Heading south from Little Rock, you'd be better off taking US 167 to access I-69 south and taking US 65 to access I-69 north. All AR 530 seems to be good at is to connect the booming metropolis of Pine Bluff to Monticello and Warren.
Quote from: bugo on June 05, 2014, 10:39:59 PM
Heading south from Little Rock, you'd be better off taking US 167 to access I-69 south and taking US 65 to access I-69 north. All AR 530 seems to be good at is to connect the booming metropolis of Pine Bluff to Monticello and Warren.
It would be beneficial once ( if?) the I-69 Mississippi River bridge is built for Little Rock and NWA or even the Okie traffic heading to south to Mobile or Florida. If I'm remembering the I-69 routing correctly
iPhone
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on June 06, 2014, 03:33:55 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 05, 2014, 10:39:59 PM
Heading south from Little Rock, you'd be better off taking US 167 to access I-69 south and taking US 65 to access I-69 north. All AR 530 seems to be good at is to connect the booming metropolis of Pine Bluff to Monticello and Warren.
It would be beneficial once ( if?) the I-69 Mississippi River bridge is built for Little Rock and NWA or even the Okie traffic heading to south to Mobile or Florida. If I'm remembering the I-69 routing correctly
Why take 530 to 69 to Memphis when you can just take 40?
Quote from: bugo on June 05, 2014, 10:39:59 PM
All AR 530 seems to be good at is to connect the booming metropolis of Pine Bluff to Monticello and Warren.
It seems like the money could be better spent in other places. Even if the pipe-dream I-69 Connector Extension (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-69_Extender.pdf) were built to provide a connection to I-20 for more of a regional and/or national impact, the investment still seems questionable at best (page 26/154 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeZuq4PO.jpg&hash=69d935352a415f5b01a3e4c1a9ce4bbadebe3299)
If it were extended to Baton Rouge it would make sense, but if it ends at I-69 then it will pretty much be worthless.
It would really make sense if it was extended to Alexandria (or even to Lake Charles) via US 165. In fact, I'd rather that than the Houston/Tenaha/Shreveport/Monticello routing of current I-69. I'd keep the three-way fork sprongs in South TX, but run one route to Texarkana (I-47/I-37 extension/I-6). Run another route (I-51) from Lake Charles through Alexandria and Monroe and Bastrop to Monticello, then split it off between the current I-530/AR 530 to Pine Bluff/Little Rock (I-51) and the proposed I-69 to Memphis (renamed I-53).
OOPS...getting into Fictional territory, right?? Uhhhh...never mind. Sorry.
At least it doesn't end in the middle of nowhere, like I-180 in IL does.
Yes it is necessary. Its construction and debate lets politicians from South Arkansas support I-49 and real needs without presenting any real threat of being completed. It pacifies voters in those districts.
US 65, IMO, already serves the purpose that SR 530 does. Plus it is multilaned unlike SR 530.
US 65 is multi laned in Arkansas? Parts of US 425 are now, at least close to Pine Bluff but I didn't think 65 was.
Quote from: bassoon1986 on June 30, 2014, 11:37:33 PM
US 65 is multi laned in Arkansas? Parts of US 425 are now, at least close to Pine Bluff but I didn't think 65 was.
Indeed it is...for alot longer than US 425 has been. I helped do a little QC work on the stretch from US 425 south to Moscow. It is really a nice drive.
Quote from: bassoon1986 on June 30, 2014, 11:37:33 PM
US 65 is multi laned in Arkansas? Parts of US 425 are now, at least close to Pine Bluff but I didn't think 65 was.
65 is multi-laned from Pine Bluff to the 82-65 split south of Lake Village. Most of it is divided, parts of it have the center turn lane.
Quote from: bugo on June 05, 2014, 10:39:59 PM
Heading south from Little Rock, you'd be better off taking US 167 to access I-69 south and taking US 65 to access I-69 north. All AR 530 seems to be good at is to connect the booming metropolis of Pine Bluff to Monticello and Warren.
Remember: State Highway 530 will one day be an extension of I-530 as a four-lane divided Interstate facility to I-69.
Quote from: AHTD on July 01, 2014, 06:47:27 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 05, 2014, 10:39:59 PM
Heading south from Little Rock, you'd be better off taking US 167 to access I-69 south and taking US 65 to access I-69 north. All AR 530 seems to be good at is to connect the booming metropolis of Pine Bluff to Monticello and Warren.
Remember: State Highway 530 will one day be an extension of I-530 as a four-lane divided Interstate facility to I-69.
We all know that, but will traffic really use I-530 to go from Pine Bluff to connect to I-69? Coming from Little Rock, I would instead choose US 167 south to connect to I-69. Heading from Little Rock to 69 north I would take I-40 east. Unless I-530 is extended to Baton Rouge, I don't see a lot of point to it.
Who knows? But the bigger potential here is the I-69 EXTENDER - which carries traffic all the way to I-20. Now THAT's a gateway to the southeast from Central Arkansas and points north.
See this feasibility study that was completed: http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-69_Extender.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-69_Extender.pdf)
I still laugh when I hear the name "I-69 Extender", especially when it has nothing to do with I-69 except that it will have an interchange with it.
Quote from: AHTD on July 10, 2014, 02:54:36 PM
Who knows? But the bigger potential here is the I-69 EXTENDER - which carries traffic all the way to I-20. Now THAT's a gateway to the southeast from Central Arkansas and points north.
See this feasibility study that was completed: http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-69_Extender.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-69_Extender.pdf)
But how closely are you working with LADOTD to make that a reality? Until now, I've only seen the 530 extension to I-69 planned on your own official documents.
US 65 and US 82 are the ways to the southeast US from Arkansas. US 49W also provides easy access to Jackson, MS. You can get there by taking all multilane highways too.
Quote from: US 41 on July 11, 2014, 08:43:41 AM
US 65 and US 82 are the ways to the southeast US from Arkansas. US 49W also provides easy access to Jackson, MS. You can get there by taking all multilane highways too.
If only the Greenville bypass would ever get completed, you would get to Jackson a lot quicker.
If this does extend down to I-20, it will be awfully long for a 3di. Would make a decent I-51.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 11, 2014, 09:53:48 PM
If this does extend down to I-20, it will be awfully long for a 3di. Would make a decent I-51.
Or I-57, if MoDOT's version of the US 67 freeway is ever revived.
Or I-53 - nice and easy to renumber, just some blue paint! ;)
Quote from: robbones on July 11, 2014, 09:38:24 PM
Quote from: US 41 on July 11, 2014, 08:43:41 AM
US 65 and US 82 are the ways to the southeast US from Arkansas. US 49W also provides easy access to Jackson, MS. You can get there by taking all multilane highways too.
If only the Greenville bypass would ever get completed, you would get to Jackson a lot quicker.
A Greenville bypass would be nice and something that I would definitely support.
I've just returned home from driving 530: there is ROW for an Interstate-grade highway and what bridges there are, have been built to accommodate extra lanes. Most of the intersections are at-grade, except at "new" AR 11
I would like to see US 65 become 4 lane divided from the US 82-65 split (Lake Village) to I-20. But if the powers at be insist on another connector corridor, I would say upgrade US 425 to interstate standards and use as much of that as possible. And bypass areas that cannot be upgraded (ROW issues, etc.)
Quote from: capt.ron on November 06, 2015, 11:32:45 AM
I would like to see US 65 become 4 lane divided from the US 82-65 split (Lake Village) to I-20. But if the powers at be insist on another connector corridor, I would say upgrade US 425 to interstate standards and use as much of that as possible. And bypass areas that cannot be upgraded (ROW issues, etc.)
Both highways would likely have lots of bypasses. AR 530 is almost a bypass of 425 now as it has taken most of the log trucks around Star City.
Why extend to I-20 in Louisiana? Wouldn't it make a much larger regional impact to be extended to Vicksburg or Jackson, coupled with an upgrade of US 49 and US 98 to Mobile? That would have an immense impact as the most direct route between Oklahoma, Kansas City, Arkansas and the MS/AL Gulf Coast, along with all of Florida.
I assume once AR 530 is upgraded to Interstate 530, the portion of Interstate 530 from exit 44 to exit 46 will be removed from the Interstate System, and just be US 63/65/79. As for whether AR 530 is neccessary, if the traffic demand is there, I would say yes. If the demand isn't there, perhaps not.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 06, 2015, 05:14:52 PM
I assume once AR 530 is upgraded to Interstate 530, the portion of Interstate 530 from exit 44 to exit 46 will be removed from the Interstate System, and just be US 63/65/79. As for whether AR 530 is necessary, if the traffic demand is there, I would say yes. If the demand isn't there, perhaps not.
Most of the traffic I saw was logging trucks. The whole corridor is a major logging area, as is US 79 south of Pine Bluff. Non-commercial traffic seemed almost non-existent.