I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)

[Anthony_JK]

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. 

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....

Thanks, but no. I-57 being to the west of I-55 for 400+ miles is a bit too much.

There is enough separation between I-57/US 67's southern terminus in Little Rock and I-530's beginning to warrant separate designations. I-53 fits better because it's fully within the grid, it would be easiest to incorporate I-530/AR 530 (just lop off the "0"), and it would better suit an extension to Monroe or Alexandria (or even Lake Charles).

[bwana39]

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. 

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....

Thanks, but no. I-57 being to the west of I-55 for 400+ miles is a bit too much.

There is enough separation between I-57/US 67's southern terminus in Little Rock and I-530's beginning to warrant separate designations. I-53 fits better because it's fully within the grid, it would be easiest to incorporate I-530/AR 530 (just lop off the "0"), and it would better suit an extension to Monroe or Alexandria (or even Lake Charles).

Then it would additionally be out of grid to I-49. If it goes from LRA to Lake Charles it is going to be out of grid.

[Anthony_JK]

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. 

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....

Thanks, but no. I-57 being to the west of I-55 for 400+ miles is a bit too much.

There is enough separation between I-57/US 67's southern terminus in Little Rock and I-530's beginning to warrant separate designations. I-53 fits better because it's fully within the grid, it would be easiest to incorporate I-530/AR 530 (just lop off the "0"), and it would better suit an extension to Monroe or Alexandria (or even Lake Charles).

Then it would additionally be out of grid to I-49. If it goes from LRA to Lake Charles it is going to be out of grid.

Far less out of the grid than extending I-57 to the south and southwest would be....and it would only be the Alexandria to Lake Charles segment.

[jbnv]

You guys are the only group of people in the country who would complain about having an interstate from Lake Charles to Little Rock because of its number. 

Meanwhile, this thread needs a copy of the Disloyal Boyfriend meme with I-69 as the shunned girlfriend.    I've posted my thoughts about the numbering in Fictional Highways.

[wdcrft63]

You guys are the only group of people in the country who would complain about having an interstate from Lake Charles to Little Rock because of its number. 

Meanwhile, this thread needs a copy of the Disloyal Boyfriend meme with I-69 as the shunned girlfriend.    I've posted my thoughts about the numbering in Fictional Highways.

Without a doubt, complaints about grid violations are the most tedious posts in the Forum. AASHTO designed the grid in 1957 to provide a guide for assigning numbers to the original Interstate Highway System. That was 65 years ago and it was a guide only, not part of the legislation establishing the system. As it turned out, and quite predictably, a lot more numbers were needed in some areas of the country.  This means that violations of the original scheme were, and are, necessary. If the grid works, great, and if it doesn't, nobody but a few of us road geeks care.

[Anthony_JK]

You guys are the only group of people in the country who would complain about having an interstate from Lake Charles to Little Rock because of its number. 

Meanwhile, this thread needs a copy of the Disloyal Boyfriend meme with I-69 as the shunned girlfriend.    I've posted my thoughts about the numbering in Fictional Highways.

I'm not complaining at all...it could be signed I-3 or stay US 165/US 425 if it gets built.

I might do a Fictional thread soon about freewayizing  US 165, as in how to get it (and a possible I-14) through the Alexandria-Pineville area.

[jbnv]

You guys are the only group of people in the country who would complain about having an interstate from Lake Charles to Little Rock because of its number. 

Meanwhile, this thread needs a copy of the Disloyal Boyfriend meme with I-69 as the shunned girlfriend.    I've posted my thoughts about the numbering in Fictional Highways.

I'm not complaining at all...it could be signed I-3 or stay US 165/US 425 if it gets built.

I might do a Fictional thread soon about freewayizing  US 165, as in how to get it (and a possible I-14) through the Alexandria-Pineville area.

If you have an idea then go ahead and do it. It definitely doesn't belong here. 

[roadman65]

Will US 82 in El Dorado become I-69 someday? I was noticing that it is a freeway, though not to interstate specs, but pave the median and add a Jersey barrier and viola you have an interstate quality freeway.

[bwana39]

Will US 82 in El Dorado become I-69 someday? I was noticing that it is a freeway, though not to interstate specs, but pave the median and add a Jersey barrier and viola you have an interstate quality freeway.

It MIGHT. At this point, the proposed route crosses US-82 with no concurrence near the South Arkansas Regional Airport at Goodwin Field.

It should follow US*82 all the way to Greenville, but?????

[edwaleni]

Will US 82 in El Dorado become I-69 someday? I was noticing that it is a freeway, though not to interstate specs, but pave the median and add a Jersey barrier and viola you have an interstate quality freeway.

It MIGHT. At this point, the proposed route crosses US-82 with no concurrence near the South Arkansas Regional Airport at Goodwin Field.

It should follow US*82 all the way to Greenville, but?????

Somewhere in this forum is a graphic showing the routes around El Dorado that were studied. (Because I posted it, but the website that hosted it is SOL)

The current record of decision for SIU 14 is at US-82 and Hopewell Road. Every option looked at was north and west of El Dorado.

[mvak36]

I am not completely sure if the route has already been finalized but on the District 7 page, if you go to the "Construction Projects by County" section click on the counties that I-69 will go through (Columbia, Union, Ouachita, Calhoun, etc.,) you can see the Future I-69 on the maps.

[bwana39]

I am not completely sure if the route has already been finalized but on the District 7 page, if you go to the "Construction Projects by County" section click on the counties that I-69 will go through (Columbia, Union, Ouachita, Calhoun, etc.,) you can see the Future I-69 on the maps.

I think finalized is a very relative term. I think until they actually start turning dirt for freeway on a route that is not just a minor relocation of an existing highway, that they are just doing regional upgrades that needed to be done decades ago. I feel pretty confident that the route to near Camden is pretty much a given if anything is ever to be built. East (or north) of Camden, not so much. I also realize the only construction along the corridor is along US-278. That said, this is a local road that needs upgraded badly regardless of any eventual IH either on it or not.

[abqtraveler]

I am not completely sure if the route has already been finalized but on the District 7 page, if you go to the "Construction Projects by County" section click on the counties that I-69 will go through (Columbia, Union, Ouachita, Calhoun, etc.,) you can see the Future I-69 on the maps.

I think finalized is a very relative term. I think until they actually start turning dirt for freeway on a route that is not just a minor relocation of an existing highway, that they are just doing regional upgrades that needed to be done decades ago. I feel pretty confident that the route to near Camden is pretty much a given if anything is ever to be built. East (or north) of Camden, not so much. I also realize the only construction along the corridor is along US-278. That said, this is a local road that needs upgraded badly regardless of any eventual IH either on it or not.

Depends on the context on what would be considered "finalized." If we're talking about the NEPA process, then the route between El Dorado and the Dean Bridge (Segments 12 and 13) will be considered finalized, as the FHWA has signed off on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for those segments, and ARDOT has started final design and ROW acquisition at the very least between Monticello and the Mississippi River.  I'm not sure if the FEIS and ROD have been signed for the section south of El Dorado toward Louisiana (Segment 14), or where they're at in the NEPA process.

[MikieTimT]

According to my math, something's going to have to be done in the next 13 years in Arkansas, otherwise what this appears to me to be is an embolism.

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/07factsfigures/pdf/fig3_5.pdf

[edwaleni]

According to my math, something's going to have to be done in the next 13 years in Arkansas, otherwise what this appears to me to be is an embolism.

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/07factsfigures/pdf/fig3_5.pdf

I-40 from Little Rock to Nashville is an artery ready to burst.

Can't say if I-69 will be done from Shreveport to Memphis by 2035, but I-57 will definitely bleed off some of that traffic going north that doesn't need to go through KCMO.

[Anthony_JK]

From looking at that map, there's definitely a need for I-69 at the very least, and a Lake Charles-Alexandria-Monroe-Bastrop-Monticello-Pine Bluff Interstate corridor as a relief route.

Also, note how US 90 between Lafayette and NOLA is a major secondary artery due to Port Fourchon. LA might want to mash the gas on I-49 South, too. (Slight diversion.)

[MikieTimT]

According to my math, something's going to have to be done in the next 13 years in Arkansas, otherwise what this appears to me to be is an embolism.

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/07factsfigures/pdf/fig3_5.pdf

I-40 from Little Rock to Nashville is an artery ready to burst.

Can't say if I-69 will be done from Shreveport to Memphis by 2035, but I-57 will definitely bleed off some of that traffic going north that doesn't need to go through KCMO.

The race is on to see if I-57 in AR and MO and a completed 3x3 upgrade of I-30 between Texarkana and I-440/AR-440 in Little Rock happen before I-69/I-369 in east TX.  Otherwise, bad times ahead for I-40 in east AR.

[edwaleni]

According to my math, something's going to have to be done in the next 13 years in Arkansas, otherwise what this appears to me to be is an embolism.

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/07factsfigures/pdf/fig3_5.pdf

I-40 from Little Rock to Nashville is an artery ready to burst.

Can't say if I-69 will be done from Shreveport to Memphis by 2035, but I-57 will definitely bleed off some of that traffic going north that doesn't need to go through KCMO.

The race is on to see if I-57 in AR and MO and a completed 3x3 upgrade of I-30 between Texarkana and I-440/AR-440 in Little Rock happen before I-69/I-369 in east TX.  Otherwise, bad times ahead for I-40 in east AR.

Looking at this makes me quake over the DeSoto bridge again.

[MikieTimT]

Looking at this makes me quake over the DeSoto bridge again.

I see what you did there! 

[abqtraveler]

Just looked at ArDOT's lettings for April 6th. I shouldn't be surprised by this, but the contract to build the first 2 lanes of I-69 from the eastern end of the Monticello Bypass to US-65 was not on this list of contracts to be let this go around. Recall that the Next 3 Letting list back in the December/January timeframe had this project scheduled for letting on April 6th.  So who knows now when it'll be let for bid, as ArDOT no longer posts its Next 3 Lettings lists after they migrated to their new website back around the beginning of the year.

[Road Hog]

I can't imagine what I-40 is like now. Ten years ago it was bumper-to-bumper trucks from North Little Rock to West Memphis from 2 to 5 a.m.

[sprjus4]

I can't imagine what I-40 is like now. Ten years ago it was bumper-to-bumper trucks from North Little Rock to West Memphis from 2 to 5 a.m.

I've driven that portion of I-40 a couple times in the night hours (8-10 pm) and the truck traffic was significant, but it was spread out enough I was able to keep my cruise around 82 mph most of the way with only a couple small instances of micropassing.

[abqtraveler]

According to my math, something's going to have to be done in the next 13 years in Arkansas, otherwise what this appears to me to be is an embolism.

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/07factsfigures/pdf/fig3_5.pdf

I-40 from Little Rock to Nashville is an artery ready to burst.

Can't say if I-69 will be done from Shreveport to Memphis by 2035, but I-57 will definitely bleed off some of that traffic going north that doesn't need to go through KCMO.

The race is on to see if I-57 in AR and MO and a completed 3x3 upgrade of I-30 between Texarkana and I-440/AR-440 in Little Rock happen before I-69/I-369 in east TX.  Otherwise, bad times ahead for I-40 in east AR.

Looking at this makes me quake over the DeSoto bridge again.

My understanding is the new bridge that carries I-40 over the White River was built to accommodate 6 lanes of traffic with full inside and outside shoulders. Right now it's striped for 4 lanes, but can be restriped for 6 lanes later on, if and when the rest of I-40 gets widened. At least ArDOT was thinking ahead when they designed the replacement for the old White River Bridge. Haven't driven over it yet, but the new bridge looks quite nice.

[edwaleni]

Just looked at ArDOT's lettings for April 6th. I shouldn't be surprised by this, but the contract to build the first 2 lanes of I-69 from the eastern end of the Monticello Bypass to US-65 was not on this list of contracts to be let this go around. Recall that the Next 3 Letting list back in the December/January timeframe had this project scheduled for letting on April 6th.  So who knows now when it'll be let for bid, as ArDOT no longer posts its Next 3 Lettings lists after they migrated to their new website back around the beginning of the year.

The upgrades east of Monticello (as you are aware) were changed in scope last year at the request of local leadership.  They pulled the funding for the Monticello Bypass to the west and decided to move the funding to the route to McGahee. This required an updated EIS as ArDOT wasn't expecting to fund this part of the route initially.

So I don't think they are close to any lettings because they don't have the updated impact statements (and costs).

[The Ghostbuster]

I would have completed the Monticello bypass before building the extension to McGahee. By the way, when the extension to McGahee is constructed, will it also be signed as Bypass US 278, or might they bring back the AR 569 designation?