This is the Page about I-69 progress in Arkansas!
The only Part I've been seeing lately that's been worked on is the Monticello Bypass, and the progress has been really slow last time I checked
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 18, 2020, 06:53:28 PM
This is the Page about I-69 progress in Arkansas!
The only Part I've been seeing lately that's been worked on is the Monticello Bypass, and the progress has been really slow last time I checked
Try this:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.0
17 mile section of Future I-69 in Arkansas starting in 2022 (https://vpi-ldph-job-020678-hwy-278-to-hwy-65-i69-drew-and-desha-ardot.hub.arcgis.com/)
This is a public hearing being done virtually on October 6 regarding the first phase from US-278 to US-65. It'll have 2 at grade intersections and 2 overpasses and will be a 17 mile long Super-2 with enough right-of-way for the ultimate 4 lane divided finished project.
Quote from: MikieTimT on September 09, 2020, 11:23:33 PM
17 mile section of Future I-69 in Arkansas starting in 2022 (https://vpi-ldph-job-020678-hwy-278-to-hwy-65-i69-drew-and-desha-ardot.hub.arcgis.com/)
This is a public hearing being done virtually on October 6 regarding the first phase from US-278 to US-65. It'll have 2 at grade intersections and 2 overpasses and will be a 17 mile long Super-2 with enough right-of-way for the ultimate 4 lane divided finished project.
Moving very slowly. Like I have said before, this is needed whether the Great River Bridge ever gets built.
The funeral march in building Interstate 69 across Arkansas continues. When this new US 278-to-US 65 segment opens, I wonder what designation it will have? An extension of Bypass US 278? A revival of AR 569? Or might it be unnumbered altogether?
At least Arkansas is making progress. I don't expect Mississippi to lift a finger to progress any further on I-69 until funding is secured for the Great River Bridge.
Mississippi wanted it when Trent Lott thought it could be paid for with funds designated for it and not being transferrable.
Now that it has to come out of a less restrictive pot of Federal funds, they would prefer to spend their allocations elsewhere.
Arkansas is building roads in the corridor. What they are building is needed whether I-69 ever comes or not. While they are buying up ROW's for a multi-lane facility, as a whole they are building two-lane roads with periodic passing lanes. There are a few overpasses but there are more at-grade intersections. From my experience southern Arkansas has some of the least modern highways in the US. I-530 meets he overall status quo in Arkansas: Everything goes either to Little Rock or to WalMart (NWA)
https://www.kark.com/news/local-news/ardot-to-hold-virtual-meeting-about-interstate-69-construction-between-highways-278-and-65/
ARDOT is holding a virtual meeting on I-69 between Highways 278 and 65 on October 6 from 5:30 until 7 p.m.
Quote from: US71 on September 28, 2020, 01:09:08 PM
https://www.kark.com/news/local-news/ardot-to-hold-virtual-meeting-about-interstate-69-construction-between-highways-278-and-65/
ARDOT is holding a virtual meeting on I-69 between Highways 278 and 65 on October 6 from 5:30 until 7 p.m.
Did anyone attend? Comments? I couldn't make it.
Quote from: edwaleni on October 09, 2020, 09:21:16 AM
Quote from: US71 on September 28, 2020, 01:09:08 PM
https://www.kark.com/news/local-news/ardot-to-hold-virtual-meeting-about-interstate-69-construction-between-highways-278-and-65/
ARDOT is holding a virtual meeting on I-69 between Highways 278 and 65 on October 6 from 5:30 until 7 p.m.
Did anyone attend? Comments? I couldn't make it.
I didn't, but you can still view the meeting materials and submit comments. The only part missed was the 1 hour "live presentation" and Q & A.
Quote from: bwana39 on September 12, 2020, 03:14:06 PM
Mississippi wanted it when Trent Lott thought it could be paid for with funds designated for it and not being transferrable.
Now that it has to come out of a less restrictive pot of Federal funds, they would prefer to spend their allocations elsewhere.
Arkansas is building roads in the corridor. What they are building is needed whether I-69 ever comes or not. While they are buying up ROW's for a multi-lane facility, as a whole they are building two-lane roads with periodic passing lanes. There are a few overpasses but there are more at-grade intersections. From my experience southern Arkansas has some of the least modern highways in the US. I-530 meets he overall status quo in Arkansas: Everything goes either to Little Rock or to WalMart (NWA)
The "adjunct" I-69 SIU (#28; the 530 extension) was the "consolation prize" for the failure of the "Dickey Split" I-69 alignment along US 79; it was always the part of the current I-69 configuration to garner regular attention from ADOT and their political handlers; the "trunk" of the corridor would be eked out over decades, while at least the initial lanes of 530 south of Pine Bluff and near Monticello were built in short order. Everything that can be sold as localized improvement on the I-69 mainline will be built as such: 2 lanes on a 4 ROW with minimal structures -- and as in-place upgrades of existing routes; the Monticello-McGehee US 278 stretch, always somewhat convoluted, is essentially such a project. The new terrain stuff from Warren southwest to the LA state line will likely be the last to even see planning efforts -- a bit difficult to sell that as anything but an I-69 segment. My guess: AR 530's missing section will be built well before anything but the Monticello-McGehee "improvements"; solidly in keeping with AR historic priorities.
Per AHTD via Twitter, Groundbreaking will be Tuesday December 20th, 11am.at McGehee , Arkansas. More details will be posted later.
Did anyone attend this?
* * * * *
DESHA COUNTY | November 22, 2022
Join fellow stakeholders in southeast Arkansas next week for a ceremonial groundbreaking on the next phase of construction for the Interstate 69 Corridor. Members of the Arkansas Highway Commission, ARDOT staff and local leadership will gather at ARDOT's District 2 Maintenance Headquarters Tuesday, November 29, at 11 a.m. (see map).
Designated by the United States Department of Transportation as a Corridor of the Future, this federally recognized highway will be invaluable to future freight movement across the United States.
When complete, Interstate 69 will span over 2,600 miles from Laredo, Texas to Port Huron, Michigan.
Contact: Ellen Coulter
NR 22-291
November 22, 2022
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52532983713_0b6ca525ab_c.jpg)
Quote from: US71 on November 29, 2022, 07:06:35 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on November 29, 2022, 06:29:54 PM
Did anyone attend this?
Postponed until December 20th
Postponed due to the storms that came thru the area. Agree on the slow progress. May never see it completed
Quote from: msunat97 on December 01, 2022, 02:20:21 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 29, 2022, 07:06:35 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on November 29, 2022, 06:29:54 PM
Did anyone attend this?
Postponed until December 20th
Postponed due to the storms that came thru the area. Agree on the slow progress. May never see it completed
ARDOT has misplaced priorities, but I think that's been discussed ad nauseum.
Quote from: US71 on December 01, 2022, 04:13:43 PM
Quote from: msunat97 on December 01, 2022, 02:20:21 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 29, 2022, 07:06:35 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on November 29, 2022, 06:29:54 PM
Did anyone attend this?
Postponed until December 20th
Postponed due to the storms that came thru the area. Agree on the slow progress. May never see it completed
ARDOT has misplaced priorities, but I think that's been discussed ad nauseum.
You have to remember Bob Moore is still alive and the chairman of the Arkansas Highway Commission. . ArDOT has to at least give lip service to his pet project through his hometown. I cannot see it ever being built; especially as projected. The one given is even if it is NEVER upgraded to interstate standards or even four-laned, what they are doing will make the infrastructure better in these remote counties than it is right now or has even been.
^ That is true, providing a 65 mph super-2 with mostly control of access will be a tremendous improvement to the current roadways. Especially if they end up linking them together to create a long continuous segment.
Won't help I-69 long haul traffic per se, but will be a local / regional improvement.
It will create a "main" highway for the areas traffic which could help draw some traffic off other roads and limit the need for improvements on those other routes.
Building out a Super-2, even without controlled access, is going to be better than nothing. Right now the main goal should be securing ROW along the proposed corridor. A simple 2-lane route can get that accomplished.
I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana is a tougher task, even if trying to build it out initially as a Super-2, due to the more hilly territory.
^ Any super 2 should at least be constructed with limited access right of way. There can be at grade intersections, but no private driveways.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 02, 2022, 12:47:56 PM
Building out a Super-2, even without controlled access, is going to be better than nothing. Right now the main goal should be securing ROW along the proposed corridor. A simple 2-lane route can get that accomplished.
I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana is a tougher task, even if trying to build it out initially as a Super-2, due to the more hilly territory.
Only the Foran Gap segment between Y City and Mena is particularly "hilly" and I'd venture to say it's much gentler than most north-south routes through the Ouachitas. But I agree, ROW purchasing is crucial at this point.
Quote from: sprjus4Any super 2 should at least be constructed with limited access right of way.
That's the idea. The entire point of building out a minimal Super 2 is to secure the future 4-lane freeway's right of way. Even secure the land needed for limited access exits. AR DOT has already done this to some degree with AR-530. They could do the same with future I-69. Just build a 2-lane road along the proposed alignment just to secure the ROW. Then
slowly upgrade segments of it to Interstate standards as funding allows.
Quote from: Road HogOnly the Foran Gap segment between Y City and Mena is particularly "hilly" and I'd venture to say it's much gentler than most north-south routes through the Ouachitas. But I agree, ROW purchasing is crucial at this point.
Depending on what AR DOT has planned for I-49 thru the Foran Gap they might end up having to build all four lanes at once, at least in some spots. I imagine they'll have to carve into hillsides a good bit to improve the geometry of curves and grades. If they cut into hillsides they'll have to cut enough for four lanes rather than just two.
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)
Someone is aiming to be Sir Spam-a-lot. Posting that in one I-69 related thread would have been enough.
:-/
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2022, 04:05:38 PM
Someone is aiming to be Sir Spam-a-lot. Posting that in one I-69 related thread would have been enough.
:-/
Sorry, since I-69 spans several regions, I guess one thread per region would have sufficed instead.
Westerman hears ARDoT pitch for federal funding
I-69, Hwy. 82 "˜critical' projects, congressman says by Caitlan Butler | June 29, 2023 at 5:00 a.m.
https://www.camdenarknews.com/news/2023/jun/29/westerman-hears-ardot-pitch-for-federal-funding/
We just provided the congressman with an update of where we're at on the future Interstate-69 corridor through Arkansas... The Mississippi River bridge is an issue because it's so expensive. It's about a $2 billion price tag; $1.2 billion is Arkansas's portion," Tudor said. "For a small, rural state like Arkansas, there's just no way we can really fund that without federal assistance."
However, work has started on Arkansas's portion of the interstate, with two-lane sections under construction in Drew County and work scheduled to start on additional length on that road in 2025. Environmental approval has been secured for the part of the road that will run through Union County.
Does anyone else get the impression that Interstate 69 in Arkansas, when more of it is eventually built, will be an underutilized freeway? Since the only significantly-populated towns 69 will go past are El Dorado and Monticello, future 69 may not need more than two lanes total.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 11, 2023, 08:31:28 PM
Does anyone else get the impression that Interstate 69 in Arkansas, when more of it is eventually built, will be an underutilized freeway? Since the only significantly-populated towns 69 will go past are El Dorado and Monticello, future 69 may not need more than two lanes total.
If I-69 is ever fully complete between Shreveport and Memphis, I think it will have decent utilization and be a viable alternative to I-30 and I-40 for southeast Texas / Mexico bound traffic. Even with the "curvy" routing, the distance will be around the same as I-30 / I-40.
In the mean time, I-69 will be perfectly adequate at 2 lanes until it is fully linked to I-20 and I-269.
I'm skeptical I-69 will ever be completed thru Arkansas and Mississippi. The Feds would pretty much have to cover all of Mississippi's obligation. Meanwhile Arkansas has more important fish to fry in other parts of the state. I-49 and I-57 are far more plausible, realistic projects to finish.
The fact the proposed I-69 route offers little if any mileage savings versus the I-30/I-40 combo would more than likely depress traffic counts on the highway. There will be far less road-side services along I-69 than I-30 or I-40 for a long time. And it seems like a sure bet the Great River Bridge will carry a pretty hefty toll. The proposed bridge's cost is now tipping the scales over $2 billion. I'd be shocked if it was built as a free-to-cross structure. Meanwhile, IIRC, I-40 has no tolls on it for its entire length. I-30 is free with the exception of express lanes in the DFW area.
If funding is an issue for I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, why isn't US 82/US 278 Greenville bridge used to connect both states? I know it would mean I-69 would dip south and then back north after entering Mississippi, but that bridge is barely new. Or was that one of the alternatives before being eliminated in favor for a new Mississippi River crossing?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 12, 2023, 11:10:01 AM
I'm skeptical I-69 will ever be completed thru Arkansas and Mississippi. The Feds would pretty much have to cover all of Mississippi's obligation. Meanwhile Arkansas has more important fish to fry in other parts of the state. I-49 and I-57 are far more plausible, realistic projects to finish.
The fact the proposed I-69 route offers little if any mileage savings versus the I-30/I-40 combo would more than likely depress traffic counts on the highway. There will be far less road-side services along I-69 than I-30 or I-40 for a long time. And it seems like a sure bet the Great River Bridge will carry a pretty hefty toll. The proposed bridge's cost is now tipping the scales over $2 billion. I'd be shocked if it was built as a free-to-cross structure. Meanwhile, IIRC, I-40 has no tolls on it for its entire length. I-30 is free with the exception of express lanes in the DFW area.
In addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69. The recently-completed new bridge that carries I-40 over the White River has been built to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction, plus full inside and outside shoulders, although the bridge is currently striped for two lanes each way.
Quote from: StriderIf funding is an issue for I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, why isn't US 82/US 278 Greenville bridge used to connect both states?
Because that would bend I-69 into an even more ridiculous "L" shape route than it already is. The currently proposed I-69 route going through McGehee and Arkansas City offers little if any mileage savings over the I-30/I-40 combo as it is. The Greenville Bridge is another 25 miles farther South from the proposed Great River Bridge location. If I-69 was routed over that bridge then all of I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi would only be of value to local traffic. The long distance traffic would stay on I-40 and I-30.
It might still work out that way anyway.
Quote from: abqtravelerIn addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69.
It's ridiculous I-40 isn't already built in a 3x3 lanes or greater configuration between Little Rock and Memphis. The amount of truck traffic on that segment is unreal. A completed I-57 might work as a pressure valve to relieve some of the congestion. But that stretch of I-40 has to be upgraded regardless. If it weren't for the I-57 and I-69 projects either proposed or under construction I'd be calling for I-40 to be built 4x4 all the way from Little Rock to Memphis.
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 12, 2023, 01:17:17 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 12, 2023, 11:10:01 AM
I'm skeptical I-69 will ever be completed thru Arkansas and Mississippi. The Feds would pretty much have to cover all of Mississippi's obligation. Meanwhile Arkansas has more important fish to fry in other parts of the state. I-49 and I-57 are far more plausible, realistic projects to finish.
The fact the proposed I-69 route offers little if any mileage savings versus the I-30/I-40 combo would more than likely depress traffic counts on the highway. There will be far less road-side services along I-69 than I-30 or I-40 for a long time. And it seems like a sure bet the Great River Bridge will carry a pretty hefty toll. The proposed bridge's cost is now tipping the scales over $2 billion. I'd be shocked if it was built as a free-to-cross structure. Meanwhile, IIRC, I-40 has no tolls on it for its entire length. I-30 is free with the exception of express lanes in the DFW area.
In addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69. The recently-completed new bridge that carries I-40 over the White River has been built to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction, plus full inside and outside shoulders, although the bridge is currently striped for two lanes each way.
I-40 has 2023-2026 STIP items for 6 laning from the I-55 concurrency in West Memphis (Exit 277) in West Memphis to the Jennette exit (Exit 265) and for the LR end from I-440 (Exit 159) to Kerr Rd. (Exit 165). That leaves 100 miles in between to grow the ends toward the middle eventually, but unlikely to happen completely for decades at this rate barring some earmark love unless LOS decay/AADT counts mandates otherwise. Good news is that other than a handful of overpasses that may be narrow on the underside and one of the St. Francis River bridges, most of the rest of the bridging is already wide enough. Just will need to build some wider berms through the ricelands.
I-69 has utility in providing another connection and bypass to Shreveport if Louisiana gets their act together, but also for avoiding the bottlenecks of Little Rock and Memphis/W. Memphis with the I-269 loop around the south and east sides of Memphis. With all of the onshoring/nearshoring of manufacturing that's in the process of really accelerating now that it's been discovered that China really isn't our friend, but Mexico really is and can take on a chunk of the inexpensive goods along with SE Asia, which means more truck and rail traffic coming from South Texas. Those with foresight to see where freight flows are going to be growing for the next 3 decades would be wise to invest in the road and rail links coming out of Texas. And Louisiana needs to do more value added processing of petrochemicals to grow their economy rather than load oil and gas onto ships for overseas customers.
Mexico could absorb a great deal of the manufacturing production the US has based in China currently. But Mexico has to modernize somehow into a more safe, stable and less corrupt environment in order to take on much of what was based in China. It's a pretty difficult challenge for American companies to build manufacturing plants in Mexico under the current circumstances. If the US didn't have so many drug addicts Mexico would be a much safer place to visit.
Regardless of what happens in Mexico, a great deal of business is going to exit China. The regime there is increasingly authoritarian and less friendly to international business. Worse yet, China appears to be locked in a generational demographic decline. Marriage rates and birth rates have been hitting record lows due to several economic and cultural factors. Not nearly enough young people are being born to balance out the enormous size of aging/elderly generations. China isn't going to have enough working age manpower to get a lot of things done.
Currently, political conditions are pushing businesses to move production out of China to places like Vietnam or other nations in SE Asia. Nations in Africa could benefit immensely, only if more of those nations could maintain stable governments. Africa is on the verge of being home to the majority of the world's youth (if it isn't there already). The Chinese government is already trying to establish "beach heads" there so they can emulate America's outsourcing game. Africa has great and scary possibilities for the future. It can become an economic powerhouse. Or it could be the thing that gets World War III started.
Mexico and other countries in Central America and South America are being affected by the drug trade to the US. If we could only get a handle on that situation Mexico could be the primary landing spot for businesses leaving China.
Quote from: MikieTimT on July 12, 2023, 02:42:44 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 12, 2023, 01:17:17 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 12, 2023, 11:10:01 AM
I'm skeptical I-69 will ever be completed thru Arkansas and Mississippi. The Feds would pretty much have to cover all of Mississippi's obligation. Meanwhile Arkansas has more important fish to fry in other parts of the state. I-49 and I-57 are far more plausible, realistic projects to finish.
The fact the proposed I-69 route offers little if any mileage savings versus the I-30/I-40 combo would more than likely depress traffic counts on the highway. There will be far less road-side services along I-69 than I-30 or I-40 for a long time. And it seems like a sure bet the Great River Bridge will carry a pretty hefty toll. The proposed bridge's cost is now tipping the scales over $2 billion. I'd be shocked if it was built as a free-to-cross structure. Meanwhile, IIRC, I-40 has no tolls on it for its entire length. I-30 is free with the exception of express lanes in the DFW area.
In addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69. The recently-completed new bridge that carries I-40 over the White River has been built to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction, plus full inside and outside shoulders, although the bridge is currently striped for two lanes each way.
I-40 has 2023-2026 STIP items for 6 laning from the I-55 concurrency in West Memphis (Exit 277) in West Memphis to the Jennette exit (Exit 265) and for the LR end from I-440 (Exit 159) to Kerr Rd. (Exit 165). That leaves 100 miles in between to grow the ends toward the middle eventually, but unlikely to happen completely for decades at this rate barring some earmark love unless LOS decay/AADT counts mandates otherwise. Good news is that other than a handful of overpasses that may be narrow on the underside and one of the St. Francis River bridges, most of the rest of the bridging is already wide enough. Just will need to build some wider berms through the ricelands.
Best advice for through traffic is to exit halfway through at Brinkley, get yourself a bite and if it's a fall Friday, go watch an 8-man football game.
iDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now. Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569. Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 10, 2024, 04:58:27 PMiDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now. Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569. Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.
I'd say it's a SIU... it's a very quick connection to US-278 from SR-293.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2024, 02:05:23 AMQuote from: MikieTimT on May 10, 2024, 04:58:27 PMiDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now. Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569. Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.
I'd say it's a SIU... it's a very quick connection to US-278 from SR-293.
And serves literally dozens of people in Selma. I assume dozens. It's unincorporated, so could be any population between 1 and possibly 3 digits. I guess since they lost their school and consolidated with another district down by Monticello, the bus(ses) will appreciate the better road.
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 03:54:44 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2024, 02:05:23 AMQuote from: MikieTimT on May 10, 2024, 04:58:27 PMiDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now. Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569. Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.
I'd say it's a SIU... it's a very quick connection to US-278 from SR-293.
And serves literally dozens of people in Selma. I assume dozens. It's unincorporated, so could be any population between 1 and possibly 3 digits. I guess since they lost their school and consolidated with another district down by Monticello, the bus(ses) will appreciate the better road.
And how would extending it to US-65 increase its traffic anymore? It's as much as SIU than extending it to US-65 would be.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2024, 03:59:54 PMQuote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 03:54:44 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2024, 02:05:23 AMQuote from: MikieTimT on May 10, 2024, 04:58:27 PMiDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now. Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569. Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.
I'd say it's a SIU... it's a very quick connection to US-278 from SR-293.
And serves literally dozens of people in Selma. I assume dozens. It's unincorporated, so could be any population between 1 and possibly 3 digits. I guess since they lost their school and consolidated with another district down by Monticello, the bus(ses) will appreciate the better road.
And how would extending it to US-65 increase its traffic anymore? It's as much as SIU than extending it to US-65 would be.
I would say it would increase dramatically by virtue of traffic counts AADT 2022 by County (Drew, Lincoln, Desha) (https://www.ardot.gov/divisions/system-information-research/traffic-information-systems/maps/). AR-293 has a whopping AADT of 93. US-65 south of Dumas to McGehee has an AADT of at least 6800. Odds are good that there are a much higher number of people traveling between Dumas and Monticello than Selma and Monticello. The other roads between Dumas and Monticello are either out of the way comparatively, or narrow and winding compared to the Super-2 facility.
Quite frankly, I think it's stupid for them to be heading east with the next segment anyway, when they could do the segment west of US-425 and complete the Monticello Bypass portion with Super-2. I somehow get the feeling that Monticello really doesn't want to be bypassed yet, which limits the utility of all of this until more segments are completed between higher traffic areas.
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 05:18:34 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2024, 03:59:54 PMQuote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 03:54:44 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2024, 02:05:23 AMQuote from: MikieTimT on May 10, 2024, 04:58:27 PMiDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now. Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569. Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.
I'd say it's a SIU... it's a very quick connection to US-278 from SR-293.
And serves literally dozens of people in Selma. I assume dozens. It's unincorporated, so could be any population between 1 and possibly 3 digits. I guess since they lost their school and consolidated with another district down by Monticello, the bus(ses) will appreciate the better road.
And how would extending it to US-65 increase its traffic anymore? It's as much as SIU than extending it to US-65 would be.
I would say it would increase dramatically by virtue of traffic counts AADT 2022 by County (Drew, Lincoln, Desha) (https://www.ardot.gov/divisions/system-information-research/traffic-information-systems/maps/). AR-293 has a whopping AADT of 93. US-65 south of Dumas to McGehee has an AADT of at least 6800. Odds are good that there are a much higher number of people traveling between Dumas and Monticello than Selma and Monticello. The other roads between Dumas and Monticello are either out of the way comparatively, or narrow and winding compared to the Super-2 facility.
Agreed. Traffic going between the two towns (which is likely a very low volume to begin with) could use US-65 South, AR-277, then use 1,500 ft of AR-293 to access the new super-two.
Sure, it only extends to AR-293, but it's quite easy to see on a map it's a quick jump over to US-278 and can act as a relief route for that highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2024, 05:27:52 PMQuote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 05:18:34 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2024, 03:59:54 PMQuote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 03:54:44 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2024, 02:05:23 AMQuote from: MikieTimT on May 10, 2024, 04:58:27 PMiDriveArkansas.com has the next segment of the "Monticello Bypass" shown on the map if you check the Construction checkbox, so they must be moving dirt down there now. Listed as completed late 2027 and will be AR-569. Ends at AR-293, so not exactly a Segment of Independent Utility if you ask me until they take it all the way to US-65.
I'd say it's a SIU... it's a very quick connection to US-278 from SR-293.
And serves literally dozens of people in Selma. I assume dozens. It's unincorporated, so could be any population between 1 and possibly 3 digits. I guess since they lost their school and consolidated with another district down by Monticello, the bus(ses) will appreciate the better road.
And how would extending it to US-65 increase its traffic anymore? It's as much as SIU than extending it to US-65 would be.
I would say it would increase dramatically by virtue of traffic counts AADT 2022 by County (Drew, Lincoln, Desha) (https://www.ardot.gov/divisions/system-information-research/traffic-information-systems/maps/). AR-293 has a whopping AADT of 93. US-65 south of Dumas to McGehee has an AADT of at least 6800. Odds are good that there are a much higher number of people traveling between Dumas and Monticello than Selma and Monticello. The other roads between Dumas and Monticello are either out of the way comparatively, or narrow and winding compared to the Super-2 facility.
Agreed. Traffic going between the two towns (which is likely a very low volume to begin with) could use US-65 South, AR-277, then use 1,500 ft of AR-293 to access the new super-two.
Sure, it only extends to AR-293, but it's quite easy to see on a map it's a quick jump over to US-278 and can act as a relief route for that highway.
The last time I read the STIP, ArDOT plans to start construction on the section from AR-293 to US-65 in 2026. Again, it looks like it will be just the first two lanes; not sure if interchanges will be built, or put off until later.
When Arkansas plans on completing the other lanes and thus making it limited access in a reasonably short period after the Super-2 construction, they generally go ahead and do the interchanges and also the other 2 lanes under any overpasses constructed, at least between the exit/entrance ramps. Given that it's likely a while before anything else is constructed in that part of the state given population and traffic counts other than continued segments of Super-2, I'd bet on doing interchanges only really at the endpoints of each project and leaving the rest as on-grade intersections until closer to time to flesh out the other 2 lanes. I'd love to be wrong though.
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 20, 2024, 10:05:38 AMWhen Arkansas plans on completing the other lanes and thus making it limited access in a reasonably short period after the Super-2 construction, they generally go ahead and do the interchanges and also the other 2 lanes under any overpasses constructed, at least between the exit/entrance ramps. Given that it's likely a while before anything else is constructed in that part of the state given population and traffic counts other than continued segments of Super-2, I'd bet on doing interchanges only really at the endpoints of each project and leaving the rest as on-grade intersections until closer to time to flesh out the other 2 lanes. I'd love to be wrong though.
It appears that Arkansas is doing this as part of a much needed upgrade to AR-4 (oops, I meant US-278). My take is while they are holding out hope that I-69 will eventually run along this route, the construction is proceeding as if it will not. US-278 has an average speed limit of 47 MPH between McGehee and Hope. Stretches go from a HIGH of 55 mph to as low as 35 through some of the unincorporated villages.
Arkansas itself has said they will NEVER be able to afford their 20% of the bridge complex at Arkansas City (their portion as much as $200M for the bridge and elevated approaches. The total being around $1.5B with Arkansas being responsible for 60% of the 20% match.)
Quote from: bwana39 on May 21, 2024, 08:01:15 AMQuote from: MikieTimT on May 20, 2024, 10:05:38 AMWhen Arkansas plans on completing the other lanes and thus making it limited access in a reasonably short period after the Super-2 construction, they generally go ahead and do the interchanges and also the other 2 lanes under any overpasses constructed, at least between the exit/entrance ramps. Given that it's likely a while before anything else is constructed in that part of the state given population and traffic counts other than continued segments of Super-2, I'd bet on doing interchanges only really at the endpoints of each project and leaving the rest as on-grade intersections until closer to time to flesh out the other 2 lanes. I'd love to be wrong though.
It appears that Arkansas is doing this as part of a much needed upgrade to AR-4 (oops, I meant US-278). My take is while they are holding out hope that I-69 will eventually run along this route, the construction is proceeding as if it will not. US-278 has an average speed limit of 47 MPH between McGehee and Hope. Stretches go from a HIGH of 55 mph to as low as 35 through some of the unincorporated villages.
Arkansas itself has said they will NEVER be able to afford their 20% of the bridge complex at Arkansas City (their portion as much as $200M for the bridge and elevated approaches. The total being around $1.5B with Arkansas being responsible for 60% of the 20% match.)
With the other, much more pressing priorities around the state even taking decades to fund, we won't live long enough to see it, so the estimated cost is moot as inflation will triple the cost they are currently estimating before both Arkansas and Mississippi can come up with their 20%. It either becomes a federal priority with earmarks funding another 10%, or we don't live to see it.
Arkansas should strive to completing Interstates 49 and 57 before tackling Interstate 69 (which might not ever exist beyond two-lane segments constructed in a piecemeal format).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 21, 2024, 11:33:56 AMArkansas should strive to completing Interstates 49 and 57 before tackling Interstate 69 (which might not ever exist beyond two-lane segments constructed in a piecemeal format).
Those would be the priorities previously referred to. I think I-57 gets done much sooner than I-49 due to mileage and terrain making it much less costly. And there's that old saying that "All roads in Arkansas lead to Little Rock", so I-49 will always get less priority, leaving I-57 the winning horse to get completed first.
I-69 pretty much facilitates bypassing Little Rock, so it will never be anything other than back burner by ARDOT. However, it is for that very reason that I think that it actually has merit, stupid jagged routing notwithstanding.
I have talked about this before. When Bob Moore was on the Highway Commission, and before that speaker of the Arkansas House of Representatives, he pushed I-69. It went through his extremely rural home town / county. With him retired from both now, it will languish and die. They MIGHT eventually run I-69 along US-82 and use the existing bridge south of Greenville, but the route through Desha county is pretty much dead in the water.
If you route it easterly at ElDorado and cut off the dog-leg via Hamburg and Lake Village, it would actually be shorter.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 12, 2023, 01:56:03 PMQuote from: StriderIf funding is an issue for I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, why isn't US 82/US 278 Greenville bridge used to connect both states?
Because that would bend I-69 into an even more ridiculous "L" shape route than it already is. The currently proposed I-69 route going through McGehee and Arkansas City offers little if any mileage savings over the I-30/I-40 combo as it is. The Greenville Bridge is another 25 miles farther South from the proposed Great River Bridge location. If I-69 was routed over that bridge then all of I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi would only be of value to local traffic. The long distance traffic would stay on I-40 and I-30. It might still work out that way anyway.
Quote from: abqtravelerIn addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69.
It's ridiculous I-40 isn't already built in a 3x3 lanes or greater configuration between Little Rock and Memphis. The amount of truck traffic on that segment is unreal. A completed I-57 might work as a pressure valve to relieve some of the congestion. But that stretch of I-40 has to be upgraded regardless. If it weren't for the I-57 and I-69 projects either proposed or under construction I'd be calling for I-40 to be built 4x4 all the way from Little Rock to Memphis.
Use US 70.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 12, 2023, 01:56:03 PMQuote from: StriderIf funding is an issue for I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, why isn't US 82/US 278 Greenville bridge used to connect both states?
Because that would bend I-69 into an even more ridiculous "L" shape route than it already is. The currently proposed I-69 route going through McGehee and Arkansas City offers little if any mileage savings over the I-30/I-40 combo as it is. The Greenville Bridge is another 25 miles farther South from the proposed Great River Bridge location. If I-69 was routed over that bridge then all of I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi would only be of value to local traffic. The long distance traffic would stay on I-40 and I-30. It might still work out that way anyway.
Quote from: abqtravelerIn addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69.
It's ridiculous I-40 isn't already built in a 3x3 lanes or greater configuration between Little Rock and Memphis. The amount of truck traffic on that segment is unreal. A completed I-57 might work as a pressure valve to relieve some of the congestion. But that stretch of I-40 has to be upgraded regardless. If it weren't for the I-57 and I-69 projects either proposed or under construction I'd be calling for I-40 to be built 4x4 all the way from Little Rock to Memphis.
The overpasses are not wide enough. It would be a complete rebuild, not just a widening project. They could almost build I-69 for what it would cost to rebuild I-40 itself much less I-30. Just to go to three lanes would be as expensive or more than widening US-75 from Plano to Denison.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 21, 2024, 08:49:08 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on July 12, 2023, 01:56:03 PMQuote from: StriderIf funding is an issue for I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, why isn't US 82/US 278 Greenville bridge used to connect both states?
Because that would bend I-69 into an even more ridiculous "L" shape route than it already is. The currently proposed I-69 route going through McGehee and Arkansas City offers little if any mileage savings over the I-30/I-40 combo as it is. The Greenville Bridge is another 25 miles farther South from the proposed Great River Bridge location. If I-69 was routed over that bridge then all of I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi would only be of value to local traffic. The long distance traffic would stay on I-40 and I-30. It might still work out that way anyway.
Quote from: abqtravelerIn addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69.
It's ridiculous I-40 isn't already built in a 3x3 lanes or greater configuration between Little Rock and Memphis. The amount of truck traffic on that segment is unreal. A completed I-57 might work as a pressure valve to relieve some of the congestion. But that stretch of I-40 has to be upgraded regardless. If it weren't for the I-57 and I-69 projects either proposed or under construction I'd be calling for I-40 to be built 4x4 all the way from Little Rock to Memphis.
Use US 70.
You mean
this US-70? The narrow, heaved pavement, truck destroyed road that is basically 4 parallel ditches with no shoulders for large chunks of eastern Arkansas anytime it rains? It's basically less safe than most of eastern Arkansas' state highways, and with a 55MPH (not 75) speed limit, you aren't exactly on a comparable facility, especially slowing down for the towns along the way. The stretch between Biscoe and Brinkley is so narrow between the tree lines with such a steep drop off from the edge of the pavement lacking shoulders at all that you couldn't even get off the roadway at all in the event of car trouble for about a 10 mile stretch. The bridges are all super narrow.
It's a lovely sentiment to think that old US highways can still serve more than just local usage since the advent of Interstates, but it's not practical in any sense as additional capacity.
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 05:18:34 PMQuite frankly, I think it's stupid for them to be heading east with the next segment anyway, when they could do the segment west of US-425 and complete the Monticello Bypass portion with Super-2.
At a highly attended public hearing including several business owners, they convinced ArDOT planners that improving connectivity for Monticello should be to the east, not the west. So ArDOT and money set aside by a regional planning group were combined to get the US-278 improvement pushed east towards US-65 north of McGehee.
The first construction segment is east to just south of Selma. The second one will be from Selma to a specific intersection south of the ARDOT Desha office. The ROW will roughly align to an existing power line easement.
Quote from: edwaleni on June 02, 2024, 11:38:13 PMQuote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 05:18:34 PMQuite frankly, I think it's stupid for them to be heading east with the next segment anyway, when they could do the segment west of US-425 and complete the Monticello Bypass portion with Super-2.
At a highly attended public hearing including several business owners, they convinced ArDOT planners that improving connectivity for Monticello should be to the east, not the west. So ArDOT and money set aside by a regional planning group were combined to get the US-278 improvement pushed east towards US-65 north of McGehee.
The first construction segment is east to just south of Selma. The second one will be from Selma to a specific intersection south of the ARDOT Desha office. The ROW will roughly align to an existing power line easement.
There used to be a "Future I-69 Corridor <-->" sign at that spot on US-65 where I-69 will eventually have an interchange. That sign was present through at least 2019, but it looks like it was missing as of 2022.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6692071,-91.4208908,3a,75y,0.54h,85.74t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sgjQla0gQ6wyN12NUcd98iA!2e0!5s20191101T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DgjQla0gQ6wyN12NUcd98iA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D0.5437902772056304%26pitch%3D4.26211870606916%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 03, 2024, 07:23:06 AMQuote from: edwaleni on June 02, 2024, 11:38:13 PMQuote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 05:18:34 PMQuite frankly, I think it's stupid for them to be heading east with the next segment anyway, when they could do the segment west of US-425 and complete the Monticello Bypass portion with Super-2.
At a highly attended public hearing including several business owners, they convinced ArDOT planners that improving connectivity for Monticello should be to the east, not the west. So ArDOT and money set aside by a regional planning group were combined to get the US-278 improvement pushed east towards US-65 north of McGehee.
The first construction segment is east to just south of Selma. The second one will be from Selma to a specific intersection south of the ARDOT Desha office. The ROW will roughly align to an existing power line easement.
There used to be a "Future I-69 Corridor <-->" sign at that spot on US-65 where I-69 will eventually have an interchange. That sign was present through at least 2019, but it looks like it was missing as of 2022.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6692071,-91.4208908,3a,75y,0.54h,85.74t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sgjQla0gQ6wyN12NUcd98iA!2e0!5s20191101T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DgjQla0gQ6wyN12NUcd98iA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D0.5437902772056304%26pitch%3D4.26211870606916%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
On the 2022 image, look in the ditch to the right. You will see what remains of the I-69 shield from the sign in the grass. Either mower took it out, or a drunk driver did. If memory serves from the public hearing, there will be ground level intersection there. Left turn lane on the NB US-65 side and extended merge/turn lanes on the SB US-65 side.
Quote from: edwaleni on June 03, 2024, 10:45:54 AMQuote from: abqtraveler on June 03, 2024, 07:23:06 AMQuote from: edwaleni on June 02, 2024, 11:38:13 PMQuote from: MikieTimT on May 13, 2024, 05:18:34 PMQuite frankly, I think it's stupid for them to be heading east with the next segment anyway, when they could do the segment west of US-425 and complete the Monticello Bypass portion with Super-2.
At a highly attended public hearing including several business owners, they convinced ArDOT planners that improving connectivity for Monticello should be to the east, not the west. So ArDOT and money set aside by a regional planning group were combined to get the US-278 improvement pushed east towards US-65 north of McGehee.
The first construction segment is east to just south of Selma. The second one will be from Selma to a specific intersection south of the ARDOT Desha office. The ROW will roughly align to an existing power line easement.
There used to be a "Future I-69 Corridor <-->" sign at that spot on US-65 where I-69 will eventually have an interchange. That sign was present through at least 2019, but it looks like it was missing as of 2022.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6692071,-91.4208908,3a,75y,0.54h,85.74t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sgjQla0gQ6wyN12NUcd98iA!2e0!5s20191101T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DgjQla0gQ6wyN12NUcd98iA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D0.5437902772056304%26pitch%3D4.26211870606916%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
On the 2022 image, look in the ditch to the right. You will see what remains of the I-69 shield from the sign in the grass. Either mower took it out, or a drunk driver did. If memory serves from the public hearing, there will be ground level intersection there. Left turn lane on the NB US-65 side and extended merge/turn lanes on the SB US-65 side.
I see what's left of the sign there. As for the interchange at US-65, last time I looked at plans, it showed a folded diamond interchange being built there, with all ramps east of US-65 due to the railroad runs adjacent and west of US-65. ArDOT would almost have to build an interchange there, unless they're okay with an at-grade railroad crossing immediately west of an at-grade intersection with US-65.
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 03, 2024, 02:44:35 PMI see what's left of the sign there. As for the interchange at US-65, last time I looked at plans, it showed a folded diamond interchange being built there, with all ramps east of US-65 due to the railroad runs adjacent and west of US-65. ArDOT would almost have to build an interchange there, unless they're okay with an at-grade railroad crossing immediately west of an at-grade intersection with US-65.
You are correct.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53767838583_c020792a3d_c.jpg)
For those who ask what that ring of dirt is around the proposed exit ramps at US-65, it was the relocation work for a water main.