Construction begins on South Greenville, MS freeway

[bwana39]

I had an email exchange with Kevin Magee, MDOT District Engineer about the progress of this project.  See below...

The first phase of the Hwy 82 Bypass construction is almost complete.  This phase cost $32.5 million and included all the earthwork, bridges, and drainage structures for the section beginning at the new MS River Bridge to SR 1.  Our contractor is currently doing final cleanup, grass mowing, etc. in order to complete the project.

The next phase (phase 2)  will include the earthwork, bridges, and drainage structures from SR 1 to Leland.   It is projected to cost $52 million.  Unfortunately, budget shortfalls and other economic factors have made it difficult to predict when we will be able to begin the next phase. 

After phase 2 is complete, we will then pave the entire bypass project at a projected cost of $75 million.

The project remains at the top of my priority list and I look forward to getting the next phase underway as quickly as our budget constraints allow.

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me.

Thanks,

J. Kevin Magee, P.E.

District Engineer

MDOT District III, Yazoo City

(662) 746-2513

I asked him a few follow-up questions about the timing of the funding for Phase 2 & if they would pave Phase 1 if no funding was availble for Phase 2.  I'll post his answers when I receive them.

That was 8 years ago... Nothing since...

[sprjus4]

The project will be awarded a $71.4 million INFRA grant to help complete the bypass.

https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2020-06/INFRA%202020%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf - Page 10

Greenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement Project

Mississippi Department of Transportation
Washington County, Mississippi

Proposed Award: $71,460,000
Estimated Future Eligible Project Costs: $144,100,000
Estimated Minimum Non-Federal Funding: $28,820,000
Urban-Rural Designation: Rural

Project Description
The Mississippi Department of Transportation (DOT) will be awarded $71,460,000 to complete the construction of the 15.6-mile Greenville Bypass, which will carry US 82 from near the Greenville Bridge over the Mississippi River to the town of Leland, east of Greenville. The project builds on work initiated by Mississippi DOT to grade, drain, and bridge 6.2 miles from the Mississippi River bridge to the future interchange with MS 1, completing construction on that segment, and extending the bypass a further 9.4 miles east.

Project Benefits
The project supports economic vitality by reducing travel times for freight and personal vehicles traveling through western Mississippi on US 82, which is currently routed through 12 signalized intersections in downtown Greenville. These vehicles will have a more direct and faster east-west route through the region. The project supports innovative project delivery through the incorporation of multiple Every Day Counts initiative innovations, including conducting a data-driven safety analysis, allowing warm mix asphalt during construction, and implementing rumble striping and a safety edge on the side of the highway.

[HemiCRZ]

The project will be awarded a $71.4 million INFRA grant to help complete the bypass.

https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2020-06/INFRA%202020%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf - Page 10

Greenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement Project

Mississippi Department of Transportation
Washington County, Mississippi

Proposed Award: $71,460,000
Estimated Future Eligible Project Costs: $144,100,000
Estimated Minimum Non-Federal Funding: $28,820,000
Urban-Rural Designation: Rural

Project Description
The Mississippi Department of Transportation (DOT) will be awarded $71,460,000 to complete the construction of the 15.6-mile Greenville Bypass, which will carry US 82 from near the Greenville Bridge over the Mississippi River to the town of Leland, east of Greenville. The project builds on work initiated by Mississippi DOT to grade, drain, and bridge 6.2 miles from the Mississippi River bridge to the future interchange with MS 1, completing construction on that segment, and extending the bypass a further 9.4 miles east.

Project Benefits
The project supports economic vitality by reducing travel times for freight and personal vehicles traveling through western Mississippi on US 82, which is currently routed through 12 signalized intersections in downtown Greenville. These vehicles will have a more direct and faster east-west route through the region. The project supports innovative project delivery through the incorporation of multiple Every Day Counts initiative innovations, including conducting a data-driven safety analysis, allowing warm mix asphalt during construction, and implementing rumble striping and a safety edge on the side of the highway.

Gonna be interesting to see what MDOT can accomplish with this money given that the dirtwork and everything was completely many years ago to my knowledge.

I suspected that lottery proceeds would be used to fund bigger projects like this but it seems that MDOT has earmarked lottery money for specifically maintenance on the state's existing rural highways.

[msunat97]

WOW...I never thought that I'd see anything posted about the completion of the Greenville bypass.  That's great news.

[-- US 175 --]

I wonder how many INFRA grants it would take to build the rest of I-69 in MS (since that's what it took to try to finish this project)?   

[bwana39]

Over on the southeast thread. There is discussion of the interchange with US-278 and Old US-61 on the west edge of Leland.  They are indeed putting grade separation at this intersection, but there does not seem to be any work going on on the graded with bridges just there that goes from near the US-278 / MS-454 intersection to just east of MS-1 or the portion from there to the current US-278.

To me it just looks like an improvement in the current road as opposed to anything new.

The newest Google Sat view doesn't show anything else.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/i41Dzx6LQ5NAQeT4A

[Plutonic Panda]

I wonder how many INFRA grants it would take to build the rest of I-69 in MS (since that's what it took to try to finish this project)?   

As with I 49 in Arkansas, they need to do I 69 through Arkansas and Mississippi as their own standalone projects that have money fully funded by Congress earmarked.

[bwana39]

I wonder how many INFRA grants it would take to build the rest of I-69 in MS (since that's what it took to try to finish this project)?   

As with I 49 in Arkansas, they need to do I 69 through Arkansas and Mississippi as their own standalone projects that have money fully funded by Congress earmarked.

As to the earmarked funds for both, especially the I-69 corridor should be revisited. Even the I-69 advisory group does not believe it is set in stone. They call it "the preferred corridor".

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ right. I don't see a way I-69 gets done in our lifetimes without it. I'm sure the states would get serious about it even if they have to kick in 10-20 percent of funds. I'd rather see states fund 10% and feds 90%.

[RoadMaster09]

I wonder how many INFRA grants it would take to build the rest of I-69 in MS (since that's what it took to try to finish this project)?   

From Tunica to Greenville, US 61 is largely 4-lane although it ranges widely from freeways to city streets. What would be necessary:

* Robinsonville: A new alignment will be needed to make a smooth connection from MS 713 to US 61, with a new interchange to US 61 North and the Tunica casinos.

* South of Robinsonville to Tunica: Upgrading the existing expressway alignment makes most sense, as it would be a lot cheaper than building a new corridor.

* Tunica: Options exist - short bypass to east, long bypass to west, short bypass to west or upgrade through town. I think the least expensive and least disruptive is likely a short bypass to the east.

* South of Tunica to north of Clarksdale: Again, the most sensible is upgrading the existing alignment to Interstate standards, not very difficult.

* Clarksdale bypass: Only minimal changes (such as pavement/shoulder upgrades) needed, as it is already a freeway and just under Interstate standards.

* South of Clarksdale to Merigold: As several towns are bypassed already, the existing alignment again is where to go here - upgrading the expressway to an Interstate-standard freeway makes the most sense.

* Merigold to Leland: Here's where it is most difficult. I'd start by building a new bypass of Cleveland (to the east) starting from where the Merigold bypass joins into the original corridor. From there, I'd return to the current alignment for a short distance before swinging northwest around Shaw (less disruptive than a through-town routing). South of Shaw, I'd return to the existing US 61 alignment.

* Leland/US 82 interchange: I don't like the cloverleaf there, especially since through traffic would be forced onto a tight loop ramp. I'd remove some of the loops as follows with the movements changed:
** SB 61 to WB 82 (I-69 South): Replaced with a sweeping curve that allows for high speed movement.
** SB 61 to EB 82: Loop ramp widened and improved, as a moderately busy movement.
** NB 61 to WB and EB 82: Loop ramp and curving ramp retained, as traffic is not particularly heavy on US 61 south of Leland.
** WB 82 to NB 61: A higher-radius ramp would be introduced for a moderately busy movement.
** WB 82 to SB 61: Access removed at interchange. A new interchange farther east (presumably at Dunleith Road on US 82 via Trippett Road) would direct traffic to US 61 south. That isn't a major traffic movement and maintaining the loop ramp introduces too much weaving..
** EB 82 to NB 61 (I-69 North): Replaced with a flyover that doesn't climb too high, to allow for through traffic utilization while keeping costs reasonable, avoiding a loop ramp and avoiding weaving.
** EB 82 to SB 61: Replaced with a new adjacent ramp near the new loop ramp. That is to keep the ramp with the new SB to EB ramp constructed.

[Finrod]

This is a very good write-up of what's needed for I-69 in Mississippi; but isn't the I-69 bridge over the Mississippi River going to be approximately due west of Shaw?  Unless Mississippi wants an I-169 going down to Greenville, there wouldn't need to be anything built south of Shaw, just the new terrain highway to the bridge.

[froggie]

A couple things worth noting:

MDOT completed its EIS for I-69 between the Great River Bridge and the existing I-69 stretch in DeSoto County back in 2010.  A map showing the recommended corridor was posted at the beginning of this thread.  Unlike most of what RoadMaster suggested, the preferred plan is to go all on new alignment well east of US 61 from about Rich (US 49/MS 315) north, as well as a new alignment west of existing 61 from Bobo to the south end of the Clarksdale bypass.

Also, in 2000, both Washington County and the city of Greenville commissioned a study on a "Greenville Connector Route", intended to connect the city to I-69.  Although I lost my physical copy of the study to Hurricane Katrina, I wrote and posted a webpage many years ago on the connector, including a rough map of the recommended corridor alignment.

[RoadMaster09]

This is a very good write-up of what's needed for I-69 in Mississippi; but isn't the I-69 bridge over the Mississippi River going to be approximately due west of Shaw?  Unless Mississippi wants an I-169 going down to Greenville, there wouldn't need to be anything built south of Shaw, just the new terrain highway to the bridge.

I think there is too much new-terrain highway on there that really isn't necessary - and brings up costs compared to using the existing US 61 corridor and its existing 4-lane highway. Also, by using the Greenville Bridge, it can be redirected to a bridge and a new bypass that is (or will be) already Interstate-standard, saving several billion dollars while serving more traffic options (Greenville has always been the largest city in the Delta, even though it has seen significant population decline in the last 40 years).

North of Clarksdale, that would be a very significant change (Tunica would be bypassed but not that far away, and a through-town route is feasible but probably more expensive due to property acquisition). The double-swing from east of Cleveland to west of Shaw provides the best connectivity for both communities and the straightest route as it runs around a diagonal.

[lordsutch]

My recollection is that MDOT went with mostly new terrain routing for I-69 due to historical properties and cemeteries abutting existing US 61, as well as having abutting residential and commercial property. Buying out the access rights, upgrading in place, and spot deviations probably wouldn't save much over a new terrain routing through cotton fields.

That said this is all fairly academic since nobody seems terribly bothered by leaving the Delta to its fate.

[bwana39]

The US 82/US 278 Greenville Bypass should have been completed a long time ago. It looks like it will finally be completed in Fall 2025.

It should have been.

It fell on the back burner when it looked like I-69 was coming fairly soon and fairly close. Now that I -69 looks half a century away (if ever) and not necessarily close.  If that had happened, it would have been duplicitous and likely under utilized. Completion of this road from MS-1 to US-61 (near Leland) signifies that Mississippi has no interest in the Great River Crossing (Dean Bridge). It probably signifies the last nail in its coffin.

I need to add one thing. This is just the upgrade of US-82 and US-278 from Greenville to Leland.Not so much part of the bypass

The largest Arkansas proponent for it being in that location is pretty much out of the picture now. Following a ROUGH US-82 route from El Dorado to the Mississippi River (at US-82) is relatively (if not a few less road miles) AND there is already a bridge there.  There is absolutely NO REASON for there to be two crossings within less than 30 miles of one another in a countryside (total population on both sides of the river) of less than 100,000 people.

IMO, the Dean Bridge should be killed, and I-69 extended along the US 61 corridor to Greenville, then the US 82 corridor in Arkansas. While somewhat less direct, it helps provide better use of the Greenville Bridge and existing four-lane highways in Mississippi. Greenville is also somewhat larger and gets a central position too. While the Monticello Bypass loses its value, the El Dorado Bypass would become part of I-69.

[MikieTimT]

Better idea is to forgo I-69 in Mississippi altogether south of the Memphis metro and run it roughly along US-79 north of El Dorado (stupid Dickey Split).  Mississippi isn't going to anything more until they upgrade US-49 from Jackson to Gulfport as literally the only part of the state with any growth is the suburbs of Memphis.  The US-79 corridor once north of El Dorado a straighter route, serves Pine Bluff, which despite it being the criminal armpit of Arkansas, serves a larger population than routing along US-61.  Cross the river at Tunica to tie into I-269, and we have a much more useful Mississippi River crossing, and logical extension across the river to the Arkansas side for a beltway to continue around the Memphis metro back up to I-40 and eventually I-55 on the north side.  For all of Arkansas' faults, it at least figures out how to pay for new terrain roads.  Leave I-530 south of Pine Bluff down to Monticello to develop organically to Rayville, LA as Louisianna gets past their I-10/I-20/I-49/I-69 priorities. 

[Anthony_JK]

Not Rayville.  Monroe, to be further extended to Alexandria/Pineville and ultimately to I-10 east of Lake Charles along US 165.

[bwana39]

Not Rayville.  Monroe, to be further extended to Alexandria/Pineville and ultimately to I-10 east of Lake Charles along US 165.

I agree that the Monroe o Alex route is prime. My thoughts are that It should go  to Natchez instead though.

In a perfect world, it would go from Bastrop to Monroe  then to Columbia and fork with one going to Alex and the other to Ferriday.

I am not sure what is between Columbia and US-425, but the Ouachita river is between them unless it forked furter north.

[Anthony_JK]

Better idea is to forgo I-69 in Mississippi altogether south of the Memphis metro and run it roughly along US-79 north of El Dorado (stupid Dickey Split).  Mississippi isn't going to anything more until they upgrade US-49 from Jackson to Gulfport as literally the only part of the state with any growth is the suburbs of Memphis.  The US-79 corridor once north of El Dorado a straighter route, serves Pine Bluff, which despite it being the criminal armpit of Arkansas, serves a larger population than routing along US-61.  Cross the river at Tunica to tie into I-269, and we have a much more useful Mississippi River crossing, and logical extension across the river to the Arkansas side for a beltway to continue around the Memphis metro back up to I-40 and eventually I-55 on the north side.  For all of Arkansas' faults, it at least figures out how to pay for new terrain roads.  Leave I-530 south of Pine Bluff down to Monticello to develop organically to Rayville, LA as Louisianna gets past their I-10/I-20/I-49/I-69 priorities. 

I'm not sure I like the idea of diverting "I-69" traffic that far south towards the Greenville bridge, since that would add more length and not be nearly as effective as the I-30/I-440/I-40 routing, and it would require Mississippi to upgrade more of US 61 or build more new-terrain freeway...and they can't even handle building their share of existing I-69 in the first place.

Besides, wouldn't US 82/278 from Texarkana east make more sense as an I-28 going east to Starkville and probably even Muscle Shoals/Tuscaloosa?

(Sorry for that Fictional diversion.)

I wouldn't even use US 79 in El Dorado....just extend AR 530 as freeway into Louisiana and connect it with I-20 in Monroe via US 165, then build a connector from Pine Bluff NE to an extension of a proposed Southern Crossing of I-69 at Tunica. Let I-20 between Haughton and Monroe be concurrent with I-69, then use the proposed I-69 "bypass" of Shreveport to Woods to connect with the I-69/I-369 Split near Woods or Tenaha or wherever.

4-laning US 82 to the Greenville-Leland bypass and bridge and existing US 61 is more than adequate for them.

[debragga]

Not Rayville.  Monroe, to be further extended to Alexandria/Pineville and ultimately to I-10 east of Lake Charles along US 165.

I agree that the Monroe o Alex route is prime. My thoughts are that It should go  to Natchez instead though.

In a perfect world, it would go from Bastrop to Monroe  then to Columbia and fork with one going to Alex and the other to Ferriday.

I am not sure what is between Columbia and US-425, but the Ouachita river is between them unless it forked furter north.

Forking in the vicinity of Bastrop/Mer Rouge makes more sense to me, it seems like more of a natural splitting point and utilizes more of the existing US-425. The Ouachita River is just north of Columbia, so a split in that area would need to be north of the river crossing. Going from Columbia toward US-425/Natchez could roughly follow LA-4 to LA-562 and reconnect to US-425 around Peck Sicily Island, with lots of expansion needed since it's all rural 2-lane roads. Not to mention the new terrain road needed to connect from, at a minimum, Holly Grove to Peck. US-425 already exists and it's all 4-lane divided south of Rayville.

[bwana39]

Not Rayville.  Monroe, to be further extended to Alexandria/Pineville and ultimately to I-10 east of Lake Charles along US 165.

I agree that the Monroe o Alex route is prime. My thoughts are that It should go  to Natchez instead though.

In a perfect world, it would go from Bastrop to Monroe  then to Columbia and fork with one going to Alex and the other to Ferriday.

I am not sure what is between Columbia and US-425, but the Ouachita river is between them unless it forked furter north.

Forking in the vicinity of Bastrop/Mer Rouge makes more sense to me, it seems like more of a natural splitting point and utilizes more of the existing US-425. The Ouachita River is just north of Columbia, so a split in that area would need to be north of the river crossing. Going from Columbia toward US-425/Natchez could roughly follow LA-4 to LA-562 and reconnect to US-425 around Peck Sicily Island, with lots of expansion needed since it's all rural 2-lane roads. Not to mention the new terrain road needed to connect from, at a minimum, Holly Grove to Peck. US-425 already exists and it's all 4-lane divided south of Rayville.

You are going at this with a TxDOT mentality. Louisiana has never built freeways, Interstate or otherwise over existing US highways with the exception of a small amount of I-49 around Alexandria. I-49 south of Lafayette as seemingly planned is an outlier. It is Louisiana's first real highway to freeway expansion. In a lot of cases building greensheet without frontage roads is as cheap or cheaper than upgrading an existing route to freeway WITH frontage roads.  There would only be around 30 miles from the big curve north of Columbia  on US-165 to around Gilbert on US-425. It can be less a little farther north. From Bastrop it would take around 60 miles to Gilbert.

The bottom line is that both should go through Monroe. The 425 route is valuable for Hurricane evacuation. Monroe has hotel rooms.

[RoadMaster09]

Better idea is to forgo I-69 in Mississippi altogether south of the Memphis metro and run it roughly along US-79 north of El Dorado (stupid Dickey Split).  Mississippi isn't going to anything more until they upgrade US-49 from Jackson to Gulfport as literally the only part of the state with any growth is the suburbs of Memphis.  The US-79 corridor once north of El Dorado a straighter route, serves Pine Bluff, which despite it being the criminal armpit of Arkansas, serves a larger population than routing along US-61.  Cross the river at Tunica to tie into I-269, and we have a much more useful Mississippi River crossing, and logical extension across the river to the Arkansas side for a beltway to continue around the Memphis metro back up to I-40 and eventually I-55 on the north side.  For all of Arkansas' faults, it at least figures out how to pay for new terrain roads.  Leave I-530 south of Pine Bluff down to Monticello to develop organically to Rayville, LA as Louisianna gets past their I-10/I-20/I-49/I-69 priorities. 

I'm not sure I like the idea of diverting "I-69" traffic that far south towards the Greenville bridge, since that would add more length and not be nearly as effective as the I-30/I-440/I-40 routing, and it would require Mississippi to upgrade more of US 61 or build more new-terrain freeway...and they can't even handle building their share of existing I-69 in the first place.

Besides, wouldn't US 82/278 from Texarkana east make more sense as an I-28 going east to Starkville and probably even Muscle Shoals/Tuscaloosa?

(Sorry for that Fictional diversion.)

I wouldn't even use US 79 in El Dorado....just extend AR 530 as freeway into Louisiana and connect it with I-20 in Monroe via US 165, then build a connector from Pine Bluff NE to an extension of a proposed Southern Crossing of I-69 at Tunica. Let I-20 between Haughton and Monroe be concurrent with I-69, then use the proposed I-69 "bypass" of Shreveport to Woods to connect with the I-69/I-369 Split near Woods or Tenaha or wherever.

4-laning US 82 to the Greenville-Leland bypass and bridge and existing US 61 is more than adequate for them.

I-30/440/40 is the exact reason that I-69 is so badly needed. I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is hopelessly congested with trucks - there are more than 25,000 trucks that use that corridor every day, among the highest in the nation. US 61 also runs somewhat diagonally in the Delta (it is more than 50 miles from I-55 once it gets to Leland) so it isn't a big shift.

Regardless, other than in El Dorado, a big lift is needed in Arkansas, since US 82 is primarily a 2-lane highway across the state.

[DJStephens]

Is I - 40 now completely six laned from Little Rock to W Memphis?   The sorry state of infrastructure in the Memphis metro seems to point towards major improvements there, to ease the transcontinental choke points that exist there.    A poster here, created and posted a scenario for a completely new I - 55 bridge, which straightens the roadway, eliminates Crump, and adds capacity on the new bridge across the river.   That would be a worthy goal to pursue.   Extending the I-269 southern leg, westward, across the river could give long distance trucking an alternative to bypass the Memphis metro area as well.   So two new bridges in the Memphis metro.   Frankly think that makes more sense, that attempting to build the redundant central I - 69 section.   

[74/171FAN]

Is I - 40 now completely six laned from Little Rock to W Memphis?

No, and I am unaware of any immediate plans of ARDOT widening the entire corridor to 6 lanes.

[MikieTimT]

Is I - 40 now completely six laned from Little Rock to W Memphis?   The sorry state of infrastructure in the Memphis metro seems to point towards major improvements there, to ease the transcontinental choke points that exist there.    A poster here, created and posted a scenario for a completely new I - 55 bridge, which straightens the roadway, eliminates Crump, and adds capacity on the new bridge across the river.   That would be a worthy goal to pursue.   Extending the I-269 southern leg, westward, across the river could give long distance trucking an alternative to bypass the Memphis metro area as well.   So two new bridges in the Memphis metro.   Frankly think that makes more sense, that attempting to build the redundant central I - 69 section.   

Not yet.  Only the urban portions of West Memphis where there is an I-40/I-55 concurrency, and in Little Rock where there is an I-40/US-67 concurrency.  Arkansas has projects in the 3 year STIP to start extending to Jennette (Exit 265) from I-55 North (Exit 277) on the eastern end and from US-67 North (Exit 155) to Kerr Rd. (Exit 165) on the western end.  Those will take a few years, and Arkansas can't afford too many projects in flight with current funding levels and an entire state worth of other desperately needed projects.  The Little Rock area already gets the lion's share of road funding and has a large chunk of the major construction projects all to itself with other parts of the state starving for road attention.  So, it'll be quite some time before the 100 mile gap in between gets address on eastern I-40.  I'd bet on I-57 being completed before 6-laning eastern I-40 does.  That would do a fair amount of good in offloading the portion that travels east I-40/north I-55 in Arkansas bound for north I-57 in Sikeston and Chicagoland/Indianapolis and points beyond.  Outside of some of the states surrounding Arkansas banding together with Arkansas' political delegation and drumming up some old-fashioned earmark/"pork" to add federal heft to the funding since this in reality is a national priority at the end of the day, I-40 in eastern AR is done progressively from the current ends towards the middle.  Thankfully, most of the major river crossings were recently done for 6 lanes, but striped for 4, so they're ready.