AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Author Topic: I-69 in Arkansas  (Read 8493 times)

splashflash

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 190
  • Location: Vancouver Island
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 11:22:59 AM
Re: I-69 in Arkansas
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2023, 04:17:39 PM »

Westerman hears ARDoT pitch for federal funding
I-69, Hwy. 82 ”˜critical’ projects, congressman says by Caitlan Butler | June 29, 2023 at 5:00 a.m.

https://www.camdenarknews.com/news/2023/jun/29/westerman-hears-ardot-pitch-for-federal-funding/

We just provided the congressman with an update of where we're at on the future Interstate-69 corridor through Arkansas... The Mississippi River bridge is an issue because it's so expensive. It's about a $2 billion price tag; $1.2 billion is Arkansas's portion," Tudor said. "For a small, rural state like Arkansas, there's just no way we can really fund that without federal assistance."

However, work has started on Arkansas's portion of the interstate, with two-lane sections under construction in Drew County and work scheduled to start on additional length on that road in 2025. Environmental approval has been secured for the part of the road that will run through Union County.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4948
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:02:06 PM
Re: I-69 in Arkansas
« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2023, 08:31:28 PM »

Does anyone else get the impression that Interstate 69 in Arkansas, when more of it is eventually built, will be an underutilized freeway? Since the only significantly-populated towns 69 will go past are El Dorado and Monticello, future 69 may not need more than two lanes total.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: I-69 in Arkansas
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2023, 09:02:33 PM »

Does anyone else get the impression that Interstate 69 in Arkansas, when more of it is eventually built, will be an underutilized freeway? Since the only significantly-populated towns 69 will go past are El Dorado and Monticello, future 69 may not need more than two lanes total.
If I-69 is ever fully complete between Shreveport and Memphis, I think it will have decent utilization and be a viable alternative to I-30 and I-40 for southeast Texas / Mexico bound traffic. Even with the “curvy”  routing, the distance will be around the same as I-30 / I-40.

In the mean time, I-69 will be perfectly adequate at 2 lanes until it is fully linked to I-20 and I-269.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM
Re: I-69 in Arkansas
« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2023, 11:10:01 AM »

I'm skeptical I-69 will ever be completed thru Arkansas and Mississippi. The Feds would pretty much have to cover all of Mississippi's obligation. Meanwhile Arkansas has more important fish to fry in other parts of the state. I-49 and I-57 are far more plausible, realistic projects to finish.

The fact the proposed I-69 route offers little if any mileage savings versus the I-30/I-40 combo would more than likely depress traffic counts on the highway. There will be far less road-side services along I-69 than I-30 or I-40 for a long time. And it seems like a sure bet the Great River Bridge will carry a pretty hefty toll. The proposed bridge's cost is now tipping the scales over $2 billion. I'd be shocked if it was built as a free-to-cross structure. Meanwhile, IIRC, I-40 has no tolls on it for its entire length. I-30 is free with the exception of express lanes in the DFW area.
Logged

Strider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 987
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:31:52 PM
Re: I-69 in Arkansas
« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2023, 11:22:18 AM »

If funding is an issue for I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, why isn't US 82/US 278 Greenville bridge used to connect both states? I know it would mean I-69 would dip south and then back north after entering Mississippi, but that bridge is barely new. Or was that one of the alternatives before being eliminated in favor for a new Mississippi River crossing?
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1229
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:26:26 PM
Re: I-69 in Arkansas
« Reply #30 on: July 12, 2023, 01:17:17 PM »

I'm skeptical I-69 will ever be completed thru Arkansas and Mississippi. The Feds would pretty much have to cover all of Mississippi's obligation. Meanwhile Arkansas has more important fish to fry in other parts of the state. I-49 and I-57 are far more plausible, realistic projects to finish.

The fact the proposed I-69 route offers little if any mileage savings versus the I-30/I-40 combo would more than likely depress traffic counts on the highway. There will be far less road-side services along I-69 than I-30 or I-40 for a long time. And it seems like a sure bet the Great River Bridge will carry a pretty hefty toll. The proposed bridge's cost is now tipping the scales over $2 billion. I'd be shocked if it was built as a free-to-cross structure. Meanwhile, IIRC, I-40 has no tolls on it for its entire length. I-30 is free with the exception of express lanes in the DFW area.
In addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69. The recently-completed new bridge that carries I-40 over the White River has been built to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction, plus full inside and outside shoulders, although the bridge is currently striped for two lanes each way.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM
Re: I-69 in Arkansas
« Reply #31 on: July 12, 2023, 01:56:03 PM »

Quote from: Strider
If funding is an issue for I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, why isn't US 82/US 278 Greenville bridge used to connect both states?

Because that would bend I-69 into an even more ridiculous "L" shape route than it already is. The currently proposed I-69 route going through McGehee and Arkansas City offers little if any mileage savings over the I-30/I-40 combo as it is. The Greenville Bridge is another 25 miles farther South from the proposed Great River Bridge location. If I-69 was routed over that bridge then all of I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi would only be of value to local traffic. The long distance traffic would stay on I-40 and I-30. It might still work out that way anyway.

Quote from: abqtraveler
In addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69.

It's ridiculous I-40 isn't already built in a 3x3 lanes or greater configuration between Little Rock and Memphis. The amount of truck traffic on that segment is unreal. A completed I-57 might work as a pressure valve to relieve some of the congestion. But that stretch of I-40 has to be upgraded regardless. If it weren't for the I-57 and I-69 projects either proposed or under construction I'd be calling for I-40 to be built 4x4 all the way from Little Rock to Memphis.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1542
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 03:39:18 PM
Re: I-69 in Arkansas
« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2023, 02:42:44 PM »

I'm skeptical I-69 will ever be completed thru Arkansas and Mississippi. The Feds would pretty much have to cover all of Mississippi's obligation. Meanwhile Arkansas has more important fish to fry in other parts of the state. I-49 and I-57 are far more plausible, realistic projects to finish.

The fact the proposed I-69 route offers little if any mileage savings versus the I-30/I-40 combo would more than likely depress traffic counts on the highway. There will be far less road-side services along I-69 than I-30 or I-40 for a long time. And it seems like a sure bet the Great River Bridge will carry a pretty hefty toll. The proposed bridge's cost is now tipping the scales over $2 billion. I'd be shocked if it was built as a free-to-cross structure. Meanwhile, IIRC, I-40 has no tolls on it for its entire length. I-30 is free with the exception of express lanes in the DFW area.
In addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69. The recently-completed new bridge that carries I-40 over the White River has been built to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction, plus full inside and outside shoulders, although the bridge is currently striped for two lanes each way.

I-40 has 2023-2026 STIP items for 6 laning from the I-55 concurrency in West Memphis (Exit 277) in West Memphis to the Jennette exit (Exit 265) and for the LR end from I-440 (Exit 159) to Kerr Rd. (Exit 165).  That leaves 100 miles in between to grow the ends toward the middle eventually, but unlikely to happen completely for decades at this rate barring some earmark love unless LOS decay/AADT counts mandates otherwise.  Good news is that other than a handful of overpasses that may be narrow on the underside and one of the St. Francis River bridges, most of the rest of the bridging is already wide enough.  Just will need to build some wider berms through the ricelands.

I-69 has utility in providing another connection and bypass to Shreveport if Louisiana gets their act together, but also for avoiding the bottlenecks of Little Rock and Memphis/W. Memphis with the I-269 loop around the south and east sides of Memphis.  With all of the onshoring/nearshoring of manufacturing that's in the process of really accelerating now that it's been discovered that China really isn't our friend, but Mexico really is and can take on a chunk of the inexpensive goods along with SE Asia, which means more truck and rail traffic coming from South Texas.  Those with foresight to see where freight flows are going to be growing for the next 3 decades would be wise to invest in the road and rail links coming out of Texas.  And Louisiana needs to do more value added processing of petrochemicals to grow their economy rather than load oil and gas onto ships for overseas customers.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM
Re: I-69 in Arkansas
« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2023, 03:58:46 PM »

Mexico could absorb a great deal of the manufacturing production the US has based in China currently. But Mexico has to modernize somehow into a more safe, stable and less corrupt environment in order to take on much of what was based in China. It's a pretty difficult challenge for American companies to build manufacturing plants in Mexico under the current circumstances. If the US didn't have so many drug addicts Mexico would be a much safer place to visit.

Regardless of what happens in Mexico, a great deal of business is going to exit China. The regime there is increasingly authoritarian and less friendly to international business. Worse yet, China appears to be locked in a generational demographic decline. Marriage rates and birth rates have been hitting record lows due to several economic and cultural factors. Not nearly enough young people are being born to balance out the enormous size of aging/elderly generations. China isn't going to have enough working age manpower to get a lot of things done.

Currently, political conditions are pushing businesses to move production out of China to places like Vietnam or other nations in SE Asia. Nations in Africa could benefit immensely, only if more of those nations could maintain stable governments. Africa is on the verge of being home to the majority of the world's youth (if it isn't there already). The Chinese government is already trying to establish "beach heads" there so they can emulate America's outsourcing game. Africa has great and scary possibilities for the future. It can become an economic powerhouse. Or it could be the thing that gets World War III started.

Mexico and other countries in Central America and South America are being affected by the drug trade to the US. If we could only get a handle on that situation Mexico could be the primary landing spot for businesses leaving China.
Logged

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2553
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 02:15:33 AM
Re: I-69 in Arkansas
« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2023, 07:11:21 PM »

I'm skeptical I-69 will ever be completed thru Arkansas and Mississippi. The Feds would pretty much have to cover all of Mississippi's obligation. Meanwhile Arkansas has more important fish to fry in other parts of the state. I-49 and I-57 are far more plausible, realistic projects to finish.

The fact the proposed I-69 route offers little if any mileage savings versus the I-30/I-40 combo would more than likely depress traffic counts on the highway. There will be far less road-side services along I-69 than I-30 or I-40 for a long time. And it seems like a sure bet the Great River Bridge will carry a pretty hefty toll. The proposed bridge's cost is now tipping the scales over $2 billion. I'd be shocked if it was built as a free-to-cross structure. Meanwhile, IIRC, I-40 has no tolls on it for its entire length. I-30 is free with the exception of express lanes in the DFW area.
In addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69. The recently-completed new bridge that carries I-40 over the White River has been built to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction, plus full inside and outside shoulders, although the bridge is currently striped for two lanes each way.

I-40 has 2023-2026 STIP items for 6 laning from the I-55 concurrency in West Memphis (Exit 277) in West Memphis to the Jennette exit (Exit 265) and for the LR end from I-440 (Exit 159) to Kerr Rd. (Exit 165).  That leaves 100 miles in between to grow the ends toward the middle eventually, but unlikely to happen completely for decades at this rate barring some earmark love unless LOS decay/AADT counts mandates otherwise.  Good news is that other than a handful of overpasses that may be narrow on the underside and one of the St. Francis River bridges, most of the rest of the bridging is already wide enough.  Just will need to build some wider berms through the ricelands.
Best advice for through traffic is to exit halfway through at Brinkley, get yourself a bite and if it's a fall Friday, go watch an 8-man football game.
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.