No progress on SIU 11 in foreseeable future:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/jun/08/i-269-loop-stays-on-track/
Quote
... Meanwhile, as to I-69, a federal Record of Decision has been received for the 120-mile Segment 11 from Benoit to Robinsonville, and Tagert was asked by local engineer Cecil Sowell what the schedule was for moving ahead.
The plain answer is, there is no schedule, said Tagert, because "we need to have a federal transportation re-authorization bill" to revive funding. "I'm looking forward to seeing it built, but there is no committed funding for it today... "
As I understand it, the federal reauthorization bill, if it happens this year at all, will be lucky to fund current highway maintenance needs, much less new highway projects. Another potential source of funding would be innovative financing funding for I-69, which has been discussed at this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2920.0
I-69 in MS is composed of four SIUs: SIUs 9, 10, 11, and 12. SIU 9 is the SIU closest to metro Memphis and a "system approach" was developed for it which basically provided for an "I-69" route through Memphis along currently existing interstates, including existing alignment in Mississippi along I-55 (TDOT has four new terrain projects at the northern end of their section of "I-69" SIU 9: http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/i69/segment9/maps/segment_map.pdf) and an "I-269" loop around Memphis, which will be a new terrain alignment in Mississippi (http://www.gomdot.com/Home/Projects/Studies/Northern/I269/Home.aspx), with Tennessee's section incorporating completed and under-construction (http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/sr385/default.htm) sections of TN 385, as well as a short "Future I-269" segment from the Mississippi state line to TN 385. A succinct discussion of the "system approach" can be found here:
http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/i69/segment9/newsletters/0107.pdf
"I-69" SIU 9 in MS is complete; the initial groundbreaking for "I-269" SIU 9 in MS from the TN state line to MS 302 will take place on June 23 (Mississippi's "I-269" SIU 9 also includes three other projects that are each expected to begin in two to four years, and completion of all of "I-269" SIU 9 in Mississippi is currently expected to be around 2020); [there is a separate "Interstate 269" thread on the Southeast page https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1329.50].
SIU 10 in MS is complete and is described by MDOT as follows:
Quote
From the intersection of I-55/I-69 just south of Nesbit, I-69 runs west towards Tunica (Robinsonville)(shared route with MS Hwy 304)".
Prior discussion of SIU 10 mileage markers can be found here:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=83.25
A ROD was issued for SIU 11 in the latter part of 2010. Here is a link to a map of SIU 11:
http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/environmental/Projects/Archived%20Projects/Project%20Studies/District%201%20and%202/I-69%20Section%2011%20-%20Robinsonville%20To%20Benoit/Figures.pdf (page 4/40 of pdf)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3KECN.jpg&hash=ba8fca7c4018ea9a80b651838f44086bbee1875f)
More information about SIU 11 can be found here:
http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/environmental/index.php?dir=Projects/Archived%20Projects/Project%20Studies/District%201%20and%202/I-69%20Section%2011%20-%20Robinsonville%20To%20Benoit
Also, Clarksdale has recently installed "Future I-69 Corridor" signs along part of the SIU 11 corridor:
http://www.pressregister.com/articles/2011/04/06/news/doc4d9b12f614e3d422793615.txt
Quote
The unveiling of the "Future I-69" signs on the U.S. Highway 61 Bypass signals that Clarksdale will become part of the interstate system stretching from Canada to Mexico, Northern Highway Commissioner Mike Tagert observed Friday.
"The sign is not a small thing," said Tagert. "It's a game changer for the Mississippi Delta that starts the momentum for the future."
There has also been occasional discussion of an "I-169" Greenville Connector. MDOT's page on the Greenville Connector can be found here:
http://www.gomdot.com/Home/Projects/Studies/Central/GreenvilleConnector/pdf/MapOfAlternatives.pdf
froggie also has a page devoted to the Greenville Connector:
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/i169.htm
To sum it up, not much should happen on SIU 11 in near future: I suspect most, if not all, of I-69 Corridor work in MS in near future will be along "I-269" SIU 9; however, maybe reauthorization bill and/or innovative financing study will jump-start progress on SIU 11.
SIU 12 includes the Charles W. Dean Bridge over the Mississippi River and a short approach from Mississippi. Here's a link to a map of SIU 12 (which is located primarily in Arkansas):
http://i.imgur.com/cedC7.jpg
Here's a link to two perspectives of the current design of the Charles W. Dean Bridge:
http://www.garverusa.com/portfolio/transportation/greatriver.php
Quote from: Grzrd on June 08, 2011, 11:38:59 PM
No progress on SIU 11 in foreseeable future:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/jun/08/i-269-loop-stays-on-track/
" ... Meanwhile, as to I-69, a federal Record of Decision has been received for the 120-mile Segment 11 from Benoit to Robinsonville, and Tagert was asked by local engineer Cecil Sowell what the schedule was for moving ahead.
The plain answer is, there is no schedule, said Tagert, because "we need to have a federal transportation re-authorization bill" to revive funding. "I'm looking forward to seeing it built, but there is no committed funding for it today... ""
MDOT released an "update" on I-69 SIU 11 on August 15:
http://www.gomdot.com/Home/MediaRoom/newsreleases/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?ID=815201195147
Quote
I-69 Project
I-69 is a new cross-county interstate that will connect Benoit to Alligator in District Three in the Delta region. The project is currently in the environmental stage. The corridor has been set and it is expected that the environmental document will be approved by FHWA this year.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 20, 2011, 10:21:37 PM
MDOT released an "update" on I-69 SIU 11 on August 15 ...
"I-69 is a new cross-county interstate that will connect Benoit to Alligator in District Three in the Delta region. The project is currently in the environmental stage. The corridor has been set and it is expected that the environmental document will be approved by FHWA this year."
The environmental document for SIU 11 has been approved, surveying for highway design has begun, and ROW acquisition is anticipated to begin in approximately one year:
http://www.gomdot.com/Home/Projects/Archives/Updates/Northern/Home.aspx
Quote
The Environmental Document for I-69 has been approved. Currently, surveying is being done for the design of the highway and right-of-way acquisitions are anticipated to start in one year.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 08, 2011, 11:38:59 PM
No progress on SIU 11 in foreseeable future:
Meanwhile, as to I-69, a federal Record of Decision has been received for the 120-mile Segment 11 from Benoit to Robinsonville, and Tagert was asked by local engineer Cecil Sowell what the schedule was for moving ahead.
The plain answer is, there is no schedule, said Tagert, because "we need to have a federal transportation re-authorization bill" to revive funding.
I-69 in MS is composed of four SIUs: SIUs 9, 10, 11, and 12. SIU 9 is the SIU closest to metro Memphis and a "system approach" was developed for it which basically provided for an "I-69" route through Memphis along currently existing interstates, including existing alignment in Mississippi along I-55 ...and an "I-269" loop around Memphis, which will be a new terrain alignment in Mississippi ...
"I-69" SIU 9 in MS is complete; the initial groundbreaking for "I-269" SIU 9 in MS from the TN state line to MS 302 will take place on June 23 (Mississippi's "I-269" SIU 9 also includes three other projects that are each expected to begin in two to four years, and completion of all of "I-269" SIU 9 in Mississippi is currently expected to be around 2020); [there is a separate "Interstate 269" thread on the Southeast page https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1329.50].
SIU 10 in MS is complete and is described by MDOT as follows:
"From the intersection of I-55/I-69 just south of Nesbit, I-69 runs west towards Tunica (Robinsonville)(shared route with MS Hwy 304)".
A ROD was issued for SIU 11 in the latter part of 2010. Here is a link to a map of SIU 11:
http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/environmental/Projects/Archived%20Projects/Project%20Studies/District%201%20and%202/I-69%20Section%2011%20-%20Robinsonville%20To%20Benoit/Figures.pdf (page 4/40 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3KECN.jpg&hash=ba8fca7c4018ea9a80b651838f44086bbee1875f)
SIU 12 includes the Charles W. Dean Bridge over the Mississippi River and a short approach from Mississippi. Here's a link to a map of SIU 12 (which is located primarily in Arkansas):
http://i.imgur.com/cedC7.jpg
Here's a link to two perspectives of the current design of the Charles W. Dean Bridge:
http://www.garverusa.com/portfolio/transportation/greatriver.php
With Mississippi's section of "I-269" SIU 9 currently planned to be completed around 2020, I became curious as to planned sequential process for SIU 11. Assuming somewhat normal federal funding, the SIU 11 FEIS indicates that SIU 11 would be rolled out over a nineteen year period and construction would proceed in roughly the following sequence: (1) 2016 - From current western terminus of SIU 10 to SR 4 interchange south of Tunica, (2) 2019 - Clarksdale to Cleveland, (3) 2020 - Tunica to Clarksdale, and (4) 2026 - Cleveland to Great River Bridge (Charles W. Dean Bridge). There is also a non-interstate grade widening of SR 8 from Rosedale to Cleveland scheduled for 2029.
(http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/District%201%20and%202/Archived%20Projects/Project%20Studies/I-69%20Section%2011%20-%20Robinsonville%20To%20Benoit/Executive%20Summary.pdf) [summary of progression is on page 9/18 of the pdf; page S-9 of the document].
Quote
Subsequent to selection of the Preferred Alternative, the project was reviewed to consider the applicability of recent guidance on major projects receiving federal funding. Construction of the proposed I-69 SUI 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years. Therefore, the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. The five phases (sections) are detailed in Appendix G and summarized as follows:
Section 1: 18.465 miles, SR 304 Interchange to South of SR 4 Interchange
Anticipated Letting Date: 2016
Section 2: 31.549 miles, South of SR 4 Interchange to North of SR 6 Interchange
Anticipated Letting Date: 2022
Section 3: 48.160 miles, North of SR 6 Interchange to South of SR 446 Interchange
Anticipated Letting Date: 2019
Section 4: 22.807 miles, South of SR 446 Interchange to Great River Bridge
Anticipated Letting Date: 2026
Section 5: 17.764 miles, SR 1 at Rosedale to Cleveland
Anticipated Letting Date: 2029
Here's a description of the proposed SR 8 widening (page 8/18 of pdf):
Quote
SR 8 Improvements
The Preferred Alternative would include the widening of SR 8 from Cleveland to Rosedale. SR 8 would have a five-lane section extended west of Cleveland to a point west of the SR 8-Cleveland Interchange, where the roadway would transition to a four-lane divided section and remain this way until the eastern edge of Pace. At that point, the roadway would transition to a five-lane section through the built-up area of Pace. At the western edge of Pace, the roadway would then transition back to a four-lane divided section and remain this way to a point slightly east of Rosedale where it would again transition to a five-lane section and remain this way to the intersection with SR 1.
For the I-69 Corridor in Mississippi as a whole (I-269 and I-69), it looks like there could be steady progress over the next twenty years. I will be very interested to see how I-69 alternative financing study being prepared by Atkins North America for AHTD will propose to finance construction of the Great River Bridge (Charles W. Dean Bridge) in SIU 12. Seems like in the most optimistic scenario the bridge is at the very least about 15 years away.
Hmmmmm... which I-69 bridge will open first? Mississippi River or Ohio River?
Where is the new Interstate 69 currently signed in Mississippi?
I was looking at a Youtube video of a new portion of I-69 near Memphis, Tennessee...all of a sudden it shut down because of an error, but I will try to go back to it. Internet Explorer shut the video down for my safety, but I am wondering where the I-69 shields are appearing as of now?
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Quote from: Roadmapfan66 on January 10, 2012, 11:44:24 PM
Where is the new Interstate 69 currently signed in Mississippi?
I was looking at a Youtube video of a new portion of I-69 near Memphis, Tennessee...all of a sudden it shut down because of an error, but I will try to go back to it. Internet Explorer shut the video down for my safety, but I am wondering where the I-69 shields are appearing as of now?
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
This link (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/423043) shows all of I-69 that is signed. ;)
Rumor has it that I-69 has been shortened again. I was just talking to Chris Lawrence (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Chris%20Lawrence) and he says that the signs that announce the Start/End of I-69 have been moved back to the Tunica/DeSoto County Line once again (the original place) from the previous location @ the old MS-304 intersection area. Does anybody have picture proof of this?
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 11, 2012, 03:03:14 AM
Rumor has it that I-69 has been shortened again. I was just talking to Chris Lawrence (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Chris%20Lawrence) and he says that the signs that announce the Start/End of I-69 have been moved back to the Tunica/DeSoto County Line once again (the original place) from the previous location @ the old MS-304 intersection area. Does anybody have picture proof of this?
Why would they move the signage back to the Tunica/DeSoto county line (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=34.85096008951622~-90.20243263244629&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Robinsonville%2C%20MS&form=LMLTCC)? The Executive Summary of the SIU 11 FEIS (http://www.gomdot.com/Home/Projects/I69/pdf/files/Executive%20Summary.pdf) defines SIU 10 as follows [page 2/18 of pdf]:
Quote
SIU 10 includes the portion of relocated SR 304 in De Soto County between I-55 and the first interchange east of SR 3 as well as a spur to the
south of that interchange connecting the relocated SR 304 with the old two-lane section of SR 304. From the relocated SR 304 interchange to slightly north of the spur's intersection with old SR 304, the design of the spur meets interstate standards. SIU 10 is open to traffic.
It seems like the short stretch of I-69 in Tunica County is "legal" in the sense that it is part of SIU 10, which received a ROD several years ago. Also, I suppose it would now be "legal" if it were a part of SIU 11 because the ROD has been issued for SIU 11. Either way, I don't see the point of removing signage from the short stretch in Tunica County.
MDOT's 2012-15 Draft STIP (http://sp.gomdot.com/Intermodal%20Planning/planning/Documents/2012-2015%20Draft%20STIP.pdf) does not project much activity for the "non-I-269" part of the I-69 Corridor. Basically, repayment of the debt service on the bonds for the paving of SIU 10 MS 304/I-69 from I-55 to US 61 is scheduled for 2012-15 (page 55/305 of the pdf). I did not see any scheduled projects for SIU 11 in Bolivar, Coahoma, or Tunica counties.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 11, 2012, 03:03:14 AM
Rumor has it that I-69 has been shortened again. I was just talking to Chris Lawrence (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Chris%20Lawrence) and he says that the signs that announce the Start/End of I-69 have been moved back to the Tunica/DeSoto County Line once again (the original place) from the previous location @ the old MS-304 intersection area. Does anybody have picture proof of this?
Quote from: US71 on April 29, 2012, 10:32:24 PM
Quote from: Steve on April 29, 2012, 10:05:18 PM
So... how was Memphis?
Had a great time! We drove ... all of I-69 in Mississippi
(above quote from Official Announcement Memphis Road Meet April 28! (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5987.msg145827#new) thread)
Is the rumor true?
This article (http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/05/mississippi_governor_promises.html), although primarily about a proposed new levee for the Yazoo River, contains a statement from Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant that he supports the SIU 11 segment of I-69 (at least he is not attacking it as "wasteful spending"):
Quote
Gov. Phil Bryant .... also supports for the proposed Interstate 69, which would parallel U.S. 61 from Tunica to south of Cleveland.
Quote from: Grzrd on April 30, 2012, 09:40:03 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 11, 2012, 03:03:14 AM
Rumor has it that I-69 has been shortened again. I was just talking to Chris Lawrence (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Chris%20Lawrence) and he says that the signs that announce the Start/End of I-69 have been moved back to the Tunica/DeSoto County Line once again (the original place) from the previous location @ the old MS-304 intersection area. Does anybody have picture proof of this?
Quote from: US71 on April 29, 2012, 10:32:24 PM
Quote from: Steve on April 29, 2012, 10:05:18 PM
So... how was Memphis?
Had a great time! We drove ... all of I-69 in Mississippi
(above quote from Official Announcement Memphis Road Meet April 28! (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5987.msg145827#new) thread)
Is the rumor true?
Did anyone at the meet notice where the current START/END signage for Mississippi's current southern (western?) terminus of I-69 is located?
Quote from: Grzrd on May 12, 2012, 09:48:34 AM
This article (http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/05/mississippi_governor_promises.html), although primarily about a proposed new levee for the Yazoo River, contains a statement from Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant that he supports the SIU 11 segment of I-69
This article (http://www.bolivarcom.com/view/full_story/18575044/article-Bryant-addresses-Delta-issues?instance=homefirstleft) indicates that, beyond stating general support for SIU 11, Governor Bryant expresses hope that Mississippi's Congressional delegation will come up with some SIU 11 funding in the next reauthorization bill:
Quote
Bryant also mentioned the impact of interstate highway running through the heart of the Delta.
"The proposed Interstate 69 would make investments and opportunities available to citizens in northwest Mississippi," said the governor. "Our professional delegation is working hard to make sure adequate funding is passed along for highway development projects. I look forward to passing the Federal Transportation Act and I hope that it will include funding for the construction of Interstate 69."
At the very least, SIU 11 appears to be on the radar screen (still doesn't mean any money will result, but who knows?)
Quote from: Grzrd on May 14, 2012, 05:37:24 PM
This article (http://www.bolivarcom.com/view/full_story/18575044/article-Bryant-addresses-Delta-issues?instance=homefirstleft) indicates that, beyond stating general support for SIU 11, Governor Bryant expresses hope that Mississippi's Congressional delegation will come up with some SIU 11 funding in the next reauthorization bill:
Quote
Bryant also mentioned the impact of interstate highway running through the heart of the Delta.
"The proposed Interstate 69 would make investments and opportunities available to citizens in northwest Mississippi," said the governor. "Our professional delegation is working hard to make sure adequate funding is passed along for highway development projects. I look forward to passing the Federal Transportation Act and I hope that it will include funding for the construction of Interstate 69."
MAP-21 (http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/CRPT-112hrpt-HR4348.pdf) does not include earmarked funding for specific projects, including SIU 11. That said, it is important to remember that, as noted in this post in the "Interstate 269" thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1329.msg139682#msg139682), Mississippi is making rapid progress on its "I-269" part of the SIU 9 I-69 corridor and most, if not all, of I-269 in Mississippi will be under paving contracts in 2015.
Quote from: Grzrd on December 22, 2011, 02:10:42 PM
With Mississippi's section of "I-269" SIU 9 currently planned to be completed around 2020, I became curious as to planned sequential process for SIU 11. (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/District%201%20and%202/Archived%20Projects/Project%20Studies/I-69%20Section%2011%20-%20Robinsonville%20To%20Benoit/Executive%20Summary.pdf) [summary of progression is on page 9/18 of the pdf; page S-9 of the document]
Quote
Subsequent to selection of the Preferred Alternative, the project was reviewed to consider the applicability of recent guidance on major projects receiving federal funding. Construction of the proposed I-69 SUI 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years. Therefore, the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. The five phases (sections) are detailed in Appendix G and summarized as follows:
Section 1: 18.465 miles, SR 304 Interchange to South of SR 4 Interchange
Anticipated Letting Date: 2016
Section 2: 31.549 miles, South of SR 4 Interchange to North of SR 6 Interchange
Anticipated Letting Date: 2022
Section 3: 48.160 miles, North of SR 6 Interchange to South of SR 446 Interchange
Anticipated Letting Date: 2019
Section 4: 22.807 miles, South of SR 446 Interchange to Great River Bridge
Anticipated Letting Date: 2026
Section 5: 17.764 miles, SR 1 at Rosedale to Cleveland
Anticipated Letting Date: 2029
In conjunction with the I-269 projects, a 2016 letting for the first section of SIU 11 would still constitute great progress. However, SIU 11 construction will to some degree require a coordinated effort with Arkansas in terms of the timeline for construction of the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge. Arkansas has a lot of big projects on its plate in addition to I-69 and minimal money to fund them. On the other hand, maybe SIU 11, in conjunction with the US 82 Greenville Bridge, will provide a useful corridor on its own and be reason enough for Mississippi to keep up the pace for SIU 11 construction.
edit
As recently noted in the Interstate 269 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1329.msg186695#msg186695) thread, included as part of the presentation materials for the Desoto County, Mississippi I-269 Corridor Study is a map showing MDOT's I-269 construction schedule (http://desotodiscovery.com/mm_uploads/I-269_Construction_Schedule_final-8-6-12.pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fv1qTY.jpg&hash=35e56152a2b88e19ce22907d5175826114e4b3b8)
Quote from: Grzrd on July 14, 2012, 10:11:12 AM
maybe SIU 11, in conjunction with the US 82 Greenville Bridge, will provide a useful corridor on its own and be reason enough for Mississippi to keep up the pace for SIU 11 construction.
Quote from: mcdonaat on November 02, 2012, 12:51:32 AM
When Mississippi opens their segment of I-69 near Greenville, what are the chances it will be signed as such? I'm hoping it becomes Bypass 82 so mainline 82 will remain through town.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 02, 2012, 07:43:19 AM
^ The 82 bypass is not part of the proposed I-69. Froggie has a webpage with a good map showing the relationship between I-69, 82 bypass, and a proposed I-169 connecting the two routes: http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/i169.htm
(bottom 2 quotes from Mississippi (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=97.msg182760#msg182760) thread)
I recently came across a July 25, 2010 article (before I joined this forum) entitled, Should I-69 go through Greenville? (http://www.dolanmedia.com/view.cfm?recID=614760) It provides good background on the politics behind the selection of the currently proposed I-69 route through the Mississippi Delta. Although 2.5 years is a relatively short period of time, does the following question regarding the economic sense behind a Greenville routing need to be revisited?:
Quote
The Interstate 69 bridge's close proximity to the new U.S. 82 bridge and its price tag – $715 million – raises a question: Why spend money on a new I-69 bridge at Benoit when there is now a completed interstate-grade bridge near Greenville? Wouldn't it make more sense and save taxpayer dollars to have I-69, dubbed the "NAFTA Highway" and stretching from the Great Lakes to the Mexican border, cross the Mississippi River near Greenville as opposed to Benoit?
The article does seem to answer its own question by noting the interests of Arkansas:
Quote
No Greenville
The site of the Greenville bridge was never considered in the study for I-69 as it, too, sits between river bends.
Plus, the Greenville site was unattractive to Arkansas. If Greenville had been considered, I-69 would have only skirted extreme South Arkansas, leaving no access to the rest of the state, particularly the Arkansas Delta.
This left the two-bridge strategy. The new bridge at Benoit had to be built. And, Greenville had to have a new structure because of the transportation hazards to both river and road traffic posed by the old Greenville span.
However, Arkansas currently seems to have I-69 as an extremely low priority. Does the routing of I-69 through Mississippi (and Arkansas and Louisiana) need to be revisited?
I don't see how the L-shaped routing through MS and AR helps national traffic other than local communities. It really needs to be more diagonal between Memphis and Shreveport to be worth it. Therefore I'd have a bridge further upriver of Benoit.
Atkins North America recently completed its I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf) (January 2013) and the Final Findings report on the current status of I-69 in Mississippi as follows (page 9/122 of pdf; page 4 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1DvOubX.jpg&hash=84e0f299aa77ac2f019de9dded5756c412d3d1c6)
There is really nothing new in the summary, but it does emphasize that SIU 12, which includes the Great River Bridge/Charles W. Dean Bridge, is essentially ready for construction if federal funds become available in the future, whereas SIU 11 would need more preliminary work to be completed before construction could begin.
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 14, 2012, 01:47:00 PM
I don't see how the L-shaped routing through MS and AR helps national traffic other than local communities. It really needs to be more diagonal between Memphis and Shreveport to be worth it. Therefore I'd have a bridge further upriver of Benoit.
I believe that Arkansas City was one of the original proposed crossings, but was rejected due to wetland impacts. Benoit was a compromise that everyone could accept.
It would have made more sense to follow the US 79 corridor (in conjunction with possibly improving the river crossings at Memphis). Less stairstepping makes for a shorter distance.
Quote from: NE2 on April 29, 2013, 10:58:11 AM
Less stairstepping makes for a shorter distance.
Speaking of stairstepping, the transition from N/S SIU 9 to E/W SIU 10 makes references to I-69 in this June 16 article (http://msbusiness.com/blog/2013/06/16/proposed-road-widening-project-has-supporters-opponents/) about the proposed east-west widening of Star Landing Road of about six miles from Tulane Road west of I-55/69 to Getwell Road east of I-55/69 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Nesbit,+Hernando,+MS&hl=en&ll=34.904516,-89.991417&spn=0.108823,0.153637&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.145264,9.832764&oq=nesbit+ms&t=h&hnear=Nesbit,+Hernando,+DeSoto,+Mississippi&z=13), and which includes a proposed new interchange for I-55/69, a situation in which the reader has to be aware of I-69's route, and overlap with I-55, through that area:
Quote
Some 100 Star Landing residents and landowners were specifically invited to a recent public session in Southaven on the Star Landing Corridor.
Greeting them were DeSoto and Mississippi Department of Transportation officials at eight tables, each covered by an aerial map of the proposed east-west widening of about six miles from Tulane Road in the west to Getwell Road on the county's east ....
Tracy Huffman, consulting engineer to the county with the Waggoner firm ....
Public comments will be incorporated into an environmental assessment that's required by the federal government for the county and state to obtain funding for corridor work, a county priority being assisted by MDOT. The study cost is about $700,000, obtained from federal sources; further steps in the process, including any eventual construction, will cost millions and have yet to be obtained.
The deadline for completion of the assessment is May 2014, after which detailed engineering design and right of way acquisition can begin, said Huffman. He said any "dirt work" may be four or five years away, provided funding is available ....
"A widened, safer Star Landing may be the primary road they'll use in the future between I-69 and Church Road." ....
In 2011, the average daily traffic count for Star Landing Road was 3,200. The figure is forecast by MDOT to soar to 37,000 vehicles per day between U.S. 51 and Interstate 55, due to planned developments along U.S. 51 and Star Landing and the addition of the proposed I-69 interchange at Star Landing. Meanwhile, traffic on Church and Goodman roads also is expected to soar ....
DeSoto County has been identified as one of Mississippi's fastest-growing counties, and early studies for the Star Landing project envision an eventual scenic route from U.S. 78 in the east to U.S. 61 in the west that could help deliver more than 11,000 jobs and about $1.2 billion annually in economic development. This vision poses a landscaped parkway of 22 miles, capped by a diamond-type interchange at I-55.
Quote from: NE2 on April 29, 2013, 10:58:11 AM
It would have made more sense to follow the US 79 corridor (in conjunction with possibly improving the river crossings at Memphis). Less stairstepping makes for a shorter distance.
It would make more sense to number US 79, US 59.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 08, 2011, 11:38:59 PM
Here is a link to a map of SIU 11:
http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/environmental/Projects/Archived%20Projects/Project%20Studies/District%201%20and%202/I-69%20Section%2011%20-%20Robinsonville%20To%20Benoit/Figures.pdf (page 4/40 of pdf)
Quote from: Grzrd on April 28, 2013, 01:23:06 AM
Atkins North America recently completed its I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf) (January 2013) and the Final Findings report on the current status of I-69 in Mississippi as follows (page 9/122 of pdf; page 4 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1DvOubX.jpg&hash=84e0f299aa77ac2f019de9dded5756c412d3d1c6)
Quote from: NE2 on May 14, 2013, 07:08:26 PM
I doubt I-69 will ever be completed in MS.
(NE2 quote from Interstate 269 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1329.msg221251#msg221251) thread)
As recently posted in the Interstate 269 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1329.msg235102#msg235102) thread, all of I-269 (I-69 SIU 9b) is now under construction. Paving contracts are yet to come, but completion is now in sight.
The completed I-69 SIU 10, in addition to being part of I-69, could alternatively be viewed as an extension of the I-269 "half-loop" around Memphis .... which leads to the question of when, if ever, Mississippi will begin work on SIU 11. With Arkansas not doing much on I-69, Louisiana doing even less, and Tennessee waiting for federal funds for SIU 8, will Mississippi be able to justify construction on SIU 11 in the absence of significant progress by the nearby states?
It should be an interesting political process.
From the Mississippi Board
QuoteThere are going to be hearings on the Road System in Mississippi. The article states that Mississippi does not have enough money for new highways as well as maintenance of the system. Public hearings will be held throughout the state. The article is at:
http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/22808269/state-task-force-on-highways-will-hold-town-hall-meetings
That probably includes new I-69 construction from Robinsonville to Benoit.
Quote from: richllewis on July 26, 2013, 05:00:19 PM
From the Mississippi Board
QuoteThere are going to be hearings on the Road System in Mississippi. The article states that Mississippi does not have enough money for new highways as well as maintenance of the system. Public hearings will be held throughout the state. The article is at:
http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/22808269/state-task-force-on-highways-will-hold-town-hall-meetings
That probably includes new I-69 construction from Robinsonville to Benoit.
Pretty much every other state is going through the same issues since they rely on taxes on gasoline which generally haven't been raised to keep up with inflation. They're going to need to find funding for both maintenance on existing roads and construction of new roads.
If they find enough money, it could actually make I-69 more likely to happen (as Indiana has done with Major Moves & Major Moves 2020).
Quote from: richllewis on July 26, 2013, 05:00:19 PM
From the Mississippi Board
QuoteThere are going to be hearings on the Road System in Mississippi. The article states that Mississippi does not have enough money for new highways as well as maintenance of the system. Public hearings will be held throughout the state. The article is at:
http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/22808269/state-task-force-on-highways-will-hold-town-hall-meetings
That probably includes new I-69 construction from Robinsonville to Benoit.
An August 8 Task Force Transportation Update (http://www.usm.edu/sites/default/files/groups/center-logistics-trade-and-transportation/pdf/mdot_transportation_update-low-resolution.pdf) suggests that there will not even be ROW acquisition for any sections of I-69 SIU 11 from Robinsonville to Benoit during the 2015-2017 time frame (page 74/76 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHu4ZWZJ.jpg&hash=e72b7a03d6ff448b796b90c8164fa6554c9d642c)
However, it looks like there are plans to add lanes to I-55/I-69 from MS 304 to MS 302.
Looks like MDOT really wants to get I-10 widened through most of the state.
What project are they referring to with the I-59 interchange at MS 42? There is already an interchange in place there.
I've seen proposals for a cloverleaf/partial-directional at I-59/MS 42. A long-term goal of MDOT is to bring any freeway-grade connection to 49 north of Hattiesburg in at the 59/42 interchange.
Was that on the PDF? I can't get to the PDF out here.
Quote from: froggie on September 10, 2013, 09:18:12 AM
I've seen proposals for a cloverleaf/partial-directional at I-59/MS 42 ...
Was that on the PDF? I can't get to the PDF out here.
Yes, on page 74. Also, I don't know if you are able to see snips in posts, but in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4783.msg245484#msg245484) I included a snip of page 74 (a listing of New Capacity Projects) that includes the I-59/MS 42 interchange in the list. No details are provided about the respective projects.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 10, 2013, 12:27:03 PM
The June 12 Transportation Needs Legislative Update (http://www.usm.edu/sites/default/files/groups/center-logistics-trade-and-transportation/pdf/mdot_transportation_needs_highres_2.pdf) .... (page 18/26 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fqb1EyAR.png&hash=fb561415c076dcc31364606388b4f0a2e50f9060)
(above quote from Mississippi (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=97.msg246128#msg246128) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on September 07, 2013, 11:15:06 AM
An August 8 Task Force Transportation Update (http://www.usm.edu/sites/default/files/groups/center-logistics-trade-and-transportation/pdf/mdot_transportation_update-low-resolution.pdf) suggests that there will not even be ROW acquisition for any sections of I-69 SIU 11 from Robinsonville to Benoit during the 2015-2017 time frame (page 74/76 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHu4ZWZJ.jpg&hash=e72b7a03d6ff448b796b90c8164fa6554c9d642c)
However, it looks like there are plans to add lanes to I-55/I-69 from MS 304 to MS 302.
In looking at the above two lists, MDOT does consider I-69 as an immediate capacity need. Given all of the current construction on I-269 that is scheduled to conclude around 2018, as well as the listed potential I-55/I-69 widening, I suppose it is not too surprising that I-69 SIU 11 ROW acquisition is not on MDOT's 2015-17 additional funding wish list.
The presentation put out by MDOT enumerating needs is just another way of drumming up support for funding in the Mississippi Legislature. Frankly I smell a tax increase in the works. And I suppose that MDOT will get some more money related to HB 481. This bill as passed by the legislature concerned DUI's and DUI adjudication and DUI interlock devices and Drivers license fees for these devices. I do not know if increased taxes will pass muster with the Governor we have since he is against raising Taxes. But Roads will have to be fixed, widened, and new roads need construction money so someone will come up with something to provide funding for MDOT
QuoteAlso, I don't know if you are able to see snips in posts, but in this post I included a snip of page 74 (a listing of New Capacity Projects) that includes the I-59/MS 42 interchange in the list.
If it's a small enough graphic (KB-wise moreso than pixel-wise), I usually can. That said, I have the PDF tagged for download the next time we hit port.
Quote from: Grzrd on December 22, 2011, 02:10:42 PM
There is also a non-interstate grade widening of SR 8 from Rosedale to Cleveland scheduled for 2029.
(http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/District%201%20and%202/Archived%20Projects/Project%20Studies/I-69%20Section%2011%20-%20Robinsonville%20To%20Benoit/Executive%20Summary.pdf) [summary of progression is on page 9/18 of the pdf; page S-9 of the document]
Quote from: Grzrd on September 10, 2013, 01:10:02 PM
In looking at the above two lists, MDOT does consider I-69 as an immediate capacity need. Given all of the current construction on I-269 that is scheduled to conclude around 2018, as well as the listed potential I-55/I-69 widening, I suppose it is not too surprising that I-69 SIU 11 ROW acquisition is not on MDOT's 2015-17 additional funding wish list.
Quote from: richllewis on September 11, 2013, 02:00:39 AM
The presentation put out by MDOT enumerating needs is just another way of drumming up support for funding in the Mississippi Legislature. Frankly I smell a tax increase in the works.
In this September 10 guest column (http://www.deltabusinessjournal.com/index.php/guest-column-a-taxing-problem-sp-1632091666.html), Dick Hall, transportation commissioner of the Central District for the state of Mississippi, paints a bleak picture for I-69 SIU 11's future prospects:
Quote
.... the Mississippi Legislature created (by a margin of one vote) the 1987 Four-Lane Highway Program which resulted in the construction of over one thousand miles of new four-lane highways which are basically paid for. I do not know of another state in the nation which can make such a claim. Because of this, our economy and quality of life have improved to a level we have never enjoyed before. Unfortunately, those of us in the Legislature at that time set the fuel tax at a flat 18 cents per gallon, instead of making it a percentage which would have allowed for the inflation we have experienced over the last quarter of a century. As a result, the cost of highway construction has increased 300 percent while the revenue available to cover this cost has only increased 30 percent.
I don't care what kind of business you are trying to run. Those numbers won't work.
The other mistake made was the absence of any provision for the maintenance of the system being built. About the dumbest thing anyone can do is to make a major capital investment and not maintain it ....
There are other needed facilities we don't have the resources to even start–certainly not I-69. The only active construction project underway in our District III (which encompasses 9 counties in the Delta) is the four-laning of Highway 8 between Cleveland and Ruleville.
Maybe the MS 8 four-laning between Cleveland and Ruleville (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ruleville,+MS&hl=en&ll=33.731193,-90.621071&spn=0.198725,0.41851&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.434309,13.392334&oq=ruleville+ms&t=h&hnear=Ruleville,+Sunflower,+Mississippi&z=12) is setting the stage for the future four-laning of the I-69 Corridor section of MS 8. :bigass:
The linked column was written in September, which appears to make it part of a coordinated effort with the ongoing Task Force study (at least he referred to I-69 as a "needed facility"). That said, if Mississippi does not change its funding mechanism for highways, then it will be a looooong time before I-69 will be built in Mississippi.
Quote from: Grzrd on March 20, 2012, 12:06:50 PM
MDOT's 2012-15 Draft STIP (http://sp.gomdot.com/Intermodal%20Planning/planning/Documents/2012-2015%20Draft%20STIP.pdf) does not project much activity for the "non-I-269" part of the I-69 Corridor. Basically, repayment of the debt service on the bonds for the paving of SIU 10 MS 304/I-69 from I-55 to US 61 is scheduled for 2012-15 (page 55/305 of the pdf). I did not see any scheduled projects for SIU 11 in Bolivar, Coahoma, or Tunica counties.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 20, 2013, 11:45:29 AM
In this September 10 guest column (http://www.deltabusinessjournal.com/index.php/guest-column-a-taxing-problem-sp-1632091666.html), Dick Hall, transportation commissioner of the Central District for the state of Mississippi, paints a bleak picture for I-69 SIU 11's future prospects:
Quote
There are other needed facilities we don't have the resources to even start–certainly not I-69.
MDOT has posted its Draft 2015-2019 STIP (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Office%20of%20Highways/Planning/Documents/DRAFT%202015-2019%20STIP.pdf), and as expected, it does not include any I-69 SIU 11 projects.
Quote from: Grzrd on March 21, 2014, 05:24:28 PM
MDOT has posted its Draft 2015-2019 STIP (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Office%20of%20Highways/Planning/Documents/DRAFT%202015-2019%20STIP.pdf), and as expected, it does not include any I-69 SIU 11 projects.
Not surprising, it doesn't do much for Mississippi and Arkansas is no where ready yet. It appears the I-69 that exists for for the sole benifit of Tennessee. Maybe they should reciprocate and complete their section of I-22. :spin:
Quote from: WashuOtaku on March 21, 2014, 07:33:55 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 21, 2014, 05:24:28 PM
MDOT has posted its Draft 2015-2019 STIP (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Office%20of%20Highways/Planning/Documents/DRAFT%202015-2019%20STIP.pdf), and as expected, it does not include any I-69 SIU 11 projects.
Not surprising, it doesn't do much for Mississippi and Arkansas is no where ready yet. It appears the I-69 that exists for for the sole benifit of Tennessee. Maybe they should reciprocate and complete their section of I-22. :spin:
True, but where I-22 will end is an ongoing guessing game. Will it continue into Memphis, or turn west onto I-269 and meet I-55 there? As for I-69, I have a feeling that it will never be completed in our lifetimes, or our children's or grandchildren's, for that matter.
This TV video (http://wreg.com/2014/03/25/mississippi-takes-first-steps-to-widen-i-55/) reports that, although money woes may delay the project for years, MDOT is proceeding with the development of a preliminary Right of Way plan to widen I-55/I-69 in DeSoto County (I-69 SIU 9a), in part because of an expected increase in traffic that will be generated by the completion of I-269 (I-69 SIU 9b):
Quote
the Mississippi Department of Transportation has begun the very earliest stages of adding new lanes to Interstate 55, all the way from Goodman Road to North Hernando.
" What we're doing now is, very preliminary. It's a couple of contracts to consulting and engineering firms to develop the Right of Way plan," said District Engineer Mitch Turner.
He says that's the first step, paving the way for actual construction down the road.
The expansion plan will eventually connect with I-69 and 269 just north of Hernando, and eventually ease new traffic arriving from east and west on the new highway due for completion in 2017.
Turner says it could take years to turn the first shovel of dirt, but it's a notable development.
"It's a step in the right direction. It all depends on money. It's gonna depend on money and priorities in the state."
Even though the report simply refers to the stretch of interstate as I-55, it does include shots of side-by-side I-55 and I-69 shields:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FN4xR7Cp.jpg&hash=4b9da5fc9e5667cfe0d57e23e75da9dda064396b)
At the end of the report, the news anchor notes that I-69 will one day connect to TN 385 (Future I-269) to create a loop around Memphis.
Quote from: Grzrd on March 21, 2014, 05:24:28 PM
MDOT has posted its Draft 2015-2019 STIP (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Office%20of%20Highways/Planning/Documents/DRAFT%202015-2019%20STIP.pdf)
Apparently, the ROW work for the I-55/I-69 widening was added to the Memphis MPO TIP on December 26, 2013 (page 305/398 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEmifVwt.jpg&hash=57b6067f490bae4ac1b43c8bb6ab123b4ed6dae9)
Quote from: Grzrd on June 08, 2011, 11:38:59 PM
A ROD was issued for SIU 11 in the latter part of 2010.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 11, 2013, 04:27:36 PM
This article (behind paywall) (http://www.ddtonline.com/news/article_bfe8384a-4ae6-11e3-aab4-0019bb2963f4.html?success=2) reports on recent efforts by the Delta Council. It mentions that the Delta Council was part of the successful lobbying effort for the completion of I-269 ... :
Quote
The Delta Council successfully lobbied, with others, to secure financing to complete the Interstate 269 Memphis, Tenn., bypass ... The council, however, remains concerned about legislative failures to secure future funds to maintain roadways.
(above quote from I-69 Mississippi River Bridge (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg258738#msg258738) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on September 07, 2013, 11:15:06 AM
An August 8 Task Force Transportation Update (http://www.usm.edu/sites/default/files/groups/center-logistics-trade-and-transportation/pdf/mdot_transportation_update-low-resolution.pdf) suggests that there will not even be ROW acquisition for any sections of I-69 SIU 11 from Robinsonville to Benoit during the 2015-2017 time frame (page 74/76 of pdf)
The Delta Council has a Corridor 18 (I-69) (http://www.deltacouncil.org/policies--resolutions.html) resolution (link can be found on linked page) setting forth its strategy for initial SIU 11 corridor preservation:
Quote
Delta Council urges the Mississippi Department of Transportation to utilize any available funds to initiate real estate acquisition along the I-69 alignment on those segments of I-69 in SIU (Section of Independent Utility) 11 which are not located within the existing U.S. 61 four-lane alignment, as their initial order of priority for I-69 real estate acquisition.
This seems like a minimal, sensible first step for advancing SIU 11, but it does not appear that MDOT has the money for even this small proposed step.
I think I saw this somewhere, that the interstate between Jackson and Gulfport/Biloxi would be numbered I-63 or something?
Also, does anyone know the status of I-310 (that road that's supposed to go to the Gulf of Gulfport)? I'd say just make the interstate from Jackson down to Gulfport/Biloxi and have it tie into either this I-310 or I-110, possibly take it over like I-69 is going to do with I-164 in Evansville, Indiana.
My last question is, do they know when they're going to have a bridge across the Mississippi for I-69? I've just heard/read articles that said that they've chosen a site, but that's all she wrote...
QuoteI think I saw this somewhere, that the interstate between Jackson and Gulfport/Biloxi would be numbered I-63 or something?
No. MDOT's proposal is for an Interstate-grade facility, but they don't have even close to the level of funding that is required to build it. If there's been a route number attached to the proposal, it is the dream of some local politician and not anything official from MDOT.
QuoteAlso, does anyone know the status of I-310 (that road that's supposed to go to the Gulf of Gulfport)?
Being planned and designed as MS 601. The push to make it an Interstate comes from local officials, but the initial design will not be Interstate grade south of about 28th St.
QuoteMy last question is, do they know when they're going to have a bridge across the Mississippi for I-69? I've just heard/read articles that said that they've chosen a site, but that's all she wrote...
Because funding...(or lack of it)
From the Arkansas side of things, there is not a plan to build the I-69 Mississippi River bridge any time soon. I'm 40 & I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 11, 2012, 03:03:14 AM
Rumor has it that I-69 has been shortened again. I was just talking to Chris Lawrence (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Chris%20Lawrence) and he says that the signs that announce the Start/End of I-69 have been moved back to the Tunica/DeSoto County Line once again (the original place) from the previous location @ the old MS-304 intersection area. Does anybody have picture proof of this?
Bump to this question and it was probably answered elsewhere (I missed the answer if so), but this May 2013 Google Maps Street View imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.849126,-90.202295,3a,75y,38.68h,95.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sD1qRxDhANTvD63d9k3nvrA!2e0) from NB MS 713 shows the sign for the Desoto County state line with the "Begin 69" sign visible in the distance.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 02, 2014, 07:24:58 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 11, 2012, 03:03:14 AM
Rumor has it that I-69 has been shortened again. I was just talking to Chris Lawrence (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Chris%20Lawrence) and he says that the signs that announce the Start/End of I-69 have been moved back to the Tunica/DeSoto County Line once again (the original place) from the previous location @ the old MS-304 intersection area. Does anybody have picture proof of this?
Bump to this question and it was probably answered elsewhere (I missed the answer if so), but this May 2013 Google Maps Street View imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.849126,-90.202295,3a,75y,38.68h,95.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sD1qRxDhANTvD63d9k3nvrA!2e0) from NB MS 713 shows the sign for the Desoto County state line with the "Begin 69" sign visible in the distance.
Yes it has been moved. I farm next to I-69 and go past that sign several times daily. It has been moved further north than its original spot. The signs were originally placed just north of the old MS HWY 304 intersection.
Quote from: DesotoCountyDawg on August 19, 2014, 06:16:13 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 02, 2014, 07:24:58 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 11, 2012, 03:03:14 AM
Rumor has it that I-69 has been shortened again. I was just talking to Chris Lawrence (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Chris%20Lawrence) and he says that the signs that announce the Start/End of I-69 have been moved back to the Tunica/DeSoto County Line once again (the original place) from the previous location @ the old MS-304 intersection area. Does anybody have picture proof of this?
Bump to this question and it was probably answered elsewhere (I missed the answer if so), but this May 2013 Google Maps Street View imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.849126,-90.202295,3a,75y,38.68h,95.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sD1qRxDhANTvD63d9k3nvrA!2e0) from NB MS 713 shows the sign for the Desoto County state line with the "Begin 69" sign visible in the distance.
Yes it has been moved. I farm next to I-69 and go past that sign several times daily. It has been moved further north than its original spot. The signs were originally placed just north of the old MS HWY 304 intersection.
This is where the END sign was in March 2013:
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/rte66man/8739180615/in/set-72157633482601269
Quote from: DesotoCountyDawg on August 19, 2014, 06:16:13 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 02, 2014, 07:24:58 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 11, 2012, 03:03:14 AM
Rumor has it that I-69 has been shortened again. I was just talking to Chris Lawrence (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Chris%20Lawrence) and he says that the signs that announce the Start/End of I-69 have been moved back to the Tunica/DeSoto County Line once again (the original place) from the previous location @ the old MS-304 intersection area. Does anybody have picture proof of this?
Bump to this question and it was probably answered elsewhere (I missed the answer if so), but this May 2013 Google Maps Street View imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.849126,-90.202295,3a,75y,38.68h,95.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sD1qRxDhANTvD63d9k3nvrA!2e0) from NB MS 713 shows the sign for the Desoto County state line with the "Begin 69" sign visible in the distance.
Yes it has been moved. I farm next to I-69 and go past that sign several times daily. It has been moved further north than its original spot. The signs were originally placed just north of the old MS HWY 304 intersection.
FWIW the Statewide Map (last modified on June 11, 2012) (http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/planning/Maps/State%20Highway%20Maps/Statewide%20Map-%20Front%20Side.pdf) seems to show Start/End at the old MS 304 location:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDIGUnwY.jpg&hash=9ae8778740167925cfe7f7a4f317a57461633bd2)
Is anyone aware of an official explanation for the movement of the Start/End shields into Desoto County?
Quote from: Grzrd on August 25, 2014, 08:56:05 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDIGUnwY.jpg&hash=9ae8778740167925cfe7f7a4f317a57461633bd2)
What I find interesting with that picture from the map is that they show a I-69 shield in TN, when it isn't posted there yet and is just I-55 (posted wise).
QuoteIs anyone aware of an official explanation for the movement of the Start/End shields into Desoto County?
I'm not 100%, but it's possible that MDOT "jumped the gun" and FHWA dialed them back...
Quote from: Grzrd on August 25, 2014, 08:56:05 PM
Quote from: DesotoCountyDawg on August 19, 2014, 06:16:13 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 02, 2014, 07:24:58 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 11, 2012, 03:03:14 AM
Rumor has it that I-69 has been shortened again. I was just talking to Chris Lawrence (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Chris%20Lawrence) and he says that the signs that announce the Start/End of I-69 have been moved back to the Tunica/DeSoto County Line once again (the original place) from the previous location @ the old MS-304 intersection area. Does anybody have picture proof of this?
Bump to this question and it was probably answered elsewhere (I missed the answer if so), but this May 2013 Google Maps Street View imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.849126,-90.202295,3a,75y,38.68h,95.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sD1qRxDhANTvD63d9k3nvrA!2e0) from NB MS 713 shows the sign for the Desoto County state line with the "Begin 69" sign visible in the distance.
Yes it has been moved. I farm next to I-69 and go past that sign several times daily. It has been moved further north than its original spot. The signs were originally placed just north of the old MS HWY 304 intersection.
FWIW the Statewide Map (last modified on June 11, 2012) (http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/planning/Maps/State%20Highway%20Maps/Statewide%20Map-%20Front%20Side.pdf) seems to show Start/End at the old MS 304 location:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDIGUnwY.jpg&hash=9ae8778740167925cfe7f7a4f317a57461633bd2)
After looking again at the map, why is 69 marked as the Great River Road? That symbol s/b on US61 instead.
Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2014, 01:52:09 PM
After looking again at the map, why is 69 marked as the Great River Road? That symbol s/b on US61 instead.
I guess it might be shown as an access routing to the Great River Road for people who want a easiest access from I-55.
Quote from: lordsutch on March 02, 2014, 05:57:00 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 02, 2014, 03:27:37 PM
Mississippi disagrees wrt I-69 at I-55.
I-55 has C/D lanes and the interchange is much newer (with, I believe, less tight ramps); plus the likely directional split of traffic is different, you have a much later design year in play, and when FHWA signed off on the interchange, the loop routing for I-69 proper via SIU 9 was still a possibility.
But other than that, exactly the same. :)
(above quote from I-69 in KY (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg282498#msg282498) thread)
Quote from: NE2 on October 01, 2014, 09:12:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 01, 2014, 08:55:32 AM
QuotePS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.
PPS: that was designed and construction began before I-69 was approved.
PPPS: so was the cloverleaf in Kentucky.
(above quote from I-69 Ohio River Bridge (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg2010296#msg2010296) thread)
I'm not sure what MDOT has in mind, but the MDOT Five Year Project Plan (http://mdot.ms.gov/applications/five_year_plan/five_year_plan.aspx) indicates that they intend to do
something with the I-55 NB loop ramp:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyJZJQgz.jpg&hash=5c59b14a4d2904571e508425d03fadf0f04a25d5)
Since the project type is listed as "Construction" and the estimated cost is $200,000, I'm guessing that they only intend to do minor upgrades to the ramp. On the other hand, the scope of work is not defined (a study for a flyover ramp?).
Quote from: Grzrd on October 10, 2014, 11:53:28 PM
Since the project type is listed as "Construction" and the estimated cost is $200,000, I'm guessing that they only intend to do minor upgrades to the ramp. On the other hand, the scope of work is not defined (a study for a flyover ramp?).
Might just be a resurfacing job. There's a similar project listed for I-59 at US 49 in Forrest County.
Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2014, 01:52:09 PM
After looking again at the map, why is 69 marked as the Great River Road? That symbol s/b on US61 instead.
Sloppy cartography. Here's the 2000 map:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fdz1q3Nb.png&hash=088284e508fa1d67e221ccd1ed363db763959d4b)
Quote from: Grzrd on August 25, 2014, 08:56:05 PM
the Statewide Map (last modified on June 11, 2012) (http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/planning/Maps/State%20Highway%20Maps/Statewide%20Map-%20Front%20Side.pdf)
Quote from: NE2 on October 11, 2014, 03:03:52 AM
Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2014, 01:52:09 PM
After looking again at the map, why is 69 marked as the Great River Road? That symbol s/b on US61 instead.
Sloppy cartography. Here's the 2000 map:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fdz1q3Nb.png&hash=088284e508fa1d67e221ccd1ed363db763959d4b)
It really appears sloppy because the 2011 map (http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/planning/Maps/State%20Highway%20Maps%20Archive/HWY%20Map%202011%20front.pdf) has the Great River Road symbol in a location that cannot be confused with I-69:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVIZpqdS.png&hash=0d62a31b4f9917b9ea5e7d3bcadabc566836876c)
It's a mystery as to why they would move it back to the 2000 location for the 2012 map.
Perhaps it was moved in postproduction in 2011, and the files they updated for 2012 had it in the old location.
Quote from: Grzrd on October 13, 2014, 12:10:45 PM
the 2011 map (http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/planning/Maps/State%20Highway%20Maps%20Archive/HWY%20Map%202011%20front.pdf) has the Great River Road symbol in a location that cannot be confused with I-69 ...
It's a mystery as to why they would move it back to the 2000 location for the 2012 map.
Quote from: NE2 on October 13, 2014, 12:58:41 PM
Perhaps it was moved in postproduction in 2011, and the files they updated for 2012 had it in the old location.
After the above discussion, I wondered why the MDOT website had neither a 2013 map nor a 2014 map. I called them, and to make a long story short, a 2013-2014 map is currently available in hard copy, but they are having difficulty loading it onto the website (they tried to load it on August 20 and are currently projecting that it will be loaded in January, 2015). They mailed me the 2013-2014 map, and it appears that the Great River Road symbol has been moved back to the 2011 location that cannot be confused with I-69 (forgive my black-and-white scanner):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fo6k3E6Q.png&hash=08219060abe64146193cac52faeaf9f66f40fb50)
Also of note is that the map does not show I-269 (I-69 SIU 9b) construction.
The MDOT representative asked me if I might be able to help with the upload (I do not have that ability). If anyone wants to assist MDOT, give 'em a call.
Quote from: lordsutch on March 02, 2014, 05:57:00 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 02, 2014, 03:27:37 PM
Mississippi disagrees wrt I-69 at I-55.
I-55 has C/D lanes and the interchange is much newer (with, I believe, less tight ramps); plus the likely directional split of traffic is different, you have a much later design year in play, and when FHWA signed off on the interchange, the loop routing for I-69 proper via SIU 9 was still a possibility.
But other than that, exactly the same. :)
(above quote from I-69 in KY (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg282498#msg282498) thread)
Quote from: NE2 on October 01, 2014, 09:12:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 01, 2014, 08:55:32 AM
QuotePS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.
PPS: that was designed and construction began before I-69 was approved.
PPPS: so was the cloverleaf in Kentucky.
(above quote from I-69 Ohio River Bridge (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg2010296#msg2010296) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on February 28, 2013, 04:03:59 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.28.13.html) reports that the TTC made the I-69 designation official today:
Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of an additional 28.4 miles of US 59 as part of Interstate 69.
The existing section of US 59 from the south side of Rosenberg in Fort Bend County north to Loop 610 in southwest Houston is now part of the Interstate Highway System and will soon be signed as both I-69 and US 59 .... There were five design issues identified and exceptions were approved by FHWA.
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg206735#msg206735) thread)
After reading about the Texas design exceptions that were approved by FHWA in order for US 59 to be designated as I-69, I wondered if FHWA had granted MDOT a design exception in regard to the I-55 cloverleaf ramp. I emailed FHWA, and the email was eventually forwarded to the FHWA Mississippi Division. I had both an initial question and a followup question. To make a long story short, a design exception was unnecessary (presumably because of the traffic counts). The two Q & As are as follows:
Quote
Q: Driving northward on I-69 SIU 10 in Mississippi, one has to take a loop ramp to keep proceeding northward on I-69 SIU 9a (I-55/I-69). Did FHWA allow this as a permanent design exception for I-69, or has MDOT made a commitment to upgrade the interchange at some point in the future?
A: The email we received pertains to the design of the I-69 interchange with I-55. Specifically, you asked about the loop ramp from I-69 to I-55 north. The interchange was designed to accommodate the projected traffic and in accordance with the current design standards as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Therefore, no design exceptions were necessary for the subject loop ramp.
Q: I do have a follow-up question. As I understand it, the interchange was designed before the I-69 routing was finalized, which I assume means that there was no need at that time for it to meet FHWA interstate standards and that is why AASHTO design standards were sufficient. If that interchange were to be built today knowing that it was on the routing of I-69, then would FHWA interstate standards require a flyover ramp in order to keep I-69 from exiting onto itself? If so, would a design exception based on projected traffic then be necessary today to keep traffic on the loop ramp?
A: In reference to your follow-up question, the interchange was designed to accommodate the projected traffic and in accordance with AASHTO design standards. Furthermore, based on current AASHTO guidance no design exceptions are necessary today for interchange type selection.
Since FHWA must certify that a route meets interstate standards before it can receive an interstate designation, I had always thought that FHWA had its own interstate guidelines. The above responses imply that FHWA applies AASHTO guidelines.
Quote from: Grzrd on October 21, 2014, 11:00:15 AM
I wondered why the MDOT website had neither a 2013 map nor a 2014 map. I called them, and to make a long story short, a 2013-2014 map is currently available in hard copy, but they are having difficulty loading it onto the website (they tried to load it on August 20 and are currently projecting that it will be loaded in January, 2015). They mailed me the 2013-2014 map, and it appears that the Great River Road symbol has been moved back to the 2011 location that cannot be confused with I-69 (forgive my black-and-white scanner):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fo6k3E6Q.png&hash=08219060abe64146193cac52faeaf9f66f40fb50)
MDOT has posted the 2014-15 Statewide Map (http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/planning/Maps/State%20Highway%20Maps/Statewide%20Map-%20Front%20Side.pdf), (I don't think that they have posted an online archived version of the 2013-14 map) and it looks like the Great River Road symbol has remained in the 2011 location for two consecutive years:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FueXwVrz.jpg&hash=69be1bcf84e827a3cde8d49c5c6527c844053961)
Quote from: Grzrd on January 03, 2015, 04:15:30 PM
MDOT has posted the 2014-15 Statewide Map (http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/planning/Maps/State%20Highway%20Maps/Statewide%20Map-%20Front%20Side.pdf), (I don't think that they have posted an online archived version of the 2013-14 map) and it looks like the Great River Road symbol has remained in the 2011 location for two consecutive years:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FueXwVrz.jpg&hash=69be1bcf84e827a3cde8d49c5c6527c844053961)
To keep this with the thread title, it doesn't seem like there's any changes between last year's and this year's I-69 route. Interestingly, they don't show the AASHTO-approved continuation of I-69 north into TN along I-55, I-240, and I-40, but TN has not yet signed that continuation, either.
An April 22, 2015 state-by-state status updates presented to the I-69 Congressional Caucus PowerPoint (linked on this page (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/resource.html)) includes a slide that provides an update on "I-69 in Mississippi" (slide 29/54):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FK7SVUdP.png&hash=eb94393cf78610084989d1ce65d324e72425e91a)
By showing that the I-69 part of SIU 9 and all of SIU 10 are completed (there appears to be a color mismatch for "Completed & Open to Traffic"), that all of the I-269 part of SIU 9 is under construction, and that SIU 12 is primarily in Arkansas, the Mississippi delegation may have been able to put together a relatively persuasive argument that Mississippi has made good progress on I-69 and that it is deserving of Congressional assistance for SIU 11. More food for thought for the next long-term highway reauthorization.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 13, 2015, 12:32:15 PM
An April 22, 2015 state-by-state status updates presented to the I-69 Congressional Caucus PowerPoint (linked on this page (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/resource.html)) includes a slide that provides an update on "I-69 in Mississippi" (slide 29/54):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FK7SVUdP.png&hash=eb94393cf78610084989d1ce65d324e72425e91a)
By showing that the I-69 part of SIU 9 and all of SIU 10 are completed (there appears to be a color mismatch for "Completed & Open to Traffic"), that all of the I-269 part of SIU 9 is under construction, and that SIU 12 is primarily in Arkansas, the Mississippi delegation may have been able to put together a relatively persuasive argument that Mississippi has made good progress on I-69 and that it is deserving of Congressional assistance for SIU 11. More food for thought for the next long-term highway reauthorization.
Unless they've moved the SIU boundary, SIU 12 really starts at MS 1, since otherwise the bridge wouldn't actually connect to a highway on the Mississippi side of the river and thus lack independent utility.
And unless Congress gets back into the earmarking business and "appropriator" stops being a dirty word in DC, the best MDOT can really hope for is getting some design plans and ROW together and winning a federal "shovel ready" grant or two during the next recession, particularly given SIU 11 is almost entirely in a solidly Democratic congressional district that has no pull in Congress these days.
SIU 11 seems to consist of several sections of independent utility, both online upgrades of US61 to bypasses.
This video/ article (http://deltafarmpress.com/cotton/us-senate-taking-new-approach-problem-solving-part-ii) reports on a recent speech that Mississippi U. S. Senator Roger Wicker gave to the Delta Council in which he touted as an "accomplishment" the "longer term work that will eventually lead to the completion of Interstate 69 through the Mississippi Delta":
Quote
The renewed spirit of bipartisanship in the U.S. Senate has helped give new life to legislation such as the Iran nuclear agreement review bill, reform of the No Child Left Behind Act and trade promotion authority.
On a quieter note, bipartisanship has also been at work in the passage of such legislation as the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, which will help modernize the infrastructure of the country's ports and inland waterways.
"We also now have the same support for making critical upgrades to our roads and bridges," says Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., who gave the keynote address at this year's Delta Council annual meeting. "I share the belief of many Delta Council members that infrastructure can drive positive change in our communities and create jobs."
The senator pointed to two accomplishments — the permanent Amtrak stop in Marks, Miss., and the longer term work that will eventually lead to the completion of Interstate 69 through the Mississippi Delta.
"Of course, these roads and rail lines are taking people just anywhere," said Wicker. "They are bringing them to one of the most culturally rich places in the world — the Mississippi Delta." ....
Maybe, as the "accomplishment", the I-69 Congressional Caucus, for the next reauthorization, is working on a mechanism to somehow set aside funding to speed up progress on I-69 not only in Mississippi, but also in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Such an effort is hinted at in the last bullet point of this slide from the Louisiana section of an an April 22, 2015 state-by-state status updates presented to the I-69 Congressional Caucus PowerPoint (linked on this page (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/resource.html) (slide 17/54)):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZV6p0QX.jpg&hash=39a3dd639af2ba6bc67ecdccac1fe265cd9600a7)
Quote from: Grzrd on June 03, 2015, 12:33:06 PM
This video/ article (http://deltafarmpress.com/cotton/us-senate-taking-new-approach-problem-solving-part-ii) reports on a recent speech that Mississippi U. S. Senator Roger Wicker gave to the Delta Council in which he touted as an "accomplishment" the "longer term work that will eventually lead to the completion of Interstate 69 through the Mississippi Delta"
In a June 29 op-ed (http://hottytoddy.com/2015/06/29/wicker-highway-bill-key-to-critical-upgrades-economic-growth/), Senator Wicker suggests that the U.S. Senate EPW Committee's recently introduced DRIVE Act bill could provide funding for I-69 in Mississippi:
Quote
The recent introduction of a long-term highway bill is welcome news for communities across the country.
Enactment of a comprehensive, strategic transportation plan would give state and local leaders more certainty to invest in critical upgrades to aging roads and bridges. It also promises to pave the way for much-needed economic growth and job creation.
Titled the "Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy (DRIVE) Act," the bipartisan highway legislation could not come at a more opportune time. Unless Congress acts, federal highway funding is set to expire at the end of July. Since the last long-term transportation bill expired in 2009, Congress has passed dozens of temporary funding extensions. Rather than offering another quick fix, the DRIVE Act would authorize highway funds for the next six years.
Keeping Mississippi Competitive
Infrastructure investment is good for Mississippi. The quality of our roads and bridges is important to keeping Mississippians safe and commerce strong. More than $60 billion in goods move across our state each year. The DRIVE Act recognizes that an efficient transportation network helps us stay economically competitive and keeps costs down for consumers. New freight funding in the bill, for example, could advance projects like Mississippi's Interstate 69. ....
Both political parties recognize the importance of a high-quality transportation system and the role it plays in the well-being of our economy. The DRIVE Act earned approval from every member of the Senate EPW Committee. It now awaits consideration by the Commerce, Finance, and Banking committees before it can come to the Senate floor.
National policies should reflect current challenges, and surface transportation is no exception. Poor infrastructure and congestion affect Americans' everyday lives in profound ways, from the commute to work to the prices at the grocery store. It is past time for a transportation bill that truly invests in our country's long-term success.
I skimmed the text of the bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1647/text)and there's $2 billion dollars set aside in 2016, going up to $2.5 billion in 2021 for projects to upgrade the National Freight Network. The definition of what's eligible for funding seems pretty broad though.
There's also a pool of money for "assistance for major projects (that would cost over $350 million)" that starts at $300 million and ends at $450 million in 2021. The min. federal grant is $50 million.
Of course, the problem is actually funding the program and other committees are the ones handling that.
Will we ever see any more of Interstate 69 in Mississippi constructed within our lifetimes?
I think the Cleveland bypass has a good chance of being let in the next decade. It's one of the few good-sized towns in the state that doesn't have any sort of bypass already, and I don't think building it would be all that expensive (cheap land, not much topography to deal with, only a few interchanges and overpasses needed). The plans include a spur back to US 61 which I think MDOT plans to extend further southeast to US 82 at US 49W at some point.
If AHTD gets to work on the route east of Monticello it'd probably spur some action in Mississippi too; AHTD might be motivated by improving access to a big defense contractor in Camden which isn't far from the I-69 route.
Quote from: lordsutch on July 01, 2015, 01:47:27 AM
I think the Cleveland bypass has a good chance of being let in the next decade. It's one of the few good-sized towns in the state that doesn't have any sort of bypass already, and I don't think building it would be all that expensive (cheap land, not much topography to deal with, only a few interchanges and overpasses needed). The plans include a spur back to US 61 which I think MDOT plans to extend further southeast to US 82 at US 49W at some point.
A spur to extend it to US-82, it could be a revival of the "Grennville Spur" or "I-169" http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/i169.htm
Quote from: Grzrd on December 22, 2011, 02:10:42 PM
... planned sequential process for SIU 11 (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/District%201%20and%202/Archived%20Projects/Project%20Studies/I-69%20Section%2011%20-%20Robinsonville%20To%20Benoit/Executive%20Summary.pdf). [summary of progression is on page 9/18 of the pdf; page S-9 of the document]:
Quote
Subsequent to selection of the Preferred Alternative, the project was reviewed to consider the applicability of recent guidance on major projects receiving federal funding. Construction of the proposed I-69 SUI 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years. Therefore, the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. The five phases (sections) are detailed in Appendix G and summarized as follows:
Section 1: 18.465 miles, SR 304 Interchange to South of SR 4 Interchange
Anticipated Letting Date: 2016
Section 2: 31.549 miles, South of SR 4 Interchange to North of SR 6 Interchange
Anticipated Letting Date: 2022
Section 3: 48.160 miles, North of SR 6 Interchange to South of SR 446 Interchange
Anticipated Letting Date: 2019
Section 4: 22.807 miles, South of SR 446 Interchange to Great River Bridge
Anticipated Letting Date: 2026
Section 5: 17.764 miles, SR 1 at Rosedale to Cleveland
Anticipated Letting Date: 2029
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 30, 2015, 07:44:45 PM
Will we ever see any more of Interstate 69 in Mississippi constructed within our lifetimes?
Several years ago, it looked like completing I-69 to Tunica was the highest prioritized section. I do not know if that is still the case.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 04, 2013, 04:34:36 PM
... the transition from N/S SIU 9 to E/W SIU 10 makes references to I-69 in this June 16 article (http://msbusiness.com/blog/2013/06/16/proposed-road-widening-project-has-supporters-opponents/) about the proposed east-west widening of Star Landing Road of about six miles from Tulane Road west of I-55/69 to Getwell Road east of I-55/69 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Nesbit,+Hernando,+MS&hl=en&ll=34.904516,-89.991417&spn=0.108823,0.153637&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.145264,9.832764&oq=nesbit+ms&t=h&hnear=Nesbit,+Hernando,+DeSoto,+Mississippi&z=13), and which includes a proposed new interchange for I-55/69, a situation in which the reader has to be aware of I-69's route, and overlap with I-55, through that area:
Quote
Some 100 Star Landing residents and landowners were specifically invited to a recent public session in Southaven on the Star Landing Corridor.
... the proposed east-west widening of about six miles from Tulane Road in the west to Getwell Road on the county's east ....
Public comments will be incorporated into an environmental assessment ....
The deadline for completion of the assessment is May 2014 ... any "dirt work" may be four or five years away, provided funding is available ....
"A widened, safer Star Landing may be the primary road they'll use in the future between I-69 and Church Road." ....
In 2011, the average daily traffic count for Star Landing Road was 3,200. The figure is forecast by MDOT to soar to 37,000 vehicles per day between U.S. 51 and Interstate 55, due to planned developments along U.S. 51 and Star Landing and the addition of the proposed I-69 interchange at Star Landing. Meanwhile, traffic on Church and Goodman roads also is expected to soar ....
early studies for the Star Landing project envision ... a landscaped parkway of 22 miles, capped by a diamond-type interchange at I-55.
Quote from: lordsutch on September 05, 2015, 12:32:59 AM
Nail Rd and Star Landing Rd intersect I-55/69, not I-269.
(bottom quote from Interstate 269 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1329.msg2091370#msg2091370) thread)
This article, (http://www.desototimes.com/news/road-looks-open-for-mcingvale-exit/article_d5fe9882-5358-11e5-882d-1f64bd433620.html) primarily about the proposed McIngvale Road interchange on I-269, also briefly mentions the proposed Star Landing interchange on I-55/69
and the possibility of an interchange for Nail Road on I-55/69:
Quote
A long-sought McIngvale interstate exit at Hernando may be just around the corner, said Mississippi Northern District Transportation Commissioner Mike Tagert.
"It's possible within the next year" that a state and federal go-ahead could arrive, said Tagert.
He was in DeSoto County on Thursday to lead local and federal officials on a tour of Interstate 69/269 construction ....
And the needs don't stop at McIngvale.
Horn Lake Mayor Allen Latimer said, "What I'd also like to see is an interchange on Nail Road and for Starlanding. With all the development going on, this will help Southaven as well as Horn Lake to relieve congestion."
Quote from: Grzrd on September 05, 2015, 11:28:34 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 04, 2013, 04:34:36 PM
this June 16 article (http://msbusiness.com/blog/2013/06/16/proposed-road-widening-project-has-supporters-opponents/) about the proposed east-west widening of Star Landing Road of about six miles from Tulane Road west of I-55/69 to Getwell Road east of I-55/69 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Nesbit,+Hernando,+MS&hl=en&ll=34.904516,-89.991417&spn=0.108823,0.153637&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.145264,9.832764&oq=nesbit+ms&t=h&hnear=Nesbit,+Hernando,+DeSoto,+Mississippi&z=13), and which includes a proposed new interchange for I-55/69 ... :
Quote
... the proposed east-west widening of about six miles from Tulane Road in the west to Getwell Road on the county's east ....
early studies for the Star Landing project envision ... a landscaped parkway of 22 miles, capped by a diamond-type interchange at I-55.
.... This article (http://www.desototimes.com/news/road-looks-open-for-mcingvale-exit/article_d5fe9882-5358-11e5-882d-1f64bd433620.html) ... briefly mentions the proposed Star Landing interchange on I-55/69 and the possibility of an interchange for Nail Road on I-55/69:
Quote
Horn Lake Mayor Allen Latimer said, "What I'd also like to see is an interchange on Nail Road and for Starlanding. With all the development going on, this will help Southaven as well as Horn Lake to relieve congestion."
The Memphis Urban Area MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program ("TIP") (http://www.memphismpo.org/sites/default/files/public/2014-17%20TIP%20Adjusted%20August%2020%2C%202015.pdf) contains preliminary engineering and ROW plans to widen six miles of Star Landing Road that cross I-55/69 (p. 48/150 of pdf: p. 37 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlsvFMuD.jpg&hash=2b82933a605bb07ec0691e9ce549b91ab0448d28)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcoIFCBS.jpg&hash=f4021f6a48180356d253158de7d39676e1013c1a)
Maybe construction of an interchange will be coordinated with the widening construction.
As probable as a Star Landing interchange seems to be, this April 8, 2014 TV video (http://wreg.com/2014/04/08/new-interstate-interchange-unlikely/) reports that the possible Nail Road interchange at I-55/69 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nail+Rd+W,+Horn+Lake,+MS+38637/@34.9459945,-89.9984491,3407m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x87d5617fa184b351:0x454b88a9ab8a7f50) is unlikely for two primary reasons: (1) lack of MDOT money, and (2) the location of the proposed interchange is too close to two currently existing interchanges:
Quote
... the idea of an interstate interchange at Nail Road and I-55 that would come in just to the South of Southaven Towne Center.
DeSoto County leaders have pushed the idea for years, but learned at a recent economic development meeting, it will probably never happen ....
Not only would it bring new traffic, and potentially more business to Horn Lake and Southaven, it would also connect Nail that's split by I-55.
So what's the problem?
Transportation officials say Nail Road sits too close to Goodman, about a half mile to the north, and Church, about a mile to the south, and the three interchanges would sit too close together.
Mississippi Transportation leaders say they don't have the money, and there's no way the Federal Highway Administration will pay for it.
Horn Lake Mayor Allen Latimer says it's a critical project for his city.
" It is a major economic development issue with us."
While there's some hope an overpass will connect Nail, Latimer says that's not good enough, " I want an interchange." ....
DeSoto leaders say they don't intend to give up their pursuit of the project.
I think a Nail Road interchange would certainly be lower in priority than a Star Landing interchange.
The only way a full interchange at Nail Road is viable is with a C/D setup. Maybe something south-facing only would work, but I'd imagine most of the traffic that would want to get on/off at Nail (to access the shopping center east of I-55 without dealing with Goodman Road/SR 302 traffic) is from the north.
And that would be ridiculously expensive and too late to include in whatever widening is planned for Real Soon Now.
Texas style frontage roads, mumble mumble...
Quote from: yakra on September 19, 2015, 02:39:29 AM
Texas style frontage roads, mumble mumble...
I won't be surprised to see that coming, MSDOT did a setup similar to Texas service roads on I-55 between Lake Castle Road and West Jackson Street at Madison, just north of Jackson. http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=32.44431,-90.13560&z=15&t=M
Quote from: Grzrd on September 06, 2015, 01:59:47 PM
this April 8, 2014 TV video (http://wreg.com/2014/04/08/new-interstate-interchange-unlikely/) reports that the possible Nail Road interchange at I-55/69 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nail+Rd+W,+Horn+Lake,+MS+38637/@34.9459945,-89.9984491,3407m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x87d5617fa184b351:0x454b88a9ab8a7f50) is unlikely for two primary reasons: (1) lack of MDOT money, and (2) the location of the proposed interchange is too close to two currently existing interchanges:
Quote
Transportation officials say Nail Road sits too close to Goodman, about a half mile to the north, and Church, about a mile to the south, and the three interchanges would sit too close together.
Quote from: lordsutch on September 07, 2015, 11:35:28 PM
The only way a full interchange at Nail Road is viable is with a C/D setup. Maybe something south-facing only would work, but I'd imagine most of the traffic that would want to get on/off at Nail (to access the shopping center east of I-55 without dealing with Goodman Road/SR 302 traffic) is from the north.
And that would be ridiculously expensive and too late to include in whatever widening is planned for Real Soon Now.
Quote from: yakra on September 19, 2015, 02:39:29 AM
Texas style frontage roads, mumble mumble...
This article (http://www.commercialappeal.com/business/development/Mississippi-plans-new-I-55-cloverleaf-for-Southaven-mall-338004792.html) reports that Real Soon Now is rapidly approaching with MDOT planning to widen I-55/69 to ten lanes from Church Road northward and to rework the Church Road interchange, but there are apparently no plans to provide direct access to Nail Road:
Quote
Mississippi plans to widen Interstate 55 in Southaven to 10 lanes and build a new interchange to serve the Tanger regional mall going up at Church Road.
The Memphis suburb's road work, which could begin in 2018 and conclude in four years, would rank as one of the largest highway projects under way in Mississippi ....
Southaven Mayor Darren Musselwhite has said widening I-55 and building a new interchange could cost about $160 million, although highway engineers have not yet released a final estimate, said Jason Scott, spokesman for the Mississippi Department of Transportation.
"The large-scale project is widening I-55 from Church to just south of Goodman. As part of that project we are going to rework the interchange at I-55 and Church," Scott said. "One possible option is a cloverleaf with a loop inside the cloverleaf at the southeast quadrant of the interchange.''
Spurring the project is the traffic anticipated at the regional mall being built in Southaven just east of I-55 at Church Road. Tanger Factory Outlet Centers Inc. of Greensboro, North Carolina, said it expects to open the 1,000-employee mall on Nov. 20 ....
The freeway presently is six to eight lanes in Memphis between Interstate 240 and Southaven, and up to 10 lanes in Southaven up to Goodman Road, where it becomes four lanes. South of Church the freeway would remain four lanes.
I-269 intersects I-55 about five miles south of Church. I-269 is the outer loop being built 24 miles across the suburban Mississippi counties to connect with Tenn. 385 at Collierville. The Mississippi portion is scheduled for completion in 2018.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 21, 2015, 01:04:15 PM
I won't be surprised to see that coming, MSDOT did a setup similar to Texas service roads on I-55 between Lake Castle Road and West Jackson Street at Madison, just north of Jackson. http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=32.44431,-90.13560&z=15&t=M
I wonder if MDOT even considered a possible frontage road option for this project several years ago?
I didn't think it was very long that the current I-55/Goodman Road interchange was built in Southaven. There should have already been a project to widen I-55 from there to Hwy. 305/I-69 long ago.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 08, 2011, 11:38:59 PM
Clarksdale has recently installed "Future I-69 Corridor" signs along part of the SIU 11 corridor:
http://www.pressregister.com/articles/2011/04/06/news/doc4d9b12f614e3d422793615.txt
Quote
The unveiling of the "Future I-69" signs on the U.S. Highway 61 Bypass signals that Clarksdale will become part of the interstate system stretching from Canada to Mexico, Northern Highway Commissioner Mike Tagert observed Friday.
"The sign is not a small thing," said Tagert. "It's a game changer for the Mississippi Delta that starts the momentum for the future."
Quote from: Grzrd on December 22, 2011, 02:10:42 PM
... planned sequential process for SIU 11 (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/District%201%20and%202/Archived%20Projects/Project%20Studies/I-69%20Section%2011%20-%20Robinsonville%20To%20Benoit/Executive%20Summary.pdf). [summary of progression is on page 9/18 of the pdf; page S-9 of the document]:
Quote
... Construction of the proposed I-69 SUI 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years ... The five phases (sections) are detailed in Appendix G and summarized as follows:
....
Section 3: 48.160 miles, North of SR 6 Interchange to South of SR 446 Interchange
Anticipated Letting Date: 2019
....
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 21, 2015, 01:04:15 PM
Quote from: yakra on September 19, 2015, 02:39:29 AM
Texas style frontage roads, mumble mumble...
I won't be surprised to see that coming, MSDOT did a setup similar to Texas service roads on I-55 between Lake Castle Road and West Jackson Street at Madison, just north of Jackson. http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=32.44431,-90.13560&z=15&t=M
This November 3 article (behind paywall) (http://www.pressregister.com/news/article_cf677504-823b-11e5-9472-7bf55be62595.html) reports on Clarksdale's attempt to annex land along U.S. 61/ Future I-69 and includes an assessment from one individual that frontage roads would be part of the conversion to I-69 (although not any time in the foreseeable future; that said, construction on the "North of SR 6 Interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2024482,-90.5328623,13750m/data=!3m1!1e3) to South of SR 446 Interchange" phase of SIU 11 is currently scheduled to be the second construction phase of SIU 11, beginning in 2019*):
Quote
Attorneys for the county presented their case through Wednesday of last week, and the annexation trial is continued until Dec. 7, at which point counsel for the Town of Lyon and Coahoma County will call more witnesses and continue presenting its case in chief. Last week, the county called, as witnesses, Lyon mayor Woody Sawyer, Cliff Heaton, Bobo Kato, Lyon alderman Allen Foster, Jimmy Williams, the county fire chief, county administrator Daniel Vassel, Coahoma County Sheriff Deputy Fernando Bee, XXX Long, the director of public works for the Town of Lyon, and county supervisors Chris Overton and Dr. Roger Weiner. "They all did a good job," said attorney Jerry Mills ....
the area of Highway 61 Clarksdale wants to annex, which includes Shady Nook, is attractive to the city because of the potential development of Interstate 69. But Mills noted that development of I-69 isn't going to occur without any frontage roads. He added that Vassel testified he didn't think he'd see the development of that interstate this far south during his lifetime. As the city attorney for Ridgeland and Byrum, Mills said that experience "gives me a good base for how cities should operate." "Clarksdale has problems larger than any municipality I've worked for or against," Mills said. "One of the things we're going to be putting on is the rate of decline in Clarksdale is related to out-migration." He said Clarksdale has a higher rate of births than deaths, and therefore, the decline in population is due to people leaving the city. In the years between census population counts, the US Census Bureau estimates population annually, and Mills said in 2014, they estimated Clarksdale''s population to be right at 17,011 people, which Mills said would reflect a 900-person decline in four years. "At that rate, Clarksdale is losing 4 ½ people a week," Mills said. As the city and county go back and forth, call witnesses, crunch numbers and provide boxes of exhibits and evidence to support their claims, Mills said that "Lyon is in the fight of its life" during this trial. Mills also offered his opinion on the case as a whole. "My assessment of this case is that Clarkdale is attempting to annex its way to prosperity, and it can't be done," Mills said.
Clarksdale appears to be in a slow decline and is hoping that Future I-69 can at least slow the decline.
* This timetable is probably broken until Mississippi can find a way to increase its transportation funding.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 05, 2015, 11:28:34 AM
This article, (http://www.desototimes.com/news/road-looks-open-for-mcingvale-exit/article_d5fe9882-5358-11e5-882d-1f64bd433620.html) primarily about the proposed McIngvale Road interchange on I-269, also briefly mentions the proposed Star Landing interchange on I-55/69 and the possibility of an interchange for Nail Road on I-55/69:
Quote
Horn Lake Mayor Allen Latimer said, "What I'd also like to see is an interchange on Nail Road and for Starlanding.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 06, 2015, 01:59:47 PM
this April 8, 2014 TV video (http://wreg.com/2014/04/08/new-interstate-interchange-unlikely/) reports that the possible Nail Road interchange at I-55/69 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nail+Rd+W,+Horn+Lake,+MS+38637/@34.9459945,-89.9984491,3407m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x87d5617fa184b351:0x454b88a9ab8a7f50) is unlikely for two primary reasons: (1) lack of MDOT money, and (2) the location of the proposed interchange is too close to two currently existing interchanges:
Quote
... the idea of an interstate interchange at Nail Road and I-55 that would come in just to the South of Southaven Towne Center.
DeSoto County leaders have pushed the idea for years, but learned at a recent economic development meeting, it will probably never happen ....
Horn Lake Mayor Allen Latimer says it's a critical project for his city.
" It is a major economic development issue with us."
While there's some hope an overpass will connect Nail, Latimer says that's not good enough, I want an interchange." ....
DeSoto leaders say they don't intend to give up their pursuit of the project.
Quote from: Grzrd on October 29, 2015, 08:46:02 AM
This article (http://www.commercialappeal.com/business/development/Mississippi-plans-new-I-55-cloverleaf-for-Southaven-mall-338004792.html) reports that ... MDOT planning to widen I-55/69 to ten lanes from Church Road northward and to rework the Church Road interchange, but there are apparently no plans to provide direct access to Nail Road:
Quote
Southaven Mayor Darren Musselwhite has said widening I-55 and building a new interchange could cost about $160 million, although highway engineers have not yet released a final estimate, said Jason Scott, spokesman for the Mississippi Department of Transportation.
"The large-scale project is widening I-55 from Church to just south of Goodman. As part of that project we are going to rework the interchange at I-55 and Church," Scott said. "One possible option is a cloverleaf with a loop inside the cloverleaf at the southeast quadrant of the interchange.
The above-linked articles and video gave me the impression that Horn Lake Mayor Allen Latimer was a lone voice in the wilderness pursuing a Nail Road interchange; however, this November 3 article (http://www.desototimes.com/news/hunter-s-trace-ok-d-vet-students-assist-with-shelter/article_3cb657de-81c3-11e5-aaa3-0f822e794dc2.html) reports that Desoto County officials had a two-day fund-seeking meeting last week with Mississippi Congressmen (as well as Corps of Engineers and federal Transportation staff), with the meeting including the possibility of a Nail Road interchange:
Quote
Supervisor Gardner said the two-day meeting last week in Washington was "very productive." He and Supervisor Lee Caldwell of Nesbit, and county consultants, including Tracy Huffman of the Waggoner engineering firm, met with U.S. Rep. Trent Kelly, U.S. Sens. Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran, all R-Miss., plus Corps of Engineers and federal Transportation staff, on road and stormwater/flooding issues.
"We talked specifically about Holly Springs Road and Nail Road and Church Road interchanges," said Gardner. Funding is being sought to elevate flood-prone Holly Springs Road, a major east-west artery, and to handle rising traffic along Interstate 55, as I-69/269 links are being completed.
The "whirlwind" visit was complicated by problems at the D.C. airport what required diversion to Philadelphia, "and we had to catch a train to Washington," said Gardner.
With the plans for the Church Road interchange having not been finalized, it appears that, although the Nail Road interchange may be on life support, Desoto County officials may still have time to keep it alive.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 05, 2015, 11:28:34 AM
This article, (http://www.desototimes.com/news/road-looks-open-for-mcingvale-exit/article_d5fe9882-5358-11e5-882d-1f64bd433620.html) primarily about the proposed McIngvale Road interchange on I-269, also briefly mentions the proposed Star Landing interchange on I-55/69 ... :
Quote
Horn Lake Mayor Allen Latimer said, "What I'd also like to see is an interchange on Nail Road and for Starlanding."
This MDOT News Release (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Public%20Affairs/Lists/News%20Releases/Item/displayifs.aspx?List=ae1b236c%2D924d%2D498c%2Db14e%2Daafec6dc2864&ID=1698&Source=http%3A%2F%2Fspgomdot%2FPublic%2520Affairs%2FPages%2FNews%2DReleases%2Easpx&ContentTypeId=0x010087606675CA7A95408B80E8BFBB944273&IsDlg=2) announces plans to widen I-55 and I-55/69 in Desoto County, including construction of a new interchange for Star Landing Road beginning in mid-2019:
Quote
MDOT is currently developing plans that will increase the capacity of the Interstate 55 corridor to meet the growing transportation infrastructure needs in DeSoto County and throughout the region. These plans include two individual projects that will add additional lanes to Interstate 55 ....
The first project will widen Interstate 55 from Church Road north to State Route 302 in Southaven. The proposed plan will add one new lane in each direction in the median and two new lanes in each direction on the outside of existing Interstate 55. Construction is scheduled to begin in mid-2018. Once completed, this section of Interstate 55 will be 10 lanes. This project will also improve the interchange at Church Road.
The second project will widen Interstate 55 from Church Road south to Commerce Street in Hernando. This project will also include a new interchange at Star Landing Road. The proposed project will add one new lane in each direction in the median and one new lane in each direction on the outside of existing Interstate 55 from Interstate 269 to Church Road, and one new lane in each direction in the median from Interstate 269 to Commerce Street. Construction is scheduled to begin in mid-2019. Once completed, Interstate 55 will be six lanes from Interstate 269 to Commerce Street and eight lanes from Interstate 269 to Church Road ....
The cost of these two construction projects is currently estimated to be $164 million combined. While MDOT anticipates beginning these two projects in 2018 and 2019, respectively, those dates depend heavily on the availability of state and federal funding.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 05, 2015, 12:43:59 PM
this November 3 article (http://www.desototimes.com/news/hunter-s-trace-ok-d-vet-students-assist-with-shelter/article_3cb657de-81c3-11e5-aaa3-0f822e794dc2.html) reports that Desoto County officials had a two-day fund-seeking meeting last week with Mississippi Congressmen (as well as Corps of Engineers and federal Transportation staff), with the meeting including the possibility of a Nail Road interchange .... With the plans for the Church Road interchange having not been finalized, it appears that, although the Nail Road interchange may be on life support, Desoto County officials may still have time to keep it alive.
The MDOT News Release does not mention any plans for a Nail Road interchange. The News Release also does not mention any modifications to the I-55/I-69/Future I-269 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8603836,-89.9918149,1705m/data=!3m1!1e3); without looking at expected traffic volumes resulting from the anticipated economic growth in the area and basing my expectation purely on the addition of I-269 traffic and lanes to I-55 and I-55/69, I would expect the possibility of one or two flyover ramps being built on the interchange.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 10, 2015, 12:42:31 PM
This MDOT News Release (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Public%20Affairs/Lists/News%20Releases/Item/displayifs.aspx?List=ae1b236c%2D924d%2D498c%2Db14e%2Daafec6dc2864&ID=1698&Source=http%3A%2F%2Fspgomdot%2FPublic%2520Affairs%2FPages%2FNews%2DReleases%2Easpx&ContentTypeId=0x010087606675CA7A95408B80E8BFBB944273&IsDlg=2) .... The News Release also does not mention any modifications to the I-55/I-69/Future I-269 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8603836,-89.9918149,1705m/data=!3m1!1e3); without looking at expected traffic volumes resulting from the anticipated economic growth in the area and basing my expectation purely on the addition of I-269 traffic and lanes to I-55 and I-55/69, I would expect the possibility of one or two flyover ramps being built on the interchange.
With projected traffic flows (and possible flyover ramps) for I-55/69 South to I-269 (carrying traffic to I-22 East) and for I-269 to I-55 South (carrying traffic from I-40 West) in my mind, I emailed MDOT and asked if there would be any major modifications to the I-55/I-69/Future I-269 interchange related to the widening of I-55/69 and I-55 from Church Road to Commerce Street. Their response states that there are no current plans for such modification(s) to the interchange:
Quote
The interchange at I69/I55/I269 will only be changed to the extent it will be completed to give access onto and off of the future I269. Also the entire interchange will be receive a new asphalt overlay and an additional lane along I55 in both directions will become available. Currently this lane is hashed out.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 05, 2015, 12:43:59 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 05, 2015, 11:28:34 AM
This article (http://www.desototimes.com/news/road-looks-open-for-mcingvale-exit/article_d5fe9882-5358-11e5-882d-1f64bd433620.html):
Quote
Horn Lake Mayor Allen Latimer said, "What I'd also like to see is an interchange on Nail Road and for Starlanding.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 06, 2015, 01:59:47 PM
this April 8, 2014 TV video (http://wreg.com/2014/04/08/new-interstate-interchange-unlikely/):
Quote
While there's some hope an overpass will connect Nail, Latimer says that's not good enough, I want an interchange." ....
DeSoto leaders say they don't intend to give up their pursuit of the project.
this November 3 article (http://www.desototimes.com/news/hunter-s-trace-ok-d-vet-students-assist-with-shelter/article_3cb657de-81c3-11e5-aaa3-0f822e794dc2.html) reports that Desoto County officials had a two-day fund-seeking meeting last week with Mississippi Congressmen (as well as Corps of Engineers and federal Transportation staff), with the meeting including the possibility of a Nail Road interchange:
Quote
Supervisor Gardner ...
"We talked specifically about Holly Springs Road and Nail Road and Church Road interchanges," said Gardner.
Quote from: yakra on September 19, 2015, 02:39:29 AM
Texas style frontage roads, mumble mumble...
This December 30 article (http://www.desototimes.com/news/year-of-progress-in/article_6e342b46-af50-11e5-8bfd-b7a62e158e2f.html) reports that Horn Lake Mayor Latimer and the DeSoto County Board of Supervisors are still pursuing a Nail Road interchange on I-55/69:
Quote
Horn Lake Mayor Allen Latimer said his city also continues to make a steady march for progress ....
Latimer said the City of Horn Lake continues to seek county, state and federal assistance in construction of an interchange at Nail Road and Interstate 55, and in projects to control water passing within the city's boundaries.
"We would especially like to thank the DeSoto County Board of Supervisors for their support on these vital projects," Latimer said.
Maybe it
is time to start designing frontage roads in the area of a possible Nail Road interchange.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 04, 2015, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 08, 2011, 11:38:59 PM
Clarksdale has recently installed "Future I-69 Corridor" signs along part of the SIU 11 corridor:
http://www.pressregister.com/articles/2011/04/06/news/doc4d9b12f614e3d422793615.txt
Quote
The unveiling of the "Future I-69" signs on the U.S. Highway 61 Bypass signals that Clarksdale will become part of the interstate system stretching from Canada to Mexico, Northern Highway Commissioner Mike Tagert observed Friday.
"The sign is not a small thing," said Tagert. "It's a game changer for the Mississippi Delta that starts the momentum for the future."
Quote from: Grzrd on December 22, 2011, 02:10:42 PM
... planned sequential process for SIU 11 (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/District%201%20and%202/Archived%20Projects/Project%20Studies/I-69%20Section%2011%20-%20Robinsonville%20To%20Benoit/Executive%20Summary.pdf). [summary of progression is on page 9/18 of the pdf; page S-9 of the document]:
Quote
... Construction of the proposed I-69 SUI 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years ... The five phases (sections) are detailed in Appendix G and summarized as follows:
....
Section 3: 48.160 miles, North of SR 6 Interchange to South of SR 446 Interchange
Anticipated Letting Date: 2019
....
This November 3 article (behind paywall) (http://www.pressregister.com/news/article_cf677504-823b-11e5-9472-7bf55be62595.html) reports on Clarksdale's attempt to annex land along U.S. 61/ Future I-69 and includes an assessment from one individual that frontage roads would be part of the conversion to I-69 (although not any time in the foreseeable future; that said, construction on the "North of SR 6 Interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2024482,-90.5328623,13750m/data=!3m1!1e3) to South of SR 446 Interchange" phase of SIU 11 is currently scheduled to be the second construction phase of SIU 11, beginning in 2019*) ....
* This timetable is probably broken until Mississippi can find a way to increase its transportation funding.
I recently took a look at June 2014 Google StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1761473,-90.5357694,3a,75y,130.42h,86.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk7PKBTMzLDZzjuB3kcq_Cw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) of Clarksdale's Future I-69 Corridor sign and was mildly surprised to see that it includes a non-neutered "Mississippi" I-69 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdHqxgTc.png&hash=35f06477bd78e136e7647904c6c748bd109c24f7)
This sign was installed before MAP-21 was enacted and allowed I-69 designations (and related shield installations) of disconnected interstate-grade sections of I-69. I
think this section of the Clarksdale Bypass is interstate-grade. Given MDOT's money woes, could MDOT assert that the Clarksdale Bypass will have an interstate connection to I-69 in northern Mississippi by 2037, and, in turn, get FHWA approval to install I-69 shields now?
So, basically, no new portions of Interstate 69 in Mississippi will be constructed anytime soon.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 15, 2016, 01:47:37 PM
I recently took a look at June 2014 Google StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1761473,-90.5357694,3a,75y,130.42h,86.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk7PKBTMzLDZzjuB3kcq_Cw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) of Clarksdale's Future I-69 Corridor sign and was mildly surprised to see that it includes a non-neutered "Mississippi" I-69 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdHqxgTc.png&hash=35f06477bd78e136e7647904c6c748bd109c24f7)
This sign was installed before MAP-21 was enacted and allowed I-69 designations (and related shield installations) of disconnected interstate-grade sections of I-69. I think this section of the Clarksdale Bypass is interstate-grade. Given MDOT's money woes, could MDOT assert that the Clarksdale Bypass will have an interstate connection to I-69 in northern Mississippi by 2037, and, in turn, get FHWA approval to install I-69 shields now?
I think FHWA would want to see it listed in the LRTP at the very least before authorizing such a thing. My guess is MDOT's higher priorities for I-69 SIUs 11-12 are the crossing into Arkansas, for more redundancy in case of a bridge strike at Greenville or Helena, or when the Big One takes out Helena as it surely will, and bypassing Cleveland and Boyle; neither of these would connect to anything in Clarksdale. MDOT would also have to pave the shoulders to full width.
I guess it would be an excuse to move the US 49/61 crossing back to the historic intersection downtown but technically I-69's approved route doesn't encompass all of the existing bypass anyway (it veers off just south of the northern end to avoid some development along US 61).
Perhaps the best that can be hoped for to see anything much get done (not to get too political) is Hillary getting elected and resurrecting the Delta Regional Authority, which was a Clinton pet project in the 1990s and has been limping along ever since.
Quote from: lordsutch on February 16, 2016, 06:52:56 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 15, 2016, 01:47:37 PM
I recently took a look at June 2014 Google StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1761473,-90.5357694,3a,75y,130.42h,86.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk7PKBTMzLDZzjuB3kcq_Cw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) of Clarksdale's Future I-69 Corridor sign and was mildly surprised to see that it includes a non-neutered "Mississippi" I-69 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdHqxgTc.png&hash=35f06477bd78e136e7647904c6c748bd109c24f7)
This sign was installed before MAP-21 was enacted and allowed I-69 designations (and related shield installations) of disconnected interstate-grade sections of I-69. I think this section of the Clarksdale Bypass is interstate-grade. Given MDOT's money woes, could MDOT assert that the Clarksdale Bypass will have an interstate connection to I-69 in northern Mississippi by 2037, and, in turn, get FHWA approval to install I-69 shields now?
I think FHWA would want to see it listed in the LRTP at the very least before authorizing such a thing. My guess is MDOT's higher priorities for I-69 SIUs 11-12 are the crossing into Arkansas, for more redundancy in case of a bridge strike at Greenville or Helena, or when the Big One takes out Helena as it surely will, and bypassing Cleveland and Boyle; neither of these would connect to anything in Clarksdale. MDOT would also have to pave the shoulders to full width.
I guess it would be an excuse to move the US 49/61 crossing back to the historic intersection downtown but technically I-69's approved route doesn't encompass all of the existing bypass anyway (it veers off just south of the northern end to avoid some development along US 61).
Perhaps the best that can be hoped for to see anything much get done (not to get too political) is Hillary getting elected and resurrecting the Delta Regional Authority, which was a Clinton pet project in the 1990s and has been limping along ever since.
Looking at MDOT's 2015-2020 STIP, it looks like even spot upgrades for US-61 within the I-69 corridor have been taken off the table.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 08, 2011, 11:38:59 PM
A ROD was issued for SIU 11 in the latter part of 2010. Here is a [snip of] a map of SIU 11:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3KECN.jpg&hash=ba8fca7c4018ea9a80b651838f44086bbee1875f)
Quote from: Grzrd on February 15, 2016, 01:47:37 PM
I recently took a look at June 2014 Google StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1761473,-90.5357694,3a,75y,130.42h,86.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk7PKBTMzLDZzjuB3kcq_Cw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) of Clarksdale's Future I-69 Corridor sign and was mildly surprised to see that it includes a non-neutered "Mississippi" I-69 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdHqxgTc.png&hash=35f06477bd78e136e7647904c6c748bd109c24f7)
I was even more surprised to discover that MDOT's Five Year Plan (http://mdot.ms.gov/applications/five_year_plan/Five_Year_Plan.aspx) now includes $1 million in FY 2016 preliminary engineering for I-69 SIU 11 from Clarksdale to Eagles Nest (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2481573,-90.5748146,26373m/data=!3m1!1e3):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6Px2xA1.png&hash=ee41cc1b1f117f6c2eb630a04c258d7f0b682d07)
MDOT must be confident that some form of increased state-level funding will be forthcoming in the near future.
edit
Here is a snip from the map included in the Details section of the project listing (http://mdot.ms.gov/applications/five_year_plan/Views/Details.aspx?Proj=103104/102000):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPCShh0q.png&hash=aac0d48503e6db00749dc865242711dbc6542486)
Looks like it will mostly be new terrain construction.
That is a seemingly random spot to start.
Actually it makes a bit of sense, since it would connect to the north end of the existing, fully-access-controlled Clarksdale bypass and have independent utility without needing an interim connection back to existing US 61 like other shortish segments. It's one of the more built-up sections too, relatively-speaking.
I guess I was thinking it would make sense to start where the current I-69 stub ends, but that works, too.
I believe the approved plan for continuing south of MS 713 requires about 15 miles of new-terrain construction to get over to US 61 south of Tunica (the town proper) due to some 4(f) properties along the existing US 61 right-of-way. That would be a very large project to let in a single contract by MDOT standards - they only managed to do it with I-269 by using DeSoto County's bonding capacity, and Tunica County can't draw the credit to front a project that big even with the casinos.
The next bit north of Eagles Nest is an on-line upgrade of the existing four-lane to the U.S. 61/49 split, which would make it the next logical project unless SIU 12 comes to fruition first.
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 10, 2016, 03:33:24 PM
I guess I was thinking it would make sense to start where the current I-69 stub ends, but that works, too.
The downside of addressing the most glaring needs/improvements first is that it can sit years and decades ready for an Interstate designation but because it's not connected exist without an Interstate shield.
I hope US278 is routed onto the new Mississippi River bridge. US278 needs a more direct connection between its sections east and west of the river.
Quote from: lordsutch on May 10, 2016, 03:15:22 PM
Actually it makes a bit of sense, since it would connect to the north end of the existing, fully-access-controlled Clarksdale bypass and have independent utility without needing an interim connection back to existing US 61 like other shortish segments ....
Quote from: lordsutch on May 10, 2016, 03:52:25 PM
.... The next bit north of Eagles Nest is an on-line upgrade of the existing four-lane to the U.S. 61/49 split, which would make it the next logical project unless SIU 12 comes to fruition first.
A section completed from the north end of the Clarksdale bypass to the U.S. 61/49 split could also have a dual utility as part of the Brinkley to Batesville Highway Corridor (https://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2012/110549/Proposed%20Corridor%20Summaries%20(2).pdf), as shown in this snip from one of the alternatives (p. 6/10 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FolkTi3v.jpg&hash=ab6ad2876bd451c425f348a9e4dfe6100e13f250)
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 10, 2016, 08:44:23 PM
I hope US278 is routed onto the new Mississippi River bridge. US278 needs a more direct connection between its sections east and west of the river.
That has always been (quasi-officially at least) the intent, otherwise its wonky routing makes even less sense than it already does; it really should have followed the MS 8 corridor in Mississippi rather than MS 6, but that argument was lost 15 years ago.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 10, 2016, 10:07:19 PM
A section completed from the north end of the Clarksdale bypass to the U.S. 61/49 split could also have a dual utility as part of the Brinkley to Batesville Highway Corridor (https://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2012/110549/Proposed%20Corridor%20Summaries%20(2).pdf), as shown in this snip from one of the alternatives (p. 6/10 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FolkTi3v.jpg&hash=ab6ad2876bd451c425f348a9e4dfe6100e13f250)
Anyone with a lick of sense will cut the hypotenuse on that one; there's a decently-maintained county road north of Marks off MS 3 (Birdie-Darling Road) that will take you over to MS 315 which was reconstructed for some reason or another to bypass Rich back in the early 2000s. MS 316 would be faster too.
Quote from: lordsutchAnyone with a lick of sense will cut the hypotenuse on that one; there's a decently-maintained county road north of Marks off MS 3 (Birdie-Darling Road) that will take you over to MS 315 which was reconstructed for some reason or another to bypass Rich back in the early 2000s. MS 316 would be faster too.
However, as a corridor, that "cutting the hypotenuse" doesn't dovetail with MDOT's goal of providing a 4-lane MS 6 between Clarksdale and Batesville.
I would rather see the Batesville Brinkley corridor drop Brinkley in favor of Forrest City to use lots of that existing Ark 1 4-lane already there. Brinkley is pretty much dead now, they even lost their Walmart.
Quote from: froggie on May 11, 2016, 07:44:53 AM
However, as a corridor, that "cutting the hypotenuse" doesn't dovetail with MDOT's goal of providing a 4-lane MS 6 between Clarksdale and Batesville.
True. Although unless something has changed in the past decade, the only real short-to-medium term justification for 4-laning MS 6/US 278 west of Batesville is safety; traffic-wise passing lanes would probably suffice. Long-term I could see the connectivity added by I-69 making the corridor (along with Corridor V to the east) a decent freight bypass for traffic headed to/from Huntsville, Chattanooga, and the I-81 corridor, even with the Batesville bypass being shelved.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 10, 2016, 02:31:03 PM
Here is a snip from the map included in the Details section of the project listing (http://mdot.ms.gov/applications/five_year_plan/Views/Details.aspx?Proj=103104/102000):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPCShh0q.png&hash=aac0d48503e6db00749dc865242711dbc6542486)
Looks like it will mostly be new terrain construction.
MDOT recently re-posted the I-69 SIU 11 FEIS and ROD (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/Pages/Projects.aspx?RootFolder=%2FEnvironmental%2FEnvironmental%20Projects%2FI%2D69%20from%20Benoit%20to%20Robinsonville&FolderCTID=0x012000ED771D25C0211643833FC9F36E7B9E45&View=%7b5A9868A7-E687-4B7E-85A2-5F170FE3AA55%7d). The FEIS (http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/environmental/I-69%20SIU%2011%20-%20Final%20Environmental%20Impact%20Statement.pdf) explains that "development near Lyon" necessitates new terrain construction: (p.75/1447 of pdf; p. 2-22 of document):
Quote
The Western, Central, and Eastern Alternatives are identical for the middle section of the study area. The middle section begins at the south end of the New Africa Road Interchange and ends approximately four miles south of the Coahoma/Tunica County Line. The alternatives would use the current Clarksdale Bypass south and east of Clarksdale. To avoid development near Lyon, the alternatives leave US 49/US 61 to the east and turn north to parallel US 49/ US 61. They rejoin US 49/ US 61 north of Eagles Nest Road and end approximately four miles south of the Coahoma/Tunica County Line, where the three major alternatives split in the northern section.
The following interchanges, spurs, and crossroad connectivity improvements are identified with the middle section:
- US 49 Interchange (includes a five-lane connecting road from the interchange northwest to the Old US 61 intersection in Clarksdale)
- SR 6 Interchange
- Eagles Nest Road Interchange
- Eagles Nest Road Spur
- Coahoma Interchange; also upgrade county road west to SR 1 and SR 316 east to Jonestown
Also from the Details page, here is a snip showing the current $495 million estimated cost to complete SIU 11:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSPEBXBo.png&hash=0f34ff4adf9bf484284f14f091f2368bd03ca681)
That figure may seem miniscule about a quarter-century from now.
I have a feeling that even a quarter century from now, no more of Interstate 69 will exist in Mississippi than what already exists today. Same with Arkansas and Louisiana.
I think the only hope of getting that I-69 corridor in MS & AR fast-tracked at all is if the federal government suddenly decided the Great River Bridge was a high priority and funded the project entirely. That bridge is never going to get built if it's up to Arkansas and Mississippi to arrive at some kind of agreement and pay for it themselves.
In the short term that's fine by me. If it were up to me (which it isn't), I'd prefer Arkansas concentrate on getting I-49 built. That's going to be a slow and costly enough slog. Hopefully the Arkansas river bridge by Fort Smith can be built sometime soon. At least it's not going to carry a billion dollar price tag like the I-69 bridge over the Mississippi.
One can only hope that I-69 does not end up being another I-73/I-74, seeing that TX is the most serious about building out its sections. Good to see that KY, TN and IN are also finishing their own sections as well.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 19, 2016, 10:28:35 AM
I think the only hope of getting that I-69 corridor in MS & AR fast-tracked at all is if the federal government suddenly decided the Great River Bridge was a high priority and funded the project entirely. That bridge is never going to get built if it's up to Arkansas and Mississippi to arrive at some kind of agreement and pay for it themselves.
And don't forget LA either. I haven't heard of any new plans to build it through there. And I have a feeling that the I-49 bridge will get built before the I-69 one does.
I'm sure someone will get pissed, but once again, they should just go back and redraw it from Texarkana to Lake Village using the basic path of US 82, use the new bridge there as the I-69 crossing, extend 530 to Hamburg and I-69 just run all the way down to Greenville on the MS side. Any bridge money is better spent further upstream.
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 19, 2016, 12:37:41 PM
I'm sure someone will get pissed, but once again, they should just go back and redraw it from Texarkana to Lake Village using the basic path of US 82, use the new bridge there as the I-69 crossing, extend 530 to Hamburg and I-69 just run all the way down to Greenville on the MS side. Any bridge money is better spent further upstream.
If they are going to try that, might as well just truncate it at Monticello and extend I-530 down to I-20 in Monroe, then down US 165 to I-10 in Iowa/Lake Charles. I-69/I-369 to Texarkana, I-30 to Little Rock, and completing the US 67 freeway to Popular Bluff or Festus can fill in the remaining blanks.
I'm jumping into this discussion very late, but I'm interested in everyone's honest opinion on this. Do any of you all think that 69 is needed at all in Miss?
It's not needed as long as the Great River Bridge remains unfunded. Hypothetically speaking, even if the Great River Bridge was going to get built sometime in the near future I would still have a pretty negative opinion of I-69 in Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and Southern Indiana for the very crooked path I-69 is following through those regions. For long distance traffic I-69 will offer nothing in terms of time and mileage savings. The only reasonably straight routes I-69 will have is in Texas (and there are a few odd twists and turns there too). Older existing Interstate highways follow far more direct paths.
I don't think it's needed either, I just don't see how this will help the state. 269 looks like it will, but 69 i don't think so.
Officials probably think I-69 will open up the Mississippi delta to tourists and for economic development. US 61 already provides most of the regional mobility that I-69 would provide (with the exception of the Great River Bridge).
It's likely that the proposed alignment of the portion of I-69 from Shreveport to Memphis is largely a political animal. The southern tier of Arkansas has historically been the least recognized -- as well as visited -- part of the state -- with the usual assortment of economic shortcomings endemic to such areas. I-69 (and its 530 connection) are being promoted as a means of "kick-starting" the regional economy via enhanced access. In Mississippi, it is principally the desire to establish the Mississippi Delta region as a historically significant area (i.e., the "home of the blues"); while US 61 is certainly able to accommodate traffic as it exists today, the extension of I-69 is seen as a way to expedite an anticipated increase in regional recreational usage (a smaller & more limited version of which has resulted in the initial I-69 deployment near Tunica, promoted a decade ago by the gaming interests in the area).
In the long run, this segment of I-69 may function as a "relief route" for I-30/40 traffic to the north, but for now its development is predicated upon speculation and anticipation.
Quote from: sparker on August 21, 2016, 05:03:46 PM
It's likely that the proposed alignment of the portion of I-69 from Shreveport to Memphis is largely a political animal. The southern tier of Arkansas has historically been the least recognized -- as well as visited -- part of the state -- with the usual assortment of economic shortcomings endemic to such areas. I-69 (and its 530 connection) are being promoted as a means of "kick-starting" the regional economy via enhanced access. In Mississippi, it is principally the desire to establish the Mississippi Delta region as a historically significant area (i.e., the "home of the blues"); while US 61 is certainly able to accommodate traffic as it exists today, the extension of I-69 is seen as a way to expedite an anticipated increase in regional recreational usage (a smaller & more limited version of which has resulted in the initial I-69 deployment near Tunica, promoted a decade ago by the gaming interests in the area).
In the long run, this segment of I-69 may function as a "relief route" for I-30/40 traffic to the north, but for now its development is predicated upon speculation and anticipation.
It is actually only there because of trent lott, but I'm more interested in your opinions on if it's needed rather than politics. It doesn't seem like 69 will get built any time soon south of Memphis. Louisiana doesn't seem interested and Mississippi has done barely anything besides the southaven area.
OK -- right now, given the traffic flow between Texas and Memphis, it's probably not required; the combination of I-30 & I-40 can and do handle it adequately (although the I-40 segment between Little Rock & Memphis is starting to exhibit some congestion). If I-69 (and/or its branch I-369) is completed in Texas and deposits considerably more traffic on that existing corridor, then it is likely that some sort of "relief route" would be appropriate; I-69, as presently planned, would be the most likely candidate to fill that bill. Arkansas is making halting progress on their portion of the route (the nascent Monticello bypass); one of the main hangups in LA (compounded by local Shreveport politics) is lack of an agreement with TX regarding just where the route crosses the state line. With MS it's simply a lack of $$.
Like it or not, pure, raw statistical need and politics, both local and national, are the two sides of any developmental coin. Under most circumstances, both are needed to advance a proposal to actual implementation; but in some instances political will can -- and has -- proved enough to get a project under way (just look at NC and TX for multiple examples!).
I think it will take Texas completing its segments of I-69 between Houston and the LA state line at Logansport before Louisiana and Arkansas turn I-69 into a top priority. That won't happen for several years.
In Texas there is a big question of which Northerly segment of I-69 TX DOT will build first. Will they build the I-69 segment between Tenaha and Logansport before finishing I-369 between Tenaha and Texarkana? The Texarkana leg may be a higher priority. It would do more to serve Texas' own needs. And it would do more to help I-49 construction efforts between Texarkana and Fort Smith. Arkansas has other I-49 projects to complete, I-57 in NE AR, I-530 in SE AR.
Louisiana has its own priorities of I-49 projects over I-69. There's the in progress project to complete I-49 to I-220 in Shreveport, the Shreveport inter city connector, the big projects in Lafayette and the rest of I-49 South to New Orleans. I-69 would be a costly diversion to those efforts.
Best case for I-69 in Arkansas for the near future: the Warren to Monticello segment could be completed as part of finishing I-530 to serve regional traffic needs. Outside of that I-69 takes a pretty crooked, winding path. The proposed path dodges well North and West of El Dorado.
It could be possible for Mississippi to kick start I-69 projects if/when Tennessee, Kentucky and Indiana finish their I-69 projects. I think those I-69 efforts will be done to serve Memphis regional traffic more than anything else.
It will be interesting to see what the final cost will be for the Great River Bridge if/when it is ever built. With all the years of delays taking place that will give time for a lot more construction price inflation to keep boosting the price.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 22, 2016, 11:53:02 AM
I think it will take Texas completing its segments of I-69 between Houston and the LA state line at Logansport before Louisiana and Arkansas turn I-69 into a top priority. That won't happen for several years.
In Texas there is a big question of which Northerly segment of I-69 TX DOT will build first. Will they build the I-69 segment between Tenaha and Logansport before finishing I-369 between Tenaha and Texarkana? The Texarkana leg may be a higher priority. It would do more to serve Texas' own needs. And it would do more to help I-49 construction efforts between Texarkana and Fort Smith. Arkansas has other I-49 projects to complete, I-57 in NE AR, I-530 in SE AR.
Louisiana has its own priorities of I-49 projects over I-69. There's the in progress project to complete I-49 to I-220 in Shreveport, the Shreveport inter city connector, the big projects in Lafayette and the rest of I-49 South to New Orleans. I-69 would be a costly diversion to those efforts.
Best case for I-69 in Arkansas for the near future: the Warren to Monticello segment could be completed as part of finishing I-530 to serve regional traffic needs. Outside of that I-69 takes a pretty crooked, winding path. The proposed path dodges well North and West of El Dorado.
It could be possible for Mississippi to kick start I-69 projects if/when Tennessee, Kentucky and Indiana finish their I-69 projects. I think those I-69 efforts will be done to serve Memphis regional traffic more than anything else.
It will be interesting to see what the final cost will be for the Great River Bridge if/when it is ever built. With all the years of delays taking place that will give time for a lot more construction price inflation to keep boosting the price.
I believe Indiana will be done with 69 in around 2020, Kentucky is almost done as well. the only hang up is the Ohio river bridge. That is in the environmental phase.
Kentucky is almost done with its portion of I-69, thanks to routing it mostly on existing parkways. That big, distance wasting "L" shape I-69 takes on the Western Kentucky Parkway and Pennyrile Parkway is a giant face-palm IMHO. It's one of the many turns and bends that will make I-69 a pretty ineffective relief route for other far more straight routes like I-30, I-40, I-55 and I-57. I-69 in Kentucky should have went diagonal from Henderson down to the Purchase Parkway junction with I-24. That would have made more sense.
The bendy I-69 road may serve a lot of local and regional interests okay, but it's going to be lousy for the purpose sold to taxpayers: being a main road between Mexico and Canada. I think that kind of traffic is going to stick with other far more straight routes.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 22, 2016, 12:37:24 PM
Kentucky is almost done with its portion of I-69, thanks to routing it mostly on existing parkways. That big, distance wasting "L" shape I-69 takes on the Western Kentucky Parkway and Pennyrile Parkway is a giant face-palm IMHO. It's one of the many turns and bends that will make I-69 a pretty ineffective relief route for other far more straight routes like I-30, I-40, I-55 and I-57. I-69 in Kentucky should have went diagonal from Henderson down to the Purchase Parkway junction with I-24. That would have made more sense.
The bendy I-69 road may serve a lot of local and regional interests okay, but it's going to be lousy for the purpose sold to taxpayers: being a main road between Mexico and Canada. I think that kind of traffic is going to stick with other far more straight routes.
I've always thought that reason was bullshit, there are plenty of existing interstates that made that reason superfluous. That reason was once again a political one.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 22, 2016, 12:37:24 PM
The bendy I-69 road may serve a lot of local and regional interests okay, but it's going to be lousy for the purpose sold to taxpayers: being a main road between Mexico and Canada. I think that kind of traffic is going to stick with other far more straight routes.
The reality is that most traffic doesn't take
any road end-to-end; how many folks start out in Knoxville and end up in Scranton, or vice versa? How much traffic really goes from Tijuana to Vancouver and back? The point of any highway is to add connectivity and contribute to the broader network.
In any event, a direct routing from Calvert City to Henderson really wouldn't save much time. A straight line routing would be about 28 miles shorter, but realistically any new route would have involved serving Marion and Morganfield at least, increasing the mileage; moreover, I doubt Kentucky would have sprung for new crossings of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, so the distance savings would be substantially less.
the sole reason the the routing in kentucky was it was cheaper. they studied a new terrain route, and it was deemed too expensive. it think that it is fine where it ended up.
Interstate 69 in LA, MS and AR will likely be the last portions of Interstate 69 to be constructed, if at all.
With the election season nearing an end, it looks like MDOT is already lobbying to try and get more money from the state legislature. This Oct. 31 article (http://www.meridianstar.com/news/state/tagert-projects-to-expand-highway-capacity-will-end-by/article_53584d59-7972-5f8c-b64c-ef60fd278110.html) reports that Transportation Commissioner Mike Tagert says that all new capacity projects will end in 2018 unless new money is provided:
Quote
The Mississippi Department of Transportation will be forced to end all projects aimed at expanding highway capacity after 2018, Transportation Commissioner Mike Tagert said at a Mississippi Today event Friday at Millsaps College.
"After the year 2018, we will not have any new construction in our state based on the current projections," Tagert said, noting that rising construction costs and a static funding formula are squeezing the agency's ability to do more than basic maintenance on the state's highways.
"We will not be able to embark on any new capacity projects, and we have plenty of needs in that area," Tagert said at Mississippi Today's "Coffee and Conversation" event ....
"We're trying to essentially build 2016 roads and bridges with 1987 level funding," he said. "Therein lies the problem. It's a complicated issue but in some ways, is very simple. Over time the price index for everything has risen dramatically – three to four hundred percent in some cases." ....
With a legislature that is reluctant to raise taxes, Tagert said maintenance may be all the department will be able to do in the future.
"We love to build new roads and bridges, as you can imagine," Tagert said, "but under circumstances, it would be irresponsible to build new roads and bridges if we are not able to maintain our current roads and bridges. ... (we) have become the Department of Maintenance." ....
Tagert sees a growing interest among legislators in infrastructure issues that he believes will in time prompt legislative action. A major push last year led by the Mississippi Economic Council to spend $375 million more per year on state highway construction gained little traction in the 2016 legislative session.
"I think that there are a lot of differing opinions on how we get to a solution (on repairing roads and bridges)," Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said when the session ended. Reeves said he supports more revenue for highway construction, but has not indicated where that money might come from.
"I don't think that in this legislative session, there was ever a consensus on how to fix the challenge of needing to spend more money on roads and bridges," Reeves said when the legislative session ended. "To be fair, we are going to spend a little over a billion dollars this year on roads and bridges." ...
"We need a long term investment plan for infrastructure in our state," Tagert said. "The model of the user fee, the fuel tax, is something that is accepted nationally. And even in the lowest social, financial class, even those people benefit directly from an adequate transportation system. It has a tremendous impact on everything." ....
The Transportation Department is looking at the potential for toll roads in high traffic volume areas of the state: DeSoto County, the Jackson metropolitan area and the Gulf Coast ....
Some approaches used for highway funding, such as taxing cars on miles driven, won't necessarily work in a rural state like Mississippi.
Looks like 2017 will be an interesting year.
ms is screwed. i don't seeing this highway being built anytime soon.
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 06, 2016, 03:25:02 PM
ms is screwed. i don't seeing this highway being built anytime soon.
Out of all of the I-69 segments, the one between Memphis and Shreveport, in its current form, I think stands the least chance of happening.
I am not really sure what projects rank as the top priority for the state of Mississippi, but I imagine that there are several different projects that are more important than this one.
I've asked this a different way before (about 69 exclusively), but in general, does ms need any new terrain interstates at all?
Quote from: silverback1065I've asked this a different way before (about 69 exclusively), but in general, does ms need any new terrain interstates at all?
An argument could be made for US 49 from Jackson to the Gulf Coast. Otherwise, aside from connecting I-22 to the Memphis Interstate system in some fashion, the answer is no.
Louisiana needs nothing at all from an I-69 except a new Red River crossing. Even then, you don't need a new interstate for that.
I can't say I'm particularly surprised; MDOT already had said (going back to Vision 21) that without dedicated funding there's no way either I-69 or a US 49 freeway corridor could be financed without innovative financing or an injection of federal funds from the DRA or elsewhere.
The question is whether the will is there to even finish what is remains of the four-lane program and Vision 21 (like the US 82 Greenville bypass, MS 15 from US 72 to I-10, US 278/MS 6 four-laning from Batesville to Clarksdale, etc.) by raising state taxes, like recently happened in Georgia.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 10, 2016, 02:31:03 PM
I was even more surprised to discover that MDOT's Five Year Plan (http://mdot.ms.gov/applications/five_year_plan/Five_Year_Plan.aspx) now includes $1 million in FY 2016 preliminary engineering for I-69 SIU 11 from Clarksdale to Eagles Nest (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2481573,-90.5748146,26373m/data=!3m1!1e3):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6Px2xA1.png&hash=ee41cc1b1f117f6c2eb630a04c258d7f0b682d07)
MDOT has more preliminary engineering planned for I-69 in 2017, this time from the DeSoto county line to Arkabutla Dam Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8110574,-90.2538429,13065m/data=!3m1!1e3):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_06_12_16_1_34_32.png)
From the 2017-20 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (http://mdot.ms.gov/FiveYearPlanData/Current%20STIP/2017-2020%20STIP%20Final.pdf) (p. 50/385 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_06_12_16_1_56_54.png)
Quote from: Grzrd on January 01, 2016, 10:54:39 PM
This December 30 ar[ticle (http://www.desototimes.com/news/year-of-progress-in/article_6e342b46-af50-11e5-8bfd-b7a62e158e2f.html) reports that Horn Lake Mayor Latimer and the DeSoto County Board of Supervisors are still pursuing a Nail Road interchange on I-55/69:
Quote
Horn Lake Mayor Allen Latimer said his city also continues to make a steady march for progress ....
Latimer said the City of Horn Lake continues to seek county, state and federal assistance in construction of an interchange at Nail Road and Interstate 55, and in projects to control water passing within the city's boundaries.
"We would especially like to thank the DeSoto County Board of Supervisors for their support on these vital projects," Latimer said.
Quote from: mwb1848 on December 06, 2016, 10:09:57 PM
I remain consistently amazed at how slowly highway projects move in Mississippi .... Contrast all of that with how quickly projects advance in Texas, where I've made my home for the last 11 years .... Entire freeway projects in Texas get planned, funded, constructed, opened, and expanded in the time that it takes MDOT to figure out where it wants to put an interchange.
(bottom quote from Mississippi (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=97.msg2191209#msg2191209) thread)
At least Latimer got a hydraulic study for the Nail Road interchange on Interstate 55/69 included in the
Final 2017-20 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (http://mdot.ms.gov/FiveYearPlanData/Current%20STIP/2017-2020%20STIP%20Final.pdf) (p. 289/383 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_13_12_16_1_51_15.png)
Quote from: Grzrd on November 10, 2015, 12:42:31 PM
This MDOT News Release (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Public%20Affairs/Lists/News%20Releases/Item/displayifs.aspx?List=ae1b236c%2D924d%2D498c%2Db14e%2Daafec6dc2864&ID=1698&Source=http%3A%2F%2Fspgomdot%2FPublic%2520Affairs%2FPages%2FNews%2DReleases%2Easpx&ContentTypeId=0x010087606675CA7A95408B80E8BFBB944273&IsDlg=2) announces plans to widen I-55 and I-55/69 in Desoto County, including construction of a new interchange for Star Landing Road beginning in mid-2019
This February 1 article (http://www.desototimes.com/news/desoto-road-projects-moving-forward/article_33f683a2-e8d9-11e6-ba37-0bebc3364060.html) quotes a MDOT official as saying that the widening of I-55/69 is currently in the engineering and design phase, but that budgetary woes may slow down construction:
Quote
DeSoto County is on track to have some major improvements to its road system finished next year, according to Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) Northern District Commissioner Mike Tagert....
MDOT is also working forward on the widening to eight lanes of I-55 between Hernando and Southaven, although Tagert, in Olive Branch Tuesday to speak to the local Rotary Club, said it is moving slowly.
"We are in the engineering phase, where we are trying to identify the impact of additional lanes on the current land ownership through that corridor," Tagert said. "The big picture is to widen I-55 to eight lanes and it's crucially needed. We're in the engineering and design phase as we speak."
As with many other projects, Tagert noted that paying for the project remains an issue with limited funding.
"It's good, ol' fashioned funding that's the hangup on the project," Tagert said. "We're only limited by funding. We're going to have to spread it out over a course of time as we can afford to pay for it."
Quote from: Grzrd on February 04, 2017, 10:45:57 AM
This February 1 article (http://www.desototimes.com/news/desoto-road-projects-moving-forward/article_33f683a2-e8d9-11e6-ba37-0bebc3364060.html) quotes a MDOT official as saying that the widening of I-55/69 is currently in the engineering and design phase, but that budgetary woes may slow down construction
MDOT has recently embarked on a public relations campaign to obtain an additional $400 million in funding (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Fiscal%20Year%20Reports/FY%202017/Better%20Funding%20Better%20Roads/Funding%20for%20Roads%20and%20Bridges%20-%20Why%20is%20it%20important%20to%20taxpayers.pdf). I-69 is not included in the Unfunded Projects By County (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Fiscal%20Year%20Reports/FY%202017/Better%20Funding%20Better%20Roads/Mississippi's%20Unfunded%20Highway%20Projects%20by%20County.pdf), but no other interstate projects are included in the funding request (for example, the I-55/69 widening project). MDOT's intent seems to be preserve the rural road network:
Quote
In the mid-1900s, county roads were given to the state creating a paved network of farm to market routes, many of which are still in use today. Because Mississippi is primarily an agricultural state, these rural corridors are vital to economic development. These roads continue to be neglected, because the majority of today's state transportation funding goes toward the preservation of major infrastructure routes — interstate and four-lane highways. These routes carry the majority of general statewide and commercial traffic.
However, they also speak of not building any new roads:
Quote
.... Central Transportation Commissioner Dick Hall ....
"Rising construction costs and aging infrastructure means MDOT will not be able to maintain the current condition of the system or build any new lanes or roadways," Hall said.
Although I-69 goes through a rural area, it does not seem to be covered by this request. That said, if MDOT is asking for an additional $400 million for preservation and improvements to the state's rural roads, how much money, if any, will be put toward I-69 as part of the money dedicated for interstates and four-lane highways? My initial reaction is not much.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 10, 2016, 10:07:19 PM
A section completed from the north end of the Clarksdale bypass to the U.S. 61/49 split could also have a dual utility as part of the Brinkley to Batesville Highway Corridor (https://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2012/110549/Proposed%20Corridor%20Summaries%20(2).pdf)
Quote from: froggie on May 11, 2016, 07:44:53 AM
However, as a corridor, that "cutting the hypotenuse" doesn't dovetail with MDOT's goal of providing a 4-lane MS 6 between Clarksdale and Batesville.
Sure enough, one of the upgrade projects on the list is the four-laning of MS 6 from Clarksdale to Batesville:
Quote
For example, there is a need to four-lane Highway 19 in Neshoba County from Meridian to Philadelphia, U.S. Highway 278/State Route 6 from Batesville to U.S. Highway 61 through Panola, Quitman and Coahoma counties, and a section of Highway 24 from East Fork to Interstate 55 in Pike and Amite counties. These projects connect multiple cities and will build capacity for industries along the corridor. Without additional funding, neither of these projects will move forward.
Quote from: O Tamandua on March 01, 2017, 12:57:27 AM
Scott Bennett's "Wish list" for Governor Hutchinson and President Trump: the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge and the I-49 Arkansas River Bridge: http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/115718/fort-smith-great-river-bridges-comprise-arkansas-wish-list
(above quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg2209137#msg2209137) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on March 01, 2017, 09:00:59 PM
This Jan. 25 article (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/politics/state/story/2017/jan/25/tennessee-sends-11-billion-seven-road-wish-list-trump/409517/) reports that I-69 in Obion County (SIU 7) was among seven projects submitted to the Trump Administration for consideration in the infrastructure plan
(above quote from I-69 in TN (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3841.msg2209321#msg2209321) thread)
This article (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2017/03/17/gulf-coast-states-submit-wish-list-infrastruture-projects/99309228/) reports that Mississippi has submitted 120 miles (I think all of SIU 11) of I-69 for the Trump Administration to consider under the infrastructure plan:
Quote
... Melinda McGrath, executive director of the Mississippi Department of Transportation ...
Mississippi also wants to build a 120-mile stretch of I-69 from Benoit to Robinsonville. McGrath said the $1.83 billion project, which would run through the Mississippi Delta, would "definitely help our most blighted region of the state."
"This would be a breath of life to that community because every bit of that goes through a very impoverished area," she said ....
McGrath said Mississippi officials also zeroed in on projects ready to go.
"It's not like we would be starting from scratch," she said.
Even though it is new construction instead of improving an existing road, and even though in Mississippi (and Arkansas and Tennessee) tolling is not feasible (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9001.msg217848#msg217848), it provides a tremendous opportunity to make progress on I-69. Louisiana has not submitted an I-69 project, but there are a lot of other more important projects.
Quote from: Grzrd on December 06, 2016, 01:37:46 PM
From the 2017-20 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (http://mdot.ms.gov/FiveYearPlanData/Current%20STIP/2017-2020%20STIP%20Final.pdf) (p. 50/385 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_06_12_16_1_56_54.png)
The local press has has picked up the story (behind paywall) (http://www.tunicatimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6353:state-preps-to-extend-i-69-west-south-&catid=2:paid&Itemid=26):
Quote
The 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan recently released by the Mississippi Department of Transportation includes funds for the engineering and design phase of an extension of Interstate 69 in Tunica County.
Project No. 720212 is the construction of four lanes of I-69 from the Desoto county line to Arkabutla Dam Road in Tunica County. The engineering phase is projected to cost $3 million and is slated to get underway this year. Eighty percent of the cost of this phase will come from federal funds.
The project realigns MS 713 to create a new crossing of the railroad and Highway 3, bypassing the Banks community. A map of the proposed I-69 extension shows the road will swing south of Banks before turning west, paralleling the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard for a distance before turning southwest to intersect Arkabutla Dam Road west of Highway 3.
No major construction is expected on this section of I-69 through at least 2019.
The map accompanying the article provides a little more detail than the one in the STIP:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_29_03_17_12_38_05.png)
Quote from: Grzrd on May 17, 2016, 02:45:31 PM
Also from the Details page, here is a snip showing the current $495 million estimated cost to complete SIU 11:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSPEBXBo.png&hash=0f34ff4adf9bf484284f14f091f2368bd03ca681)
Quote from: Grzrd on March 18, 2017, 08:52:31 PM
This article (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2017/03/17/gulf-coast-states-submit-wish-list-infrastruture-projects/99309228/) reports that Mississippi has submitted 120 miles (I think all of SIU 11) of I-69 for the Trump Administration to consider under the infrastructure plan:
Quote
... Melinda McGrath, executive director of the Mississippi Department of Transportation ...
Mississippi also wants to build a 120-mile stretch of I-69 from Benoit to Robinsonville. McGrath said the $1.83 billion project, which would run through the Mississippi Delta, would "definitely help our most blighted region of the state."
I emailed MDOT to confirm that the the $1.83 billion was the amount for SIU 11 and it is (I assume the $495 million figure in the graph is strictly the cost of actual construction):
Quote
The $1.8 billion includes costs for I-69 SIU #11 only as Mississippi is the lead State for that portion of I-69. Arkansas is the lead State for I-69 SIU #12.
With Mississippi's share of the Great River Bridge being $390 million (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg314876#msg314876), Mississippi's cost to complete I-69 is approximately $2.22 billion.
Quote from: Grzrd on March 29, 2017, 01:02:02 PM
The local press has has picked up the story (behind paywall) (http://www.tunicatimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6353:state-preps-to-extend-i-69-west-south-&catid=2:paid&Itemid=26):
Quote
The 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan recently released by the Mississippi Department of Transportation includes funds for the engineering and design phase of an extension of Interstate 69 in Tunica County.
Project No. 720212 is the construction of four lanes of I-69 from the Desoto county line to Arkabutla Dam Road in Tunica County ... No major construction is expected on this section of I-69 through at least 2019.
This article (http://www.desototimes.com/news/desoto-county-i--work-on-track/article_eb121a4a-18c4-11e7-838f-5fb9dfe54812.html) reports that MDOT has submitted a FASTLANE grant application for the Desoto County line to Arkabutla Dam Road section of I-69, which could speed up the construction schedule:
Quote
DeSoto County and its cities, through membership in the six-state Interstate 69 Mid-Continent Coalition, back a state-federal application for $85.2 million for Fiscal 2017 to extend I-69 in the county, and welcome reported progress along the corridor ....DeSoto Supervisor Mark Gardner of Southaven .... Coalition President Kenneth Murphree .... said a federal Fastlane grant of $85.5 million is being sought for an MDOT proposal that would extend I-69 from the DeSoto County line to the Arkabutla Dam road project. It would serve as a key connector to the Tier I Interstate 55/CN Railway and Tier II U.S. 61 corridors within Mississippi, he said.
Murphree noted that all recent presidents have backed stimulus packages, "and when President Trump gets ready with his, we want to be prepared." .... Murphree noted that Mississippi has benefited from strong local and congressional support for I-69 from the earliest days. Gardner recalled that when Trent Lott was in the U.S. Senate leadership and the route was in play, "he said flat out if that highway doesn't go through Mississippi, it's not going to go anywhere."
Quote from: Grzrd on April 04, 2017, 02:28:35 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 29, 2017, 01:02:02 PM
The local press has has picked up the story (behind paywall) (http://www.tunicatimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6353:state-preps-to-extend-i-69-west-south-&catid=2:paid&Itemid=26):
Quote
The 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan recently released by the Mississippi Department of Transportation includes funds for the engineering and design phase of an extension of Interstate 69 in Tunica County.
Project No. 720212 is the construction of four lanes of I-69 from the Desoto county line to Arkabutla Dam Road in Tunica County ... No major construction is expected on this section of I-69 through at least 2019.
This article (http://www.desototimes.com/news/desoto-county-i--work-on-track/article_eb121a4a-18c4-11e7-838f-5fb9dfe54812.html) reports that MDOT has submitted a FASTLANE grant application for the Desoto County line to Arkabutla Dam Road section of I-69, which could speed up the construction schedule:
Quote
DeSoto County and its cities, through membership in the six-state Interstate 69 Mid-Continent Coalition, back a state-federal application for $85.2 million for Fiscal 2017 to extend I-69 in the county, and welcome reported progress along the corridor ....DeSoto Supervisor Mark Gardner of Southaven .... Coalition President Kenneth Murphree .... said a federal Fastlane grant of $85.5 million is being sought for an MDOT proposal that would extend I-69 from the DeSoto County line to the Arkabutla Dam road project. It would serve as a key connector to the Tier I Interstate 55/CN Railway and Tier II U.S. 61 corridors within Mississippi, he said.
Murphree noted that all recent presidents have backed stimulus packages, "and when President Trump gets ready with his, we want to be prepared." .... Murphree noted that Mississippi has benefited from strong local and congressional support for I-69 from the earliest days. Gardner recalled that when Trent Lott was in the U.S. Senate leadership and the route was in play, "he said flat out if that highway doesn't go through Mississippi, it's not going to go anywhere."
The problem is that Trent Lott's not around anymore to "grease the skids", so to speak -- he was indeed masterful at getting porcine-related $$ directed to in-state projects. The push for I-22 almost foundered when he lost his Senate leadership post in the 2001-02 race-related scandal (it was up to Alabama's Sen. Shelby to pick up the slack a year or two later). MS' current Congressional delegation doesn't seem to have the same desire -- or even skill set -- regarding directing available federal dollars into the state. It'll be interesting to see if local pressure re I-69 development can somehow overcome the seeming lack of interest (or even
intertia) occurring at the national level.
Quote from: sparker on April 04, 2017, 04:45:28 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 04, 2017, 02:28:35 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 29, 2017, 01:02:02 PM
The local press has has picked up the story (behind paywall) (http://www.tunicatimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6353:state-preps-to-extend-i-69-west-south-&catid=2:paid&Itemid=26):
Quote
The 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan recently released by the Mississippi Department of Transportation includes funds for the engineering and design phase of an extension of Interstate 69 in Tunica County.
Project No. 720212 is the construction of four lanes of I-69 from the Desoto county line to Arkabutla Dam Road in Tunica County ... No major construction is expected on this section of I-69 through at least 2019.
This article (http://www.desototimes.com/news/desoto-county-i--work-on-track/article_eb121a4a-18c4-11e7-838f-5fb9dfe54812.html) reports that MDOT has submitted a FASTLANE grant application for the Desoto County line to Arkabutla Dam Road section of I-69, which could speed up the construction schedule:
Quote
DeSoto County and its cities, through membership in the six-state Interstate 69 Mid-Continent Coalition, back a state-federal application for $85.2 million for Fiscal 2017 to extend I-69 in the county, and welcome reported progress along the corridor ....DeSoto Supervisor Mark Gardner of Southaven .... Coalition President Kenneth Murphree .... said a federal Fastlane grant of $85.5 million is being sought for an MDOT proposal that would extend I-69 from the DeSoto County line to the Arkabutla Dam road project. It would serve as a key connector to the Tier I Interstate 55/CN Railway and Tier II U.S. 61 corridors within Mississippi, he said.
Murphree noted that all recent presidents have backed stimulus packages, "and when President Trump gets ready with his, we want to be prepared." .... Murphree noted that Mississippi has benefited from strong local and congressional support for I-69 from the earliest days. Gardner recalled that when Trent Lott was in the U.S. Senate leadership and the route was in play, "he said flat out if that highway doesn't go through Mississippi, it's not going to go anywhere."
The problem is that Trent Lott's not around anymore to "grease the skids", so to speak -- he was indeed masterful at getting porcine-related $$ directed to in-state projects. The push for I-22 almost foundered when he lost his Senate leadership post in the 2001-02 race-related scandal (it was up to Alabama's Sen. Shelby to pick up the slack a year or two later). MS' current Congressional delegation doesn't seem to have the same desire -- or even skill set -- regarding directing available federal dollars into the state. It'll be interesting to see if local pressure re I-69 development can somehow overcome the seeming lack of interest (or even intertia) occurring at the national level.
and earmarks don't exist anymore.
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 04, 2017, 06:19:13 PM
and earmarks don't exist anymore.
This. I've heard it suggested that lack of earmarks is one of the causes of the current inability of Congress to work together to get anything done. Previously, you could talk a rep into supporting your bill by tossing some money for a project in his state into it. Money, after all, is bipartisan.
How do earmarks not exist anymore?
Quote from: Rothman on April 05, 2017, 10:53:07 AM
How do earmarks not exist anymore?
all i remember is people getting upset about it a few yrs ago (bridge to nowhere in alaska was one of the big stories of the time), they got rid of it as a measure to reform things in congress.
I do not believe that is true. Although they may have been scaled back, I am pretty sure earmarks still exist in one forn or another.
States have even recently gone through an earmark repurposing effort to use up outstanding earmark obligation limitation.
Quote from: Rothman on April 05, 2017, 11:28:24 AM
I do not believe that is true. Although they may have been scaled back, I am pretty sure earmarks still exist in one forn or another.
States have even recently gone through an earmark repurposing effort to use up outstanding earmark obligation limitation.
if they do exist anymore, they must be very different than before.
Quote from: RothmanStates have even recently gone through an earmark repurposing effort to use up outstanding earmark obligation limitation.
This was to address pre-existing earmarks that had not seen their funding encumbered, but there have been no new transportation earmarks out of Congress since 2011.
Here's some reading on the subject. First is a Heritage Foundation article from early 2011 (http://www.heritage.org/transportation/report/transportation-policy-and-congressional-earmarks), after President Obama publicly endorsed House Republican's push from the previous November elections to eliminate transportation earmarks. This article suggests that earmarks actually hurt the states more than they helped, and that's not entirely far off since most earmark funding was taken from each state's federal highway funding apportionment. In other words, Congress forced the states to spend money they were getting anyway on the "earmarked" project.
Second is a paper from the Congressional Research Service (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41554.pdf) from 3 months ago about how the ban on earmarks has influenced transportation spending, and suggests that there have been ways for astute Senators and Congressmen to influence where Federal transportation funding has gone, even down to specific districts.
Heh. My statistics courses in grad school used a variety of Heritage Foundation "studies"...to show how not to interpret statistics.
The second paragraph is what I was referring to: We may not have specified lists in the bills any longer, but the FAST Act certainly established other mechanisms that can be heavily influenced by Congress.
Earmarks were ridiculously ineffective in NY, anyway. A congressperson would secure a tenth of what was needed for a low-priority project and the earmark would just hang around, unused.
Quote from: Rothman on April 05, 2017, 01:56:45 PM
Heh. My statistics courses in grad school used a variety of Heritage Foundation "studies"...to show how not to interpret statistics.
The second paragraph is what I was referring to: We may not have specified lists in the bills any longer, but the FAST Act certainly established other mechanisms that can be heavily influenced by Congress.
Earmarks were ridiculously ineffective in NY, anyway. A congressperson would secure a tenth of what was needed for a low-priority project and the earmark would just hang around, unused.
Every omnibus act since the '91 ISTEA is a project-related (as opposed to funding-related) earmark, particularly in the delineation of high priority corridors, many of which are written specifically to benefit roads in a particular state or area. Technically, they're supposed to be eligible for the maximum 80/20 federal/other funding share -- but typically securing actual funds is like pulling teeth, particularly with most of the Congresses we've had since the mid-90's. A Congressperson can get a corridor or corridor cluster established, disseminate maps of his new pet project, and claim that his intentions are to bring facilities and, by extension, jobs to his district -- and often that becomes the end of it unless he or she consistently presses for funding of projects within the corridor definition. In this particular case, pretty much the entire regional (and national, for that matter) transportation "community" is well aware of I-69 and the fact that the Shreveport-Memphis part of that corridor may not pose the most effectual deployment of funds, but that localized pressures, for better or worse, prompted that alignment as well as any work that's being done on it. Local interests got the I-55-to-Tunica segment done (the very definition of a SIU!); it seems the nascent Monticello bypass in Arkansas has some independent value in getting traffic off the streets of a college town. But other than that -- absent a renewed push for I-69 completion from both above and below -- it's likely that any progress to be made on this corridor will come at the end of the funding queue -- after other projects are prioritized.
The I-55 to Tunica segment (SIU 10) was a state gaming roads program project that got folded into I-69; I believe that's where the state share came from for it.
That said, every DOT on the corridor except Louisiana (whose environmental process was the slowest of any of the states and where I-49 has been a greater priority, for understandable reasons) has an I-69 project under construction today (I-269 is part of SIU 9), which is not what you'd expect if the project's priority was at the "end of the funding queue." Yes, the projects generally serve local needs - bypasses of Union City and Monticello, Memphis outer loop, upgrading freight corridors in Texas, etc. - but that's no different from any other interstate where segments were prioritized on the basis of immediate need or cost.
As for earmarking: In theory (so went the ideological argument that was made against earmarks) you could argue that by reducing the opportunity to take credit for projects of members, it creates some downward pressure on overall spending levels, but the evidence of that actually happening in practice isn't there. In practice the end of earmarking transfers discretion over special project funding (think TIGER, Fastlane, etc.) from Congress to the executive branch, who are just as likely to deploy it for political reasons but obviously in different ways (away from states/districts with senior members of Congress who could earmark enough to make a difference, toward key reelection states and to reward the president's political supporters).
Quote from: lordsutch on April 05, 2017, 03:47:27 PM
The I-55 to Tunica segment (SIU 10) was a state gaming roads program project that got folded into I-69; I believe that's where the state share came from for it.
That said, every DOT on the corridor except Louisiana (whose environmental process was the slowest of any of the states and where I-49 has been a greater priority, for understandable reasons) has an I-69 project under construction today (I-269 is part of SIU 9), which is not what you'd expect if the project's priority was at the "end of the funding queue." Yes, the projects generally serve local needs - bypasses of Union City and Monticello, Memphis outer loop, upgrading freight corridors in Texas, etc. - but that's no different from any other interstate where segments were prioritized on the basis of immediate need or cost.
As for earmarking: In theory (so went the ideological argument that was made against earmarks) you could argue that by reducing the opportunity to take credit for projects of members, it creates some downward pressure on overall spending levels, but the evidence of that actually happening in practice isn't there. In practice the end of earmarking transfers discretion over special project funding (think TIGER, Fastlane, etc.) from Congress to the executive branch, who are just as likely to deploy it for political reasons but obviously in different ways (away from states/districts with senior members of Congress who could earmark enough to make a difference, toward key reelection states and to reward the president's political supporters).
Even though it's part of SIU 9, I-269 is, functionally, a "stand-alone" regional project whose purpose is (a) completion of the outer loop bypass of metro Memphis, and (b) a way to connect I-22 to the other trunk Interstates in the area. However, IMO the remainder of I-69 in MS, the parts not currently under development in AR, and certainly the portion north of I-20 in LA, will lag the rest of the corridor in receipt of funding. There's a bundle of political will behind the I-269 project that translated into available dollars; unless such level of support for the remainder of the route paralleling US 61 is demonstrated, it's likely what funds MS can generate and/or acquire will likely be utilized on other projects (the southern section of US 49 has been cited as one likely usage). At the outside, I-69 may extend south at least to Clarksdale in the near term; but until funding can be identified (and possibly sequestered!) for the remainder of MS' share of the corridor -- including the Great River Bridge -- further development is likely to be shunted to the not-so-near term!
I'll hedge my prediction a little -- if Arkansas proceeds with development of their part of the corridor from Monticello to the Mississippi River (as has been mentioned in some quarters), then there might be some pressure on MS to advance their schedule to match that effort -- in which case I for one would be pleasantly surprised (I don't particularly like having to take cynical stances, but sometimes the record of progress -- or lack thereof -- speaks for itself).
A MS River bridge and the interstate between US 65 and US 61 would be a very good thing for the region by itself. Unfortunately, that is probably the single most expensive piece of the entire length of I-69, and I would hardly say that the project would be of such national significance than it would warrant some sort of special grant.
QuoteA MS River bridge and the interstate between US 65 and US 61 would be a very good thing for the region by itself.
Given the presence of a fairly new 4-lane crossing at Greenville, one could argue that the I-69 "Great River Bridge" is unnecessary duplication, especially since the two states involved will need to seriously start looking at paying for a US 49 Helena Bridge replacement in the not-too-distant future.
Quote from: froggie on April 05, 2017, 10:21:22 PM
QuoteA MS River bridge and the interstate between US 65 and US 61 would be a very good thing for the region by itself.
Given the presence of a fairly new 4-lane crossing at Greenville, one could argue that the I-69 "Great River Bridge" is unnecessary duplication, especially since the two states involved will need to seriously start looking at paying for a US 49 Helena Bridge replacement in the not-too-distant future.
In that light, routing I-69 down to the US 82 bridge would have made more sense. As a bonus, I-69 would have also served Greenville.
Quote from: codyg1985 on April 05, 2017, 10:44:54 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 05, 2017, 10:21:22 PM
QuoteA MS River bridge and the interstate between US 65 and US 61 would be a very good thing for the region by itself.
Given the presence of a fairly new 4-lane crossing at Greenville, one could argue that the I-69 "Great River Bridge" is unnecessary duplication, especially since the two states involved will need to seriously start looking at paying for a US 49 Helena Bridge replacement in the not-too-distant future.
In that light, routing I-69 down to the US 82 bridge would have made more sense. As a bonus, I-69 would have also served Greenville.
I'm going to take a guess that in-state Arkansas politics determined the alignment of I-69 along US 278 rather than US 82. There's also the likelihood that if US 82 would have been selected as the alignment, it would draw criticism as being too close to the parallel I-20 in LA -- and thus unnecessarily redundant. If that criticism were to result in action, it would essentially remove Arkansas -- or at least a significant portion of it -- from the mix. Bringing it farther north into the state lessened the perception of service duplication and added insurance against resultant route alteration. Besides, it shortened the I/AR-530 connection by about 30 miles
vis-a-vis a US 82 routing.
Quote from: codyg1985 on April 05, 2017, 10:44:54 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 05, 2017, 10:21:22 PM
QuoteA MS River bridge and the interstate between US 65 and US 61 would be a very good thing for the region by itself.
Given the presence of a fairly new 4-lane crossing at Greenville, one could argue that the I-69 "Great River Bridge" is unnecessary duplication, especially since the two states involved will need to seriously start looking at paying for a US 49 Helena Bridge replacement in the not-too-distant future.
In that light, routing I-69 down to the US 82 bridge would have made more sense. As a bonus, I-69 would have also served Greenville.
A routing through Greenville would have only been consistent with a routing of I-69 further south through Monroe to Winnfield, Leesville, and south of Lufkin, or a splitting of the I-69 corridor into two by freewayizing US 165 to I-10 east of Lake Charles and building up US 59 to Texarkana without the Tenaha-Shreveport-Monticello-GRB-Clarksdale connection. That would have taken Shreveport and southern Arkansas out of the mix, and probably necessitated a further extension of I-530 into Louisiana as well. At least with the current alignment of proposed I-69, those regions are covered.
I feel like 69 should have crossed the Mississippi where it is planned, go straight east to i-55, then be cosigned with 55 up to Memphis.
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 06, 2017, 07:34:27 AM
I feel like 69 should have crossed the Mississippi where it is planned, go straight east to i-55, then be cosigned with 55 up to Memphis.
The decision to route I-69 more through the delta probably stems from giving Clarksdale more access to the interstate.
If it did follow the route your suggest (roughly along MS 32), then at least the Grenada control city along NB I-55 out of Jackson would make a little more sense.
i just don't see miss finishing this any time soon, that river bridge seems like a pipe dream.
Quote from: codyg1985 on April 05, 2017, 10:44:54 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 05, 2017, 10:21:22 PM
QuoteA MS River bridge and the interstate between US 65 and US 61 would be a very good thing for the region by itself.
Given the presence of a fairly new 4-lane crossing at Greenville, one could argue that the I-69 "Great River Bridge" is unnecessary duplication, especially since the two states involved will need to seriously start looking at paying for a US 49 Helena Bridge replacement in the not-too-distant future.
In that light, routing I-69 down to the US 82 bridge would have made more sense. As a bonus, I-69 would have also served Greenville.
Well, it still could serve Greenville through the spur route, I-169.
Quote from: Henry on April 06, 2017, 09:40:21 AM
Well, it still could serve Greenville through the spur route, I-169.
Any x69 spur is purely speculative at this time; let's wait until 69 itself is finalized and funded before deploying additions (unless within the Fictional realm).
Quote from: sparker on April 06, 2017, 04:21:22 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 06, 2017, 09:40:21 AM
Well, it still could serve Greenville through the spur route, I-169.
Any x69 spur is purely speculative at this time; let's wait until 69 itself is finalized and funded before deploying additions (unless within the Fictional realm).
I think there was local interest for such a spur.
There was. After the Great River Bridge location was announced, Greenville actively pursued an I-169 spur in the late '90s and early '00s, going as far as getting a feasibility study done which recommended an I-169 spur from west of Benoit down to the planned US 82 Greenville Bypass. Elements of that study have been on my website (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/i169.htm) for years.
Quote from: codyg1985 on April 06, 2017, 07:34:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 06, 2017, 04:21:22 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 06, 2017, 09:40:21 AM
Well, it still could serve Greenville through the spur route, I-169.
Any x69 spur is purely speculative at this time; let's wait until 69 itself is finalized and funded before deploying additions (unless within the Fictional realm).
I think there was local interest for such a spur.
Quote from: froggie on April 06, 2017, 08:48:13 PM
There was. After the Great River Bridge location was announced, Greenville actively pursued an I-169 spur in the late '90s and early '00s, going as far as getting a feasibility study done which recommended an I-169 spur from west of Benoit down to the planned US 82 Greenville Bypass. Elements of that study have been on my website (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/i169.htm) for years.
Interesting! From the map shown, it seems the spur not only follows MS 1 for much of its length, but also closely parallels the Columbus & Greenville rail line as well. IIRC, one of the iterations of the bridge featured a rail crossing either in the median or alongside the Interstate lanes -- and that the C & G was specifically mentioned as the line to be continued across the river to connect with the rail network west of the Mississippi River. I'm wondering if the plans for the spur also included a potential bridge approach for the rail line -- possibly in the median of the spur. If anyone more familiar with that aspect of localized planning can shed some light on this, please do so.
this seems completely unnecessary, do they really even need another interstate? 69 is a complete stretch as it is!
The I-169 spur never got to the level of preliminary engineering that you're asking for. As for a rail connection across the river, it was initially looked at but did not survive the EIS process as no railroad offered to sponsor it. You can see more information on this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.0).
Quote from: froggie on April 07, 2017, 07:37:02 AM
The I-169 spur never got to the level of preliminary engineering that you're asking for. As for a rail connection across the river, it was initially looked at but did not survive the EIS process as no railroad offered to sponsor it. You can see more information on this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.0).
Actually, that's not surprising. While the C & G
does provide an efficient path across MS and into AL, its lack of connection to the west rendered it, even during rail's heyday early in the 20th century, useful as a local server only. No corresponding E-W line existed in southern Arkansas to serve as a logical outlet to the major distribution points in the DFW area; and the KCS line paralleling I-20 and crossing the river at Vicksburg already handles most of the E-W traffic in the area. If rail were to be incorporated into the Great River bridge, it would have to dissipate at or near McGehee, AR onto the UP network (and AFAIK UP never expressed much interest in expediting such traffic). So
c'est la vie to rail prospects at this venue -- at least it will simplify the bridge design process if & when that materializes.
Quote from: sparker on April 07, 2017, 04:49:25 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 07, 2017, 07:37:02 AM
The I-169 spur never got to the level of preliminary engineering that you're asking for. As for a rail connection across the river, it was initially looked at but did not survive the EIS process as no railroad offered to sponsor it. You can see more information on this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.0).
Actually, that's not surprising. While the C & G does provide an efficient path across MS and into AL, its lack of connection to the west rendered it, even during rail's heyday early in the 20th century, useful as a local server only. No corresponding E-W line existed in southern Arkansas to serve as a logical outlet to the major distribution points in the DFW area; and the KCS line paralleling I-20 and crossing the river at Vicksburg already handles most of the E-W traffic in the area. If rail were to be incorporated into the Great River bridge, it would have to dissipate at or near McGehee, AR onto the UP network (and AFAIK UP never expressed much interest in expediting such traffic). So c'est la vie to rail prospects at this venue -- at least it will simplify the bridge design process if & when that materializes.
Actually the C&G doesn't cross the state right now because the line is out of service between Greenwood and West Point. I think a bridge washed out and the railroad could not afford to replace it.
Quote from: codyg1985 on April 07, 2017, 07:43:47 PM
Actually the C&G doesn't cross the state right now because the line is out of service between Greenwood and West Point. I think a bridge washed out and the railroad could not afford to replace it.
And again not surprising considering the line's owner -- shortline conglomerate Genesee and Wyoming, which historically would rather wring as much business as they can from the parts of their acquisitions that are functional than put $$ into capital projects to get their properties back into full-scale operation. If they can act as a local conveyor from Greenville to Greenwood (where they would pass off traffic to the N-S CN main line) and turn a profit doing so, then G & W will continue to do that until (a) the line ceases being profitable, at which time they would likely attempt to offload it to another shortline operator or, failing that, simply file to abandon that line; or (b) if traffic increased where they could see reconstructing the cross-state line to serve as an additional outlet, they may even consider doing so (provided the sunk costs weren't prohibitive). That firm acquired several Oregon lines (ex-SP and ex-BN) in the early '90's when I was living in Portland; their penchant for operating "on the cheap" could be seen in the maintenance (or lack thereof) of their rights-of-way. They
did do something somewhat admirable, however -- they gave Doyle McCormack (the curator/operator of the SP 4449 and SP&S 700, both owned by the City of Portland)
carte blanche (for a price) to operate steam excursions over their rails -- mostly Portland-Albany or Portland-Corvallis and return when SP declined to permit operation over their lines due to insurance issues.
Quote from: sparkerat least it will simplify the bridge design process if & when that materializes.
It already has. Even before it was dropped, the rail component of the Great River Bridge was looked at as a separate bridge structure and not on the same structure as the vehicle lanes.
Quote from: froggie on April 07, 2017, 09:22:26 PM
Quote from: sparkerat least it will simplify the bridge design process if & when that materializes.
It already has. Even before it was dropped, the rail component of the Great River Bridge was looked at as a separate bridge structure and not on the same structure as the vehicle lanes.
OK -- it's now a moot point about a RR crossing at the Great Bridge location. But in retrospect it seems to be a bit inefficient to consider constructing
two individual structures at the site rather than incorporate the composite plans into a single structure. The only efficiency that would have been realized with a 2nd parallel bridge would be the process of transporting equipment and labor to
one general site for both projects. Material costs certainly wouldn't have been reduced with a 2nd crossing dedicated to railroad use.
For those interested, I saw (two weeks back) that MDOT has started moving earth, and placed orange barrels on the eastside of US 61/49 between the north end of Clarksdale and the Clarksdale Airport.
In light of an upcoming special session being called June 5, to deal in part with transportation issues (http://djournal.com/opinion/columnists/bobby-harrison-legislative-leaders-miss-opportunity-to-couple-transportation-needs/article_e211ee10-5f66-5227-bb96-b86cf5977957.html), Dick Hall, the Central District Transportation Commissioner of MDOT, points toward other states raising the gas tax and partially invokes I-69 as a potential economic boon for the Delta (http://deltabusinessjournal.com/much-needed-repairs/):
Quote
By the time this information is read, the Mississippi Legislature may have returned to attempt to complete their 2017 annual session–hopefully so. As you know, when they last left town, neither the Mississippi Department of Transportation nor the Office of Attorney General were funded for fiscal year 2018, which begins July 1, 2017 ....
The first of this month, the most expensive gasoline was in a city in California. The least expensive in the nation was listed to be in Jackson, Mississippi. All of our neighboring states–Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana–have a higher fuel tax than Mississippi, and Louisiana's legislature is now in session dealing with the fuel tax increase recommended by their Governor.
There is nothing more fundamental for government support than our transportation system. This is not unique to Mississippi. The only difference is others are dealing with it. We aren't. And the Mississippi Delta is suffering because of it ....
What I'm not proud of are those concrete structures rising out of the dirt, which was supposed to be the Greenville Highway 82 Bypass. Likewise, Interstate 69, which we planned to construct through the heart of the Delta that promises such great economic opportunity, is yet to be funded.
Why can we not provide the resources necessary to take advantage of all of this?
Why do we insist on being last?
If Louisiana's gas tax hike passes by June 8, the pressure will gradually increase on Mississippi's legislators to do something.
While MS's gas tax is low, their tag registration is not. I wonder where all of that money goes?
Quote from: sparker on April 07, 2017, 09:10:01 PM
And again not surprising considering the line's owner -- shortline conglomerate Genesee and Wyoming, which historically would rather wring as much business as they can from the parts of their acquisitions that are functional than put $$ into capital projects to get their properties back into full-scale operation. If they can act as a local conveyor from Greenville to Greenwood (where they would pass off traffic to the N-S CN main line) and turn a profit doing so, then G & W will continue to do that until (a) the line ceases being profitable, at which time they would likely attempt to offload it to another shortline operator or, failing that, simply file to abandon that line; or (b) if traffic increased where they could see reconstructing the cross-state line to serve as an additional outlet, they may even consider doing so (provided the sunk costs weren't prohibitive).
I have several railroaders in my family from MS and know some ex-C&G employees. To G&W's credit, they have sat on the West Point-Greenwood corridor for years and not filed for abandonment, where there are probably several million $$ worth of rail and steel bridges that could be liquidated for scrap. But they will probably not be motivated to do anything until the government comes in with some kind of cost-sharing scheme. The Grenada Railway between Southaven and Canton got a lot of state aid to keep open, and control was finally wrested away from A&K to Iowa Pacific, where the former owner was obviously looking to abandon and scrap the line after getting it for a bargain from CN.
To the point of a combination Great River bridge being more cost efficient than two side-by-side rail-highway bridges, the primary savings would be in not having to build separate foundations for the water crossing part, although the savings wouldn't be as great as you might think. There are complications and extra materials required for combination bridges that aren't the case for separate structures.
Quote from: Rick Powell on May 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
To the point of a combination Great River bridge being more cost efficient than two side-by-side rail-highway bridges, the primary savings would be in not having to build separate foundations for the water crossing part, although the savings wouldn't be as great as you might think. There are complications and extra materials required for combination bridges that aren't the case for separate structures.
Point well taken; you're absolutely correct regarding multi-mode structure requirements and issues. I recently talked to my cousin -- who's a bridge engineer with Caltrans -- and mentioned multimode -- and I could almost see his eyes roll over the phone! He launched into a rant about how much it takes to maintain the two combination bridges on the Caltrans books (the I-5 Pit River Bridge north of Redding and the CA 70 West Branch bridge over an arm of Lake Oroville, both of which feature major UP rail lines through the truss superstructure, with the roadway perched atop the upper truss grid). He went on about load-bearings, the need to inspect the piers and bolts at much greater frequency than strictly highway bridges (a lot of lateral shear due to vibration), and other pitfalls to the combination concept. I mentioned the Great River Bridge to him; he was somewhat familiar with the project, and opined that if rail were to be incorporated it would severely limit the design parameters, as both approach grades and curvature would have to be based on the needs of the rail line; the roadway would have to be "modified" to follow suit. He followed by noting that the ground structure would be similar to that found in the Sacramento delta region -- and that the underpinnings of the Mississippi River loops where the bridge anchorages would be located might be a bit too water-permeable to support a high-capacity rail line where substantial weight would be applied to any particular segment for an extended period of time (i.e., heavy container or unit-coal trains, which currently tend to dominate long-distance rail cargo). When I told him that the rail plans had been tentatively dropped, his thoughts were that now they may be able to design a workable bridge whereas a combination would pose both construction and maintenance issues.
QuoteWhile MS's gas tax is low, their tag registration is not. I wonder where all of that money goes?
Their tag registration is actually pretty low (IIRC, ~$30 when I was last stationed there in 2008). Where Mississippi hits you is that they require the personal property tax on vehicles to be paid at the same time as vehicle registration.
Quote from: froggie on May 24, 2017, 02:48:11 PM
QuoteWhile MS's gas tax is low, their tag registration is not. I wonder where all of that money goes?
Their tag registration is actually pretty low (IIRC, ~$30 when I was last stationed there in 2008). Where Mississippi hits you is that they require the personal property tax on vehicles to be paid at the same time as vehicle registration.
COMPLETELY DISAGREE!
Mississippians routinely pay hundreds (sometimes, high hundreds) of dollars annually for their registration.
Quote from: mwb1848 on May 24, 2017, 03:30:35 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 24, 2017, 02:48:11 PM
QuoteWhile MS's gas tax is low, their tag registration is not. I wonder where all of that money goes?
Their tag registration is actually pretty low (IIRC, ~$30 when I was last stationed there in 2008). Where Mississippi hits you is that they require the personal property tax on vehicles to be paid at the same time as vehicle registration.
COMPLETELY DISAGREE!
Mississippians routinely pay hundreds (sometimes, high hundreds) of dollars annually for their registration.
from http://www.dor.ms.gov/Pages/MotorVehicle-FAQs.aspx#402
"How much will my car tag cost?
To determine how much your tag will cost, you will need to contact your local county Tax Collector.
In Mississippi, you pay privilege tax, registration fees, ad valorem taxes and possibly sales or use tax when you tag your vehicle. Registration fees are $12.75 for renewals and $14.00 for first time registrations. All the other taxes are based on the type of vehicle, the value of that vehicle, and where you live (city, county)."
Quote from: mwb1848COMPLETELY DISAGREE!
Mississippians routinely pay hundreds (sometimes, high hundreds) of dollars annually for their registration.
I'm fully aware, having been stationed in that state twice (technically 3 times). However, as rte66man demonstrated, most of that is in the form of the personal property tax (what his link calls the "ad valorem tax"). The actual registration fee is quite small, also as he demonstrated.
Ah, I see the distinction.
However, I'm intrigued by the question – where does all that other stuff go.
As a form of property tax, the "ad valorem tax" basically goes straight to the county.
The "privilege tax" part goes to what is effectively a "state aid" fund for county roads and bridges.
Registration fees, I'm pretty sure, go to MDOT.
Any sales taxes go to the state.
Quote from: sparker on June 05, 2018, 12:39:45 AM
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.
(above quote from I-69 Mississipi River Bridge (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg2332986#msg2332986) thread)
For what it's worth, Mississippi included preliminary engineering for I-69 from the DeSoto County line to Arkabutla Dam Road in the 2017-20 STIP:
Quote from: Grzrd on December 06, 2016, 01:37:46 PM
MDOT has more preliminary engineering planned for I-69 in 2017, this time from the DeSoto county line to Arkabutla Dam Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8110574,-90.2538429,13065m/data=!3m1!1e3):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_06_12_16_1_34_32.png)
From the 2017-20 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (http://mdot.ms.gov/FiveYearPlanData/Current%20STIP/2017-2020%20STIP%20Final.pdf) (p. 50/385 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_06_12_16_1_56_54.png)
MDOT also submitted this project for a FASTLANE grant (and presumably converted it into a non-granted INFRA grant):
Quote from: Grzrd on April 04, 2017, 02:28:35 PM
This article (http://www.desototimes.com/news/desoto-county-i--work-on-track/article_eb121a4a-18c4-11e7-838f-5fb9dfe54812.html) reports that MDOT has submitted a FASTLANE grant application for the Desoto County line to Arkabutla Dam Road section of I-69, which could speed up the construction schedule:
Quote
DeSoto County and its cities, through membership in the six-state Interstate 69 Mid-Continent Coalition, back a state-federal application for $85.2 million for Fiscal 2017 to extend I-69 in the county, and welcome reported progress along the corridor ....DeSoto Supervisor Mark Gardner of Southaven .... Coalition President Kenneth Murphree .... said a federal Fastlane grant of $85.5 million is being sought for an MDOT proposal that would extend I-69 from the DeSoto County line to the Arkabutla Dam road project. It would serve as a key connector to the Tier I Interstate 55/CN Railway and Tier II U.S. 61 corridors within Mississippi, he said.
Murphree noted that all recent presidents have backed stimulus packages, "and when President Trump gets ready with his, we want to be prepared." .... Murphree noted that Mississippi has benefited from strong local and congressional support for I-69 from the earliest days. Gardner recalled that when Trent Lott was in the U.S. Senate leadership and the route was in play, "he said flat out if that highway doesn't go through Mississippi, it's not going to go anywhere."
Although this article warns that construction won't start through 2019, it still provides a good visual of the project by this map:
Quote from: Grzrd on March 29, 2017, 01:02:02 PM
The local press has has picked up the story (behind paywall) (http://www.tunicatimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6353:state-preps-to-extend-i-69-west-south-&catid=2:paid&Itemid=26):
Quote
The 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan recently released by the Mississippi Department of Transportation includes funds for the engineering and design phase of an extension of Interstate 69 in Tunica County.
Project No. 720212 is the construction of four lanes of I-69 from the Desoto county line to Arkabutla Dam Road in Tunica County. The engineering phase is projected to cost $3 million and is slated to get underway this year. Eighty percent of the cost of this phase will come from federal funds.
The project realigns MS 713 to create a new crossing of the railroad and Highway 3, bypassing the Banks community. A map of the proposed I-69 extension shows the road will swing south of Banks before turning west, paralleling the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard for a distance before turning southwest to intersect Arkabutla Dam Road west of Highway 3.
No major construction is expected on this section of I-69 through at least 2019.
The map accompanying the article provides a little more detail than the one in the STIP:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_29_03_17_12_38_05.png)
Wading through all of this, it appears that the DeSoto County line to Arkabutla Dam Road is the next I-69 new terrain project after I-269 (I-69 SIU 9b). Of course, it could still be many years away .........
That's almost overkill for an area that's already stagnated or declining. There is one spur road to the top that will remain vastly underused. There are three interchanges all feeding the same area - farmland, with the casinos further to the west. And many of those early casinos are abandoned or demolished - and even some of the newer casinos are now abandoned or closed. The boom has come and gone.
Quote from: seicer on June 06, 2018, 03:29:35 PM
That's almost overkill for an area that's already stagnated or declining. There is one spur road to the top that will remain vastly underused. There are three interchanges all feeding the same area - farmland, with the casinos further to the west. And many of those early casinos are abandoned or demolished - and even some of the newer casinos are now abandoned or closed. The boom has come and gone.
this entire project is overkill for this state
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 07, 2018, 11:20:23 AM
Quote from: seicer on June 06, 2018, 03:29:35 PM
That's almost overkill for an area that's already stagnated or declining. There is one spur road to the top that will remain vastly underused. There are three interchanges all feeding the same area - farmland, with the casinos further to the west. And many of those early casinos are abandoned or demolished - and even some of the newer casinos are now abandoned or closed. The boom has come and gone.
this entire project is overkill for this state
If indeed the casinos in the region are in decline, then the I-69/MS 304 extension is simply a way to shunt through traffic to and from US 61 over to I-55 (and, soon, the I-269 metro bypass). Obviously originally deployed to provide access to the then-growing gaming facilities, it's been open for 12 years now and isn't going anywhere (literally or figuratively) unless either I-69 funding can be identified (not likely anytime soon) or actual plans for a southern Mississippi River crossing are forthcoming (again, unlikely in the foreseeable future). Drivers will use the facility as a
really long ramp to the connecting Interstates and will continue to do so for the time being. So it has some purpose -- just not to the extent figured by its original planners.
Wouldn't be more easier to upgrade that part of US-61 as I-69? Since others parts of US-61 will become part of I-69 like the current Clarksdale bypass.
In some respects it is easier to build a brand new Interstate on new terrain near or parallel to an existing 4 lane highway. In the case of US-61 in Mississippi frontage roads would be a must in some areas for an Interstate upgrade to prevent access to farms or buildings from being removed. There's a lot of driveways and farm access entrances coming off of US-61. An Interstate with frontage roads eats a lot more land (and existing buildings too close to the ROW). Tunica and North Tunica would need a new freeway bypass regardless. I don't know how well the existing US-61 pavement complies with Interstate standards. A bunch of those main lanes and shoulders might have to be rebuilt from scratch. That would compound costs (removing old road bed and building new).
A good stretch of US-61 South of Tunica would be good for rebuilding as an Interstate since there's hardly any buildings next to the road until it gets near Clarksdale. But there's still the issue of maintaining access to farm land.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 08, 2018, 11:43:47 AM
In some respects it is easier to build a brand new Interstate on new terrain near or parallel to an existing 4 lane highway. In the case of US-61 in Mississippi frontage roads would be a must in some areas for an Interstate upgrade to prevent access to farms or buildings from being removed. There's a lot of driveways and farm access entrances coming off of US-61. An Interstate with frontage roads eats a lot more land (and existing buildings too close to the ROW). Tunica and North Tunica would need a new freeway bypass regardless. I don't know how well the existing US-61 pavement complies with Interstate standards. A bunch of those main lanes and shoulders might have to be rebuilt from scratch. That would compound costs (removing old road bed and building new).
A good stretch of US-61 South of Tunica would be good for rebuilding as an Interstate since there's hardly any buildings next to the road until it gets near Clarksdale. But there's still the issue of maintaining access to farm land.
Generally speaking, when a presently divided general-access facility is selected for a freeway upgrade, the choice to use the existing alignment is dependent upon such issues as number of private driveways and other access roads are present; how much actual space is between the main carriageways and the adjacent buildings (i.e., room to deploy frontage roads without impinging too much on private lands), the median width and whether the private access includes crossovers to the opposite-direction lanes, and the details of the existing facility -- whether it meets or can be readily upgraded to Interstate-grade geometry; whether there is sufficient room for periodic grade separations, and how interchanges are to be handled and whether or not the frontage roads figure into the interchange schematics. Compound that with local resentments regarding inconveniences imposed by having to make multiple driving moves to regain the access provided by the prior non-limited-access facility, and you have much of the reason why in many circumstances existing divided facilities are fully bypassed by parallel new-terrain routes.
This August 1 article (http://www.pressregister.com/article_e50c1264-95e0-11e8-89f7-c334fada4709.html) discusses Coahoma County projects contained (or not) in Mississippi's draft STIP; a MDOT official indicates that there could be discussion about I-69 at a public meeting held on August 2:
Quote
When members of the Mississippi Departmemt of Transportation unveil its Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan plan to members of the public this Thursday, there's going to be little mention of Coahoma County.
Mitch Turner, who is district engineer with the Department of Treansportation's District 2 office in Batesville, said there is "limited" mention of Coahoma County in the plan as most of the projects that will be unveiled are "long-range type plans." ....
One project that could eventually have an impact would be Interstate 69.
"I think there'll be some discussion about the future of I-69 and how it will affect Coahomas County and the area," Turner said, but added, "There won't be any specifics, because there aren't any specifics about that right now."
To sum it up, aside from paying off bonds for the section connecting Memphis to Tunica, there are no I-69 projects in the Draft STIP.
Here's the link to the 2019-2022 Draft STIP:
http://mdot.ms.gov/FiveYearPlanData/2019-2022%20Draft%20STIP/2019-2022%20STIP%20Draft.pdf
A lot of the proposed I-69 route through Mississippi will run over the US-61 alignment. If I were MDOT, I would start the transition of US-61 to I-69 by doing some very simple upgrades when it comes time for periodic resurfacing projects, like widening shoulders, closing off some at-grade intersections that don't draw a lot of cross traffic, and adding cable barriers where appropriate. Each year, look at replacing one major intersection with and interchange. A typical rural diamond interchange costs around $6 to 8 million to build on average. Save the new-terrain sections and the Great River Bridge until the money is there to build those portions.
A lot of US-61 between Clarksdale and Tunica can be upgraded pretty easily since its in rural areas. Normal diamond interchanges can replace some intersections while other at-grade crossings can be replaced with non-exit bridges or just dead-ended at the highway.
Some other areas are going to require more work. The town of Tunica will require a new terrain bypass. Just North of Clarksdale there is a modest yet still significant amount of development hugging too close to US-61/49. Either a bunch of those properties would have to be bought and demolished to upgrade the existing road or the Clarksdale bypass would have to be extended North around those properties. The upgrade will be a long term thing. If they choose to upgrade the existing highway a program of clearing properties and building one or more frontage roads through that zone could lay the ground work for the eventual Interstate upgrade.
Was just thinking yesterday about the very different approach to rural Interstate construction in my home state (Mississippi) and my adopted home state (Texas).
Virtually everywhere, Mississippi has constructed interstates generally parallel to the U.S. routes by which they were pre-dated; meanwhile, Texas integrated those U.S. routes into the eventual interstate alignments.
As states (none so much as Mississippi) struggle with funding on-going maintenance costs, you just have to think that redundancy has factored into the hole they're trying to dig out of. Thought I-69 in Mississippi isn't very long, hopefully MDOT recognizes the on-going impacts of maintaining two such parallel facilities with I-69 and US 61 and uses the Texas approach.
Unfortunately Interstate highways require a much wider ROW, regardless if they're flanked by frontage roads or not. Many places across the country have busy 4-lane roads where commercial and residential development has been allowed to build right up on the main lanes of the highway, even with driveways allowing 90° turning traffic to enter the main lanes at very slow speeds. We all know it can be very difficult both politically and logistically to improve such a 4-lane divided highway up to Interstate standards. Lots of property has to be cleared yet not everyone in the path of the new highway is in a position to pull up stakes and move. That's where we get a lot of the parallel, redundant routes with more miles of road for the state to maintain. It's also, in part, how we get new Interstate highways built on anything but a reasonably direct path.
Texas lucked out by being very forward-looking with highway development decades ago. Some of these divided streets with giant medians were configured that way decades before a freeway was finally planted in the median. But it sure made building the freeway so much easier when the time finally came. Too many other states (cough, Oklahoma) only do things good enough to get by for today; they don't think about what they're going to need 20-30 years in the future.
Will any more of Interstate 69 in Mississippi (or anywhere outside of Texas and Kentucky) be built within our lifetimes. If I had a crystal ball, I suspect it would say no.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2019, 04:05:00 PM
Will any more of Interstate 69 in Mississippi (or anywhere outside of Texas and Kentucky) be built within our lifetimes. If I had a crystal ball, I suspect it would say no.
While there's a remote possibility -- if Memphis-area exurban development stretches south in the vicinity of US 61 -- that Tunica-to-Clarksdale could happen within 20-25 years, unless there's some action regarding the Mississippi River "Great Bridge", it's not likely MS will have any incentive to put what funds it can raise, scrounge, or borrow into an Interstate-level improvement of US 61 south of the Clarksdale bypass. They're as close to broke as a state can be these days, and the central I-69 segment doesn't seem to be highly prioritized in any of the states it traverses -- so that combination doesn't bode well for the corridor.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2019, 04:05:00 PM
Will any more of Interstate 69 in Mississippi (or anywhere outside of Texas and Kentucky) be built within our lifetimes. If I had a crystal ball, I suspect it would say no.
I agree, it's hard to see much of a prospect for I-69 in MS or AR. But the Tennessee portion will get built. Eventually. Very slowly, no doubt.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 08, 2019, 06:48:30 PM
I agree, it's hard to see much of a prospect for I-69 in MS or AR. But the Tennessee portion will get built. Eventually. Very slowly, no doubt.
Progress is being made on I-69 in Arkansas around the Monticello area and eastward to US-65, but other than that, not much in the works unless we decide to extend the half cent sales tax in perpetuity.
Quote from: MikieTimT on August 08, 2019, 08:55:50 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 08, 2019, 06:48:30 PM
I agree, it's hard to see much of a prospect for I-69 in MS or AR. But the Tennessee portion will get built. Eventually. Very slowly, no doubt.
Progress is being made on I-69 in Arkansas around the Monticello area and eastward to US-65, but other than that, not much in the works unless we decide to extend the half cent sales tax in perpetuity.
As I follow things, Arkansas is taking the same approach with I-69 as it is with building its remaining portions of I-49. Start off by building 2-lane segments, with enough ROW to eventually expand to full interstate later on. From what I've read, we may see ARDOT let a contract to build the first two lanes for the Monticello to US-65 section in the foreseeable future.
Over in Mississippi, they're broke, and it looks like the political establishment there has no appetite to come up with new revenue streams to fix the existing highway system, let alone build new roads. The only reason they were able to get the section built between US-61 and I-55 is from the revenue generated by the Tunica casinos. But beyond Tunica, there is no money to be had to build I-69. That's why I suggested that when MDOT performs routine work on US-61 they do what they can to start getting the roadway closer to what it needs to be to accommodate I-69.
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 09, 2019, 12:15:19 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on August 08, 2019, 08:55:50 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 08, 2019, 06:48:30 PM
I agree, it's hard to see much of a prospect for I-69 in MS or AR. But the Tennessee portion will get built. Eventually. Very slowly, no doubt.
Progress is being made on I-69 in Arkansas around the Monticello area and eastward to US-65, but other than that, not much in the works unless we decide to extend the half cent sales tax in perpetuity.
As I follow things, Arkansas is taking the same approach with I-69 as it is with building its remaining portions of I-49. Start off by building 2-lane segments, with enough ROW to eventually expand to full interstate later on. From what I've read, we may see ARDOT let a contract to build the first two lanes for the Monticello to US-65 section in the foreseeable future.
Over in Mississippi, they're broke, and it looks like the political establishment there has no appetite to come up with new revenue streams to fix the existing highway system, let alone build new roads. The only reason they were able to get the section built between US-61 and I-55 is from the revenue generated by the Tunica casinos. But beyond Tunica, there is no money to be had to build I-69. That's why I suggested that when MDOT performs routine work on US-61 they do what they can to start getting the roadway closer to what it needs to be to accommodate I-69.
The Tunica Casinos are stuggling now, several have closed.
I'll say it again, that segment of I-69 screams for a bridge and connector to I-40 near Lehi AR (old Nascar Track) to take strain off of the Old Bridge in Memphis
Eventually a second new bridge connecting the I-55/I-555 junction to the future I-69/I-I-269 junction in Millington for a complete outer loop of Memphis. That just me wishing away some time.
Agreed. It would make perfect sense to extend I-269 across the river from Millington to I-55, and extend the I-269 designation over I-69 to where 69 splits with MS-304, then continue westward over 304 paat Tunica to a new bridge to Arkansas to complete a full loop around Memphis. This was done many years ago up around St. Louis and it appears to be working for them.
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 11, 2019, 11:55:03 AM
Agreed. It would make perfect sense to extend I-269 across the river from Millington to I-55, and extend the I-269 designation over I-69 to where 69 splits with MS-304, then continue westward over 304 paat Tunica to a new bridge to Arkansas to complete a full loop around Memphis. This was done many years ago up around St. Louis and it appears to be working for them.
Seems like a no-brainer, whether I-69 ever gets built or not. Was a full loop never even considered?
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 12, 2019, 07:09:16 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 11, 2019, 11:55:03 AM
Agreed. It would make perfect sense to extend I-269 across the river from Millington to I-55, and extend the I-269 designation over I-69 to where 69 splits with MS-304, then continue westward over 304 paat Tunica to a new bridge to Arkansas to complete a full loop around Memphis. This was done many years ago up around St. Louis and it appears to be working for them.
Seems like a no-brainer, whether I-69 ever gets built or not. Was a full loop never even considered?
The bridges for MS-304 north of Tunica over US-61 were designed to be extended in some future date.
Though it is not likely to see a west bypass of Memphis in some years to come. Probably not until some significant portion of I-69 is finished in Mississippi or traffic coming and going on I-55 exceeds its capacity in the city.
If the Memphis-Arkansas ever comes up for a replacement perhaps they might divert to the DeSoto or a new west bypass if it exists by that time.
I would say getting rid of that unsafe semi-cloverleaf for Crump to reach the bridge would be a higher priority.
Quote from: edwaleni on August 12, 2019, 10:18:43 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 12, 2019, 07:09:16 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 11, 2019, 11:55:03 AM
Agreed. It would make perfect sense to extend I-269 across the river from Millington to I-55, and extend the I-269 designation over I-69 to where 69 splits with MS-304, then continue westward over 304 paat Tunica to a new bridge to Arkansas to complete a full loop around Memphis. This was done many years ago up around St. Louis and it appears to be working for them.
Seems like a no-brainer, whether I-69 ever gets built or not. Was a full loop never even considered?
The bridges for MS-304 north of Tunica over US-61 were designed to be extended in some future date.
Though it is not likely to see a west bypass of Memphis in some years to come. Probably not until some significant portion of I-69 is finished in Mississippi or traffic coming and going on I-55 exceeds its capacity in the city.
If the Memphis-Arkansas ever comes up for a replacement perhaps they might divert to the DeSoto or a new west bypass if it exists by that time.
I would say getting rid of that unsafe semi-cloverleaf for Crump to reach the bridge would be a higher priority.
In full agreement re prioritization of a fix for the Crump mess. Ideally -- but unlikely in the near term given MS' dire fiscal straits -- would be to (a) do a Mississippi River crossing as a western MS 304 extension, then swing it north to I-55 at or near the I-40 junction, (b) upgrade the Hernando 55/69/269 interchange with flyovers (converting it to a stack or turbine) (c) reroute I-55 over the new facility, (d) reroute I-240 over the Harahan bridge to terminate at I-40 in West Memphis, (3) re-sign I-55 from Hernando to I-240 and I-240 north to I-40 as I-69. Also -- for the time being, remove the I-69 reassurance signs from the Tunica extension, and let the MS 713 "spur" be just that for the time being -- with I-69 having an interim terminus at I-55/Hernando. If and when I-69 gets extended further SW down US 61, the final signage can be resolved then (although ramps from the new bridge to and from I-69/south would be appropriate).
But this being MS and TN, getting Crump fixed would itself be very welcome -- and about all we could possibly expect in the region in the near term.
Several bridge locations were studied in the mid-2000s. The study looked at a combination road/rail bridge to add redundancy in the event of a New Madrid repeat, given that the existing railroad and I-55 bridges are seismically vulnerable (the I-40 bridge has been seismically retrofitted). While Arkansas has placed some priority on a crossing extending from MS 304, it would tie into I-40 too far to the west (near Jenette) to be useful for I-55 through traffic. A crossing at MS 304 was also deemed to have a poor benefit-cost ratio compared to crossings closer to the Memphis core, but the study did not rule out full elimination as it may be useful in the future for "economic development". The study recommended three possible locations for a new bridge...one in the vicinity of the mid-river island downstream of President's Island, and two locations north of I-40 that would tie into TN 300. These latter locations would then either tie into the western I-40/I-55 interchange or connect with I-55 north of Marion.
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2019, 12:10:35 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on August 12, 2019, 10:18:43 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 12, 2019, 07:09:16 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 11, 2019, 11:55:03 AM
Agreed. It would make perfect sense to extend I-269 across the river from Millington to I-55, and extend the I-269 designation over I-69 to where 69 splits with MS-304, then continue westward over 304 paat Tunica to a new bridge to Arkansas to complete a full loop around Memphis. This was done many years ago up around St. Louis and it appears to be working for them.
Seems like a no-brainer, whether I-69 ever gets built or not. Was a full loop never even considered?
The bridges for MS-304 north of Tunica over US-61 were designed to be extended in some future date.
Though it is not likely to see a west bypass of Memphis in some years to come. Probably not until some significant portion of I-69 is finished in Mississippi or traffic coming and going on I-55 exceeds its capacity in the city.
If the Memphis-Arkansas ever comes up for a replacement perhaps they might divert to the DeSoto or a new west bypass if it exists by that time.
I would say getting rid of that unsafe semi-cloverleaf for Crump to reach the bridge would be a higher priority.
In full agreement re prioritization of a fix for the Crump mess. Ideally -- but unlikely in the near term given MS' dire fiscal straits -- would be to (a) do a Mississippi River crossing as a western MS 304 extension, then swing it north to I-55 at or near the I-40 junction, (b) upgrade the Hernando 55/69/269 interchange with flyovers (converting it to a stack or turbine) (c) reroute I-55 over the new facility, (d) reroute I-240 over the Harahan bridge to terminate at I-40 in West Memphis, (3) re-sign I-55 from Hernando to I-240 and I-240 north to I-40 as I-69. Also -- for the time being, remove the I-69 reassurance signs from the Tunica extension, and let the MS 713 "spur" be just that for the time being -- with I-69 having an interim terminus at I-55/Hernando. If and when I-69 gets extended further SW down US 61, the final signage can be resolved then (although ramps from the new bridge to and from I-69/south would be appropriate).
But this being MS and TN, getting Crump fixed would itself be very welcome -- and about all we could possibly expect in the region in the near term.
I agree, extend I-55 to essentially a west Memphis bypass on the Arkansas side, co-sign with I-69 after crossing the river and let it join its current route at Hernando.
The current I-55 and the Memphis-Arkansas can be demoted to a US route for local trucks only, not through traffic. Then the Crump issue can remain static as it is simply an intersection of 2 urban collectors. In fact, you could rip out that ancient cloverleaf completely. Let north/south traffic use Riverside and east west traffic use Crump. Then if/when the Memphis-Arkansas is refurbished it takes all the pressure off I-40 and the DeSoto.
Great idea!
Quote from: edwaleni on August 13, 2019, 08:36:48 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2019, 12:10:35 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on August 12, 2019, 10:18:43 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 12, 2019, 07:09:16 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 11, 2019, 11:55:03 AM
Agreed. It would make perfect sense to extend I-269 across the river from Millington to I-55, and extend the I-269 designation over I-69 to where 69 splits with MS-304, then continue westward over 304 paat Tunica to a new bridge to Arkansas to complete a full loop around Memphis. This was done many years ago up around St. Louis and it appears to be working for them.
Seems like a no-brainer, whether I-69 ever gets built or not. Was a full loop never even considered?
The bridges for MS-304 north of Tunica over US-61 were designed to be extended in some future date.
Though it is not likely to see a west bypass of Memphis in some years to come. Probably not until some significant portion of I-69 is finished in Mississippi or traffic coming and going on I-55 exceeds its capacity in the city.
If the Memphis-Arkansas ever comes up for a replacement perhaps they might divert to the DeSoto or a new west bypass if it exists by that time.
I would say getting rid of that unsafe semi-cloverleaf for Crump to reach the bridge would be a higher priority.
In full agreement re prioritization of a fix for the Crump mess. Ideally -- but unlikely in the near term given MS' dire fiscal straits -- would be to (a) do a Mississippi River crossing as a western MS 304 extension, then swing it north to I-55 at or near the I-40 junction, (b) upgrade the Hernando 55/69/269 interchange with flyovers (converting it to a stack or turbine) (c) reroute I-55 over the new facility, (d) reroute I-240 over the Harahan bridge to terminate at I-40 in West Memphis, (3) re-sign I-55 from Hernando to I-240 and I-240 north to I-40 as I-69. Also -- for the time being, remove the I-69 reassurance signs from the Tunica extension, and let the MS 713 "spur" be just that for the time being -- with I-69 having an interim terminus at I-55/Hernando. If and when I-69 gets extended further SW down US 61, the final signage can be resolved then (although ramps from the new bridge to and from I-69/south would be appropriate).
But this being MS and TN, getting Crump fixed would itself be very welcome -- and about all we could possibly expect in the region in the near term.
I agree, extend I-55 to essentially a west Memphis bypass on the Arkansas side, co-sign with I-69 after crossing the river and let it join its current route at Hernando.
The current I-55 and the Memphis-Arkansas can be demoted to a US route for local trucks only, not through traffic. Then the Crump issue can remain static as it is simply an intersection of 2 urban collectors. In fact, you could rip out that ancient cloverleaf completely. Let north/south traffic use Riverside and east west traffic use Crump. Then if/when the Memphis-Arkansas is refurbished it takes all the pressure off I-40 and the DeSoto.
Great idea!
agree, but i if you remove the cloverleaf, just make it into a traffic circle for local traffic, which could also double as an Emergency I-55.
Just looked at MDOT's draft 2021-2024 STIP. Looks like no I-69 related work is planned for at least the next four years in Mississippi.
https://mdot.ms.gov/FiveYearPlanData/2021-2024%20STIP%20Draft/2021-2024%20STIP%20draft.pdf
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 27, 2020, 02:25:24 PM
Just looked at MDOT's draft 2021-2024 STIP. Looks like no I-69 related work is planned for at least the next four years in Mississippi.
https://mdot.ms.gov/FiveYearPlanData/2021-2024%20STIP%20Draft/2021-2024%20STIP%20draft.pdf
Taking everything into consideration, including MS' perennial funding problems coupled with COVID-related revenue shortfalls, not doing anything regarding I-69 comes as no surprise. Until such time as they decide to connect the stub near Tunica with the Clarksdale bypass (if funds are identified and set aside -- always an issue with low-tax states) I would expect to see zero outlays. Of course if the "Great River" bridge project is somehow revitalized (near-term unlikely, given AR prioritizations), the overall I-69 environment may well change. Nonetheless, holding one's breath re any developments here in the near/mid-term isn't advised!
Quote from: sparker on July 27, 2020, 05:26:19 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 27, 2020, 02:25:24 PM
Just looked at MDOT's draft 2021-2024 STIP. Looks like no I-69 related work is planned for at least the next four years in Mississippi.
https://mdot.ms.gov/FiveYearPlanData/2021-2024%20STIP%20Draft/2021-2024%20STIP%20draft.pdf
Taking everything into consideration, including MS' perennial funding problems coupled with COVID-related revenue shortfalls, not doing anything regarding I-69 comes as no surprise. Until such time as they decide to connect the stub near Tunica with the Clarksdale bypass (if funds are identified and set aside -- always an issue with low-tax states) I would expect to see zero outlays. Of course if the "Great River" bridge project is somehow revitalized (near-term unlikely, given AR prioritizations), the overall I-69 environment may well change. Nonetheless, holding one's breath re any developments here in the near/mid-term isn't advised!
Agreed. I wouldn't expect any I-69 work in MS until the bridge is funded. That could be 10-15 years from now. Probably longer based on how Congress is behaving.
You won't see any more I-69 work in Mississippi until you start seeing significant and larger Federal outlays to the states for roadwork. MDOT can't afford it on their own.
Quote from: froggie on July 30, 2020, 07:30:49 AM
You won't see any more I-69 work in Mississippi until you start seeing significant and larger Federal outlays to the states for roadwork. MDOT can't afford it on their own.
Mississippi can't afford to maintain the roads and bridges they currently have. Look at the hundreds of bridges that are either closed or weight restricted because they need to be replaced, but there's no money to replace them.
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 30, 2020, 08:50:52 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 30, 2020, 07:30:49 AM
You won't see any more I-69 work in Mississippi until you start seeing significant and larger Federal outlays to the states for roadwork. MDOT can't afford it on their own.
Mississippi can't afford to maintain the roads and bridges they currently have. Look at the hundreds of bridges that are either closed or weight restricted because they need to be replaced, but there's no money to replace them.
Mississippi's lack of funding is evident in their police as well. For the number of times I've driven from Southaven to Jackson and from Jackson to Tuscaloosa I am surprised I have yet to see a cop on either route. It explains why Mississippi has the lowest speed enforcement and some of the faster freeway drivers. But with the design of the interstates in rural MS, they could easily handle speed limits of 80 or higher, which would likely generate revenue (not much but still more) via gas taxes to maybe help fund projects like I-69 or any of the roads connecting Lakeland Dr to I-20 in Rankin County.
I don't expect any more work on I-69 in MS until it is a complete route from Memphis to Indianapolis. Mississippi ain't just going to build I-69 until there is pressure from neighboring states to complete it, especially not with the financial issues preventing MDOT from fixing roads that already exist
I agree with the general sentiments expressed here so far; Mississippi is unlikely to do anything further with I-69 until there's movement on the river bridge, and I don't think anything will happen there until Arkansas finishes acquiring ROW from Monticello to the state line-- which they are progressing on, but slowly. At that point Arkansas will have 40 miles of ROW ready to slap an interstate onto, with a connection to an I-530 extension likely as well, whereas Mississippi presumably has most of what it needs for its unfinished I-69, save the money to actually build it. Maybe we'll see some movement then.
Quote from: Finrod on August 01, 2020, 09:35:07 PM
I agree with the general sentiments expressed here so far; Mississippi is unlikely to do anything further with I-69 until there's movement on the river bridge, and I don't think anything will happen there until Arkansas finishes acquiring ROW from Monticello to the state line-- which they are progressing on, but slowly. At that point Arkansas will have 40 miles of ROW ready to slap an interstate onto, with a connection to an I-530 extension likely as well, whereas Mississippi presumably has most of what it needs for its unfinished I-69, save the money to actually build it. Maybe we'll see some movement then.
FWIW, north of Clarksburg I-69 was supposed to be constructed on new terrain slightly east and parallel to existing US 61. But so far the segment south from there to near Cleveland, where it was to turn west toward the Mississippi River bridge, has received scant if any attention regarding alignment (overlaying US 61 or a resumption of new-terrain format) -- or much of anything. Has there been any mention of any existing studies -- or has any activity, including the most preliminary regarding such alignment, been postponed or even shelved for the time being? My best guess is that it's something that has been "kicked down the road" for the 25 years it's been a future Interstate corridor simply because there's little or no money for studies much less ROW acquisition or any other field activity. But posters from the region may know otherwise!
IIRC, that segment was originally supposed to be a direct overlay/conversion/upgrade of existing US 61/US 49 to Interstate grade.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 02, 2020, 10:43:37 AM
IIRC, that segment was originally supposed to be a direct overlay/conversion/upgrade of existing US 61/US 49 to Interstate grade.
Makes sense -- GSV shows most of the towns already bypassed by an expressway-grade US 61; avoidance of as much ROW acquisition as is feasible would make the eventual project more fiscally viable.
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2020, 09:05:06 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 02, 2020, 10:43:37 AM
IIRC, that segment was originally supposed to be a direct overlay/conversion/upgrade of existing US 61/US 49 to Interstate grade.
Makes sense -- GSV shows most of the towns already bypassed by an expressway-grade US 61; avoidance of as much ROW acquisition as is feasible would make the eventual project more fiscally viable.
Since they already have the ROD signed for the segment that includes Clarksdale, I'm a bit surprised that MDOT isn't going after some low-hanging fruit in the form of making incremental upgrades to sections of US-61 that I-69 will eventually encompass. I could see simple upgrades, like widening shoulders that could occur during resurfacing projects, while some grade separations and utility relocations could also be done at a relatively low cost.
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 03, 2020, 10:50:40 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2020, 09:05:06 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 02, 2020, 10:43:37 AM
IIRC, that segment was originally supposed to be a direct overlay/conversion/upgrade of existing US 61/US 49 to Interstate grade.
Makes sense -- GSV shows most of the towns already bypassed by an expressway-grade US 61; avoidance of as much ROW acquisition as is feasible would make the eventual project more fiscally viable.
Since they already have the ROD signed for the segment that includes Clarksdale, I'm a bit surprised that MDOT isn't going after some low-hanging fruit in the form of making incremental upgrades to sections of US-61 that I-69 will eventually encompass. I could see simple upgrades, like widening shoulders that could occur during resurfacing projects, while some grade separations and utility relocations could also be done at a relatively low cost.
Even simple upgrades such as described carry costs that MDOT just can't handle along with regular maintenance of the routes under their jurisdiction. Such improvements would have to be programmed years in advance within the state's STIP program, which out of necessity spreads such things around the state. As far as any new freeway development, MS "blew its wad" with the I-69 spur, I-269, and the upgrades to US 78 to make it I-22; combined, that was a
huge level of expenditure for a perennially strapped agency; even though those projects received an 80% federal share, coming up with the additional 20% has always been the stumbling block for large-scale projects -- the basic reason why Interstate additions -- on a nationwide basis -- are relatively few and far between.
^ It wasn't just the freeway projects you mentioned. Mississippi's entire 4-laning program (i.e. US 45, US 82, MS 25, etc etc) is now coming of an age where it needs significant maintenance, and funding that maintenance was never considered when the state Legislature approved the program in 1987 and subsequently expanded it in 2001.
Quote from: sparker on August 03, 2020, 03:44:10 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 03, 2020, 10:50:40 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2020, 09:05:06 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 02, 2020, 10:43:37 AM
IIRC, that segment was originally supposed to be a direct overlay/conversion/upgrade of existing US 61/US 49 to Interstate grade.
Makes sense -- GSV shows most of the towns already bypassed by an expressway-grade US 61; avoidance of as much ROW acquisition as is feasible would make the eventual project more fiscally viable.
Since they already have the ROD signed for the segment that includes Clarksdale, I'm a bit surprised that MDOT isn't going after some low-hanging fruit in the form of making incremental upgrades to sections of US-61 that I-69 will eventually encompass. I could see simple upgrades, like widening shoulders that could occur during resurfacing projects, while some grade separations and utility relocations could also be done at a relatively low cost.
Even simple upgrades such as described carry costs that MDOT just can't handle along with regular maintenance of the routes under their jurisdiction. Such improvements would have to be programmed years in advance within the state's STIP program, which out of necessity spreads such things around the state. As far as any new freeway development, MS "blew its wad" with the I-69 spur, I-269, and the upgrades to US 78 to make it I-22; combined, that was a huge level of expenditure for a perennially strapped agency; even though those projects received an 80% federal share, coming up with the additional 20% has always been the stumbling block for large-scale projects -- the basic reason why Interstate additions -- on a nationwide basis -- are relatively few and far between.
In the past 15 years MDOT has taken on a lot of planned and unplanned projects.
Hurricane Katrina required a replacement Biloxi Bay Bridge ($339 million)
US-82 bridge at Greenville ($336 million)
Bay St Louis Bridge restoration (cost unknown)
Completion of I-269/I-69 Bypass
I-55 Expansion in Madison County
I-22 from Fulton to Byhalia
The one thing is their reliance on Facebook for recent updates and no bid/project portal on the web. (But lots of stories about their commissioners)
This doesn't sound like a state teetering for money.
Quote from: edwaleni on August 04, 2020, 01:33:59 PM
In the past 15 years MDOT has taken on a lot of planned and unplanned projects.
Hurricane Katrina required a replacement Biloxi Bay Bridge ($339 million)
US-82 bridge at Greenville ($336 million)
Bay St Louis Bridge restoration (cost unknown)
Completion of I-269/I-69 Bypass
I-55 Expansion in Madison County
I-22 from Fulton to Byhalia
Additionally, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, around 30 miles of I-10 through Gulfport and Biloxi were expanded to 6 lanes.
Don't forget the I-55 three-laning from I-20 to Byram. That project had some serious cost overruns.
Quote from: edwaleni on August 04, 2020, 01:33:59 PM
In the past 15 years MDOT has taken on a lot of planned and unplanned projects.
Hurricane Katrina required a replacement Biloxi Bay Bridge ($339 million)
US-82 bridge at Greenville ($336 million)
Bay St Louis Bridge restoration (cost unknown)
Completion of I-269/I-69 Bypass
I-55 Expansion in Madison County
I-22 from Fulton to Byhalia
The one thing is their reliance on Facebook for recent updates and no bid/project portal on the web. (But lots of stories about their commissioners)
This doesn't sound like a state teetering for money.
How many of those projects were funded strictly through the state?
I'm pretty sure the Feds reimbursed Mississippi for anything Katrina related.
New US 82 bridge at Greenville, same thing.
Turning US 78 into I-22, how much of that was paid through the Appalachian corridors?
Even the Greenville - Leland bypass for US 82 only came back to life because the Mississippi got federal money to pay for it.
So that leaves widening I-55 north of Jackson, I-69/269, and as mentioned elsewhere, the 4-laning of many US highways within the state.
Cotton and tourism can't pay for every wish.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 04, 2020, 07:15:32 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on August 04, 2020, 01:33:59 PM
In the past 15 years MDOT has taken on a lot of planned and unplanned projects.
Hurricane Katrina required a replacement Biloxi Bay Bridge ($339 million)
US-82 bridge at Greenville ($336 million)
Bay St Louis Bridge restoration (cost unknown)
Completion of I-269/I-69 Bypass
I-55 Expansion in Madison County
I-22 from Fulton to Byhalia
The one thing is their reliance on Facebook for recent updates and no bid/project portal on the web. (But lots of stories about their commissioners)
This doesn't sound like a state teetering for money.
How many of those projects were funded strictly through the state?
I'm pretty sure the Feds reimbursed Mississippi for anything Katrina related.
New US 82 bridge at Greenville, same thing.
Turning US 78 into I-22, how much of that was paid through the Appalachian corridors?
Even the Greenville - Leland bypass for US 82 only came back to life because the Mississippi got federal money to pay for it.
So that leaves widening I-55 north of Jackson, I-69/269, and as mentioned elsewhere, the 4-laning of many US highways within the state.
Cotton and tourism can't pay for every wish.
I-10?
MDOT Report on I-55 Expansion
Yes, I know its not I-69, but I wanted to show they seem to have money (somewhere)
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 04, 2020, 07:15:32 PM
Turning US 78 into I-22, how much of that was paid through the Appalachian corridors?
The original 1980's US 78 freeway in MS
was funded through ARC auspices; the upgrade to I-22 was eligible for up to the present maximum 80% federal share via its definition in the language authorizing High Priority Corridor #45 (2004), which appended the I-22 designation to the corridor.
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2020, 05:14:56 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 04, 2020, 07:15:32 PM
Turning US 78 into I-22, how much of that was paid through the Appalachian corridors?
The original 1980's US 78 freeway in MS was funded through ARC auspices; the upgrade to I-22 was eligible for up to the present maximum 80% federal share via its definition in the language authorizing High Priority Corridor #45 (2004), which appended the I-22 designation to the corridor.
Most of the projects listed in the thread above were largely covered by federal funds. Local tax revenues generated by the Tunica casinos were used to finance the completed section of I-69, while counties to the east fronted the money through the sale of bonds to complete I-269. But here's what I find baffling: Mississippi has a real problem coming up with the money to maintain its existing roads and bridges, let alone build new stuff, yet in the past 15 years there's hasn't been any real discussion among state lawmakers about raising revenue to rehabilitate and expand Mississippi's highway network. Instead, the government of Mississippi has punted to either the federal government, or to counties and cities to pay the freight for road and bridge projects.
This goes back to the broader problem with the I-69 as a whole, where Congress passed legislation mandating its construction, yet provided no funding to states to get it built. Some states like Texas, Kentucky, and Indiana have figured out how to move their sections of I-69 forward, while the remaining states pretty much threw up their hands and are saying to the feds, "Either give us money to build I-69, or come down here and make us build it."
Just for reference, I'm reposting the map of Future(?) I-69 in Mississippi from the first page of this thread, nine pages and nine years ago...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3KECN.jpg&hash=ba8fca7c4018ea9a80b651838f44086bbee1875f)
Mississippi has committed to the Amtrak New Orleans to Mobile service restoration.
They are paying to update the stations and restore the track. So there is money in there "somewhere".
https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2020/01/mississippi-cities-to-mobile-commit-to-amtraks-gulf-coast-return.html (https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2020/01/mississippi-cities-to-mobile-commit-to-amtraks-gulf-coast-return.html)
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 05, 2020, 09:15:37 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2020, 05:14:56 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 04, 2020, 07:15:32 PM
Turning US 78 into I-22, how much of that was paid through the Appalachian corridors?
The original 1980's US 78 freeway in MS was funded through ARC auspices; the upgrade to I-22 was eligible for up to the present maximum 80% federal share via its definition in the language authorizing High Priority Corridor #45 (2004), which appended the I-22 designation to the corridor.
Most of the projects listed in the thread above were largely covered by federal funds. Local tax revenues generated by the Tunica casinos were used to finance the completed section of I-69, while counties to the east fronted the money through the sale of bonds to complete I-269. But here's what I find baffling: Mississippi has a real problem coming up with the money to maintain its existing roads and bridges, let alone build new stuff, yet in the past 15 years there's hasn't been any real discussion among state lawmakers about raising revenue to rehabilitate and expand Mississippi's highway network. Instead, the government of Mississippi has punted to either the federal government, or to counties and cities to pay the freight for road and bridge projects.
This goes back to the broader problem with the I-69 as a whole, where Congress passed legislation mandating its construction, yet provided no funding to states to get it built. Some states like Texas, Kentucky, and Indiana have figured out how to move their sections of I-69 forward, while the remaining states pretty much threw up their hands and are saying to the feds, "Either give us money to build I-69, or come down here and make us build it."
The broader problem is Mississippi. About three million people. If you allocate rest of this road at 10% state share, it is only about 30.00 per person, but absent the 90% Federal money, it balloons to around $300.00 per Person (about $725.00 per family averaged... much less for some far more for others). Then comes the Great river Bridge. Giving MS HALF of the anticipated $1 billion price tag, that makes another $167.00 per person.
Yes, there are federal funds out there. Most of them are discretionary within limits. For Mississippi (or any other state as far as that goes) where does this project's (I-69) priority fall within the state's priorities. While the project may have a great deal of local priority in the delta, how much importance does it have in Biloxi, Tupelo, Jackson, or even the suburban counties immediately south of Memphis. The bottom line is this road goes through highly agricultural counties with little other industry. then to the one of the lower income, agricultural areas of Arkansas. From a Mississippi point of view, it is also a close overlap with I-55.
Unless the national importance is stressed far more (by the way of 90% or greater DESIGNATED federal funding, ) This is not likely to be much of a priority in Jackson. I think MDOT knows as well as we do that they have built more, better roads than they can maintain. They aren't likely to dig into their own pockets to spend on a new Cadillac when they are barely able to keeping their Buick running. They MIGHT figure out how to chip in a small portion to match a diamond studded carrot above their heads.
Mississippi doesn't even need any new roads like this.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 05, 2020, 12:48:05 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 04, 2020, 07:24:50 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 04, 2020, 07:21:26 PM
I-10?
What about I-10?
30 miles of I-10 widening from 4 to 6 lanes between Gulfport and Biloxi in the early 2000s.
Largely paid for by a tax on the casinos. I was stationed there at the time.
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 05, 2020, 08:59:04 PM
Mississippi doesn't even need any new roads like this.
Mississippi's road network is good enough for what it is. The only places that may require attention are Jackson, Gulfport, and Southaven metros. Divided highways connecting major cities, no major traffic problems anywhere in the state, sparse rural highway traffic, and no winter weather like the midwest or northeast to create potholes leave no demands for more new routes. What is I-69 going to do for US-61? Nothing other than raise the speed limit by 5 mph. I consider the signing of I-22 to be the completion of Mississippi's highway network. Until there is a dramatic traffic or population change, things ain't broke, so don't fix em.
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 05, 2020, 10:15:18 AM
Just for reference, I'm reposting the map of Future(?) I-69 in Mississippi from the first page of this thread, nine pages and nine years ago...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3KECN.jpg&hash=ba8fca7c4018ea9a80b651838f44086bbee1875f)
That map used to be on MDOT's I-69 SIU-11 project website, which is now long gone.
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 10, 2020, 11:22:32 AM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 05, 2020, 10:15:18 AM
Just for reference, I'm reposting the map of Future(?) I-69 in Mississippi from the first page of this thread, nine pages and nine years ago...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3KECN.jpg&hash=ba8fca7c4018ea9a80b651838f44086bbee1875f)
That map used to be on MDOT's I-69 SIU-11 project website, which is now long gone.
Was it that one from what I saw on the Wayback Machine? https://web.archive.org/web/20070709075319/http://www.msdoti69.net/news/index.html
Quote from: I-55 on August 09, 2020, 02:17:39 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 05, 2020, 08:59:04 PM
Mississippi doesn't even need any new roads like this.
Mississippi's road network is good enough for what it is. The only places that may require attention are Jackson, Gulfport, and Southaven metros. Divided highways connecting major cities, no major traffic problems anywhere in the state, sparse rural highway traffic, and no winter weather like the midwest or northeast to create potholes leave no demands for more new routes. What is I-69 going to do for US-61? Nothing other than raise the speed limit by 5 mph. I consider the signing of I-22 to be the completion of Mississippi's highway network. Until there is a dramatic traffic or population change, things ain't broke, so don't fix em.
Volumes on 49 between Gulfport and Jackson are arguably high enough to warrant systematic improvement. Perhaps not the entire corridor, but there are lengthy enough segments with high enough traffic to warrant at least limited-access, if not fully-controlled access...especially Gulfport-Wiggins and Magee-Jackson.
Otherwise, I generally agree with your assessment.
In this article about the Greenville Bypass, some have speculated about changing the routing of I-69 to cross the Mississippi at Greenville:
QuoteSome have speculated the completion of the bypass might be an opportunity for the re-routing of I-69 through Greenville instead of at the currently planned river crossing in Benoit.
Crossing in Benoit would require the construction of a new bridge.
"The department hasn't really talked about a change in the routing of I-69," Simmons said. "We want to get this project finished for its own sake."
https://www.ddtonline.com/front-page-slideshow/construction-greenville-bypass-will-take-year-or-longer-pick-back#sthash.AOXJPgzw.dpbs
Quote from: Grzrd on August 12, 2020, 10:45:24 AM
In this article about the Greenville Bypass, some have speculated about changing the routing of I-69 to cross the Mississippi at Greenville:
QuoteSome have speculated the completion of the bypass might be an opportunity for the re-routing of I-69 through Greenville instead of at the currently planned river crossing in Benoit.
Crossing in Benoit would require the construction of a new bridge.
"The department hasn't really talked about a change in the routing of I-69," Simmons said. "We want to get this project finished for its own sake."
https://www.ddtonline.com/front-page-slideshow/construction-greenville-bypass-will-take-year-or-longer-pick-back#sthash.AOXJPgzw.dpbs
I think the author of the article failed to recognize that Arkansas has a plan to route 69 north of Greenville and has already begun construction. Routing 69 through Greenville would be a mistake because the route becomes far less direct between Shreveport and Southaven. If the route goes through Greenville AND on the Monticello Bypass, then it becomes 30 miles LONGER to take I-69 than it would on I-40/I-30/I-49 (based off Google Maps estimation). If I-69 is ever going to bring development to the region it needs to be attractive for longer distance travel and trade, otherwise it will be an empty route with little chance of development. If Greenville really wants an interstate, they should opt for an x69 spur and swing it by the airport. US-82 has enough capacity to handle traffic form the east, they should finish the bypass, and a spur checks the box for an interstate.
Lest we forget the money issues Mississippi has, there needs to be plenty of federal money for this to happen, because as I've said, Mississippi will not do anything until Arkansas' I-69 is knocking on the doorstep.
Quote from: froggie on August 10, 2020, 06:12:46 PM
Quote from: I-55 on August 09, 2020, 02:17:39 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 05, 2020, 08:59:04 PM
Mississippi doesn't even need any new roads like this.
Mississippi's road network is good enough for what it is. The only places that may require attention are Jackson, Gulfport, and Southaven metros. Divided highways connecting major cities, no major traffic problems anywhere in the state, sparse rural highway traffic, and no winter weather like the midwest or northeast to create potholes leave no demands for more new routes. What is I-69 going to do for US-61? Nothing other than raise the speed limit by 5 mph. I consider the signing of I-22 to be the completion of Mississippi's highway network. Until there is a dramatic traffic or population change, things ain't broke, so don't fix em.
Volumes on 49 between Gulfport and Jackson are arguably high enough to warrant systematic improvement. Perhaps not the entire corridor, but there are lengthy enough segments with high enough traffic to warrant at least limited-access, if not fully-controlled access...especially Gulfport-Wiggins and Magee-Jackson.
Otherwise, I generally agree with your assessment.
Speaking of Wiggins and Magee, I'm surprised they haven't upgraded these gaps of US-49 into freeways around these towns since they have service roads along US-49 who could be upgraded into one-way service roads Texas style.
Quote from: I-55 on August 12, 2020, 12:41:44 PM
If the route goes through Greenville AND on the Monticello Bypass, then it becomes 30 miles LONGER to take I-69 than it would on I-40/I-30/I-49 (based off Google Maps estimation).
Arkansas has "sort of" started some work. Nothing that is not needed if I-69 and the great river bridge never happen.
This said from around ElDorado to to Benoit MS is around around 140 miles going through McGehee with the great river bridge.
This is very similar to the distance routing on US -82 through Greenville to Benoit. It actually is CLOSER going this way to Cleveland MS.
That leaves the Monticelo bypass hanging. It is a two lane road without grade separation. It is a bypass to get the heavy trucks out of downtown. It is NOT an orphaned interstate segment.
Sure there would be about 30 more miles of I-530 to have them join one another, but that still is far less than the cost of just the Arkansas portion of the bridge cost. (Actually doing it this way only adds about ten total miles
The Great River Bridge is an afront to every taxpayer in the US. If ANYONE can show me where building it makes any economic sense outside Arkansas County, Desha County , and Drew County Arkansas whose TOTAL populations added together is around 50,000.
National transportation is just as well served by following US82 to Greenville and 61 / 278 northward. Two bridges across the Mississippi River about thirty miles apart are not justified in this rural area.
Quote from: bwana39 on August 12, 2020, 10:07:03 PM
Quote from: I-55 on August 12, 2020, 12:41:44 PM
If the route goes through Greenville AND on the Monticello Bypass, then it becomes 30 miles LONGER to take I-69 than it would on I-40/I-30/I-49 (based off Google Maps estimation).
Arkansas has "sort of" started some work. Nothing that is not needed if I-69 and the great river bridge never happen.
This said from around ElDorado to to Benoit MS is around around 140 miles going through McGehee with the great river bridge.
This is very similar to the distance routing on US -82 through Greenville to Benoit. It actually is CLOSER going this way to Cleveland MS.
That leaves the Monticelo bypass hanging. It is a two lane road without grade separation. It is a bypass to get the heavy trucks out of downtown. It is NOT an orphaned interstate segment.
Sure there would be about 30 more miles of I-530 to have them join one another, but that still is far less than the cost of just the Arkansas portion of the bridge cost. (Actually doing it this way only adds about ten total miles
The Great River Bridge is an afront to every taxpayer in the US. If ANYONE can show me where building it makes any economic sense outside Arkansas County, Desha County , and Drew County Arkansas whose TOTAL populations added together is around 50,000.
National transportation is just as well served by following US82 to Greenville and 61 / 278 northward. Two bridges across the Mississippi River about thirty miles apart are not justified in this rural area.
Here here, that is a perfectly good newer bridge. Extend 230(or I 57) to the LA line on down to Bastrop, Monroe, Alexandra.
I strongly believe in running a parallel interstate down both sides of the Mississippi in case of The Big One. Growing up on top of the New Madrid does that. You lose that whe I-55 jumps across at Memphis. I-57 to at least Monroe addresses that. Right is interesting that it picks up.where I-55 would leave off and it running just west of the ridge in NEA.
Any new bridge should be around Memphis to replace the Old Bridge and at least create 3/4s of a loop around Memphis proper and possible prompt more economic activity on the Arkansas side. It should damn well include rail. If Memphisnpullsnoffnthat proposed container port at 5he old powerplant, maybe run it over at Presidents Island. I suggest it go from Lehi to near the current terminus of I- 69 in Tunica it is relief route around Memphis when BLM shuts a bridge or other events that close one of the bridges. Even I-40 could then circle south and up I-269 back to I-40 in case of such events. Idealmworld there would be two new Memphis Bridges. The other connecting to I-69 in Millington and I-555 at Turrell. I'm a fan of including US 412 as an extension of I-22 to Tulsa via I-555
Quote from: bwana39 on August 12, 2020, 10:07:03 PM
Quote from: I-55 on August 12, 2020, 12:41:44 PM
If the route goes through Greenville AND on the Monticello Bypass, then it becomes 30 miles LONGER to take I-69 than it would on I-40/I-30/I-49 (based off Google Maps estimation).
Arkansas has "sort of" started some work. Nothing that is not needed if I-69 and the great river bridge never happen.
This said from around ElDorado to to Benoit MS is around around 140 miles going through McGehee with the great river bridge.
This is very similar to the distance routing on US -82 through Greenville to Benoit. It actually is CLOSER going this way to Cleveland MS.
That leaves the Monticelo bypass hanging. It is a two lane road without grade separation. It is a bypass to get the heavy trucks out of downtown. It is NOT an orphaned interstate segment.
Sure there would be about 30 more miles of I-530 to have them join one another, but that still is far less than the cost of just the Arkansas portion of the bridge cost. (Actually doing it this way only adds about ten total miles
The Great River Bridge is an afront to every taxpayer in the US. If ANYONE can show me where building it makes any economic sense outside Arkansas County, Desha County , and Drew County Arkansas whose TOTAL populations added together is around 50,000.
National transportation is just as well served by following US82 to Greenville and 61 / 278 northward. Two bridges across the Mississippi River about thirty miles apart are not justified in this rural area.
No, it's not an affront, and yes, the Great River Bridge is justifiable.
There is no crossing of the Mississippi between Helena (US 49) and Greenville (US 82). 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.
I'd say that upgrading the Delta region with improved transportation is not a waste whatsoever.
If you are going to divert I-69 down to Greenville (or eliminate Tenaha-Shreveport-El Dorado-Monticello-Benoit-Cleveland-Tunica entirely and divert all national I-69/I-369 traffic through I-30/I-40 or an upgraded US 82/US 61), you might as well go full YOLO and upgrade all of US 61 through Vicksburg and Natchez down to Baton Rouge (via I-110). Or, simply extend I-530/AR 530 (more like I-51) down to Lake Charles through Alexandria and Monroe, and let I-10 through LC and Beaumont carry some of the I-69 relief.
In the meantime, though, there is still a full commitment nationally for I-69 to be built as planned and as set. The Great River Bridge, however offensive to some folks here, is still a part of that corridor. Just get the money and build it. The Greenville Bypass does not need I-69 to defend its purpose, and US 82 is fine as a 4-lane with bypasses.
Quote from: Anthony_JKthere is still a full commitment nationally for I-69 to be built as planned and as set.
I'd argue this is
not the case due to the lack of a funding plan.
Quote from: froggie on August 13, 2020, 07:41:34 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JKthere is still a full commitment nationally for I-69 to be built as planned and as set.
I'd argue this is not the case due to the lack of a funding plan.
I agree with Froggie. I hear a lot from certain regional groups but nothing on a national basis from any group that has the influence to make it happen. I know there are certain lobbying groups but they don't seen to be able to get a NATIONAL commitment from the Feds that I've seen.
Quote from: rte66man on August 13, 2020, 09:17:08 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 13, 2020, 07:41:34 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JKthere is still a full commitment nationally for I-69 to be built as planned and as set.
I'd argue this is not the case due to the lack of a funding plan.
I agree with Froggie. I hear a lot from certain regional groups but nothing on a national basis from any group that has the influence to make it happen. I know there are certain lobbying groups but they don't seen to be able to get a NATIONAL commitment from the Feds that I've seen.
Quite right. It seems the federal approach is to get the corridors legislatively established -- which they've had no problems doing (there are about 90 HPC's right now with a handful attached to Interstate designation) over the years through periodic "omnibus" bills from 1991's ISTEA down through 2005's SAFETEA-LU (each of which established multiple corridors) and more recent sporadic efforts -- and also via the process of simply using the yearly USDOT outlay legislation to add or append corridors thusly. But like with everything post-1973, there's no funding attached; the corridors are simply a place for future funding to be applied -- a process that requires efforts to do so enduring a tortuous path through both Congress and local jurisdictions trying to cobble together a funding package acceptable to all.
Did some basic arithmetic here -- if the 1500 miles added to the Interstate System in 1968 were to be repeated once per decade (in '78, '88, '98, '08, and finally 2018), we'd have about 50K miles -- all chargeable as per the original 1956 legislation -- rather than the approximately 46+K out there today -- and it, except for the last batch, would likely be in service today. And remember that that 1500 miles was whittled down from an original 4500 by a prioritization of Vietnam-era military expenditures -- so it conceivably could be more except for the "block grant" efforts in '72-'73 intended, in a back-handed way, to effectively curtail Federal initiation of expenditures. Thus any manifestations of "national effort" have been truncated in scope, limited to the compilation of a series of "wish lists" -- sort of the public-sector version of "Go Fund Me" pools -- but with a bounded set of donors (mainly Congress) who eke out funds for political expediency rather than a broader view of a comprehensive and ever-changing transportation environment. And that now means that other modes compete for those same funds, often on a mutually exclusionary basis (which may be rational regarding urban settings but a bit dicey when it comes to intercity/interregional corridor concepts). Currently it doesn't seem likely that any comprehensive
and adequately funded Interstate-related package will see the light of day for the foreseeable future. The Interstate System is now 64 years old -- and, with apologies to Sir Paul McCartney, it seems to be up in the air whether at that age it's considered to be either needed or fed!
Quote
There is no crossing of the Mississippi between Helena (US 49) and Greenville (US 82). 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?
Quote
If you are going to divert I-69 down to Greenville (or eliminate Tenaha-Shreveport-El Dorado-Monticello-Benoit-Cleveland-Tunica entirely and divert all national I-69/I-369 traffic through I-30/I-40 or an upgraded US 82/US 61),
Diverting "DOWN to Greenville"... No! simply just not go UP to Monticello. The mileage from West of El Dorado AR to Cleveland MS following US-82 and US 61/278 is the same MAYBE a little bit closer than the proposed (some would argue approved) I-69 route using the Great River Bridge. The point is not against the freeway, it is against the bridge. I MIGHT be convinced if a railroad component were added, but simply I don't see that happening. When the costs add up, that will be the first thing they cut.
Quote
...A Benoit crossing not only provides another 4-lane Interstate grade crossing to more directly connect Shreveport with Memphis..
It is ANOTHER Crossing, but it is not more direct. Going through Monticello, the road actually has a southerly (northbound) route out of Monticello (even on a new more direct routing.) While this is near to as far north as you can put it without having to cross the White and Ouachita rivers, it is by no means direct. Direct would cross them both and cross the Mississippi river NORTH of Helena. I will agree that some towns will miss out on I-69, but That is supposed to be the point. Go fairly straight from point to point. The Arkansas part of this road evidently DOES NOT.
The simple fact is using the existing bridge at Greenville can be accomplished without adding any distance to the route.
Quote
Just get the money and build it.
I think I will just get the money and buy a Ferrari?
Quote
There is no crossing of the Mississippi between Helena (US 49) and Greenville (US 82)
Yes between US-49 crossing and US-82 / 278 Crossing is a little more than the average of ~70 miles. That said, the extended distance is as much because of the confluence of the Arkansas & White Rivers as anything else. From the Arkansas side, the Charles W Dean bridge would not make the trip to Mississippi closer for much of anyone outside of the said same Arkansas, Desha, and Drew counties in Arkansas.
The direct route from Minden would have been to follow US-79 more or less to Mariana AR then cross the river.
Here is the problem with all of this. You cannot incrementally build a $1B+ bridge. Arkansas and Mississippi cannot afford the bridge. Sure in a perfect world, you have a bridge every 30 miles. That isn't the case on the SULPHUR River much less the Mississippi.
^
A southern corridor following US-82 and the existing southern bridge would be around the same mileage as the current proposal, minus the need to construct a new bridge.
It would require an additional 30 - 35 miles of I-530 construction though to meet I-69, which could easily be at least a billion dollars.
One option to fund construction of a new bridge could be tolling, but that could easily divert through traffic towards the I-30 / I-40 routing, and it likely wouldn't be sufficient to pay itself off. It could be funded with bonds to be repaid by an increased gas tax, which could overall help to accelerate its construction through Arkansas and Mississippi, but the likelihood of those states approving any such measure is likely moot. Until they decide to get to pass such increases or if a major government spending program is authorized to accelerate projects such as I-69, we probably won't be seeing much construction anytime soon except super-2 segments around towns, which is a good start with a limited budget. It secures right of way and a path for future 4 laning and freeway efforts.
Quote from: rte66man on August 13, 2020, 09:17:08 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 13, 2020, 07:41:34 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JKthere is still a full commitment nationally for I-69 to be built as planned and as set.
I'd argue this is not the case due to the lack of a funding plan.
I agree with Froggie. I hear a lot from certain regional groups but nothing on a national basis from any group that has the influence to make it happen. I know there are certain lobbying groups but they don't seen to be able to get a NATIONAL commitment from the Feds that I've seen.
A large part of the problem is that I-69 is for all intents & purposes the proverbial
camel -- i.e., a horse assembled by a committee. The corridor has two major backing groups with disparate interests -- one in SW Indiana, the other based in Houston, TX. Each is principally concerned with their sections of the corridor as extended SIU's (not to be confused with the 28 separate SIU's in the corridor's definition). The intervening states essentially had it shoved down their throats, with KY taking the most practical approach and simply deploying it over their existing parkway system, with what funds can be gleaned used for upgrades. Otherwise, TN is moving at what could be described as a glacial pace with their section, while MS built
their short SIU simply to reach casino territory (aside from I-269, which was a regionally needed project). And precious little is happening along the long-derided center section save half of the Monticello bypass and planning for an extension to US 65. And parts of 530 (which seems to draw more AR interest than any other I-69-related segment)! That's simply due to the lack of any sense of urgency between Tenaha, TX and Fulton, KY; it seems the prevailing sentiment is that "it'll get done when it gets done". Aside from the DOT's, most of which likely consider it just another unfunded mandate, there's no packs of boosters, official or
ad hoc, clamoring for more corridor mileage in their bailiwicks. Thus, being largely out of the public eye and the hoopla surrounding more immediaely useful corridor sections, its priority is well down any state's agenda
I really dislike the idea of routing I-69 clear down to the US-82 bridge in Greenville. It makes the I-69 route between Memphis and Shreveport more of a pointless, crooked L-shape. It would go really well with the dopey L-shaped route in Kentucky. If I-69 used the US-82 bridge then the I-69 route might as well go to Monroe rather than Shreveport.
I have nearly zero enthusiasm for the I-69 leg between Shreveport and Memphis. Even Memphis to Indianapolis is a pretty big dud of a corridor. Indiana will finish its portion of I-69 soon. The bulk of the remaining activity for I-69 in the foreseeable future will be down in Texas. They might as well give the I-69 routes in Texas a different number (or numbers).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2020, 02:37:42 PM
I really dislike the idea of routing I-69 clear down to the US-82 bridge in Greenville. It makes the I-69 route between Memphis and Shreveport more of a pointless, crooked L-shape. It would go really well with the dopey L-shaped route in Kentucky. If I-69 used the US-82 bridge then the I-69 route might as well go to Monroe rather than Shreveport.
OK, I kinda agree with you BUT!!!
The Routing at Arkansas City is the same shape. It just goes further north in Arkansas before it goes east to Mississippi. The only real difference is the Arkansas City route passes adjacent a few more towns and requires a new bridge. The US 82 route is only about 30 miles further south. As to "going down" I certainly am not advocating Eldorado to Monticello to McGehee and then down to Lake Village.
My personal preference is crossing the Mississippi north of the White River. I also understand that the additional bridging the White and Arkansas Rivers has significant cost as well.
As to Monroe: I-20 cannot support a duplex from Shreveport (or anywhere really. It is over capacity as it is.)
While I-49 went cross country from Alexandria to Shreveport it was a real hurricane escape route. There is not urgency to run it cross country (IE Mansfield to Jonesboro to Monroe). Shreveport is a population center. Shreveport-Bossier wants / needs a Red River Bridge at the port. Monroe might be moderately straighter for either an Arkansas City or a Lake Village Crossing, getting it to Monroe was ruled out early.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2020, 02:37:42 PM
I really dislike the idea of routing I-69 clear down to the US-82 bridge in Greenville. It makes the I-69 route between Memphis and Shreveport more of a pointless, crooked L-shape. It would go really well with the dopey L-shaped route in Kentucky. If I-69 used the US-82 bridge then the I-69 route might as well go to Monroe rather than Shreveport.
I have nearly zero enthusiasm for the I-69 leg between Shreveport and Memphis. Even Memphis to Indianapolis is a pretty big dud of a corridor. Indiana will finish its portion of I-69 soon. The bulk of the remaining activity for I-69 in the foreseeable future will be down in Texas. They might as well give the I-69 routes in Texas a different number (or numbers).
One of the more negative aspects of a possibly US 82 routing is that it's just too damn close to I-20 -- almost to the point of being, in long-range terms, functional duplication of service. But it's the presence of that relatively new and physically appropriate US 82 Mississippi River bridge that seems to have prompted much of the speculation of that route as an alternative to building the "Great River" bridge some 30-odd miles north. In this case, it's too little, too late. The only way this could be possibly useful as a I-69 crossing would be if (a) the MS section of the corridor would be brought south to and across the bridge, then heading west along US 82 to about Hamburg, where (b) AR 530 would be extended south to meet it there. Then (c) the corridor could turn south on US 425 and US 165 to I-20 at Monroe, multiplexing west from there to Shreveport (with appropriate widening/expansion); the presently proposed I-69 corridor would functionally cease to exist in AR while the extant portion of the Monticello bypass becomes a local server.
But all that is, of course, speculative to the point of being pretty much fictional. While it does leave some corridor segments within AR, and the Monticello university still gets served by the extended AR 530, the likelihood of AR entertaining such a change at this late date is miniscule. It's probable that the center leg of I-69 will eventually be fully developed -- but that will lag behind the TX and Memphis>Indy segments by decades.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2020, 02:37:42 PM
I really dislike the idea of routing I-69 clear down to the US-82 bridge in Greenville. It makes the I-69 route between Memphis and Shreveport more of a pointless, crooked L-shape.
He already explained a routing down there would follow the US-82 corridor fully, it would not divert back north. I drew a conceptual southern route in Google My Maps compared to the current proposal, and the distance is around the same.
The only downside is having to build another ~30 miles of I-530 which may make it more worthwhile to build the current proposal and new bridge.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2020, 02:37:42 PM
It would go really well with the dopey L-shaped route in Kentucky. If I-69 used the US-82 bridge then the I-69 route might as well go to Monroe rather than Shreveport.
Well, what were they supposed to do? Build 70-80 miles of new terrain freeway for a couple billion dollars just to shave off 15-20 miles when there's already around 100 miles of existing freeway that adequately handles the traffic? Using existing segments and reducing new construction and costs while potentially adding some mileage overall isn't a new concept and was even used in the original interstate system. Look at I-64 in West Virginia. I-90 in Wyoming. I-65 in Alabama.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2020, 02:37:42 PM
I have nearly zero enthusiasm for the I-69 leg between Shreveport and Memphis. Even Memphis to Indianapolis is a pretty big dud of a corridor. Indiana will finish its portion of I-69 soon. The bulk of the remaining activity for I-69 in the foreseeable future will be down in Texas. They might as well give the I-69 routes in Texas a different number (or numbers).
Tennessee is pushing ahead, albeit slowly. As gaps are filled in, I-69 will likely be a continuous interstate from Port Huron, MI to Dyersburg, TN by the end of this decade, with potentially upgrade work beginning south towards Memphis.
The benefits of the interstate cannot be reaped until its fully complete. It would provide an alternate and similar routing to congested segments of I-40, I-30, I-55, I-57, and I-70, along with a needed interstate connection between I-20 and I-30 (via I-369) and Houston, Corpus Christi, and the Rio Grande Valley.
It's been questioned on this forum before why US-61 in Mississippi, for example, needs an interstate upgrade when it's an adequate 4 lane highway. It's not necessarily about improving that highway, but it's the bigger picture. Not constructing an interstate between Memphis and Clarksdale, but rather an interstate between Port Huron, MI and Brownsville, TX. The traffic demands don't exist today, but a completed interstate would show otherwise. If you completed all segments of interstate except, for example, that portion, traffic volumes would likely increase as people begin to use that route over I-40 / I-30. Perhaps completing Arkansas' and Louisiana's portions of I-69 will be necessary for Mississippi to push ahead with its segment.
Quote
One of the more negative aspects of a possibly US 82 routing is that it's just too damn close to I-20 -- almost to the point of being, in long-range terms, functional duplication of service. But it's the presence of that relatively new and physically appropriate US 82 Mississippi River bridge that seems to have prompted much of the speculation of that route as an alternative to building the "Great River" bridge some 30-odd miles north.
I agree fully I-20 and a US-82 routing are a little close as is the proposed Mississippi I-69 segment to I-55. (the distance between I-69 at Cleveland to I-55 at Grenada would be about 55 miles. It tapers closer as it goes north.)
While as someone said, Trent Lott wanted the pork for Mississippi. The current funding schemes don't give us the free ride we had for decades. It makes the states make hard choices. Is Interstate 69 in mississippi something Mississippi is going to make a hard choice for?
My real issue with any of this is during the next forty years, there will probably only be one new bridge built across the Mississippi River in Mississippi. Does it go in this rural area linking two mostly duplicative stretches of road or should it go in Northwest Mississippi linking the southern suburbs of Memphis?
As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.
Quote from: bwana39 on August 15, 2020, 07:30:48 PM
As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.
That N-S section of the I-69 "cluster" seems to garner prioritization from ADOT and its handlers, since it links the two major cities in the center of the state (LR, Pine Bluff) down to South Arkansas; the state is certainly taking advantage of their "consolation prize" re the loss of the Dickey Split routing. And I agree that if plans are afoot to extend it down into LA, there will likely be pressure to make it a 2di -- such would possibly attract more LA interest that an overlong 3di based on an trunk interstate not even serving that state. And an extension of I-57 could be sold to the powers that be as a singular or even direct Chicago-Louisiana conduit. I think that if such an extension ever comes to pass the I-57 designation is a slam dunk.
Quote from: sprjus4Well, what were they supposed to do? Build 70-80 miles of new terrain freeway for a couple billion dollars just to shave off 15-20 miles when there's already around 100 miles of existing freeway that adequately handles the traffic?
What are they supposed to do? My answer: at this point they might as well just build out the Texas I-69 system to Texarkana and then use I-30 and I-40 instead. Add more lanes to those routes if need be. They're far more
straight and direct. Pull the plug on I-69 in LA, AR and MS. It's a waste of money.
Also, "100 miles of existing freeway"? Where? Is that in reference to US-61? IIRC, the I-69 route in MS will still require a good bit of new terrain routing. It can't just all be plopped onto the existing US-61 ROW. It's not wide enough in various places and has a decent number of businesses and homes built right up next to it.
If it was up to me, I'd have I-69 cross the Mississippi River up by Tunica and have I-69 run diagonally across Southern Arkansas toward Shreveport from there. But that much more direct route would involve additional bridges over the White and Arkansas Rivers, which is why the Benoit-McGehee area was chosen for an I-69 crossing. It's just south of the confluence of those two rivers into the Mississippi. Nevertheless, a Mississippi River bridge by Tunica is badly needed. The I-55 bridge over the Mississippi in Memphis totally sucks. And the I-40 bridge isn't much better. That kind of makes the Great River Bridge look like a wasteful extravagance.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2020, 12:53:03 PM
What are they supposed to do? My answer: at this point they might as well just build out the Texas I-69 system to Texarkana and then use I-30 and I-40 instead. Add more lanes to those routes if need be. They're far more straight and direct. Pull the plug on I-69 in LA, AR and MS. It's a waste of money.
The proposed I-69 routing between Memphis and Tenaha is around the same distance that the proposed I-369, I-30, and I-40 are.
Traffic following I-30 and I-40 from Memphis towards Little Rock, Dallas-Fort Worth, Fort Smith, Oklahoma City, etc. would continue using that route while traffic heading south along the I-69 corridor would be diverted off of I-30 and I-40 onto I-69 and even if carrying as low as 20,000 - 30,000 AADT, that's still less traffic on I-30 and I-40, especially trucks heading south towards Houston, Corpus Christi, Laredo, San Antonio, Brownsville, etc.
Distance won't be a competitive factor as they're the same for both routes (if complete). It's a factor of where traffic is destined to.
As for money, widening I-30 and I-40 has costs too. It isn't free. Over 200 miles of widening required, 400+ lane miles if you're adding 1 lane in each direction, and up to 800+ lane miles if you're adding 2 lanes in each direction. Not cheap. Easily over $2 billion, with all the costs pressed on Arkansas. With I-69, it's largely split between Arkansas and Mississippi.
The federal government needs to get their game together and resume the process of providing significant federal funding towards projects of these natures, and really towards new interstate corridors and improvements / widenings on existing corridors. This would involve increasing the federal gas tax which should've happened decades ago.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2020, 12:53:03 PM
Also, "100 miles of existing freeway"? Where?
Pennyrile Pkwy, Western Kentucky Pkwy, I-24.
You called the routing in Kentucky "crooked", and while this may be the case due to the location of existing infrastructure, why would they spend billions of dollars just to shave off 15-20 miles on an already adequate routing just to build a new terrain routing along the US-60 corridor?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2020, 12:53:03 PM
Is that in reference to US-61? IIRC, the I-69 route in MS will still require a good bit of new terrain routing. It can't just all be plopped onto the existing US-61 ROW. It's not wide enough in various places and has a decent number of businesses and homes built right up next to it.
I never was referring to US-61. US-61 will require parts built on new location, other upgrade, to bring it to full interstate standards. Most of the route is not freeway except a couple bypasses.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 16, 2020, 01:10:38 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2020, 12:53:03 PM
What are they supposed to do? My answer: at this point they might as well just build out the Texas I-69 system to Texarkana and then use I-30 and I-40 instead. Add more lanes to those routes if need be. They're far more straight and direct. Pull the plug on I-69 in LA, AR and MS. It's a waste of money.
The proposed I-69 routing between Memphis and Tenaha is around the same distance that the proposed I-369, I-30, and I-40 are.
Traffic following I-30 and I-40 from Memphis towards Little Rock, Dallas-Fort Worth, Fort Smith, Oklahoma City, etc. would continue using that route while traffic heading south along the I-69 corridor would be diverted off of I-30 and I-40 onto I-69 and even if carrying as low as 20,000 - 30,000 AADT, that's still less traffic on I-30 and I-40, especially trucks heading south towards Houston, Corpus Christi, Laredo, San Antonio, Brownsville, etc.
Distance won't be a competitive factor as they're the same for both routes (if complete). It's a factor of where traffic is destined to.
As for money, widening I-30 and I-40 has costs too. It isn't free. Over 200 miles of widening required, 400+ lane miles if you're adding 1 lane in each direction, and up to 800+ lane miles if you're adding 2 lanes in each direction. Not cheap. Easily over $2 billion, with all the costs pressed on Arkansas. With I-69, it's largely split between Arkansas and Mississippi.
The federal government needs to get their game together and resume the process of providing significant federal funding towards projects of these natures, and really towards new interstate corridors and improvements / widenings on existing corridors. This would involve increasing the federal gas tax which should've happened decades ago.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2020, 12:53:03 PM
Also, "100 miles of existing freeway"? Where?
Pennyrile Pkwy, Western Kentucky Pkwy, I-24.
You called the routing in Kentucky "crooked", and while this may be the case due to the location of existing infrastructure, why would they spend billions of dollars just to shave off 15-20 miles on an already adequate routing just to build a new terrain routing along the US-60 corridor?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2020, 12:53:03 PM
Is that in reference to US-61? IIRC, the I-69 route in MS will still require a good bit of new terrain routing. It can't just all be plopped onto the existing US-61 ROW. It's not wide enough in various places and has a decent number of businesses and homes built right up next to it.
I never was referring to US-61. US-61 will require parts built on new location, other upgrade, to bring it to full interstate standards. Most of the route is not freeway except a couple bypasses.
As I noted in another thread. It's not always about how many miles on the certain route.
There is also capacity and resiliency. There can be many routes from A to B, all with the same miles.
But if one route goes out of service for an extended period of time, that capacity has to be absorbed somewhere.
If looking at routes regionally, one route may provide the miles and the capacity, but has no alternative if it fails for whatever reason.
Clearly there are routes that even if pushed for commercial reasons may also have regional or military goals as well.
I think everyone on these boards could find a route that seems completely irrational at first blush and then later discover it served a purpose above just simply supplying a safe way to travel.
Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2020, 07:54:51 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 15, 2020, 07:30:48 PM
As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.
That N-S section of the I-69 "cluster" seems to garner prioritization from ADOT and its handlers, since it links the two major cities in the center of the state (LR, Pine Bluff) down to South Arkansas; the state is certainly taking advantage of their "consolation prize" re the loss of the Dickey Split routing. And I agree that if plans are afoot to extend it down into LA, there will likely be pressure to make it a 2di -- such would possibly attract more LA interest that an overlong 3di based on an trunk interstate not even serving that state. And an extension of I-57 could be sold to the powers that be as a singular or even direct Chicago-Louisiana conduit. I think that if such an extension ever comes to pass the I-57 designation is a slam dunk.
I think that Arkansas, much like Texas with I-369, hedged their bets knowing the struggle to fund and complete I-69 would be in the middle stretch, so Arkansas puts the emphasis on what serves its needs without having to involve Louisiana and Mississippi, which are just as broke, if not more so. Trouble is, I-30/I-40 East in Arkansas will be unbearable if I-369 gets finished before a 3x3 upgrade of I-30/I-40 East.
Quote from: MikieTimT on August 17, 2020, 03:37:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2020, 07:54:51 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 15, 2020, 07:30:48 PM
As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.
That N-S section of the I-69 "cluster" seems to garner prioritization from ADOT and its handlers, since it links the two major cities in the center of the state (LR, Pine Bluff) down to South Arkansas; the state is certainly taking advantage of their "consolation prize" re the loss of the Dickey Split routing. And I agree that if plans are afoot to extend it down into LA, there will likely be pressure to make it a 2di -- such would possibly attract more LA interest that an overlong 3di based on an trunk interstate not even serving that state. And an extension of I-57 could be sold to the powers that be as a singular or even direct Chicago-Louisiana conduit. I think that if such an extension ever comes to pass the I-57 designation is a slam dunk.
Louisiana and Mississippi rank 43rd and 44th nationally in fiscal health. Arkansas is 21st. Illinois which just doubled their gas taxes is ranked last and is going on a road spending spree.
Quote from: edwaleni on August 23, 2020, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on August 17, 2020, 03:37:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2020, 07:54:51 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 15, 2020, 07:30:48 PM
As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.
That N-S section of the I-69 "cluster" seems to garner prioritization from ADOT and its handlers, since it links the two major cities in the center of the state (LR, Pine Bluff) down to South Arkansas; the state is certainly taking advantage of their "consolation prize" re the loss of the Dickey Split routing. And I agree that if plans are afoot to extend it down into LA, there will likely be pressure to make it a 2di -- such would possibly attract more LA interest that an overlong 3di based on an trunk interstate not even serving that state. And an extension of I-57 could be sold to the powers that be as a singular or even direct Chicago-Louisiana conduit. I think that if such an extension ever comes to pass the I-57 designation is a slam dunk.
Louisiana and Mississippi rank 43rd and 44th nationally in fiscal health. Arkansas is 21st. Illinois which just doubled their gas taxes is ranked last and is going on a road spending spree.
I think that Arkansas, much like Texas with I-369, hedged their bets knowing the struggle to fund and complete I-69 would be in the middle stretch, so Arkansas puts the emphasis on what serves its needs without having to involve Louisiana and Mississippi, which are just as broke, if not more so. Trouble is, I-30/I-40 East in Arkansas will be unbearable if I-369 gets finished before a 3x3 upgrade of I-30/I-40 East.
I see I-69 between Tenaha, TX and Memphis, TN being an alternative to the I-30/40 routing if it ever gets built. Arkansas right now appears to be the only state that has the fiscal means to move I-69 forward, thanks to the state's voters supporting recent sales tax increases to help pay for Arkansas' investments in its road infrastructure. Like anything else, there's never enough money to go around, so the state has to rack and stack what things get paid for and what has to wait. With that said, I would suspect that the top-three priority list would go as follows: 1) complete I-49 to Missouri; 2) complete US-67 (future I-57) to Missouri; 3) reconstruct and widen I-40 from Little Rock to Memphis. Somewhere down below those priorities would be: completing the remainder of I-49 between Texarkana and Fort Smith; and completing whatever portions of the I-69 system they think they can get done without having to wait on Louisiana or Mississippi.
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 24, 2020, 01:16:28 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on August 23, 2020, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on August 17, 2020, 03:37:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2020, 07:54:51 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 15, 2020, 07:30:48 PM
As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.
That N-S section of the I-69 "cluster" seems to garner prioritization from ADOT and its handlers, since it links the two major cities in the center of the state (LR, Pine Bluff) down to South Arkansas; the state is certainly taking advantage of their "consolation prize" re the loss of the Dickey Split routing. And I agree that if plans are afoot to extend it down into LA, there will likely be pressure to make it a 2di -- such would possibly attract more LA interest that an overlong 3di based on an trunk interstate not even serving that state. And an extension of I-57 could be sold to the powers that be as a singular or even direct Chicago-Louisiana conduit. I think that if such an extension ever comes to pass the I-57 designation is a slam dunk.
Louisiana and Mississippi rank 43rd and 44th nationally in fiscal health. Arkansas is 21st. Illinois which just doubled their gas taxes is ranked last and is going on a road spending spree.
I think that Arkansas, much like Texas with I-369, hedged their bets knowing the struggle to fund and complete I-69 would be in the middle stretch, so Arkansas puts the emphasis on what serves its needs without having to involve Louisiana and Mississippi, which are just as broke, if not more so. Trouble is, I-30/I-40 East in Arkansas will be unbearable if I-369 gets finished before a 3x3 upgrade of I-30/I-40 East.
I see I-69 between Tenaha, TX and Memphis, TN being an alternative to the I-30/40 routing if it ever gets built. Arkansas right now appears to be the only state that has the fiscal means to move I-69 forward, thanks to the state's voters supporting recent sales tax increases to help pay for Arkansas' investments in its road infrastructure. Like anything else, there's never enough money to go around, so the state has to rack and stack what things get paid for and what has to wait. With that said, I would suspect that the top-three priority list would go as follows: 1) complete I-49 to Missouri; 2) complete US-67 (future I-57) to Missouri; 3) reconstruct and widen I-40 from Little Rock to Memphis. Somewhere down below those priorities would be: completing the remainder of I-49 between Texarkana and Fort Smith; and completing whatever portions of the I-69 system they think they can get done without having to wait on Louisiana or Mississippi.
Essentially in agreement with the above, except that I'd put the I-49 Texarkana-Fort Smith completion on at least an equal footing to upgrading of I-40 east of LR. Sneaking suspicion that ADOT would also see I-69 as an I-40 relief route and "kick the can" on a full I-40 revamp, preferring spot fixes (some slip lanes, a bit of widening east from I-440 and west from I-55, bridge work). Now -- if outraged truckers were to descend on ADOT HQ
en masse demanding substantive I-40 upgrades, the scales indeed could be tipped toward that revamp!
^
VA I-81 all over again.
Needs 6 lane widening throughout (325 miles), the current plan only includes around 50 miles of widening with the rest being ramp extensions, climbing lanes, and many other minor touches.
And they almost were going to collect a high toll to fund the minor features. I'd be fine with a toll if they widened all 325 miles to 6 lanes minimum.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 24, 2020, 07:25:13 PM
^
VA I-81 all over again.
Needs 6 lane widening throughout (325 miles), the current plan only includes around 50 miles of widening with the rest being ramp extensions, climbing lanes, and many other minor touches.
And they almost were going to collect a high toll to fund the minor features. I'd be fine with a toll if they widened all 325 miles to 6 lanes minimum.
Widening I-30 from Texas state line to Little Rock: I said this before and I ceded my position. I hadn't been past Hope on I-30 in around a decade so I was not sure. I looked at GSV and conceded that it might work.
I went to Benton recently. It made me realize that what I seemed to remember was correct. The amount of overpass replacement would be prohibitive. While there are some that three lanes and an outside shoulder might be wedged in. More, barely have room for what is there already; especially the ones with three portals (there are two sets of supports in the median with space between them . It resembles the rail lines on I-80 in California. )
This erases much if not all of any incentive to forget about I-69 from Shreveport to Memphis (at least from an expense perspective.) While I may not be a fan of the proposed I-69 routing through Arkansas and Mississippi, I clearly see the need for it if traffic volumes stay the same or increase between Texas and Memphis. I-30 is already too busy. I am not sure the traffic volumes will increase that dramatically when I -369 is finished as US-59 has a fairly large volume of truck traffic already. It might balloon if I-49 is completed to Fort Smith as this would relieve I-35 from South Texas to KCMO.
Quote from: bwana39 on August 25, 2020, 10:45:35 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 24, 2020, 07:25:13 PM
^
VA I-81 all over again.
Needs 6 lane widening throughout (325 miles), the current plan only includes around 50 miles of widening with the rest being ramp extensions, climbing lanes, and many other minor touches.
And they almost were going to collect a high toll to fund the minor features. I'd be fine with a toll if they widened all 325 miles to 6 lanes minimum.
Widening I-30 from Texas state line to Little Rock: I said this before and I ceded my position. I hadn't been past Hope on I-30 in around a decade so I was not sure. I looked at GSV and conceded that it might work.
I went to Benton recently. It made me realize that what I seemed to remember was correct. The amount of overpass replacement would be prohibitive. While there are some that three lanes and an outside shoulder might be wedged in. More, barely have room for what is there already; especially the ones with three portals (there are two sets of supports in the median with space between them . It resembles the rail lines on I-80 in California. )
This erases much if not all of any incentive to forget about I-69 from Shreveport to Memphis (at least from an expense perspective.) While I may not be a fan of the proposed I-69 routing through Arkansas and Mississippi, I clearly see the need for it if traffic volumes stay the same or increase between Texas and Memphis. I-30 is already too busy. I am not sure the traffic volumes will increase that dramatically when I -369 is finished as US-59 has a fairly large volume of truck traffic already. It might balloon if I-49 is completed to Fort Smith as this would relieve I-35 from South Texas to KCMO.
Rail lines in the median of the CA segment of I-80? The only such instance of this is the very short LR segment in north Sacramento within the "split" of what is now I-80 but previously the I-880 bypass arc and the abortive reroute of I-80 into central Sacramento, now occupied by the terminal station of the North Sacramento LR line. Other CA freeways have LR or commute rail down the middle, notably I-238 and I-580 from San Lorenzo out to Pleasanton (BART), CA 24 in Oakland and also through Orinda and Lafayette (also BART), and CA 85 and 87 in San Jose (Valley Metro light rail). And, probably most famously, the Metrolink line down the center of I-10 from just east of downtown L.A. (actually near CSULA) out to El Monte -- the section where a commuter sitting in 5-10 mph (at best) traffic gets passed regularly by outbound trains doing 75-80!
But getting back to the matter at hand -- the analysis of the rationale behind maintaining the I-69 alignment as a relief route is pretty spot on; if TX completes its I-69/369 continuum well ahead of full development of the main I-69 trunk across AR and into MS, expect to see serious consequences -- essentially "rolling congestion" along I-30, I-440, and I-40 across the state (possibly lessened once I-57 is completed) due to the present configuration of both freeways, which doesn't readily lend itself to expansion without a substantial overall rebuild. Much freeway design of the '60's, particularly in states that employed a more frugal approach to the original design/construction effort, is that type -- not anticipating the overall traffic increases that have occurred in the last half century. And remember that a relief route "offsite", so to speak, doesn't pose the traffic interruption issues endemic to "expand-in-place" efforts.
Quote from: sparker on August 24, 2020, 06:10:27 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 24, 2020, 01:16:28 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on August 23, 2020, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on August 17, 2020, 03:37:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2020, 07:54:51 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 15, 2020, 07:30:48 PM
As to I-530 (or I-57 eventually), I could see it in Monroe before I-69 is built from Minden.
That N-S section of the I-69 "cluster" seems to garner prioritization from ADOT and its handlers, since it links the two major cities in the center of the state (LR, Pine Bluff) down to South Arkansas; the state is certainly taking advantage of their "consolation prize" re the loss of the Dickey Split routing. And I agree that if plans are afoot to extend it down into LA, there will likely be pressure to make it a 2di -- such would possibly attract more LA interest that an overlong 3di based on an trunk interstate not even serving that state. And an extension of I-57 could be sold to the powers that be as a singular or even direct Chicago-Louisiana conduit. I think that if such an extension ever comes to pass the I-57 designation is a slam dunk.
Louisiana and Mississippi rank 43rd and 44th nationally in fiscal health. Arkansas is 21st. Illinois which just doubled their gas taxes is ranked last and is going on a road spending spree.
I think that Arkansas, much like Texas with I-369, hedged their bets knowing the struggle to fund and complete I-69 would be in the middle stretch, so Arkansas puts the emphasis on what serves its needs without having to involve Louisiana and Mississippi, which are just as broke, if not more so. Trouble is, I-30/I-40 East in Arkansas will be unbearable if I-369 gets finished before a 3x3 upgrade of I-30/I-40 East.
I see I-69 between Tenaha, TX and Memphis, TN being an alternative to the I-30/40 routing if it ever gets built. Arkansas right now appears to be the only state that has the fiscal means to move I-69 forward, thanks to the state's voters supporting recent sales tax increases to help pay for Arkansas' investments in its road infrastructure. Like anything else, there's never enough money to go around, so the state has to rack and stack what things get paid for and what has to wait. With that said, I would suspect that the top-three priority list would go as follows: 1) complete I-49 to Missouri; 2) complete US-67 (future I-57) to Missouri; 3) reconstruct and widen I-40 from Little Rock to Memphis. Somewhere down below those priorities would be: completing the remainder of I-49 between Texarkana and Fort Smith; and completing whatever portions of the I-69 system they think they can get done without having to wait on Louisiana or Mississippi.
Essentially in agreement with the above, except that I'd put the I-49 Texarkana-Fort Smith completion on at least an equal footing to upgrading of I-40 east of LR. Sneaking suspicion that ADOT would also see I-69 as an I-40 relief route and "kick the can" on a full I-40 revamp, preferring spot fixes (some slip lanes, a bit of widening east from I-440 and west from I-55, bridge work). Now -- if outraged truckers were to descend on ADOT HQ en masse demanding substantive I-40 upgrades, the scales indeed could be tipped toward that revamp!
I-49's been extended to the Missouri border. Meaning Future 57 and 40's widening are the only things left in the top three to be completed.
Quote from: codyg1985 on September 10, 2013, 08:41:25 AM
Looks like MDOT really wants to get I-10 widened through most of the state.
What project are they referring to with the I-59 interchange at MS 42? There is already an interchange in place there.
But not a mention of I-69 which is this thread's point.
Does anyone know when they will resume I-69 work? How much funding would it take?
It would take at least 8-digits to realistically get the next section done. 9 to 10 digits for the entire thing. Given how anti-tax Mississippi is, plus the lack of an infrastructure package coming out of Congress, don't expect work to resume anytime soon.
Quote from: Thegeet on October 23, 2021, 12:22:36 AM
Does anyone know when they will resume I-69 work? How much funding would it take?
To the folks in the Mississippi Legislature, this is an extremely low priority item. The folks in west Mississippi don't really see the need.
Even if the feds sent 90% earmarked funds, it might not be enough for Mississippi to want to put in the 10%.
Most of the people in Mississippi feel like it is redundant to I-55.
I-69 IF IT IS EVER BUILT should follow US-79 to near Memphis. Yes there would need ot be crossings of both the White and Arkansas rivers, but from a NATIONAL transportation standpoint, it makes far better sense than a road that meanders through eastern Arkansa and then winds up in farming country in Mississippi where the road will pass through not much more.
QuoteThe folks in west Mississippi don't really see the need.
Having lived in Mississippi, I would disagree with this claim. Folks in the Delta want the road, but they don't have a lot of clout in the state Legislature.
Quote from: froggie on October 23, 2021, 10:17:38 AM
QuoteThe folks in west Mississippi don't really see the need.
Having lived in Mississippi, I would disagree with this claim. Folks in the Delta want the road, but they don't have a lot of clout in the state Legislature.
I will admit that I know virtually no one in the delta. Most of the ones I ever talk to are from either around Jackson or Southhaven. Wife has distant relatives in Clarksdale and Greenwood. They are neither optimistic of it ever coming or particularly concerned if it doesn't. That was not too long after the route was proposed. I can't imagine it has changed a lot since then.
There will always be people either those who own business that traffic would help or those who own property that would increase in value who would support anything. There is always a call for economic development. The problem is that it economic development is almost exclusively driven by sales of commercial property. Job creation is part of what the developers tout to make it more palatable for those affected negatively by the development. The construction of highways may spur minimal local hiring, but, all in all, today's roadbuilding companies are based outside the region and bring in most of not all of their labor.
Yes, the new facilities along the freeway such as restaurants, gas stations, truck stops, and others will spur the purchase of the newly minted commercial property. Beyond that in a lot of cases it takes more away then it adds.
Quote from: MikieTimT on December 26, 2022, 02:52:16 PM
Infographics YouTube video on the Interstate just got posted yesterday. Of course, most of the comments were about the number! :-D
https://youtu.be/4anVYVJvtBI (https://youtu.be/4anVYVJvtBI)
Pretty lame cheerleader video. I really think it needed posted at least thrice. Maybe a few other threads needed it added to them too.
Governor Tate Reeves of Mississippi announced a $1.3 billion transportation and infrastructure proposal for his state. If approved by the Mississippi Legislature, there would be years of road construction going on in Mississippi. The map below shows where the proposed transportation and infrastructure projects would be located.
Interestingly...or maybe not surprisingly...Governor Reeves proposal makes no mention of furthering work on I-69. At best, I would say that finishing I-69 through Mississippi is dormant...and at worst...it's dead.
(https://mcusercontent.com/08cb3e52aa1308600f84d49ea/images/5a64369d-18be-a1a9-670d-f4c81d70beb2.jpg)
I wonder how the infrastructure proposal is going to be paid for?
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 17, 2023, 10:23:41 AM
I wonder how the infrastructure proposal is going to be paid for?
At least some of the money would be coming from the federal IIJA. The rest of it, that I don't know.
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 17, 2023, 10:23:41 AM
I wonder how the infrastructure proposal is going to be paid for?
From all the money Jackson State collected while Coach Prime was there. :hmmm:
JSU sold a record amount of merch while Coach was there.
They are still looking for the missing gate receipts (40%) from one home game that sold out last year.
Maybe who ever has it is paying. (not)
The governor's press release (https://mailchi.mp/dcf36372e607/governor-tate-reeves-infrastructure-investments?e=abdf4c75d7) makes no mention of where the money is coming from, and virtually every news and TV article I found just regurgitates that press release.
I only found a small nugget in MDOT's response (https://mdot.ms.gov/portal/news_release_view/1359), which suggests that it is or will be one-time money but will require legislative approval.
(EDIT:) This news article (https://www.djournal.com/news/state-news/gov-reeves-asks-legislature-to-fund-1-3-billion-in-new-road-projects/article_0cb9ad63-752d-5a01-8320-5ea26ef7aaae.html) finally gives us an idea. The governor is asking the Legislature to approve the funding from the state's budget surplus and capital expense fund.
Brett Favre will have a few dollars to spare...I'm sure of it.🤣
I -69 benefits virtually no one in Mississippi beyond Tunica and DeSoto Counties. There is really no reason the state is going to prioritize it. i-22 got built to Tupelo which until recently was a major banking hub. I-69 in Mississippi (as proposed by Arkansas) runs from nothing through nothing.
Idea - how about build I-69 (once the bridge is ever built) to US-278 (coming in from Arkansas), and just perform upgrades to US-278 / US-61?
Not limited access, just spot improvements where needed and maybe if money allows, a couple town bypasses? It's already a four lane divided highway with little traffic, so just use what already exists.
It functions more as a regional route (connecting Memphis to towns in the area) than a thru route (long distance, major city to city), interstate highways already exist for long haul travel in that direction, and can be improved with much needed 6 lane widening.
I'm not opposing I-69, but if money is such an issue, this should at least be done in the interim (assuming the bridge is ever built).
If money ever flows in, or traffic demand, 50 years from now, then the rest could be built.
Quote from: cjk374 on February 18, 2023, 11:34:13 PM
Brett Favre will have a few dollars to spare...I'm sure of it.🤣
He gave the ELF money back when he heard where it came from. While people remember the initial reports, there seems to be a collective memory loss about his returning the money when he found out.
Mr. Favre is currently in the act of filing several lawsuits for libel against several sportscasters for continuing to propogate the false accusation.
I am not a Brett Favre fan by any means, but he did the right thing when it comes down to it.
If more of Interstate 69 in Mississippi is ever built, I would connect it with existing US 61, then run it down 61 to the Clarksdale Bypass, then have 69 leaving the existing 61 corridor at Merigold to access the proposed Charles W. Dean Bridge into Arkansas. That would, of course, require a bypass being constructed around Tunica (which probably should happen regardless of any Interstate 69 plans).
I think that if anyone wants the Shreveport to Memphis leg of I-69 completed any time within the next 50 years they might want to consider building a lot more of it in Arkansas. Basically that means a diagonal route from Monticello up to a point across the Mississippi River from Tunica.
It's bad enough Arkansas already has too much on its plate with other Interstate highway proposals (multiple I-57 and I-49 projects in particular). But Mississippi is literally the poorest state in the nation. It has the highest rate of poverty. The state's tax base isn't worth a damn. The only way I see more I-69 projects getting completed in Mississippi is if the federal government funds the entire thing. And that includes around $2 billion (and counting) for the Great River Bridge.
I think it would be easier to get funding for a new Mississippi River bridge crossing near Tunica, in part to continue that I-269 loop West across the river and up to I-40. The two existing Mississippi River bridges in Memphis are aging. The one for I-55 really sucks. A new bridge near Tunica could serve multiple purposes. It would be a back-up for the I-40 & I-55 crossings. An I-69/269 bridge by Tunica might spur a lot of resort development in that NW corner of Mississippi. The Memphis metro is a major logistical hub for US commerce. That industry could be helped if I-69 could be completed faster on the Arkansas side of the river.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2023, 12:14:26 PM
If more of Interstate 69 in Mississippi is ever built, I would connect it with existing US 61, then run it down 61 to the Clarksdale Bypass, then have 69 leaving the existing 61 corridor at Merigold to access the proposed Charles W. Dean Bridge into Arkansas. That would, of course, require a bypass being constructed around Tunica (which probably should happen regardless of any Interstate 69 plans).
The currently approved plans for I-69 does have it parallel US 61 from Tunica southward, then overlay the US 61-US 49 bypass of Clarksdale (portions of which are already freeway grade), then divert from it to cross the Mississippi into Arkansas via the Charles Dean Bridge.
If Arkansas or Mississippi have no intent of building their portions of I-69, though, I'd seriously consider junking the entirety of it. Just build the Dyersburg (I-155) to downtown Memphis (TN 300/I-240) section and terminate at downtown Memphis. Transform the "I-269 extension" into Tunica into an outer loop with a southern crossing of the Mississippi connecting to I-40, and then use the US 79 corridor between Pine Bluff and I-40, and an I-530/AR 530 extension to Monroe (with future extension to Alexandria and Lake Charles) to complete the connection. You would have to find some way to renumber the I-69 colossus in Texas, but that would be far less expensive than waiting 60 years for this corridor to be completed.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 19, 2023, 10:53:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2023, 12:14:26 PM
If more of Interstate 69 in Mississippi is ever built, I would connect it with existing US 61, then run it down 61 to the Clarksdale Bypass, then have 69 leaving the existing 61 corridor at Merigold to access the proposed Charles W. Dean Bridge into Arkansas. That would, of course, require a bypass being constructed around Tunica (which probably should happen regardless of any Interstate 69 plans).
The currently approved plans for I-69 does have it parallel US 61 from Tunica southward, then overlay the US 61-US 49 bypass of Clarksdale (portions of which are already freeway grade), then divert from it to cross the Mississippi into Arkansas via the Charles Dean Bridge.
If Arkansas or Mississippi have no intent of building their portions of I-69, though, I'd seriously consider junking the entirety of it. Just build the Dyersburg (I-155) to downtown Memphis (TN 300/I-240) section and terminate at downtown Memphis. Transform the "I-269 extension" into Tunica into an outer loop with a southern crossing of the Mississippi connecting to I-40, and then use the US 79 corridor between Pine Bluff and I-40, and an I-530/AR 530 extension to Monroe (with future extension to Alexandria and Lake Charles) to complete the connection. You would have to find some way to renumber the I-69 colossus in Texas, but that would be far less expensive than waiting 60 years for this corridor to be completed.
The Charles Dean Bridge is a pet project for Robert Moore. He had been President / Speaker of the Arkansas General Assembly (Legislature / House) when this was proposed. For the past decade he HAD been first a member then Chairman of the Arkansas Highway Commission. Chairman Moore recently retired. Chairman Moore is native and still lives in Desha County . This thing would run smack through Desha County as it is proposed.
I have railed on about this ad nauseum that it either should cross the river at Lake Village or follow US-79 to a point south of Memphis. There is plenty of bridge for I-69 at Greenville / Lake Village. If the Dean Bridge is built as proposed, it would be the closest rural crossing (to US-82) in Mississippi or Tennessee. It is only 35 river miles to US-82 and obviously if I-69 followed an easterly track from ElDorado, the highway miles would be minimally different.
I-69 in Arkansas has far more usefulness if it would parallel US-79 between El Dorado and Camden about 10 miles to the SE of US-79 all the way up to between Marianna and Hughes, then shoot a bridge across the river just north of North Tunica. Then Arkansas has all the reason in the world to continue I-269 back to at least I-40, making a southern bypass of Memphis, which I think we all agree would be preferable to the I-55 crossing to head to I-22 from I-40 and vice versa. My family and I have to go to a funeral near Tupelo this weekend and have the distinct pleasure of either adding a half hour and crossing the river at West Helena to avoid Memphis, or taking I-55/I-269 to I-22 at 8PM in Memphis on a Friday night.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1A6l2wesUVzc2qNDTbcu_RlWo-loeuIs&usp=sharing (https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1A6l2wesUVzc2qNDTbcu_RlWo-loeuIs&usp=sharing)
This routing of I-69 helps with access to Camden, AR as well, which has a Lockheed Martin facility that makes the system that gets a lot of press in the Ukrainian defense of their country and has gotten lots of orders for more from other European countries building up their militaries right now.
So what did MS do with I-69 the past 3 years? (maybe 4)
Could anybody recap me? I just want to know if they've done jack shit with it
Quote from: TheBox on February 28, 2023, 02:01:12 PM
So what did MS do with I-69 the past 3 years? (maybe 4)
Could anybody recap me? I just want to know if they've done jack shit with it
From what I've heard, that would be a grand total of:
-0-.
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on February 28, 2023, 02:38:02 PM
Quote from: TheBox on February 28, 2023, 02:01:12 PM
So what did MS do with I-69 the past 3 years? (maybe 4)
Could anybody recap me? I just want to know if they've done jack shit with it
From what I've heard, that would be a grand total of:
-0-.
how surprising
Quote from: TheBox on February 28, 2023, 02:01:12 PM
So what did MS do with I-69 the past 3 years? (maybe 4)
Could anybody recap me? I just want to know if they've done jack shit with it
Spent all their $$$ on finishing 269
Quote from: TheBox on February 28, 2023, 02:01:12 PM
So what did MS do with I-69 the past 3 years? (maybe 4)
Could anybody recap me? I just want to know if they've done jack shit with it
Mississippi completed the short section of I-69 between Tunica Resorts and I-55 using revenues generated by the casinos at Tunica Resorts. For Mississippi's portion of I-269, Desoto and Marshall Counties fronted the state the money to pay for its construction, with the expectation that the feds would eventually reimburse the state, and by extension, the counties after it was built. The State of Mississippi doesn't have enough money to maintain its existing roads, let alone fund the completion of I-69. And unlike Desoto and Marshall Counties, the counties further south along the I-69 route don't have money they can "lend" to MDOT to jumpstart construction, and hopefully get reimbursed by the feds and the state later.
^ And then another point... I-269 serves a purpose as an outer beltway for the Memphis metro area... I-69 southwest of there is not nearly as much as a demand. It is already served by a rural 4 lane 65 mph highway and carries light traffic.
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 01, 2023, 08:56:47 AM
Quote from: TheBox on February 28, 2023, 02:01:12 PM
So what did MS do with I-69 the past 3 years? (maybe 4)
Could anybody recap me? I just want to know if they've done jack shit with it
Mississippi completed the short section of I-69 between Tunica Resorts and I-55 using revenues generated by the casinos at Tunica Resorts. For Mississippi's portion of I-269, Desoto and Marshall Counties fronted the state the money to pay for its construction, with the expectation that the feds would eventually reimburse the state, and by extension, the counties after it was built. The State of Mississippi doesn't have enough money to maintain its existing roads, let alone fund the completion of I-69. And unlike Desoto and Marshall Counties, the counties further south along the I-69 route don't have money they can "lend" to MDOT to jumpstart construction, and hopefully get reimbursed by the feds and the state later.
To add to that the Tunica resorts area shell of their former selves thanks to what Southland in West Memphis has morphed in to. So much so, MS is considering land based casinos to address the issue.
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on March 01, 2023, 12:40:05 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 01, 2023, 08:56:47 AM
Quote from: TheBox on February 28, 2023, 02:01:12 PM
So what did MS do with I-69 the past 3 years? (maybe 4)
Could anybody recap me? I just want to know if they've done jack shit with it
Mississippi completed the short section of I-69 between Tunica Resorts and I-55 using revenues generated by the casinos at Tunica Resorts. For Mississippi's portion of I-269, Desoto and Marshall Counties fronted the state the money to pay for its construction, with the expectation that the feds would eventually reimburse the state, and by extension, the counties after it was built. The State of Mississippi doesn't have enough money to maintain its existing roads, let alone fund the completion of I-69. And unlike Desoto and Marshall Counties, the counties further south along the I-69 route don't have money they can "lend" to MDOT to jumpstart construction, and hopefully get reimbursed by the feds and the state later.
To add to that the Tunica resorts area shell of their former selves thanks to what Southland in West Memphis has morphed in to. So much so, MS is considering land based casinos to address the issue.
I thought Mississippi lawmakers changed the law to allow land-based casinos after Hurricane Katrina wiped out the ones on the Gulf Coast. Did the law not change yet?
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 01, 2023, 12:43:51 PM
I thought Mississippi lawmakers changed the law to allow land-based casinos after Hurricane Katrina wiped out the ones on the Gulf Coast. Did the law not change yet?
They allowed the gulf coast casinos to rebuild inland. There are also at least 3 Native American casinos on dry land; other than those, I think the casinos are restricted to being near the Mississippi River or on the Gulf Coast, whether land or water based.
Expanding it to target the Tenn border.
Quote from: Rick Powell on March 01, 2023, 12:53:20 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 01, 2023, 12:43:51 PM
I thought Mississippi lawmakers changed the law to allow land-based casinos after Hurricane Katrina wiped out the ones on the Gulf Coast. Did the law not change yet?
They allowed the gulf coast casinos to rebuild inland. There are also at least 3 Native American casinos on dry land; other than those, I think the casinos are restricted to being near the Mississippi River or on the Gulf Coast, whether land or water based.
It isn't like the Tunica casinos are actually on the river. They are on a mostly filled in former channel that itself is mostly on the land.
Quote from: bwana39 on March 03, 2023, 01:38:11 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on March 01, 2023, 12:53:20 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 01, 2023, 12:43:51 PM
I thought Mississippi lawmakers changed the law to allow land-based casinos after Hurricane Katrina wiped out the ones on the Gulf Coast. Did the law not change yet?
They allowed the gulf coast casinos to rebuild inland. There are also at least 3 Native American casinos on dry land; other than those, I think the casinos are restricted to being near the Mississippi River or on the Gulf Coast, whether land or water based.
It isn't like the Tunica casinos are actually on the river. They are on a mostly filled in former channel that itself is mostly on the land.
They are just isolated now,. Half have closed up shop.. Gone are the days of AirTran running charter flights from ATL on 717s to the little Tunica Airport.
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on March 03, 2023, 05:59:38 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 03, 2023, 01:38:11 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on March 01, 2023, 12:53:20 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 01, 2023, 12:43:51 PM
I thought Mississippi lawmakers changed the law to allow land-based casinos after Hurricane Katrina wiped out the ones on the Gulf Coast. Did the law not change yet?
They allowed the gulf coast casinos to rebuild inland. There are also at least 3 Native American casinos on dry land; other than those, I think the casinos are restricted to being near the Mississippi River or on the Gulf Coast, whether land or water based.
It isn't like the Tunica casinos are actually on the river. They are on a mostly filled in former channel that itself is mostly on the land.
They are just isolated now,. Half have closed up shop.. Gone are the days of AirTran running charter flights from ATL on 717s to the little Tunica Airport.
Tunica Resorts is pretty much a ghost town now. Good thing they were able to pay for that short stretch of I-69 while it was still a boomtown.
How about letting it run along US 61 all the way to Leland, then along US 82 from there across Arkansas? That way, it could use the Greenville Bridge and all that would be necessary is upgrading an existing route. (Although 82 in Arkansas is mostly 2 lanes, and the Monticello Bypass would no longer be part of I-69, but the El Dorado Bypass would be.)
Something needs to be done in the area, since I-40 across eastern Arkansas desperately needs major relief.
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on May 22, 2023, 02:31:00 AM
How about letting it run along US 61 all the way to Leland, then along US 82 from there across Arkansas? That way, it could use the Greenville Bridge and all that would be necessary is upgrading an existing route. (Although 82 in Arkansas is mostly 2 lanes, and the Monticello Bypass would no longer be part of I-69, but the El Dorado Bypass would be.)
Something needs to be done in the area, since I-40 across eastern Arkansas desperately needs major relief.
They will probably add another travel lane in each direction to I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis before any significant work gets done on I-69.
I wouldn't be surprised if what exists of Interstate 69 in Mississippi at present is all that will ever exist. As much as I would like all of proposed 69 from Texas to Indiana to be built, it will probably take 50-100 years to complete it in-full (assuming they don't give up on constructing large portions of the proposed roadway, which seems highly likely to me).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2023, 11:06:12 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if what exists of Interstate 69 in Mississippi at present is all that will ever exist. As much as I would like all of proposed 69 from Texas to Indiana to be built, it will probably take 50-100 years to complete it in-full (assuming they don't give up on constructing large portions of the proposed roadway, which seems highly likely to me).
About 10-15 years ago was starting to move forward with constructing the northernmost section of SIU-11--the Tunica Bypass between the current terminus of I-69 at MS-3 to US-61 near the Tunica/Coahoma County line , as Tunica Resorts was still booming at that time. With the rapid decline of Tunica Resorts over the past decade, even that section is off the table for the foreseeable future. Sad to see what used to be the third largest casino gaming spot in the country has turned into a ghost town in a matter of a few years.
Let's put it in terms that even a sports fan would understand.
Ole Miss football coaching staff earns $15 million a year (Lane Kiffin $8.75M)
Miss State coach Zach Arnett signed a $3.3 million a year contract (he replaced the deceased Mike Leach who earned $5.5 million annually).
If you asked the average Mississippian what they would prefer, an SEC Champion or better roads, they would vote for an SEC Champion every single time.
If I-69 costs a million a mile to build they could have ~100 miles built within the lifetime of their 2 college football coaches salaries.
MissDOT just allocated $14 million to help bring back Mobile to New Orleans Amtrak service.
I am not saying all of these are practical, I am just saying that if priorities were different.
Quote from: edwaleni on May 22, 2023, 04:14:33 PM
Let's put it in terms that even a sports fan would understand.
Ole Miss football coaching staff earns $15 million a year (Lane Kiffin $8.75M)
Miss State coach Zach Arnett signed a $3.3 million a year contract (he replaced the deceased Mike Leach who earned $5.5 million annually).
If you asked the average Mississippian what they would prefer, an SEC Champion or better roads, they would vote for an SEC Champion every single time.
If I-69 costs a million a mile to build they could have ~100 miles built within the lifetime of their 2 college football coaches salaries.
MissDOT just allocated $14 million to help bring back Mobile to New Orleans Amtrak service.
I am not saying all of these are practical, I am just saying that if priorities were different.
I can go onto a tangent about paying a college football coach $15 million a year. Why should the taxpayers pay his salary when colleges and universities are jacking up tuition and fees year over year at a rate that's sometimes double, triple, or more the rate of inflation? With all that extra money, the university should more than well enough afford to pay the coach's salary without having to go to the taxpayers to ask them to foot the bill.
Now back to I-69.
I'm not a fan of taxpayer money being used to fund any sports programs, whether it's funding a major league sports stadium or paying the high salary of a college football coach. Those operations are huge money making businesses. They should pay for their own damned stadiums and salaries. These same people bitch about "socialism," but they have no problem at all sucking up taxpayer money when it benefits their rich asses.
Quote from: RoadMaster09How about letting it run along US 61 all the way to Leland, then along US 82 from there across Arkansas? That way, it could use the Greenville Bridge and all that would be necessary is upgrading an existing route.
Routing I-69 that far South and into that much of an extreme L-shape would eliminate any point of finishing the Interstate. Any long distance traffic coming up from Texas and going to destinations in the Ohio River Valley and beyond would just shift to the I-369 & I-30 combo and then use I-57 or I-40 to get to where they're going. The proposed I-69 route thru LA, AR and MS is already very indirect as is. Pushing it down to US-82 just makes it a whole lot more ridiculous.
Quote from: abqtravelerSad to see what used to be the third largest casino gaming spot in the country has turned into a ghost town in a matter of a few years.
I think the casino resorts in Tunica fell on hard times because they were too dependent on visitors in Texas, Oklahoma and other nearby states. Over the past 10 or so years some casinos in Oklahoma underwent major expansions. Winstar, just across the Red River from DFW, has more gaming floor space than any casino in North America. Choctaw Casino near Durant is a whole lot bigger now. Really the US seems to have a lot more casinos spread across the country now. It's even forcing resorts in Las Vegas to take their act to another level with attractions like the MSG Sphere. It's not enough to have a building filled with slot machines and blackjack tables anymore.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 26, 2023, 10:03:35 PM
Routing I-69 that far South and into that much of an extreme L-shape would eliminate any point of finishing the Interstate. Any long distance traffic coming up from Texas and going to destinations in the Ohio River Valley and beyond would just shift to the I-369 & I-30 combo and then use I-57 or I-40 to get to where they're going. The proposed I-69 route thru LA, AR and MS is already very indirect as is. Pushing it down to US-82 just makes it a whole lot more ridiculous.
I want to agree with you mostly. The proposed Arkansas City route is a mirror image though. From US-82 to the Greenville bridge you go mostly east then north. Using the proposed location for the I-69 bridge, you go mostly North then east.
You follow the existing US-82 / 278 from Eldorado to Cleveland MS it is around 150 miles. You could probably get 15-20 miles out of that by going directly from Antioch to SE of Lake Village. So lets say 140 miles. It will probably be around a hundred miles to Arkansas City from ElDorado. It would be around 40 more less to Cleveland MS. Worst case it would be 5-10 miles farther going across the Greenville Bridge. In all likelihood, it would be closer AND it would not require a new $1B+ bridge system.
I am not a proponent of the freeway either place (but I clearly prefer US-82 crossing if it is going to cross south of the Arkansas River.) The freeway SHOULD follow US-79 and Cross the Mississippi River near Tunica Resorts.
As to the casinos. When the ones at Tunica were the closest ones to DFW they made sense. Now, they are not even the closest one to Memphis (the Dog Track at West Memphis). https://www.southlandcasino.com/
Either way, using either the New Bridge or the Greenville bridge are within 10 miles or less of each other from Nacogdoches to Memphis. The Greenville Bridge would PROBABLY be the shorter of the two routings.
As to Nacogdoches to Texarkana to LRA to Memphis versus I-69, the mileage from Nacogdoches to Memphis is 427 miles.
Going from Nacogdoches to Carthage to Shreveport to Delhi to Greenville to Memphis is only 30 miles farther.
You can definitely feather some miles out of it (but the projected route doesn't.)
Thirty miles farther and not go through Little Rock makes it a wash for time. Depending on your egress from Memphis, it would likely save the headache of Memphis too. ANd you cross the Mississippi on a far less crowded bridge regardless the time of day.
If it ever gets built, it would be a large improvement over I-30/ I-40.
If you are going to do that, you might as well just extend I/AR 530 south to I-20 in Monroe and then upgrade US 165 all the way to I-10 east of Lake Charles, and just nuke I-69 between Texarkana and Memphis.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 28, 2023, 05:52:14 AM
If you are going to do that, you might as well just extend I/AR 530 south to I-20 in Monroe and then upgrade US 165 all the way to I-10 east of Lake Charles, and just nuke I-69 between Texarkana and Memphis.
I am not sure you would get a lot of complaint out of either Arkansas or Louisiana on this. For sure the Alexandria to Pine Bluff stretch.