AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Arkansas State Highway 569?  (Read 4535 times)

TBKS1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 623
  • Central Arkansas Native

  • Age: 18
  • Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
  • Last Login: November 10, 2021, 07:43:07 PM
Arkansas State Highway 569?
« on: October 14, 2021, 10:17:14 PM »

This is just a question that I want to ask here.

Both of Arkansas's temporary designations for interstate highways are signed state highways that begin with a 5... I wonder if the temporary designation for any sections of what would become I-69 would use this number too (similar to AR 530 and AR 549). I'm not sure if there's any sort of proof that this applies to any future interstate designation but I'm curious to see what happens next.
Logged
I take pictures of road signs, that's about it.

General rule of thumb: Just stay in the "Traffic Control" section of the forum and you'll be fine.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3106
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: May 22, 2022, 01:59:10 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2021, 10:58:00 PM »

One or more instances of "AR-569" routes are bound to happen.

Given all the funding limits, and those funds having to feed many mouths the various projects for I-49, I-69 and I-57 will have to be done many phases and gradually build up to being Interstate quality. The Alma-Barling segment of I-49 is going to be built initially as a 2-lane facility. Then the other 2 lanes will be added later. I think much of I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana will be built in that manner. Just 2 lanes at a time. AR-530 in Southern Arkansas has been a disconnected Super-2 for quite some time now.

Segments of I-69 in Southern Arkansas are bound to be laid out initially as basic Super-2 just to get ROW secured. The indefinite hold on the Great River Bridge project makes it even more likely AR DOT will proceed slowly with its portion of I-69.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1179
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:34 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2021, 07:56:07 AM »

Arkansas is actually going to have to  build some of I-69 or at least do more work on the existent roads that it would seemingly subsume before that can even be a thought.


Outside east central Arkansas (Desha, Arkansas, and Drew Counties) I-69 isn't even an afterthought ESPECIALLY in Little Rock!
« Last Edit: October 15, 2021, 08:01:07 AM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3106
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: May 22, 2022, 01:59:10 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2021, 10:48:28 AM »

How is the Monticello Bypass signed? If it doesn't already carry a route designation it could be called AR-569.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1179
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:34 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2021, 01:48:17 PM »

How is the Monticello Bypass signed? If it doesn't already carry a route designation it could be called AR-569.

You may be right.. More likely it will be signed as US-278 or as AR278.

The Arkansas routing of I-69 is just a pig trail anyway.  It is an intrastate routing designed to run close by every significant politician in the southeastern quadrant of Arkansas.  It makes US-190 from Temple to Woodville (Texas) seem straight and well planned.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2021, 03:33:26 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Henry

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 7052
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:45:50 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2021, 03:01:52 PM »

My take on this is that the last missing parts of I-49 will be filled in long before any work on I-69 begins. And maybe even "AR 557" (aka Future I-57) will be finished as well, because it doesn't have much to add before making it back to Sikeston (the original southern terminus).
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 816
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 11:07:35 AM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2021, 03:37:53 PM »

How is the Monticello Bypass signed? If it doesn't already carry a route designation it could be called AR-569.
It's signed as BYPASS-278.
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

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1588
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: May 21, 2022, 02:38:03 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2021, 04:07:45 PM »

How is the Monticello Bypass signed? If it doesn't already carry a route designation it could be called AR-569.
It's signed as BYPASS-278.

Was going to check GSV but they haven't been down 278 since 2009.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6470
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Tulsa
  • Last Login: May 19, 2022, 06:20:22 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2021, 05:17:26 PM »

You may be right.. More likely it will be signed as US-278 or as AR278.

Why would they call it AR 278? That doesn't make any sense. Though the I-530/AR 530 interchange doesn't make sense either.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1179
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:34 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2021, 09:28:57 PM »

You may be right.. More likely it will be signed as US-278 or as AR278.

Why would they call it AR 278? That doesn't make any sense.  Though the I-530/AR 530 interchange doesn't make sense either.

It really make virtually no sense, but it makes as much sense as the I-69 routing itself.  The bottom line is this bypass will definitely extend US-278 around Monticello. Calling it anything 69 is based on a wish that Little Rock wishes would go away. Perhaps AR5278?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2021, 08:11:49 AM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1085
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 01:55:48 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2021, 12:25:26 PM »

You may be right.. More likely it will be signed as US-278 or as AR278.

Why would they call it AR 278? That doesn't make any sense.  Though the I-530/AR 530 interchange doesn't make sense either.

It really make virtually no sense, but it makes as much sense as the I-69 routing itself.  The bottom line is this bypass will definitely extend US-278 around Monticello. Calling it anything 69 is based on a wish that Little Rock wishes would go away. Perhaps AR5278?

The Springdale Northern Bypass (US-412B/Future I-XX(X)) is temp labeled AR-612.  So, I could see AR-678 used in that particular scenario.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3428
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 11:50:18 AM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2021, 05:09:44 PM »

Does anyone know when the western half of the US 278 Bypass bypass of Monticello will be completed (and whether it will become mainline US 278 when it does)? They probably signed it US 278 Bypass because signing it as AR 569 may have been confusing (how many people along the corridor know there will "eventually" be an Interstate 69 constructed here?).
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1179
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:34 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2021, 10:19:14 PM »

Does anyone know when the western half of the US 278 Bypass bypass of Monticello will be completed (and whether it will become mainline US 278 when it does)? They probably signed it US 278 Bypass because signing it as AR 569 may have been confusing (how many people along the corridor know there will "eventually" be an Interstate 69 constructed here?).

I actually do outside sales in that part of Arkansas (actually a little farther south). No one in Magnolia or ElDorado ever expect to see the freeway. 

As to the western bypass segment funding, it was withdrawn explicitly to redo US-278 from Monticello to McGehee. Just like the rest of the Arkansas I-69 route, it goes through a unexplainable greenfield route that is circumnavigous.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/feb/11/bypass-for-monticello-takes-back-seat-t/
« Last Edit: October 20, 2021, 11:10:14 AM 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: May 21, 2022, 01:37:41 PM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2021, 06:26:33 PM »

The Arkansas routing of I-69 is just a pig trail anyway.  It is an intrastate routing designed to run close by every significant politician in the southeastern quadrant of Arkansas.  It makes US-190 from Temple to Woodville (Texas) seem straight and well planned.

And for I-69 in Arkansas to make any sense, Louisiana has to build its portion of I-69 too. And that's not going to happen. *Nobody* in Louisiana cares about I-69. Not with I-49 South incomplete, not with major traffic jams in Baton Rouge, not with the Calcasieu River bridge becoming one of America's scariest, not with yet another major hurricane having shredded our coastal communities.
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1179
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:34 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2021, 09:22:53 PM »

The Arkansas routing of I-69 is just a pig trail anyway.  It is an intrastate routing designed to run close by every significant politician in the southeastern quadrant of Arkansas.  It makes US-190 from Temple to Woodville (Texas) seem straight and well planned.

And for I-69 in Arkansas to make any sense, Louisiana has to build its portion of I-69 too. And that's not going to happen. *Nobody* in Louisiana cares about I-69. Not with I-49 South incomplete, not with major traffic jams in Baton Rouge, not with the Calcasieu River bridge becoming one of America's scariest, not with yet another major hurricane having shredded our coastal communities.

I certainly agree with you. I have written most of the same thoughts. Many of the people on here seem to want to minimize if not disregard the traffic issues in Baton Rouge. I agree that no-one in south Louisiana cares about I-69 in any fashion and the folks in Northern Louisiana really are only keen on the part from I-49 to I-20, essentially a southern loop around Shreveport / Bossier.
The statewide highway priorities as I see them are
1) Finish widening I-10 across Louisiana.
2) Finish I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans.
3) Build a new bridge and a southern loop in metro Baton Rouge.
4) Replace the US-90 (I-10) bridge at Lake Charles.
5) Improve US-165 from Alexandria to Monroe.
16) Build I-69 from the Texas border to the Arkansas border.
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: May 21, 2022, 01:37:41 PM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2021, 10:55:03 AM »

5) Improve US-165 from Alexandria to Monroe.

Arkansas would have an easier time selling Louisiana on an Interstate 57 extension via Pine Bluff through Monroe and Alexandria to Lake Charles than on building our part of I-69.
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 291
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: Today at 01:59:34 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2021, 12:10:21 PM »

How is the Monticello Bypass signed? If it doesn't already carry a route designation it could be called AR-569.

You may be right.. More likely it will be signed as US-278 or as AR278.

The Arkansas routing of I-69 is just a pig trail anyway.  It is an intrastate routing designed to run close by every significant politician in the southeastern quadrant of Arkansas.  It makes US-190 from Temple to Woodville (Texas) seem straight and well planned.

Which politicians are those?  Things have changed significantly since Dickie and Ross.

It is best to forget I-69 unless it means upgrading US 82 to Lake Village and use the newer, existing bridge.

I'd and most Arkansans would much rather( and it would be easier to) widen I-40 and extend I-57 to the LA line and LA can decide if it wants to extend that down to Bastrop/Monroe/I-20, then Alexandria then Lake Charles/I-10.

That also creates another way to better funnel traffic if a bridge failure occurs.

At this point, If you put a poll out and have folk list what they would like to see. I-49 AND I- 40 would top it. I bet widening and making US412 a divided highway would out rank I-69.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1179
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:34 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2021, 06:03:10 PM »

How is the Monticello Bypass signed? If it doesn't already carry a route designation it could be called AR-569.

You may be right.. More likely it will be signed as US-278 or as AR278.

The Arkansas routing of I-69 is just a pig trail anyway.  It is an intrastate routing designed to run close by every significant politician in the southeastern quadrant of Arkansas.  It makes US-190 from Temple to Woodville (Texas) seem straight and well planned.

Which politicians are those?  Things have changed significantly since Dickie and Ross.

It is best to forget I-69 unless it means upgrading US 82 to Lake Village and use the newer, existing bridge.

I'd and most Arkansans would much rather( and it would be easier to) widen I-40 and extend I-57 to the LA line and LA can decide if it wants to extend that down to Bastrop/Monroe/I-20, then Alexandria then Lake Charles/I-10.

That also creates another way to better funnel traffic if a bridge failure occurs.

At this point, If you put a poll out and have folk list what they would like to see. I-49 AND I- 40 would top it. I bet widening and making US412 a divided highway would out rank I-69.

You hear no real squabble from me.

Which Pols? The local members of the Arkansas General Assembly  and the head of the Highway Commission.

« Last Edit: November 01, 2021, 09:12:41 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1085
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 01:55:48 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2021, 01:06:40 PM »

How is the Monticello Bypass signed? If it doesn't already carry a route designation it could be called AR-569.

You may be right.. More likely it will be signed as US-278 or as AR278.

The Arkansas routing of I-69 is just a pig trail anyway.  It is an intrastate routing designed to run close by every significant politician in the southeastern quadrant of Arkansas.  It makes US-190 from Temple to Woodville (Texas) seem straight and well planned.

Which politicians are those?  Things have changed significantly since Dickie and Ross.

It is best to forget I-69 unless it means upgrading US 82 to Lake Village and use the newer, existing bridge.

I'd and most Arkansans would much rather( and it would be easier to) widen I-40 and extend I-57 to the LA line and LA can decide if it wants to extend that down to Bastrop/Monroe/I-20, then Alexandria then Lake Charles/I-10.

That also creates another way to better funnel traffic if a bridge failure occurs.

At this point, If you put a poll out and have folk list what they would like to see. I-49 AND I- 40 would top it. I bet widening and making US412 a divided highway would out rank I-69.

As most of Arkansas' population is NW of US-67/I-30/Future I-57, I'm sure all that's true.  The Dickey Split doomed I-69 to irrelevance, especially in the absence of any Congressional gravitas in Mississippi now.  Makes more sense along US-167 and US-79 in Arkansas, even with 3 navigable river crossings adding in a needed one from north of Marianna to tie into the stub at Tunica.  On that subject, does anyone actually ship anything on the White River anymore other than the short stint of MKARNS traffic to the canal and Arkansas River?  Does the Corps of Engineers maintain an 8 ft. channel these days up to Batesville?

Logged

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1709
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: May 22, 2022, 12:55:02 AM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2021, 12:11:56 AM »

Wikipedia says the White River is navigable by shallow-draft barges up to Batesville, but I see no evidence of an active port there and I couldn't find any USACE info on a maintained channel. At one time, Batesville was a destination for steamboat traffic.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1085
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 01:55:48 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2021, 09:09:44 AM »

Wikipedia says the White River is navigable by shallow-draft barges up to Batesville, but I see no evidence of an active port there and I couldn't find any USACE info on a maintained channel. At one time, Batesville was a destination for steamboat traffic.

A little more digging found some information about the lack of maintenance on the White River navigation channel.
https://youraedi.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/17_02_WhiteRiverNavigation.pdf

There hasn't been any barge traffic since 2010, and it almost sounds like there isn't any push for it to be in the future with a lack of any industry needing barge access other than agricultural, and the truck transportation of commodities to Memphis or Helena was found to be a net economic positive for the area, so barring a large entity potentially moving into the area and requiring barge capabilities, the mitigation of the channel from the 2011 flooding seems to be a low priority.  Almost makes it irrelevant to make a White River crossing in the Clarendon area high enough for barges with no traffic for over a decade and no plan or funding to fix it.  Area still floods a lot, so there would still need to be a buildup of the roadbed in the floodplain and a sufficiently high bridge.  It's probably a moot point anyway as the Corps would probably require a bridge capable of passing barge traffic under it as it still probably technically qualifies as a navigable waterway, even though it practically hasn't been for barges for 10 years now.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1179
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:34 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2021, 02:40:44 PM »

Wikipedia says the White River is navigable by shallow-draft barges up to Batesville, but I see no evidence of an active port there and I couldn't find any USACE info on a maintained channel. At one time, Batesville was a destination for steamboat traffic.

A little more digging found some information about the lack of maintenance on the White River navigation channel.
https://youraedi.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/17_02_WhiteRiverNavigation.pdf

There hasn't been any barge traffic since 2010, and it almost sounds like there isn't any push for it to be in the future with a lack of any industry needing barge access other than agricultural, and the truck transportation of commodities to Memphis or Helena was found to be a net economic positive for the area, so barring a large entity potentially moving into the area and requiring barge capabilities, the mitigation of the channel from the 2011 flooding seems to be a low priority.  Almost makes it irrelevant to make a White River crossing in the Clarendon area high enough for barges with no traffic for over a decade and no plan or funding to fix it.  Area still floods a lot, so there would still need to be a buildup of the roadbed in the floodplain and a sufficiently high bridge.  It's probably a moot point anyway as the Corps would probably require a bridge capable of passing barge traffic under it as it still probably technically qualifies as a navigable waterway, even though it practically hasn't been for barges for 10 years now.

The Corps have allowed lower (flat) bridges on the Red River in Arkansas.  All of the ones in Louisiana thus far are seemingly either movable or high enough for barge traffic.  That said, there has not been barge traffic north of Shreveport since  before WWII. There was little north of Alexandria until the 1990's. It is possible the Corps would let it pass on the White especially with the support of the environmentalists wanting to permanently end dredging on it.

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

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 291
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: Today at 01:59:34 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2021, 10:37:53 PM »

Wikipedia says the White River is navigable by shallow-draft barges up to Batesville, but I see no evidence of an active port there and I couldn't find any USACE info on a maintained channel. At one time, Batesville was a destination for steamboat traffic.

It's been awhile, but I believe the the last user to load barges with grain was Bungee in Newport.

The dream isn't dead though

https://www.watsonandwatsonlaw.com/white-river/white-river-28-may-2018/

To get the COE to start maintenance again would be herculean.

That said, there's been some long sustained high water events in the past 15 years along the White. One of which, as we road buffs know, closed I-40 for a spell. Sustained high diesel costs and transport costs may spur barge traffic yet again.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1085
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 01:55:48 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2021, 09:53:27 AM »

Wikipedia says the White River is navigable by shallow-draft barges up to Batesville, but I see no evidence of an active port there and I couldn't find any USACE info on a maintained channel. At one time, Batesville was a destination for steamboat traffic.

It's been awhile, but I believe the the last user to load barges with grain was Bungee in Newport.

The dream isn't dead though

https://www.watsonandwatsonlaw.com/white-river/white-river-28-may-2018/

To get the COE to start maintenance again would be herculean.

That said, there's been some long sustained high water events in the past 15 years along the White. One of which, as we road buffs know, closed I-40 for a spell. Sustained high diesel costs and transport costs may spur barge traffic yet again.

I doubt that Bunge's operations in Newport are large and sustained enough for the federal funding to come about to repair the flood damage to the channel.  It would take a coalition of entities with fairly deep pockets or political connections to get this funded.  They were at one point in the not too distant past trying to get the channel deepened to 9ft., but due to the wetland areas in the lower reaches of the river being tourist and wildlife management areas, there's environmental pushback, even if fully funded.  There was also a competing need for the river water to replace the depleting aquifer that the rice and soybean industries draw heavily on, which would affect water levels in the channel if litigation ever resolves.  So, in a nutshell, too many competing interests will prevent the necessary consensus to get funding, which can pretty much be said for anything I-69 related in Arkansas or at the federal level for the foreseeable future, other than an occasional 2 lane bypass here or there.
Logged

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 291
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: Today at 01:59:34 PM
Re: Arkansas State Highway 569?
« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2021, 09:29:45 AM »

Wikipedia says the White River is navigable by shallow-draft barges up to Batesville, but I see no evidence of an active port there and I couldn't find any USACE info on a maintained channel. At one time, Batesville was a destination for steamboat traffic.

It's been awhile, but I believe the the last user to load barges with grain was Bungee in Newport.

The dream isn't dead though

https://www.watsonandwatsonlaw.com/white-river/white-river-28-may-2018/

To get the COE to start maintenance again would be herculean.

That said, there's been some long sustained high water events in the past 15 years along the White. One of which, as we road buffs know, closed I-40 for a spell. Sustained high diesel costs and transport costs may spur barge traffic yet again.

I doubt that Bunge's operations in Newport are large and sustained enough for the federal funding to come about to repair the flood damage to the channel.  It would take a coalition of entities with fairly deep pockets or political connections to get this funded.  They were at one point in the not too distant past trying to get the channel deepened to 9ft., but due to the wetland areas in the lower reaches of the river being tourist and wildlife management areas, there's environmental pushback, even if fully funded.  There was also a competing need for the river water to replace the depleting aquifer that the rice and soybean industries draw heavily on, which would affect water levels in the channel if litigation ever resolves.  So, in a nutshell, too many competing interests will prevent the necessary consensus to get funding, which can pretty much be said for anything I-69 related in Arkansas or at the federal level for the foreseeable future, other than an occasional 2 lane bypass here or there.

The Grand Prairie Demonstration project is only suppose to draw water when the river stage is either near ,at or above flood stage.

I never said it was just about Bunge, I just mentioned they once used the river. The area seems to think it has cost them Industrial prospects.

The long game here is get the containerized shipping from down south to up north. I don't see a way that ever reaches the White with the current proposed shallow draft vessels but it might make it a feeder to the Arkansas and Mississippi one day  if containers can supplement grain shipments.

In short, I bet any crossing will keep potential commercial shipping in mind.
Logged

 


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.