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

edwaleni

People shouldnt forget why I-69 was pushed out beyond Indy in the first place.

It was called the "NAFTA Highway" to facilitate traffic (mostly auto parts) between Mexico and US. 

With President Trump looking to put the kabash on Nafta in some form, ongoing funding in I-69 could be in doubt.



thefro

That was the political justification for it, but the reality is folks in Washington, IN & Evansville, IN politically lobbied for it for years and came up with the "NAFTA Highway" idea to get other politicians on board along the route.

sparker

Quote from: edwaleni on May 31, 2018, 01:48:02 PM
People shouldnt forget why I-69 was pushed out beyond Indy in the first place.

It was called the "NAFTA Highway" to facilitate traffic (mostly auto parts) between Mexico and US. 

With President Trump looking to put the kabash on Nafta in some form, ongoing funding in I-69 could be in doubt.
Quote from: thefro on May 31, 2018, 03:01:05 PM
That was the political justification for it, but the reality is folks in Washington, IN & Evansville, IN politically lobbied for it for years and came up with the "NAFTA Highway" idea to get other politicians on board along the route.

Hence the division of the corridor into multiple SIU's:  done in part so localized politicos (including Congressional folks, of course) could take "ownership" of a specific section of that route and "massage" it through the funding, design, and construction process.  As it has turned out, the original corridor instigators -- the Evansville folks and their Texas counterparts -- have managed to translate this into actual functioning facilities within their spheres of influence (with KY entities and the Tunica folks in MS not being too far behind the IN & TX powers that be). 

NAFTA or not, there's still a hell of a lot of cross-border traffic through Laredo and the lower Rio Grande; it's likely an "official" dimunition of that agreement would only have marginal effects on what is already an established set of international commercial corridors; proposing anything more drastic would bring TX-based "sharp knives" out squarely aimed at the Trump administration -- with most of those from members of his own party!   

Bobby5280

With all new these tariffs going into effect (as of today) the traffic levels at the border could start to drop noticeably. If our country's government gets into a full blown trade war with China and European nations we could see port traffic drop a good bit as well. If the policies are sustained for significant lengths of time both I-69 and I-49 projects could be affected. The stuff with Mexico and Canada will have more immediate effects on I-69 though.

froggie

QuoteAs it has turned out, the original corridor instigators -- the Evansville folks and their Texas counterparts -- have managed to translate this into actual functioning facilities within their spheres of influence (with KY entities and the Tunica folks in MS not being too far behind the IN & TX powers that be). 

Regarding Mississippi, that existing section of I-69 in DeSoto County was already planned and funded pre-69-extension as the MS 304 freeway, hence why it actually came into existance before either the Texas or Indiana extensions.....it didn't take much for MDOT to get that section designated as I-69 since it was already in the pipeline as a new freeway.  The only question at the time was whether I-69 would go through Memphis or bypass around.

sparker

Quote from: froggie on June 01, 2018, 02:16:02 PM
QuoteAs it has turned out, the original corridor instigators -- the Evansville folks and their Texas counterparts -- have managed to translate this into actual functioning facilities within their spheres of influence (with KY entities and the Tunica folks in MS not being too far behind the IN & TX powers that be). 

Regarding Mississippi, that existing section of I-69 in DeSoto County was already planned and funded pre-69-extension as the MS 304 freeway, hence why it actually came into existance before either the Texas or Indiana extensions.....it didn't take much for MDOT to get that section designated as I-69 since it was already in the pipeline as a new freeway.  The only question at the time was whether I-69 would go through Memphis or bypass around.

That makes perfect sense, considering that the MS 304 lanes -- serving, of course, the Tunica gaming/recreational area -- constitute the through portion of the split with I-69; which exits via a TOTSO to (maybe/eventually?) extend SW parallel to US 61.  Looks like the stub-end of I-69 was simply grafted onto the existing MS 304 plans.   

froggie

IIRC (I was stationed in Meridian, MS at the time), it wasn't "grafted onto the existing plans" per se.  That MS 713 spur was part of the original freeway plans.  But the continuation of MS 304 to US 61 was seen as primary (there were already rumors of a southern Memphis area river crossing, which MS 304 would have theoretically tied into), with MS 713 as a secondary spur intended as a "more direct link" to the Tunica casinos and to encourage the casino traffic to use a route other than US 61.  When I-69 came about, it was routed onto the MS 713 spur so as to reduce the amount of US 61 mileage needing Interstate upgrading.

sparker

Quote from: froggie on June 03, 2018, 03:46:04 PM
IIRC (I was stationed in Meridian, MS at the time), it wasn't "grafted onto the existing plans" per se.  That MS 713 spur was part of the original freeway plans.  But the continuation of MS 304 to US 61 was seen as primary (there were already rumors of a southern Memphis area river crossing, which MS 304 would have theoretically tied into), with MS 713 as a secondary spur intended as a "more direct link" to the Tunica casinos and to encourage the casino traffic to use a route other than US 61.  When I-69 came about, it was routed onto the MS 713 spur so as to reduce the amount of US 61 mileage needing Interstate upgrading.


It sounds like pre-I-69, MS 713 was slated to turn west to serve the southern portion of the Tunica recreational area -- essentially creating a set of "pincers" intended to ferry gaming traffic to as many of the recreational destinations as possible; I-69 planners simply "appropriated" the 304/713 continuum as a foothold for future plans -- as well as a viable way to get the corridor over to I-55.  Tunica interests must absolutely love the I-269 concept -- a new regional corridor essentially funneling traffic to their doorsteps!  Welcome to the realities of Interstate development in the 21st Century!

Henry

How far along is AR with its own section of I-69? It looks like the #3 priority here, behind I-49 and I-57. And I'm sure that MS is holding out until the final route has been determined and built. However, at least there's a way for casino traffic to bypass the traffic lights on US 61!
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

sparker

Quote from: Henry on June 04, 2018, 10:35:40 AM
How far along is AR with its own section of I-69? It looks like the #3 priority here, behind I-49 and I-57. And I'm sure that MS is holding out until the final route has been determined and built. However, at least there's a way for casino traffic to bypass the traffic lights on US 61!

The only progress on the AR section of I-69 is the eastern portion of the Monticello bypass (essentially a bypass of existing US 278); this is a SE-quadrant facility which will be initially a 2-lane rural expressway.  The only other activity regarding this corridor is identification of a specific routing east from the Monticello section to US 65 near McGehee; apparently that will be similarly constructed over the next decade.  As far as any activity at the east (north?) end of the segment -- where the Mississippi River bridge is situated -- it seems any approach segments are not being considered until funding for the bridge itself is identified and secured (can't fault either AR or MS for that; approach work would be premature until bridge details are finalized).  Haven't heard a peep about anything veering down into LA toward Shreveport at the west end of the AR segment; that will likely be the last segment on the whole I-69 shooting match to see development, as it doesn't have much independent value as a SIU.  At the moment, AR does have bigger fish to fry with its other nascent Interstate routes whose development is significantly farther advanced.

froggie

Quote from: sparker on June 04, 2018, 12:47:22 AM
It sounds like pre-I-69, MS 713 was slated to turn west to serve the southern portion of the Tunica recreational area -- essentially creating a set of "pincers" intended to ferry gaming traffic to as many of the recreational destinations as possible;

It already does that.  What now exists between Robinsonville and Hernando is basically what was planned 20 years ago.

edwaleni

Quote from: sparker on June 04, 2018, 02:43:07 PM
Quote from: Henry on June 04, 2018, 10:35:40 AM
How far along is AR with its own section of I-69? It looks like the #3 priority here, behind I-49 and I-57. And I'm sure that MS is holding out until the final route has been determined and built. However, at least there's a way for casino traffic to bypass the traffic lights on US 61!

The only progress on the AR section of I-69 is the eastern portion of the Monticello bypass (essentially a bypass of existing US 278); this is a SE-quadrant facility which will be initially a 2-lane rural expressway.  The only other activity regarding this corridor is identification of a specific routing east from the Monticello section to US 65 near McGehee; apparently that will be similarly constructed over the next decade.  As far as any activity at the east (north?) end of the segment -- where the Mississippi River bridge is situated -- it seems any approach segments are not being considered until funding for the bridge itself is identified and secured (can't fault either AR or MS for that; approach work would be premature until bridge details are finalized).  Haven't heard a peep about anything veering down into LA toward Shreveport at the west end of the AR segment; that will likely be the last segment on the whole I-69 shooting match to see development, as it doesn't have much independent value as a SIU.  At the moment, AR does have bigger fish to fry with its other nascent Interstate routes whose development is significantly farther advanced.

They will take I-69 west as far as the intersection of the Monticello Bypass and the south extension of AR-530, the Super 2 version of I-530 south of Pine Bluff.

No land acquisition has taken place between there and El Dorado.

Planning has started for the Shreveport bypass up to the Arkansas state line, but I havent found anything definitive going back east to El Dorado.

Unless oil or diamonds are discovered in one of those SIU's, it will be at least 20 years before anything happens.

Rick Powell

Quote from: Henry on June 04, 2018, 10:35:40 AM
How far along is AR with its own section of I-69? It looks like the #3 priority here, behind I-49 and I-57. And I'm sure that MS is holding out until the final route has been determined and built. However, at least there's a way for casino traffic to bypass the traffic lights on US 61!
I do recall seeing that land acquisition from McGehee to the MS river is underway. It is probably relatively cheap to acquire, and shows progress.

sparker

Quote from: froggie on June 04, 2018, 03:48:36 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 04, 2018, 12:47:22 AM
It sounds like pre-I-69, MS 713 was slated to turn west to serve the southern portion of the Tunica recreational area -- essentially creating a set of "pincers" intended to ferry gaming traffic to as many of the recreational destinations as possible;

It already does that.  What now exists between Robinsonville and Hernando is basically what was planned 20 years ago.

What is interesting here is that except for a single reassurance shield assembly in either direction along the I-69 "stub" (signage shared with I-69) and the approach BGS on WB I-69/MS 304, MS 713 garners nary a mention; its intersections with both US 61 and MS 3 are signed in both directions from both N-S highways simply as "TO I-69" with an east-pointing trailblazer.   Between MS 3 and US 61 the 5-lane facility is completely unmarked.  Because the MS 304 & 713 freeways were completed ('06) well after the decision to route I-69 over them was made, it appears that MS 713, at least as a signed route, is presently considered superfluous for localized navigation, and that I-69 trailblazer signage is sufficient to funnel traffic out of the casino area and onto the regional freeway network.     

froggie

As a 7xx series, 713 would under normal circumstances be a hidden route number to begin with.  Most MS 7xx routes (as with the 8xx and 9xx ones) are similarly unmarked.

sparker

Quote from: froggie on June 04, 2018, 09:52:23 PM
As a 7xx series, 713 would under normal circumstances be a hidden route number to begin with.  Most MS 7xx routes (as with the 8xx and 9xx ones) are similarly unmarked.

And yet it's up front sharing space on the I-69 exit sign from westbound MS 304.  Go figure!  In any case, the previous overhead gantry at that exit (showing 2 lanes exiting to 69/713) sure didn't last long.  I suppose, since plans for any further I-69 extension from that area are tentative/speculative at best, maintaining a gantry for a stub-end -- particularly since they restriped the exit for a single lane -- might not be the most cost-effective signage option; a standard exit roadside BGS would suffice for the time being.

rte66man

When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

sparker

Wow!  State-named shields on BGS's -- not the most common practice.  Wonder if this is current MDOT practice, or simply a way to save money (affix stock shield to the signs)?  I remember seeing pix of the "END I-69" sign back circa 2006-7; that seems to be the only one sans state name -- likely a holdover from when the facility was opened.  In any case, this is the first illustration of the ovehead gantry ahead of the 69/713/304 split (the one just ahead of the overpass); at least the junction is deemed worthy of at least one overhead sign!  In any case, nice pix!

Bobby5280

The shields on the smaller BGS's might be stock Interstate shields to normally mount directly on reassurance sign posts. I don't know about the larger ones though. At either way, I really detest neutered Interstate highway shields. I totally understand why so many DOT agencies use that method: it makes the numerals just as big as those on plain US highway and state highway markers. Nevertheless the end result on neutered shields if often hideous. Numerals are often crammed into the shield. Some signs literally have the numerals hugging the edge of the shield, which ruins any legibility benefit that would come from the larger numerals. Tight spacing between numerals also harms legibility.

Grzrd

#119
Quote from: bwana39 on August 13, 2020, 07:07:06 PM
Quote
... A Benoit crossing not only provides another 4-lane Interstate grade crossing to more directly connect Shreveport with Memphis, but also provides a possibility of a rail crossing between Memphis and Vicksburg.
A rail component would be a GREAT addition. This said, to the uninformed, a railroad bridge built by government is "supporting private business" and a highway bridge is not. I disagree with that idea as most of the traffic on the highway is business traffic as well.  I like rail, I really do. A rail bridge across the Mississippi river here could revitalize the low usage Class-III Columbus and Greenville Line (Most of which is currently out of service).  A bridge here adds virtually nothing to to the north/south rail lines that exist.  Is there a railroad company or coalition that wants a bridge IN Desha County?  I cannot see it. UP has overcapacity in Memphis. A rail bridge is interesting, but is it something the class I railroads want or need?
(above quote from I-69 in MS thread)

I'm dusting off this thread to show the old plans for the rail bridge at the Great River Crossing:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg279462#msg279462

BUT, seeing that the plans are close to 25 years old (and the post from AHTD is from 2014) it does not seem to be something the Class I railroads want or need.

sparker

The only real cross-river regional RR need would have been to connect the UP line that essentially parallels US 65 and 165 from Pine Bluff via Monroe to Lake Charles, LA, with the rail network in MS to expedite traffic from Pascagoula and Mobile to the UP hub in North Little Rock.  While that may have been a priority 15-20 years ago, UP has revamped their network; that line is now being used for slower freights from the TX coast so as not to hinder fast container traffic on their Texas-St. Louis main that takes the more direct route via Little Rock; adding transfers from other lines such as CN (which dominates N-S in MS) wouldn't enhance much of anything.  Right now E-W high-priority traffic is handled by KCS from Shreveport to Meridian, MS, and that's not even nearing capacity as of yet; a "relief" line is hardly necessary.  So the potential for adding back a rail component to make the bridge more salable just isn't on the horizon.

bwana39

I think this makes a point. The longer we get away from the plans that were made around the turn of this century, the more we are going to look at their viability. The more we should look at their viability.

If we build this road like it is designed, We go back to the 1930's. How is that? Building a road that hits almost every town.  This design is an INTRA-State design.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sparker

Quote from: bwana39 on August 14, 2020, 05:31:32 PM
I think this makes a point. The longer we get away from the plans that were made around the turn of this century, the more we are going to look at their viability. The more we should look at their viability.

If we build this road like it is designed, We go back to the 1930's. How is that? Building a road that hits almost every town.  This design is an INTRA-State design.

How so?  Except for the three towns arrayed along US 278, the I-69 corridor, coming NE from LA, threads between the major SW AR cities (Camden, El Dorado); the only reasons that it follows US 278 as it does are (a) that's the latitude of the proposed Mississippi River bridge, the site selected so it doesn't impinge on the confluence of the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers (which would tie it up in EIS hell for decades!), and (b) Monticello is the site of UAM, the only significant university in the south part of the state (and bending I-69 to serve college towns has been done before in IN -- without the more extreme alignment convolutions seen in IN).  Now -- running it up US 79 as the AR congressional delegation wanted back in the '90's would actually have been a "town-to-town" affair (Camden, Pine Bluff, Stuttgart, etc.), right up the old Cotton Belt main line.  But one must remember that then-Senator Trent Lott and his buddies got the corridor rerouted so it had considerable mileage in MS (probably hoping to provide not only infrastructure improvement in the Mississippi Delta country but also a sizeable number of construction jobs).  Actually, the MS folks wanted it to go down US 61 all the way to Vicksburg/I-20, which would have left AR out in the cold, so a compromise including the new bridge was cobbled together.  The only state in "mid-south" that was relatively indifferent to the corridor was LA, although once it was aligned to serve the Shreveport area, they got on board for at least the portion south of I-20 (to, more or less, complete a SE bypass of the city and Barksdale AFB).  Haven't heard much about even any preliminary surveys of the portion between I-20 and the AR state line except acknowledgement that it's still under active consideration.  Face it -- the center section of the I-69 corridor is a prime example of the proverbial "camel" -- i.e., a horse designed by a committee!  No one party got everything they wanted (although AR whined enough and got AR 530 as a consolation prize) -- but the result was something no one is particularly enthused with, so it invariably gets shunted to the back of the priority line.  Unlike with TX and IN, there is no Alliance for I-69/LA, AR, MS, and TN, so no one to consistently browbeat the various states into action.  But an intra-state facility -- hardly, thanks to former Sen. Lott and associates.   

cjk374

As far as the movement of freight is concerned, this country needs another rail crossing over the Mississippi River between Memphis and Baton Rouge. The only one that exists currently is the KCS's crossing in Vicksburg. The bridge is owned by the Warren County Bridge Commission. It is almost 100 years old. One day, it will need to be shut down for either major repairs or complete replacement. What happens then?? More bottlenecking in Memphis & possibly Baton Rouge.

About 40 years ago, there use to be a rail ferry in the Vidalia, LA/Natchez, MS area that shuffled cars across between the IC/ICG & the MP railroads. But that ended when the MP abandoned the line between Vidalia & Tallulah. I'm not sure if the Louisiana Midland ever used it before they died in 1986.
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

bwana39

Quote from: cjk374 on August 15, 2020, 07:43:38 AM
As far as the movement of freight is concerned, this country needs another rail crossing over the Mississippi River between Memphis and Baton Rouge.

I might agree with you but again not at Arkansas City. One of the North / South Rail lines here is disused and being repurposed for rails to trails. https://www.traillink.com/trail/delta-heritage-trail-state-park/

Just because you build a bridge, highway, or even rail line does not mean a demand will instantaneously or even gradually develop. A well planned I-69 might lessen the traffic on I-30 / I-40 or maybe even I-20. A redundant route that is no closer and lacks good support services (fuel, food, lodging, etc.) should be a non-starter.

If it is ever built boils down to one variable. If the federal government dedicates a large majority of the costs and Arkansas and Mississippi cannot reprioritize them. In that case, they probably will not leave said money on the table.


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.