News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-69 Mississippi River Bridge

Started by Grzrd, February 14, 2012, 10:09:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
I'm skeptical I-69 would relieve much traffic, if any at all, from the I-35, I-30 and I-40 corridors. The proposed I-69 route, as it is planned through Arkansas and Mississippi, is so freaking crooked the extra distance needed to build it will kill any driving time savings versus staying on I-35, I-30 and I-40. Those older, existing Interstate routes are a lot more direct.

Then there's the issue of services along the route. It will take at least several years, bare minimum, for many of the kinds of businesses one expects to find on an established Interstate route to get built up along new sections of I-69. Some parts of the road may remain with little if any new business development.

If I was calling the shots about road funding in Arkansas I'd put a lot more emphasis on getting I-49 built as well as improving I-40. The truck traffic on I-40 is no joke. The Google Earth imagery along I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis shows lots and lots of trucks. If widening I-40 to 4 lanes in each direction between Little Rock and Fort Smith is too much to ask it ought to at least have 3 lanes in each direction. That seems to be the minimum on the re-built I-35 between Dallas and Austin.

You just have to experience it when it comes to truck traffic on I-40 east of Little Rock. That's not being an ass about it. You don't need four lanes west of Conway, most times two is enough but I could see three lanes needed by a 2030, that al depends on 5h2 continued growth of 4he Northwest corner.

Agreed on I-49 this would be the most useful route for the state but it's got it's own bridge issue over the Arkansas River.

As an Arkansan, I'd just as soon see an upgraded US 412 connecting NWA with NEA with a four lane divided. Connecting two of the faster growing regions without the trip down and up currently required over the two lane hell that is US 412 . I know politics played the part with Lott and the Mississippi congressional pull played in routing I-69 as it should have a crossed further up in Helena. You have a new four lane bridge at Lake Village, I'd just as soon have seen US 82 upgraded across Southern Arkansas like US 412, and an Interstate quality road from Pine Bluff  to Monroe. The Corridor V project would take care of the Helena Bridge upgrade. In fact, Corridor V could actually be part of an outer loop of the Memphis Metro. Here's how:

New Helena Bridge and four lane to either Brinkley or Forrest City (I prefer Forrest City and Ark 1 over Brinkley and US - 49 for pure economic reasons plus less wetland reasons)

Forrest City to Jonesboro

Jonesboro to Paragould

Paragould along US 412 and I-155 to Dyersburg

Dyersburg to Jackson

Jackson to Corinth

Corinth to Tupelo

Tupelo to Oxford

Oxford to Batesville

Batesville to Helena

And...the loop is complete.

Instead of I-69, MS can upgrade US 61 and US 278  and make use of that perfectly fine new bridge.between Greenville and Lake Village. And...  Arkansas could push for those US 82 upgrades that connect the main towns across Lower Arkansas. And explore Arkansas upgrading it's two lane from El Dorado to met with tthe 4 lane divided that covers LA from Junction City to Ruston. That gives much more direct east/west and North/ South corridors. But I'M there's some reason the decided that  the I-69 route made  made more sense.


bjrush

AHTD likes a crappy US 412 so people have to go thru Little Rock
Woo Pig Sooie

AHTD

Quote from: rte66man on December 23, 2015, 12:06:20 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on December 21, 2015, 07:22:38 AM
It would be interesting to do a cost comparison of widening the existing routes (I-30, I-40, and I-65) versus building the remaining segments of I-69.

Widening it how much?  I believe 40 between Little Rock and Memphis needs at least 8 lanes.  It should also include a 3rd Memphis bridge to avoid all that traffic piling through the middle of Memphis.  I would tie that to getting 69 finished in Tennessee, then forgetting the rest of it.

The contract we just let to replace the White River Bridge on I-40: It will be wide enough to accommodate three lanes in each direction and will be constructed adjacent to the existing structure. None of the other structures we have recently upgraded in this I-40 corridor are being widened at this time, but they will be much easier to widen when the time comes.
Travel and construction information available at www.idrivearkansas.com

msunat97

I agree with Wayward...I-69 is a pipe dream.  I'm 42 & I never expect to see I-69 cross through south Arkansas in my lifetime.  I'd connect to 82 & use the greenvile river bridge.  Mississippi needs an excuse to finish the Greenville bypass.

Grzrd

#79
Quote from: Grzrd on May 13, 2015, 03:43:53 PM
the SIU 11 FEIS Summary describes the Southern Section of the SIU 11 Preferred Alternative by speaking of the eastern end of the bridge as "the SIU 12 terminus" (p. 7/18 of pdf; p. S-7 of document):
Quote
The Preferred Alternative begins at the SIU 12 terminus and proceeds southeast across Lake Bolivar. It crosses SR 1 north of Scott at Lake Vista and then turns east before crossing SR 448.
Also, here is a snip of the SIU 11 FEIS map (the link is now cold), which shows SIU 11 continuing toward Eutaw from the SR 1 interchange ....
It seems like, somewhere along the SIU 11 FEIS way, the anticipated Great River Bridge to Benoit/ SR 1 segment of SIU 12 instead became part of SIU 11 and Beaver Dam Road became the unlikely eastern (northern in overall I-69 terms?) terminus of SIU 12 (with doubtful independent utility).

MDOT recently re-posted the I-69 SIU 11 FEIS and ROD. The FEIS provides a bit more clarity about the dividing line between SIU 12 and SIU 11 by describing the SIU 12 terminus as Eutaw Landing (p. 69/1447 of pdf; p. 2-16 of document):

Quote
Due to the length of the project and to facilitate a combination of segments, each alternative is divided into a southern, middle, and northern section (see Figure 2-3).  These three sections of the project are consistently used through the remainder of the FEIS.  Each section of the study area is described below:   
Southern Section
The southern section begins at SIU 12 (Great River Bridge-Eutaw Landing) terminus, in Bolivar County to the west of SR 1 and Benoit.  As mentioned in Chapter 1, a FEIS and ROD have been completed for SIU 12.

Yet another potential roadgeek pilgrimage site identified.

Grzrd

#80
AHTD has posted its June 9 I-69 Coalition Meeting presentation, and it reveals a strategy that will depend on heavy federal funding for the bridge. First, it quotes the I-69 Implementation Strategy that federal help will be needed, particularly regarding the bridge (p.4/15 od pdf)):



The Presentation concludes with a picture with a star at the location of the bridge and a quote from Robert Kennedy (p. 15/15 of pdf):



Looks like they will need the federal funding, but will they get it?             

froggie

Doubtful.  Given lack of Congressional will to increase the gas tax or provide other revenue sources, they'd have to pull it from what little gas tax revenue the HTF does get.  Nobody will want to give up their slice of what's already a small pie...

msunat97

Why can't they give up this dream of the grand river bridge & use the new 82 bridge at Greenville.  It'll be cheaper to reroute some roadways versus building this monster.

mvak36

I think it might be cheaper to just widen I-30 and I-40 statewide throughout Arkansas.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

Bobby5280

Widening I-30 and I-40 through Arkansas would be more productive.

The winding, crooked, time & distance wasting path of I-69 through Arkansas, Mississippi, Kentucky and Indiana makes it counterproductive. The route would only be valuable for short distance travel between towns in specific regions on that path. The trouble is there probably wouldn't be enough traffic to justify building an Interstate for it, much less a Mississippi River bridge costing well over $1 billion.

mvak36

They should use that money for the I-69 bridge to build a new crossing near Memphis (Southern Gateway project). And once that's built, build a new I-55 bridge.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

Grzrd

Quote from: sparker on December 16, 2016, 02:39:33 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 08, 2016, 03:12:35 PM
I-69 would cross near Benoit, about 25 miles north of the Greenville Bridge. Seems it would make more sense around Rosedale, but pork will be pork.
IIRC, the crossing at Benoit was intended to avoid the confluence of the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers for two reasons: environmental (I don't recall the exact situation) and practical:  avoiding multiple structures across both waterways and their floodplains.  Apparently just west of Benoit is the narrowest combination of channel + floodplain below the confluence, thus the most practical/feasible location for the bridge.
(above quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) thread)
Quote from: cjk374 on December 17, 2016, 12:41:20 PM
Relieving the traffic on rugged US 71 is a greater need than creating a crooked-route pork-barrel project that isn't relieving...anything.
(above quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) thread)

For the record, the I-69 Mississippi River Crossing Environmental Impact Study considered a location near Helena, Arkansas, which would have provided a much straighter, direct route.  However, it was rapidly eliminated, for the reasons summarized in this table (p. 64/556 of pdf):



Also, the Greenville location was initially considered, but it was not in the defined National I-69 Corridor (more crooked) and there was no compelling reason for extending the boundary (p. 60/556 of pdf):



In addition, four alignments near Rosedale were considered in the Great River Bridge "GRB" EIS (which was an initial study conducted before I-69) but were eliminated for essentially the following reasons (p. 66/556 of I-69 Mississippi River Crossing EIS pdf):



Here is a map of the GRB EIS Alignment Alternatives (p. 87/556 of I-69 Mississippi River Crossing EIS pdf)


Grzrd

#87
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on April 11, 2014, 04:45:20 PM
You know AHTD, have you ever submitted a request to eliminate the 'Future I-130' designation on AR-549 that you requested back in 2000 and had approved by the AASHTO between I-30 and US-71 since you now have I-49 there (per AASHTO approval)?
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) thread)
Quote from: bjrush on November 06, 2016, 01:24:14 PM
Did you know Scott Bennett is Chairman of the eight state I-69 Steering Committee?
(above quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) thread)

I put the I-130 quote above in order to show the section that was disapproved - because AHTD forgot to coordinate with TxDOT.  Although the situation is not perfectly analogous, I am worried that AHTD is repeating the mistake, this time in regard to the Great River Bridge and Mississippi. In looking at the projects AHTD submitted to the Trump Administration (P. 8/127 of pdf),



AHTD asked for $910 million for the Great River Bridge. With Mississippi's share of the Great River Bridge being $390 million, I checked Mississippi and found that, although they had asked for $1.83 billion in construction for SIU 11, they did not ask for SIU 12 construction because Arkansas was the lead state. I then emailed AHTD and asked if there had been any coordination with Mississippi. The reply:

Quote
Q: Is it safe to say that there was no coordination with Mississippi on the Great River Bridge?
A: That's correct. Arkansas' portion of the cost is close to a billion dollars. Not so much for Mississippi.

Well, you certainly can't build half a bridge. Scott Bennett is on the record as saying that construction of the Great River Bridge is essential if progress is to be made on I-69. A joint request with Mississippi would have been powerful; instead, there is an easy reason to eliminate this project.

I don't know the rules, if any. on the requests. One could see Mississippi's request for SIU 11 and simply transfer the request to the bridge. Or not.

I hope AHTD doesn't repeat the I-130 disapproval.

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on May 10, 2017, 11:04:21 AM
Well, you certainly can't build half a bridge. Scott Bennett is on the record as saying that construction of the Great River Bridge is essential if progress is to be made on I-69. A joint request with Mississippi would have been powerful; instead, there is an easy reason to eliminate this project.
I don't know the rules, if any. on the requests. One could see Mississippi's request for SIU 11 and simply transfer the request to the bridge. Or not.
I hope AHTD doesn't repeat the I-130 disapproval.

In a May 9 presentation to the I-69 Coalition, AHTD presented a map of the I-69 projects submitted to the Trump Administration. Unfortunately, it only shows the Arkansas half of the bridge. (p. 15/16 of pdf):



With the first draft of Trump's plan providing for $200 billion in direct investment, it seems like the bridge would have a reasonable shot. However, Mississippi is currently silent on it and Arkansas does not include the Mississippi section in the map. I hope history does not repeat itself ........

I-39

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on December 24, 2015, 09:46:07 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
I'm skeptical I-69 would relieve much traffic, if any at all, from the I-35, I-30 and I-40 corridors. The proposed I-69 route, as it is planned through Arkansas and Mississippi, is so freaking crooked the extra distance needed to build it will kill any driving time savings versus staying on I-35, I-30 and I-40. Those older, existing Interstate routes are a lot more direct.

Then there's the issue of services along the route. It will take at least several years, bare minimum, for many of the kinds of businesses one expects to find on an established Interstate route to get built up along new sections of I-69. Some parts of the road may remain with little if any new business development.

If I was calling the shots about road funding in Arkansas I'd put a lot more emphasis on getting I-49 built as well as improving I-40. The truck traffic on I-40 is no joke. The Google Earth imagery along I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis shows lots and lots of trucks. If widening I-40 to 4 lanes in each direction between Little Rock and Fort Smith is too much to ask it ought to at least have 3 lanes in each direction. That seems to be the minimum on the re-built I-35 between Dallas and Austin.

You just have to experience it when it comes to truck traffic on I-40 east of Little Rock. That's not being an ass about it. You don't need four lanes west of Conway, most times two is enough but I could see three lanes needed by a 2030, that al depends on 5h2 continued growth of 4he Northwest corner.

Agreed on I-49 this would be the most useful route for the state but it's got it's own bridge issue over the Arkansas River.

I agree. I-49 is needed much more than I-69. If I were Arkansas, I'd be focusing all my attention on completing I-49 and finishing the US 67 freeway from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line (in preparation for I-57). Those two projects I bet could be completed for less than it would take to build the entire I-69 section in Arkansas (including the Mississippi River bridge).

I never really understood the need for I-69 period, but especially between Memphis and Texas. The existing routes seem to be more than adequate.

codyg1985

Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 08:50:18 PM
Those two projects I bet could be completed for less than it would take to build the entire I-69 section in Arkansas (including the Mississippi River bridge).

While I-49 is IMO much more important than I-69 and I-57, I imagine it would take a lot more money to build I-49 due to the terrain difficulties. I think the cost would be very close when you consider the terrain difficulties on I-49 and the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge. I-49 would certainly have more benefit for more people if it were finished, while I-69 would essentially end where it enters Louisiana since Louisiana has much less interest in their portion.

Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

I-39

Quote from: codyg1985 on May 25, 2017, 07:44:13 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 08:50:18 PM
Those two projects I bet could be completed for less than it would take to build the entire I-69 section in Arkansas (including the Mississippi River bridge).

While I-49 is IMO much more important than I-69 and I-57, I imagine it would take a lot more money to build I-49 due to the terrain difficulties. I think the cost would be very close when you consider the terrain difficulties on I-49 and the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge. I-49 would certainly have more benefit for more people if it were finished, while I-69 would essentially end where it enters Louisiana since Louisiana has much less interest in their portion.

Fair point. I was just thinking since I-49 and I-57 were further along, it would be best to focus on completing those first. I think I-69 will have a difficult terrain as well.

Grzrd

#92
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 08:50:18 PM
I agree. I-49 is needed much more than I-69. If I were Arkansas, I'd be focusing all my attention on completing I-49 and finishing the US 67 freeway from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line (in preparation for I-57). Those two projects I bet could be completed for less than it would take to build the entire I-69 section in Arkansas (including the Mississippi River bridge).

As of 2014, it was estimated that completing I-69 would cost $3.5 billion* and that completing I-49 would cost $2.7 billion.

With that being said, I agree that I-49 is more important than I-69. When I first looked at the projects submitted by AHTD to the Trump Administration, the thing that jumped out at me was the absence of I-49 projects from Texarkana to Chaffee Crossing. AHTD may have decided to put all their I-49 eggs in the Bella Vista Bypass and the Arkansas River Bridge.  However, the Arkansas River Bridge will not be ready for letting until 2022. Why did AHTD not hedge their bet with "shovel-ready" bypasses along Texarkana to Chaffee Crossing? The uncomfortable conclusion I reached (I hope I'm wrong) is that respective FEISes will have to be redone because so much time has elapsed and the projects really are not "shovel ready". The I-57 project is in the same boat; 2023 is the earliest letting date

I come back to the Great River Bridge because it is "shovel ready". It may be Arkansas' best bet for a "big bang" from the Trump infrastructure plan. However, i would feel more confident if Arkansas would persuade Mississippi to join in and remove any doubt. $390 million is still a lot of money.

*  edit

The $3.5 billion figure combined the figures for the I-69 Connector (SIU 28) and I-69 in Arkansas (SIUs 12-14). It will cost roughly $3 billion to finish i-69 in Arkansas, which is still more expensive than I-49:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg2230501#msg2230501

I-39

Quote from: Grzrd on May 25, 2017, 11:23:20 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 08:50:18 PM
I agree. I-49 is needed much more than I-69. If I were Arkansas, I'd be focusing all my attention on completing I-49 and finishing the US 67 freeway from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line (in preparation for I-57). Those two projects I bet could be completed for less than it would take to build the entire I-69 section in Arkansas (including the Mississippi River bridge).

As of 2014, it was estimated that completing I-69 would cost $3.5 billion and that completing I-49 would cost $2.7 billion.

With that being said, I agree that I-49 is more important than I-69. When I first looked at the projects submitted by AHTD to the Trump Administration, the thing that jumped out at me was the absence of I-49 projects from Texarkana to Chaffee Crossing. AHTD may have decided to put all their I-49 eggs in the Bella Vista Bypass and the Arkansas River Bridge.  However, the Arkansas River Bridge will not be ready for letting until 2022. Why did AHTD not hedge their bet with "shovel-ready" bypasses along Texarkana to Chaffee Crossing? The uncomfortable conclusion I reached (I hope I'm wrong) is that respective FEISes will have to be redone because so much time has elapsed and the projects really are not "shovel ready". The I-57 project is in the same boat; 2023 is the earliest letting date

I come back to the Great River Bridge because it is "shovel ready". It may be Arkansas' best bet for a "big bang" from the Trump infrastructure plan. However, i would feel more confident if Arkansas would persuade Mississippi to join in and remove any doubt. $390 million is still a lot of money.

Exactly. Both I-49 and I-57 could be completed for less than I-69.

I thought I-49 had it's ROW acquired and ready to go, it's just the construction funding that is the hold up?

froggie

Doesn't matter if it already has right-of-way (which, to my knowledge, most of I-49 outside of Bella Vista and Fort Smith does NOT).  As Grzrd alluded to, environmental and permit documentation has a "shelf life".  I-49 was studied sufficiently long ago to where it would likely need a supplemental EIS (and an Environmental Assessment at a minimum) before construction could begin.

I-39

Quote from: froggie on May 26, 2017, 03:42:16 PM
Doesn't matter if it already has right-of-way (which, to my knowledge, most of I-49 outside of Bella Vista and Fort Smith does NOT).  As Grzrd alluded to, environmental and permit documentation has a "shelf life".  I-49 was studied sufficiently long ago to where it would likely need a supplemental EIS (and an Environmental Assessment at a minimum) before construction could begin.

Interesting. Why is there a big push for construction funding if they wouldn't be able to turn any dirt in that corridor yet? Or is that just for the Arkansas River bridge?

Bobby5280

For I-49, they need to get the Arkansas River bridge and stretch from Alma to Fort Chafee done ASAP. Cost inflation on road construction is still high. The more years they push this project off into the future will equal a much more difficult prospect of ever getting the project completed at all.

They already know this reality. Things like bridges are the most expensive parts of a road project and those tend to get built first. The exits on the Arkansas portions of the Belle Vista Bypass are a good example. They're correctly getting most of the difficult stuff out of the way first, even if most of the bypass is only built in 2 lane configuration (however, building a temporary round-a-bout at the intersection of existing I-49/US-71 is a bit of a head scratcher).

froggie

Quote from: I-39Interesting. Why is there a big push for construction funding if they wouldn't be able to turn any dirt in that corridor yet? Or is that just for the Arkansas River bridge?

The area around Fort Smith has had more recent environmental and location documentation, plus part of it already built (from US 71 to AR 22), so across the Arkansas River and up to I-40 is still "shovel ready".  South of US 71/Fort Smith is where additional study will likely be required.

Grzrd

This March 5, 2018 article states that construction of the I-69 Mississippi River bridge would be a "game changer" for southeast Arkansas and hints that it would be a prime candidate for a federal infrastructure plan:

Quote
The economic transformation of the Arkansas Delta is only $910 million away.
That's the expected price tag attached to the construction of a 23-mile stretch of Interstate 69 in eastern Arkansas that would connect Arkansas City with Benoit, Mississippi. The stretch, which would include the Great River Bridge over the Mississippi River, would become part of an interstate highway that is designed to run from Michigan to Texas.

On the national level, the extension of I-69 would have major economic benefits for trade both within the U.S. and with Mexico and Canada. In Arkansas, Delta boosters envision it opening up the fertile but economically depressed region to more business development.
"I-69 would be awesome,"  said Gene Higginbotham, the executive director of the Southeast Arkansas Economic Development District. "The basic need – I guess the best way to explain it – is when anybody looking to expand or relocate their business, one of the first things they ask is "˜Are you on an interstate?' Most of southeast Arkansas is not.
"Interstate 69 is a game changer for southern Arkansas. It stretches all the way across Arkansas. It will impact southern Arkansas, not just southeast Arkansas. It is going to help every city within 25 miles of that interstate, maybe even a little farther out."
Improving infrastructure and economic development in the Delta has been a focus for Gov. Asa Hutchinson and Mike Preston, the executive director of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. Hutchinson is the state's co-chair of the Delta Regional Authority's board of directors, and the DRA recently announced $2.8 million in grants for nine Arkansas cities.
"People throw this term out too loosely, but that really is the game changer for southeast Arkansas,"  Preston said of the completion of I-69. "If you have I-69 built and running through that part of the state ... it's around those interstates where opportunities lie for business and, thus, for jobs and created wealth. You get that in southeast Arkansas, and you're going to see it really just transform the state.
"If there was $1 billion that fell from the sky or the federal government or wherever and we were able to get that bridge built and the rest of I-69, that's game changing."

txstateends

Sounds like Mr. Preston needs to go shopping for a nice thesaurus.  He's stuck on 'game changing' like many in the biz world were too reliant on 'going forward' in recent years.  Not trying to derail, but his quote was a big cringe.
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/



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.