita LA (at a rice plant) It only added an hour to the trip home. 

as an irony, It is over 100 miles further going through Shreveport & Monroe to Bonita from here but only about 15 minutes longer.... I naively figured I could make up some time on the much shorter US-82 route. Boy was I wrong.  Due to a wreck and a couple of construction delays, If I had made the Shreveport route's time estimate I would have gotten there ten minutes earlier.  This is a tribute to the Arkansas US highways. 2 lanes with the rare but occasional passing lane. Shoulders from unpaved to 6 feet. Oftentimes there are none.  Speed limits in rural sections between 45 and 55. Lots of small towns and communities that are not even towns with 30 to 35 MPH.  I could go on....
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1083
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 03:52:28 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #518 on: January 27, 2022, 01:28:17 PM »

I went to Arkansas City yesterday. Man is it a desolate place. I get why they want the Freeway. I drove up from Bonita LA to Arkansas City (US-165 / 82/165 / AR4.)  What I saw was lots of small towns with perhaps one convenience store each. There was more in McGehee and Lake Village, but even then...Not that much more.

Back to the freeway and the proposed Dean Bridge. The bridge will be expensive. The APPROACHES will be worse. At least two miles elevated from just outside the Arkansas side levees to the river bridge itself. On the Mississippi side, there is probably less than a mile of approach to get outside the levees, then you have to cross Lake Bolivar (an oxbow former channel.) I am not sure you ever get down to ground level construction until you get close to Benoit. This very likely could be 10 miles of bridge and elevated approach from Arkansas City to Benoit.  This, by no stretch of the imagination, would be a crossing like the one at Greenville / Lake Village.  It will be both a wider river bottom and a wider crossing of the river itself (probably made even wider by shifting it further south to offset the upstream curve.)

People nix following US-79 because of the crossing of the Arkansas and White rivers, but crossing the Arkansas is pretty much cross the river and be done. The White is a little more involved but it would probably just require a parallel span to the current US-79 bridge.

Will it cost more in raw dollars to build I-69 along US-79 and cross the Mississippi  into far south Desoto County or the northwest corner of Tunica County than to cross at Arkansas City?  Absolutely.  Will it cost as much as a new bridge across the Mississippi at both places?  Almost surely not.

By the way, I have said this before and I will say it again. US-278 needs major improvements if there is never going to be a freeway at all. There is almost as much RURAL 45 mph mileage is there is 55mph.  The road is in generally good condition (all the way from McGehee to Hope.)  While the pavement is good, it probably would be a FM road in Texas.  The road design is the problem. Too many curves, too many small communities and towns, just not a great route for anything.

Arkansas City.  You really had to want to go there, unless you've got family in the area.


I have been almost verbose on my disdain for building a bridge there. I felt like i needed to actually see what is actually there. I really didn't expect it to be quite as remote / desolate as it is.  It didn't change my mind, but at the same time, I see why the locals want it.

I was working for part of the day outside Bonita LA (at a rice plant) It only added an hour to the trip home. 

as an irony, It is over 100 miles further going through Shreveport & Monroe to Bonita from here but only about 15 minutes longer.... I naively figured I could make up some time on the much shorter US-82 route. Boy was I wrong.  Due to a wreck and a couple of construction delays, If I had made the Shreveport route's time estimate I would have gotten there ten minutes earlier.  This is a tribute to the Arkansas US highways. 2 lanes with the rare but occasional passing lane. Shoulders from unpaved to 6 feet. Oftentimes there are none.  Speed limits in rural sections between 45 and 55. Lots of small towns and communities that are not even towns with 30 to 35 MPH.  I could go on....

So, I-69 in the area sounds like it'd be an upgrade.  I rang in the New Year's of 2021 in Monticello on a work week in the area, and the roads are pretty terrible in the area.  I'm with you, though, in that it makes more sense to run it along US-79 past Camden and across to Tunica just south of Hughes.  Just use AR-530 as the basis of a 3di to Monticello, or better yet, use it as a basis to run I-57 down to Monroe, LA.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3778
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 46
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: April 28, 2022, 09:05:52 AM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #519 on: January 27, 2022, 02:40:07 PM »

Just use AR-530 as the basis of a 3di to Monticello, or better yet, use it as a basis to run I-57 down to Monroe, LA.

You misspelled Lake Charles.  :-P
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1563
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 12:43:06 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #520 on: January 28, 2022, 02:17:54 AM »

Just use AR-530 as the basis of a 3di to Monticello, or better yet, use it as a basis to run I-57 down to Monroe, LA.

You misspelled Lake Charles.  :-P

He also misspelled "I-53". #KeepTheGrid
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1176
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:06 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #521 on: January 30, 2022, 11:22:37 PM »

Just use AR-530 as the basis of a 3di to Monticello, or better yet, use it as a basis to run I-57 down to Monroe, LA.

You misspelled Lake Charles.  :-P

He also misspelled "I-53". #KeepTheGrid


The grid is way too busted for this to make any difference.

It should be I-57 since I-57 is coming to Little Rock and the current I-530 is just a continuance of it....
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3746
  • Age: 32
  • Last Login: Today at 02:05:44 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #522 on: January 31, 2022, 08:14:32 AM »

Just use AR-530 as the basis of a 3di to Monticello, or better yet, use it as a basis to run I-57 down to Monroe, LA.

You misspelled Lake Charles.  :-P

He also misspelled "I-53". #KeepTheGrid


The grid is way too busted for this to make any difference.

It should be I-57 since I-57 is coming to Little Rock and the current I-530 is just a continuance of it....

I remember hearing about in I-3 in georgia  :-D
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3106
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 10:08:04 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #523 on: January 31, 2022, 10:04:20 AM »

Yeah, the I-3 thing was a real proposal, aka "The Third Infantry Division Highway," which kind of explains why a designation so far out of whack with the rest of the Interstate grid was even proposed in the first place. Aside from the proposed number, there is very little movement on making any sort of freeway from Knoxville to Savannah.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 814
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 02:31:51 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #524 on: January 31, 2022, 01:48:58 PM »

Yeah, the I-3 thing was a real proposal, aka "The Third Infantry Division Highway," which kind of explains why a designation so far out of whack with the rest of the Interstate grid was even proposed in the first place. Aside from the proposed number, there is very little movement on making any sort of freeway from Knoxville to Savannah.
There is a lot of opposition to I-3 from environmental groups, in addition to there being no real feasible route to cross the Smokey Mountains that avoids a lot of environmental damage there.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

 


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.