AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in MS  (Read 108029 times)

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1528
  • Last Login: Today at 10:27:55 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #250 on: August 23, 2020, 04:06:49 PM »

As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.

That N-S section of the I-69 "cluster" seems to garner prioritization from ADOT and its handlers, since it links the two major cities in the center of the state (LR, Pine Bluff) down to South Arkansas; the state is certainly taking advantage of their "consolation prize" re the loss of the Dickey Split routing.  And I agree that if plans are afoot to extend it down into LA, there will likely be pressure to make it a 2di -- such would possibly attract more LA interest that an overlong 3di based on an trunk interstate not even serving that state.  And an extension of I-57 could be sold to the powers that be as a singular or even direct Chicago-Louisiana conduit.  I think that if such an extension ever comes to pass the I-57 designation is a slam dunk.   


Louisiana and Mississippi rank 43rd and 44th nationally in fiscal health.  Arkansas is 21st.  Illinois which just doubled their gas taxes is ranked last and is going on a road spending spree.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2020, 08:42:42 PM by edwaleni »
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

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

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 10:23:26 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #251 on: August 24, 2020, 01:16:28 PM »

As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.

That N-S section of the I-69 "cluster" seems to garner prioritization from ADOT and its handlers, since it links the two major cities in the center of the state (LR, Pine Bluff) down to South Arkansas; the state is certainly taking advantage of their "consolation prize" re the loss of the Dickey Split routing.  And I agree that if plans are afoot to extend it down into LA, there will likely be pressure to make it a 2di -- such would possibly attract more LA interest that an overlong 3di based on an trunk interstate not even serving that state.  And an extension of I-57 could be sold to the powers that be as a singular or even direct Chicago-Louisiana conduit.  I think that if such an extension ever comes to pass the I-57 designation is a slam dunk.   

Louisiana and Mississippi rank 43rd and 44th nationally in fiscal health.  Arkansas is 21st.  Illinois which just doubled their gas taxes is ranked last and is going on a road spending spree.

I think that Arkansas, much like Texas with I-369, hedged their bets knowing the struggle to fund and complete I-69 would be in the middle stretch, so Arkansas puts the emphasis on what serves its needs without having to involve Louisiana and Mississippi, which are just as broke, if not more so.  Trouble is, I-30/I-40 East in Arkansas will be unbearable if I-369 gets finished before a 3x3 upgrade of I-30/I-40 East.

I see I-69 between Tenaha, TX and Memphis, TN being an alternative to the I-30/40 routing if it ever gets built. Arkansas right now appears to be the only state that has the fiscal means to move I-69 forward, thanks to the state's voters supporting recent sales tax increases to help pay for Arkansas' investments in its road infrastructure. Like anything else, there's never enough money to go around, so the state has to rack and stack what things get paid for and what has to wait. With that said, I would suspect that the top-three priority list would go as follows:  1) complete I-49 to Missouri; 2) complete US-67 (future I-57) to Missouri; 3) reconstruct and widen I-40 from Little Rock to Memphis. Somewhere down below those priorities would be: completing the remainder of I-49 between Texarkana and Fort Smith; and completing whatever portions of the I-69 system they think they can get done without having to wait on Louisiana or Mississippi.
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

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #252 on: August 24, 2020, 06:10:27 PM »

As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.

That N-S section of the I-69 "cluster" seems to garner prioritization from ADOT and its handlers, since it links the two major cities in the center of the state (LR, Pine Bluff) down to South Arkansas; the state is certainly taking advantage of their "consolation prize" re the loss of the Dickey Split routing.  And I agree that if plans are afoot to extend it down into LA, there will likely be pressure to make it a 2di -- such would possibly attract more LA interest that an overlong 3di based on an trunk interstate not even serving that state.  And an extension of I-57 could be sold to the powers that be as a singular or even direct Chicago-Louisiana conduit.  I think that if such an extension ever comes to pass the I-57 designation is a slam dunk.   

Louisiana and Mississippi rank 43rd and 44th nationally in fiscal health.  Arkansas is 21st.  Illinois which just doubled their gas taxes is ranked last and is going on a road spending spree.

I think that Arkansas, much like Texas with I-369, hedged their bets knowing the struggle to fund and complete I-69 would be in the middle stretch, so Arkansas puts the emphasis on what serves its needs without having to involve Louisiana and Mississippi, which are just as broke, if not more so.  Trouble is, I-30/I-40 East in Arkansas will be unbearable if I-369 gets finished before a 3x3 upgrade of I-30/I-40 East.

I see I-69 between Tenaha, TX and Memphis, TN being an alternative to the I-30/40 routing if it ever gets built. Arkansas right now appears to be the only state that has the fiscal means to move I-69 forward, thanks to the state's voters supporting recent sales tax increases to help pay for Arkansas' investments in its road infrastructure. Like anything else, there's never enough money to go around, so the state has to rack and stack what things get paid for and what has to wait. With that said, I would suspect that the top-three priority list would go as follows:  1) complete I-49 to Missouri; 2) complete US-67 (future I-57) to Missouri; 3) reconstruct and widen I-40 from Little Rock to Memphis. Somewhere down below those priorities would be: completing the remainder of I-49 between Texarkana and Fort Smith; and completing whatever portions of the I-69 system they think they can get done without having to wait on Louisiana or Mississippi.

Essentially in agreement with the above, except that I'd put the I-49 Texarkana-Fort Smith completion on at least an equal footing to upgrading of I-40 east of LR.  Sneaking suspicion that ADOT would also see I-69 as an I-40 relief route and "kick the can" on a full I-40 revamp, preferring spot fixes (some slip lanes, a bit of widening east from I-440 and west from I-55, bridge work).  Now -- if outraged truckers were to descend on ADOT HQ en masse demanding substantive I-40 upgrades, the scales indeed could be tipped toward that revamp! 
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7505
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:15:34 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #253 on: August 24, 2020, 07:25:13 PM »

^

VA I-81 all over again.

Needs 6 lane widening throughout (325 miles), the current plan only includes around 50 miles of widening with the rest being ramp extensions, climbing lanes, and many other minor touches.

And they almost were going to collect a high toll to fund the minor features. Id be fine with a toll if they widened all 325 miles to 6 lanes minimum.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1174
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:05:27 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #254 on: August 25, 2020, 10:45:35 AM »

^

VA I-81 all over again.

Needs 6 lane widening throughout (325 miles), the current plan only includes around 50 miles of widening with the rest being ramp extensions, climbing lanes, and many other minor touches.

And they almost were going to collect a high toll to fund the minor features. Id be fine with a toll if they widened all 325 miles to 6 lanes minimum.

Widening I-30 from Texas state line to Little Rock: I said this before and I ceded my position. I hadn't been past Hope on I-30 in around a decade so I was not sure. I looked at GSV and conceded that it might work.

 I went to Benton recently. It made me realize that  what I seemed to remember was correct.  The amount of overpass replacement would be prohibitive.  While there are some that three lanes and an outside shoulder might be wedged in. More, barely have room for what is there already; especially the ones with three portals (there are two sets of supports in the median with space between them . It resembles the rail lines on I-80 in California. )

This erases much if not all of any incentive to forget about I-69 from Shreveport to Memphis (at least from an expense perspective.) While I may not be a fan of the proposed I-69 routing through Arkansas and Mississippi, I clearly see the need for it if traffic volumes stay the same or increase between Texas and Memphis. I-30 is already too busy.  I am not sure the traffic volumes will increase that dramatically when I -369 is finished as US-59 has a fairly large volume of truck traffic already.  It might balloon if  I-49 is completed to Fort Smith as this would relieve I-35 from South Texas to KCMO.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #255 on: August 25, 2020, 05:45:26 PM »

^

VA I-81 all over again.

Needs 6 lane widening throughout (325 miles), the current plan only includes around 50 miles of widening with the rest being ramp extensions, climbing lanes, and many other minor touches.

And they almost were going to collect a high toll to fund the minor features. Id be fine with a toll if they widened all 325 miles to 6 lanes minimum.

Widening I-30 from Texas state line to Little Rock: I said this before and I ceded my position. I hadn't been past Hope on I-30 in around a decade so I was not sure. I looked at GSV and conceded that it might work.

 I went to Benton recently. It made me realize that  what I seemed to remember was correct.  The amount of overpass replacement would be prohibitive.  While there are some that three lanes and an outside shoulder might be wedged in. More, barely have room for what is there already; especially the ones with three portals (there are two sets of supports in the median with space between them . It resembles the rail lines on I-80 in California. )

This erases much if not all of any incentive to forget about I-69 from Shreveport to Memphis (at least from an expense perspective.) While I may not be a fan of the proposed I-69 routing through Arkansas and Mississippi, I clearly see the need for it if traffic volumes stay the same or increase between Texas and Memphis. I-30 is already too busy.  I am not sure the traffic volumes will increase that dramatically when I -369 is finished as US-59 has a fairly large volume of truck traffic already.  It might balloon if  I-49 is completed to Fort Smith as this would relieve I-35 from South Texas to KCMO.

Rail lines in the median of the CA segment of I-80?  The only such instance of this is the very short LR segment in north Sacramento within the "split" of what is now I-80 but previously the I-880 bypass arc and the abortive reroute of I-80 into central Sacramento, now occupied by the terminal station of the North Sacramento LR line.  Other CA freeways have LR or commute rail down the middle, notably I-238 and I-580 from San Lorenzo out to Pleasanton (BART), CA 24 in Oakland and also through Orinda and Lafayette (also BART), and CA 85 and 87 in San Jose (Valley Metro light rail).  And, probably most famously, the Metrolink line down the center of I-10 from just east of downtown L.A. (actually near CSULA) out to El Monte -- the section where a commuter sitting in 5-10 mph (at best) traffic gets passed regularly by outbound trains doing 75-80! 

But getting back to the matter at hand -- the analysis of the rationale behind maintaining the I-69 alignment as a relief route is pretty spot on; if TX completes its I-69/369 continuum well ahead of full development of the main I-69 trunk across AR and into MS, expect to see serious consequences -- essentially "rolling congestion" along I-30, I-440, and I-40 across the state (possibly lessened once I-57 is completed) due to the present configuration of both freeways, which doesn't readily lend itself to expansion without a substantial overall rebuild.  Much freeway design of the '60's, particularly in states that employed a more frugal approach to the original design/construction effort, is that type -- not anticipating the overall traffic increases that have occurred in the last half century.  And remember that a relief route "offsite", so to speak, doesn't pose the traffic interruption issues endemic to "expand-in-place" efforts. 
Logged

Chrysler375Freeway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 135
  • Location: Warren, Michigan
  • Last Login: May 13, 2022, 12:47:40 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #256 on: October 22, 2021, 04:02:43 PM »

As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.

That N-S section of the I-69 "cluster" seems to garner prioritization from ADOT and its handlers, since it links the two major cities in the center of the state (LR, Pine Bluff) down to South Arkansas; the state is certainly taking advantage of their "consolation prize" re the loss of the Dickey Split routing.  And I agree that if plans are afoot to extend it down into LA, there will likely be pressure to make it a 2di -- such would possibly attract more LA interest that an overlong 3di based on an trunk interstate not even serving that state.  And an extension of I-57 could be sold to the powers that be as a singular or even direct Chicago-Louisiana conduit.  I think that if such an extension ever comes to pass the I-57 designation is a slam dunk.   

Louisiana and Mississippi rank 43rd and 44th nationally in fiscal health.  Arkansas is 21st.  Illinois which just doubled their gas taxes is ranked last and is going on a road spending spree.

I think that Arkansas, much like Texas with I-369, hedged their bets knowing the struggle to fund and complete I-69 would be in the middle stretch, so Arkansas puts the emphasis on what serves its needs without having to involve Louisiana and Mississippi, which are just as broke, if not more so.  Trouble is, I-30/I-40 East in Arkansas will be unbearable if I-369 gets finished before a 3x3 upgrade of I-30/I-40 East.

I see I-69 between Tenaha, TX and Memphis, TN being an alternative to the I-30/40 routing if it ever gets built. Arkansas right now appears to be the only state that has the fiscal means to move I-69 forward, thanks to the state's voters supporting recent sales tax increases to help pay for Arkansas' investments in its road infrastructure. Like anything else, there's never enough money to go around, so the state has to rack and stack what things get paid for and what has to wait. With that said, I would suspect that the top-three priority list would go as follows:  1) complete I-49 to Missouri; 2) complete US-67 (future I-57) to Missouri; 3) reconstruct and widen I-40 from Little Rock to Memphis. Somewhere down below those priorities would be: completing the remainder of I-49 between Texarkana and Fort Smith; and completing whatever portions of the I-69 system they think they can get done without having to wait on Louisiana or Mississippi.

Essentially in agreement with the above, except that I'd put the I-49 Texarkana-Fort Smith completion on at least an equal footing to upgrading of I-40 east of LR.  Sneaking suspicion that ADOT would also see I-69 as an I-40 relief route and "kick the can" on a full I-40 revamp, preferring spot fixes (some slip lanes, a bit of widening east from I-440 and west from I-55, bridge work).  Now -- if outraged truckers were to descend on ADOT HQ en masse demanding substantive I-40 upgrades, the scales indeed could be tipped toward that revamp!
I-49's been extended to the Missouri border. Meaning Future 57 and 40's widening are the only things left in the top three to be completed.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1174
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:05:27 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #257 on: October 22, 2021, 09:36:56 PM »

Looks like MDOT really wants to get I-10 widened through most of the state.

What project are they referring to with the I-59 interchange at MS 42? There is already an interchange in place there.

But not a mention of I-69 which is this thread's point.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 307
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: May 14, 2022, 01:11:53 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #258 on: October 23, 2021, 12:22:36 AM »

Does anyone know when they will resume I-69 work? How much funding would it take?
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12260
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 11:44:34 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #259 on: October 23, 2021, 09:15:54 AM »

It would take at least 8-digits to realistically get the next section done.  9 to 10 digits for the entire thing.  Given how anti-tax Mississippi is, plus the lack of an infrastructure package coming out of Congress, don't expect work to resume anytime soon.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1174
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:05:27 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #260 on: October 23, 2021, 10:15:44 AM »

Does anyone know when they will resume I-69 work? How much funding would it take?

To the folks in the Mississippi Legislature, this is an extremely low priority item. The folks in west Mississippi don't really see the need.


Even if the feds sent 90% earmarked funds, it might not be enough for Mississippi to want to put in the 10%.
Most of the people in Mississippi feel like it is redundant to I-55.

I-69 IF IT IS EVER BUILT should follow US-79 to near Memphis. Yes there would need ot be crossings of both the White and Arkansas rivers, but from a NATIONAL transportation standpoint, it makes far better sense than a road that meanders through eastern Arkansa and then winds up in farming country in Mississippi where the road will pass through not much more.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12260
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 11:44:34 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #261 on: October 23, 2021, 10:17:38 AM »

Quote
The folks in west Mississippi don't really see the need.

Having lived in Mississippi, I would disagree with this claim.  Folks in the Delta want the road, but they don't have a lot of clout in the state Legislature.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1174
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:05:27 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #262 on: October 23, 2021, 02:20:29 PM »

Quote
The folks in west Mississippi don't really see the need.

Having lived in Mississippi, I would disagree with this claim.  Folks in the Delta want the road, but they don't have a lot of clout in the state Legislature.

I will admit that I know virtually no one in the delta. Most of the ones I ever talk to are from either around Jackson or Southhaven.  Wife has distant relatives in Clarksdale and Greenwood. They are neither optimistic of it ever coming or particularly concerned if it doesn't. That was not too long after the route was proposed. I can't imagine it has changed a lot since then.

There will always be people either those who own business that traffic would help or those who own property that would increase in value who would support anything. There is always a call for economic development. The problem is that it economic development is almost exclusively driven by sales of commercial property. Job creation is part of what the developers tout to make it more palatable for those affected negatively by the development. The construction of highways may spur minimal local hiring, but, all in all, today's roadbuilding companies are based outside the region and bring in most of not all of their labor.

Yes, the new facilities along the freeway such as restaurants, gas stations, truck stops, and others will spur the purchase of the newly minted commercial property.  Beyond that in a lot of cases it takes more away then it adds.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2021, 04:42:37 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

 


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.