AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: Grzrd on September 21, 2010, 01:31:22 PM

Title: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on September 21, 2010, 01:31:22 PM
Arkansas 2010-13 STIP, which was released in April, lists a FY 2010 letting for the Charles W. Dean Memorial Bridge over Mississippi River for "Phase I".  The project has an earmark of $8.67 million and the total letting is anticipated to be $10.35 million.  The recent I-69 book estimates total cost of project to be around $500 million.

The STIP also lists a FY 2010 letting for "Phase I" of 8.60 miles of a "new terrain" Monticello bypass.  That project has an earmark of $70.49 million and the total letting is anticipated to be $88.1 million.

http://www.arkansashighways.com/stip/Final%20STIP%202010-2013%20%20Web%20Version.pdf

"I-69 Corridor (Hwy. 65-Miss. Rt. 1) (GRB) (Ph I) (F)   069   2010   Phase I    $10,346        $8,666
Monticello Bypass (Phase I) (F)   069   2010   New Location    8.60     $88,107        $70,486"
Since right-of-way acquisition for the Great River Bridge (is it officially Charles W. Dean Memorial Bridge yet?) is currently ongoing, I thought it was as good a time as any to start an "Arkansas" I-69 thread.

After seeing that 2010-13 STIP had 2 separate "Phase I" I-69 projects listed for tentative FY 2010 lettings, I recently emailed AHTD to see if these projects were still "on track".  Pertinent part of the reply:

Quote
Phase 1 for the Great River Bridge involves right of way acquisition, which is already underway.   Phase I for the Monticello Bypass is preliminary engineering which involves environmental work.

I don’t believe either project is going to make FY 2010.

It will be interesting, and possibly time-consuming, to see if AHTD keeps pushing the dates back in order to wait for results of the seven-state I-69 alternative financing study, for which the consultant has not even been chosen yet.

Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: Grzrd on November 16, 2010, 01:43:33 PM
Received an e-mail from AHTD today.  Monticello Bypass project is now scheduled for a September 2011 letting.  I believe this will be the first engineering/ construction work on a future segment of I-69 in Arkansas.

Will be interesting to see how Arkansas manages maintenance of existing road network, I-49 & I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: codyg1985 on November 24, 2010, 08:48:54 AM
Not to mention also the US 67 upgrade to a freeway up to Walnut Ridge, AR.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: US71 on November 24, 2010, 09:12:21 AM
Not to mention also the US 67 upgrade to a freeway up to Walnut Ridge, AR.

67 won't be part of I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: codyg1985 on November 24, 2010, 09:13:53 AM
Not to mention also the US 67 upgrade to a freeway up to Walnut Ridge, AR.

67 won't be part of I-69.

I'm just saying that's another big project that AHTD has to manage and fund, along with I-49 and I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: US71 on November 24, 2010, 09:18:51 AM

67 won't be part of I-69.

I'm just saying that's another big project that AHTD has to manage and fund, along with I-49 and I-69.

It has taken a long time to do it, though. 67 really should have been finished years ago, but AHTD seems to worry too much about paving over someone's farm.   :banghead:
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: cjk374 on January 30, 2011, 12:13:22 PM
I have tried all search parameters I can think of to find this, and I'm not having any luck  :banghead: ...what is the route I-69 will take through AR?  Is it still proposed, or is it final?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: NE2 on January 30, 2011, 12:21:33 PM
http://www.i69info.com/shr-mem.html has maps.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: Grzrd on May 08, 2011, 01:32:51 PM
I have tried all search parameters I can think of to find this, and I'm not having any luck  :banghead: ...what is the route I-69 will take through AR?  Is it still proposed, or is it final?
http://www.i69info.com/shr-mem.html has maps.
I recently took a look at the SIU 14 (El Dorado AR to Haughton LA) website (http://www.i69arkla.com) and noticed this map (http://www.i69arkla.com/images/RevisedPreferredAlternative(1454%20x%202046).jpg) on the home page that is fairly detailed.  It may be one of the maps on the link NE2 provided, but I am not sure.  As best as I can tell, they appear to be in the Preferred Alignment Revisions Review phase, which immediately precedes the issuance of a FEIS and ROD.  I have no idea what the timetable may be to get to a ROD.

A FEIS and a ROD have both been issued for SIU 13 (El Dorado to McGehee).  SIU 13 has been divided into 5 segments and a map of SIU 13 can be found at pages 13-14/240 of the FEIS pdf, with more detailed maps at Exh. 2-6 of the FEIS (pages 79-86/240 of the pdf):
http://i-69.dina.org/meetings/final-impact.pdf
Work on the Monticello Bypass is scheduled to be let in September.

SIU 12 is the approximate 20 mile link from McGehee to Eutaw Landing MS crossing the Mississippi River and both a FEIS and ROD have been issued.  The bridge (approximately 4.25 miles) has been designed to connect Arkansas City AR to Benoit MS and here's a link that shows two different perspectives of what the Charles W. Dean Bridge (also referred to as the Great River Bridge) may one day look like: http://www.garverusa.com/portfolio/transportation/greatriver.php

I cannot find an active link that has the SIU 12 FEIS.  Any suggestions?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: US71 on May 09, 2011, 06:17:13 PM

I cannot find an active link that has the SIU 12 FEIS.  Any suggestions?

All I can find is this: http://www.i69info.com/shr-mem.html

http://www.gomdot.com/home/Projects/I69/pdf/I-69%20SIU11%20FEIS%20Distribution%20June%202010%20Newsletter.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: Grzrd on May 15, 2011, 12:27:34 AM
SIU 12 is the approximate 20 mile link from McGehee to Eutaw Landing MS crossing the Mississippi River and both a FEIS and ROD have been issued ... I cannot find an active link that has the SIU 12 FEIS.
AHTD recently sent me a pdf of SIU 12:

http://i.imgur.com/cedC7.jpg

what is the route I-69 will take through AR?  Is it still proposed, or is it final?

AHTD also sent me the May, 2011 version of I-69's preliminary route through Arkansas:

http://i.imgur.com/fTDIm.jpg

Work on the Monticello Bypass is scheduled to be let in September.

Also, no currently scheduled lettings for SIU 12/Charles W. Dean Bridge; however, the recent email seems to affirm that the Monticello Bypass work appears to be on track:

Quote
The only “I-69” project currently scheduled is the grading and structures phase of the Monticello Bypass – from Highway 425 to Highway 278 East. The next job would be for the base and surfacing of this project.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: Grzrd on August 13, 2011, 02:38:37 PM
Monticello Bypass work is scheduled to be let on Sept. 7.  Here is a link to the plans for the project: http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/LETTING%20PLANS/020471.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: Grzrd on September 09, 2011, 11:13:27 AM
Pending approval by feds, dirt should soon be turned on I-69 in Arkansas.  It is a small, approximately $13 million, step, but at least it is a first step (grading and structures for two lanes of approximately 8 miles of Monticello Bypass):
http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/letting/Sep%20'11%20Award%20List.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/ AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on October 01, 2011, 10:25:15 AM
Pending approval by feds, dirt should soon be turned on I-69 in Arkansas.  It is a small, approximately $13 million, step, but at least it is a first step (grading and structures for two lanes of approximately 8 miles of Monticello Bypass):
http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/letting/Sep%20'11%20Award%20List.pdf
In addition to the Monticello Bypass project, a contract was also awarded for a paving project on the I-69 Southeast Arkansas Connector:
http://www.swtimes.com/state_news/article_2dd1b46e-da21-11e0-9faa-001cc4c002e0.html

Quote
... Also Wednesday, Southern Industrial Contractors LLC of Rayville, La., was the apparent low bidder on a $13.1 million project to build a bypass around Monticello in Drew County.
The 8.5-mile project, which includes construction of a bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad, will stretch from U.S. 278 East to U.S. 425 South.
Martin Marietta Materials Inc. of Hot Springs was apparent low bidder on a $13.9 million project to pave a new road from I-530 to Arkansas 35.
The project, known as the Interstate 69 connector road, Bolick said, eventually will connect I-530 to Arkansas 212 near Star City. Portions of that project are already under way, he said ...

Here is a link to a January 23, 2010 article with photos of construction elsewhere on the Connector:
http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/Connecting-Arkansas-to-Future-Highway-I-69/13962/

Also, as previously mentioned in "I-69 in LA..." thread, the FEIS for I-69 SIU 14 from El Dorado to Haughton, LA has been completed and is available for review on the SIU 14 website:
http://www.i69arkla.com/FinalEIS.asp
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/ AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on October 09, 2011, 11:53:53 AM
a contract was also awarded for a paving project on the I-69 Southeast Arkansas Connector:
http://www.swtimes.com/state_news/article_2dd1b46e-da21-11e0-9faa-001cc4c002e0.html
Martin Marietta Materials Inc. of Hot Springs was apparent low bidder on a $13.9 million project to pave a new road from I-530 to Arkansas 35.
The project, known as the Interstate 69 connector road, Bolick said, eventually will connect I-530 to Arkansas 212 near Star City. Portions of that project are already under way, he said ..."
I emailed Glenn Bolick at AHTD and asked him for a general update on progress along the Connector.  To make a long story short, the section from the I-530 interchange to Star City should be open in approximately two years.  His response:

Quote
The latest project let was for base and surfacing of the stretch from the new I-530 Bypass interchange south to near Pinebergen. A contract for the base and surfacing is already underway from Pinebergen south to Highway 212 near Star City. When those two projects are completed - about two years probably – we will be able to open it from Pine Bluff to Star City. South of Highway 212 work is in different stages, but will still need base and surfacing contracts. The piece – I think it is five miles long – from Highway 35 south to Highway 278 has been opened for several years.

It is interesting that work along the Connector has progressed more rapidly than work on I-69 itself.

Below is a map of the I-69 Connector that Mr. Bolick sent me (it is an old map and he cautioned me to ignore the dates on it; he sent it to provide a good view of the route):

(http://i.imgur.com/NjHTK.png) (http://imgur.com/NjHTK)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: Alex on October 09, 2011, 01:46:54 PM
Was not aware so much was underway.  :-o A look at the Bing aerials reveals the road work, including a good amount of work complete at the Interstate 530 interchange.

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=34.1636094856489~-91.97276518634973&lvl=14&dir=0&sty=h&form=LMLTCC
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: US71 on October 09, 2011, 08:30:24 PM
I've not been down that way in a while. Guess I should wait until November so I can drive it and get some photos.

I think it will be confusing, though, to have AR 530 branch off I-530 unless the new road becomes I-530 and the other section reverts to US 65.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/ AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on October 10, 2011, 05:18:35 PM
I think it will be confusing, though, to have AR 530 branch off I-530 unless the new road becomes I-530 and the other section reverts to US 65.
I emailed Glenn Bolick at AHTD again and asked him if (a) the Connector was being built to interstate standards, and (b) if so, would the section from Star City up to the I-530 interchange be immediately signed as I-530 since it would be connected to the currently existing I-530.

His response:

Quote
The connector section is being built to Interstate standards – but it is only being built as a two-lane roadway. The right of way is already acquired, but we will not add the additional two lanes until a later date – more along the lines of when it connects to I-69 and then it would most likely become I-530. The south end of the connector is signed “Highway” 530 and that’s what it will be all the way to Pine Bluff.

It looks like drivers in the Pine Bluff area will have to deal with some confusion for a good while.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: Grzrd on November 01, 2011, 04:05:27 PM
Pending approval by feds, dirt should soon be turned on I-69 in Arkansas.  It is a small, approximately $13 million, step, but at least it is a first step (grading and structures for two lanes of approximately 8 miles of Monticello Bypass):
http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/letting/Sep%20'11%20Award%20List.pdf

The official groundbreaking ceremony will be Wednesday, Nov. 9 in Monticello:
http://www.monticellolive.com/i-69-groundbreaking-ceremony-scheduled-for-wednesday-nov-9/

Quote
The ground breaking for the first official I-69 project in Arkansas is scheduled for Wednesday, November 9 at 11:00 am in Monticello.
The event will be in middle of the project corridor where it crosses Highway 35 southeast of Monticello. From Highway 278 east, take Highway 35 south for about three miles.
The agenda is expected to include comments from AHTD Director Scott Bennett, AR Highway Commission Chairman Madison Murphy and Congressman Mike Ross.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: Grzrd on November 09, 2011, 02:49:23 PM
Construction on I-69 in Arkansas has started.  Here is a link to a photo from the groundbreaking ceremony, as well as other materials related to the ceremony:
http://www.monticellolive.com/i-69-groundbreaking-ceremony-scheduled-for-wednesday-nov-9/#more-88567
(http://i.imgur.com/IGnzS.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/kt650.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/3LxzQ.jpg)

EDIT

Here is a link to a video report regarding the ceremony:
http://arkansasmatters.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=480207&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Here is a link to another article with some speaker comments from the ceremony:
http://arkansasnews.com/2011/11/09/officials-break-ground-on-i-69-project-in-s-arkansas/

Quote
Dozens of state, regional and local officials gathered in Drew County on today to break ground for the first construction project for Interstate 69 in Arkansas.
The $13 million project, which will stretch 8.5 miles from U.S. 278 East to U.S. 425 South, is a tiny portion of a what will be a 2,700-mile highway from Canada to the Mexican border.
Small sections are already open in Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana and Michigan but nothing is connected yet.
The entire corridor from border to border will cost about $30 billion. Arkansas’ 185-mile portion is projected to cost about $3.6 billion.
“Once completed, I-69 will be a national freight corridor linking manufacturing and agriculture centers throughout the country,” said U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Prescott.
“Connecting these commercial links will help stimulate economic growth throughout the I-69 corridor, in particular here in the Delta region.”
Construction of I-69 is expected to create thousands of jobs and provide billions of dollars in wages over the next two decades, according to the congressman.
The I-69 route from Canada to Mexico is one of six “Corridors of the Future” designated by federal highway officials in 1993.
“That is a huge designation for future federal funding that will potentially help us in our funding endeavors,” said Arkansas Highway Commission chairman Madison Murphy, one of two state highway commissioners attending the ceremony today.
Scott Bennett, director of the state Highway and Transportation Department, said awarding the construction contract and Wednesday’s groundbreaking is evidence that work is ongoing in the I-69 project in Arkansas.
“I know a lot of you think we’ve just been sitting here not doing anything with I-69, but I think this is evidence that there’s been a lot of work going on,” Bennett said.
Ross, who announced in July that he would not seek another term, said breaking ground on the first I-69 project in Arkansas during his term is one of his proudest accomplishments.
“As I reflect back on what will have been 12 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and 10 years before that serving with Mike Beebe in the state Senate, I can tell you that among my proudest accomplishments is the fact that we’re able to break ground on I69 in Arkansas during my time in Congress,” Ross said.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: Grzrd on January 04, 2012, 02:04:22 PM
as previously mentioned in "I-69 in LA..." thread, the FEIS for I-69 SIU 14 from El Dorado to Haughton, LA has been completed and is available for review on the SIU 14 website:
http://www.i69arkla.com/FinalEIS.asp
As recently posted on "I-69 in LA..." thread, a ROD has not yet been issued for SIU 14.  I've communicated with a local FHWA official and it appears that the major holdup/problem is that neither Louisiana nor Arkansas has any funds allocated for I-69 SIU 14 in their respectives STIPs.  If a ROD were to sit dormant for a certain length of time, a re-evaluation would have to occur before any construction could begin.  The various governmental entities are currently trying to figure out the best way to handle this situation.

In the FEIS, Arkansas projects a twenty-five year implementation schedule from 2015 to 2040, which projects a beginning four years before Louisiana's projected start date of 2019 (pages 5-7 and 5-8 of FEIS; pages 207-208/760 of pdf).  It will be interesting to see if Arkansas will be willing to commit to some funding in its next STIP.

Time to hurry up and wait...
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: ShawnP on January 04, 2012, 08:10:13 PM
Speaking of Bing Maps. Looked at I-49 south of Doddridge. Seems to be coming along very nicely.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/ AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on March 05, 2012, 09:35:33 PM
I emailed Glenn Bolick at AHTD and asked him for a general update on progress along the Connector.  To make a long story short, the section from the I-530 interchange to Star City should be open in approximately two years.  His response:
Quote
The latest project let was for base and surfacing of the stretch from the new I-530 Bypass interchange south to near Pinebergen. A contract for the base and surfacing is already underway from Pinebergen south to Highway 212 near Star City. When those two projects are completed - about two years probably – we will be able to open it from Pine Bluff to Star City.
The south end of the connector is signed “Highway” 530 and that’s what it will be all the way to Pine Bluff.

In regard to Highway 530/I-69 SIU 28/I-69 Connector, a third paving project, from Highway 212 southward to construction of a Highways 11/425 Connector (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=33.94747520684965~-91.90555000305176&lvl=14&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Star%20City%2C%20AR&form=LMLTCC) is scheduled to be let on March 21 (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/JOBS_include.aspx) and is described by the Notice as follows:

Quote
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT EMBANKMENTS AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PROJECT AND PAVE 7.752 MILES OF ROUTE 530 AND CONSTRUCT HWYS.11/425 CONNECTOR IN LINCOLN COUNTY.  THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF EARTHWORK, AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, ACHM BASE, BINDER AND SURFACE COURSES, ONE CONTINUOUS COMPOSITE PLATE GIRDER BRIDGE (TOTAL LENGTH 235.26'), A DOUBLE 11' X 6' X 93' R.C. BOX CULVERT (SPAN 27.91'), MINOR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, SUBGRADE PREPARATION, RESHAPE SLOPES, EROSION CONTROL ITEMS AND MISC. ITEMS.

Here are the plans (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/LETTING%20PLANS/020356.pdf) for the project.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: dariusb on March 08, 2012, 03:39:26 AM
Encouraging news. Great updates.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: lamsalfl on March 11, 2012, 01:00:11 AM
This is great news for Southeast Arkansas that they will finally have Interstate access (even if not right away) to other parts of the state/nation.  I would love to see I-530 extended to Monroe or even be a part of the future of Gulfport-Hattiesburg-Jackson freeway.  I-49 in MO/I-40 in AR/I-530 towards the south or east would open up a new corridor to take pressure off of other routes, not to mention tie into I-69.  Frankly, I'm not keen on the L-shaped I-69 routing in AR/MS.  I don't think it will take mileage off of transcontinental traffic.  I thought it needed to be much more diagonal from Memphis to Shreveport to really blaze a new path.  Future I-530 to Monticello pleases me more than the AR segment of I-69 in all honesty.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/ AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on March 26, 2012, 11:10:05 AM
In regard to Highway 530/I-69 SIU 28/I-69 Connector, a third paving project, from Highway 212 southward to construction of a Highways 11/425 Connector (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=33.94747520684965~-91.90555000305176&lvl=14&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Star%20City%2C%20AR&form=LMLTCC) is scheduled to be let on March 21 (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/JOBS_include.aspx)

This article (http://arkansasnews.com/2012/03/21/bids-let-for-93-2-million-in-road-projects/) indicates that the low bid for the project was $32.2 million, that 9.5 miles of the 38 mile road will remain to be constructed at a cost of approximately $50 million to $60 million after this paving project and the other ongoing paving projects are completed, and that in the future it will cost approximately $350 million to upgrade the entire 38 miles from a Super 2 to four lanes:

Quote
The state Highway and Transportation Department chose the apparent low bidders on $92.3 million in road projects today, including $32.2 million for a section of a planned 38-mile highway that will eventually connect Interstate 530 around Pine Bluff with the proposed I-69 in in southeastern Arkansas.
Low bidder on the Route 530 project in Lincoln County was Graves and Associates Inc. of Pine Bluff.
Highway department spokesman Randy Ort said grading of the 7.7 mile stretch of roadway is almost completed and the $32.2 million project will include setting the road bed and surfacing from Arkansas 212 west of Star City to Arkansas 11 south of Star City. It also includes setting the road bed and resurfacing a section of roadway from Arkansas 11 to U.S. Highway 425.
When the project and several others along the corridor is finished, the 38-mile two-lane highway, referred to as the I-530 or I-69 connector, will stretch from Pine Bluff to the proposed I-69 route near Wilmar in Drew County, Ort said.
In November, highway department officials broke ground on the first phase of the I-69 project in Arkansas, an 8.5 mile span between U.S. 278 and U.S. 425 South. The overall I-69 highway in Arkansas will be a tiny portion of what will be a 2,700-mile highway from Canada to the Mexican border.
Ort said $175 million has already been spent on the I-530 or I-69 connector, and when the section in Lincoln County is completed, along with the other sections, all but 9.5 miles of the project, with an estimated cost of between $50 million to $60 million, will remain.
Highway officials plan to eventually widen the connector from two to four lanes and construct interchanges. Estimated cost on that project is about $350 million, Ort said.

EDIT

The low bid was awarded by AHTD today, March 26 (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/letting/Mar%20'12%20Award%20List.pdf) (page 1/6 of pdf).

edit

Here is a map of the project from the Plans (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/PREVIOUS%20LETTING%20PLANS/2012/Mar%202012/020356.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/UQi59.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: US71 on March 26, 2012, 11:48:53 AM
This is great news for Southeast Arkansas that they will finally have Interstate access (even if not right away) to other parts of the state/nation.  I would love to see I-530 extended to Monroe or even be a part of the future of Gulfport-Hattiesburg-Jackson freeway.  I-49 in MO/I-40 in AR/I-530 towards the south or east would open up a new corridor to take pressure off of other routes, not to mention tie into I-69.  Frankly, I'm not keen on the L-shaped I-69 routing in AR/MS.  I don't think it will take mileage off of transcontinental traffic.  I thought it needed to be much more diagonal from Memphis to Shreveport to really blaze a new path.  Future I-530 to Monticello pleases me more than the AR segment of I-69 in all honesty.

There has also been talk of a connector from I-40 near Brinkley to I-55 near Greenwood, MS. No word on if this would be an interstate or just an expressway . If nothing else, I'm sure it would see a lot of casino traffic ;)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: Grzrd on May 15, 2012, 01:20:07 PM
As recently posted on "I-69 in LA..." thread, a ROD has not yet been issued for SIU 14.  I've communicated with a local FHWA official and it appears that the major holdup/problem is that neither Louisiana nor Arkansas has any funds allocated for I-69 SIU 14 in their respectives STIPs.  If a ROD were to sit dormant for a certain length of time, a re-evaluation would have to occur before any construction could begin.  The various governmental entities are currently trying to figure out the best way to handle this situation.
In the FEIS, Arkansas projects a twenty-five year implementation schedule from 2015 to 2040, which projects a beginning four years before Louisiana's projected start date of 2019 (pages 5-7 and 5-8 of FEIS; pages 207-208/760 of pdf).

Arkansas now has a Record of Decision for each of the three I-69 SIUs (with I-69 SIU 28/I-69 Connector/Highway 530's ROD being in addition to the RODs for SIUs 12, 13, and 14) located within its borders because a Record of Decision was recently issued for SIU 14, which is also partially located in Louisiana. I recently received an email from the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") to that effect:

Quote
FHWA issued a ROD, for I-69 SIU-14, April 27th, 2012. NLCOG is in the process of transferring the SIU-14 website from URS Corp. to our domain, but it is a painful process to work with Network Solutions. I might go ahead and post the signed ROD document on our nlcog.org homepage.

I initially posted this info in the "I-69 in LA ..." thread (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4510.34), but I decided to go ahead and also post it here because it is noteworthy that Arkansas now has Records of Decision for the entire length of I-69 through the state.

EDIT

NLCOG has moved quickly and posted the I-69 SIU 14 ROD (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/I69SIU14_ROD/I-69%20SIU%2014%20Signed%20ROD%20%2004-27-2012.pdf) on its website.

second edit

LaDOTD also has an I-69 SIU 14 Environmental Documents (http://www.dotd.la.gov/planning/environ/DirListing.aspx?txtPath=/planning/environ/documents/I-69_SIU_14_from_El_Dorado,_Ark_to_Shreveport,_LA) page.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: sr641 on May 15, 2012, 04:58:40 PM
Arkansas 530 is an exiting route. Hope it gets finished in the next 5-10 years.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: Alps on May 15, 2012, 08:09:04 PM
Arkansas 530 is an exiting route. Hope it gets finished in the next 5-10 years.
What is it exiting? Surely you didn't mean existing.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: sr641 on May 15, 2012, 08:12:53 PM
Arkansas 530 is an exiting route. Hope it gets finished in the next 5-10 years.
What is it exiting? Surely you didn't mean existing.
Arkansas 530 is an exiting route. Hope it gets finished in the next 5-10 years.
What is it exiting? Surely you didn't mean existing.

Sorry I meant exciting.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: flaroads on May 15, 2012, 08:43:42 PM
I was on Arkansas 530 a couple of weeks ago and it is really nothing to write home about, IMO. It's your typical rural two-lane road with at least one crossroad between its two termini. The only redeeming part of it was the initial footprints for the eventual ramps at Arkansas 35 and at U.S. 278 that have been cleared of trees.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: US71 on May 16, 2012, 03:38:44 AM
Arkansas 530 is an exiting route. Hope it gets finished in the next 5-10 years.

Grading & structures are finished at Pine Bluff. Arkansas is just waiting for the money fairy to pay for paving it.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: flaroads on May 17, 2012, 09:42:43 PM
Stumbled across this future I-69 corridor crossing sign along U.S. 278 about 5.6 miles east of U.S. 425 and Monticello on our way back home:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-south/us-278_eb_app_bordeaux_rd.jpg)

I don't know how long this sign has been along here but Google Street View does it in existence dated back to their contractors' 2009 drive-through.

BTW, here is a shot of Arkansas 530 immediately south of Arkansas 35 showing the wide right-of-way:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-south/ar-530_sb_after_ar-035.jpg)




Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: Grzrd on May 18, 2012, 11:05:24 AM
Here is a link to a photo from the groundbreaking ceremony, as well as other materials related to the ceremony:
http://www.monticellolive.com/i-69-groundbreaking-ceremony-scheduled-for-wednesday-nov-9/#more-88567 ....
The $13 million project, which will stretch 8.5 miles from U.S. 278 East to U.S. 425 South ....
Stumbled across this future I-69 corridor crossing sign along U.S. 278 about 5.6 miles east of U.S. 425 and Monticello on our way back home

Thanks for sharing the photos.  Great shots!
Did you notice any clearing/grubbing for mainline I-69 along U.S. 278 east of Monticello?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: flaroads on May 18, 2012, 01:50:37 PM
Here is a link to a photo from the groundbreaking ceremony, as well as other materials related to the ceremony:
http://www.monticellolive.com/i-69-groundbreaking-ceremony-scheduled-for-wednesday-nov-9/#more-88567 ....
The $13 million project, which will stretch 8.5 miles from U.S. 278 East to U.S. 425 South ....
Stumbled across this future I-69 corridor crossing sign along U.S. 278 about 5.6 miles east of U.S. 425 and Monticello on our way back home

Thanks for sharing the photos.  Great shots!
Did you notice any clearing/grubbing for mainline I-69 along U.S. 278 east of Monticello?

There was some utility work with a little bit of clearing just east of the sign and curve, that was pretty much it. The sign came up on us so suddenly we were surprised we even got this photo, as I was doing a little over the posted speed limit through the curve.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/ AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on June 18, 2012, 05:07:58 PM
I had an email exchange with AHTD today regarding exactly which Monticello Bypass projects are covered by the Preliminary 2013-16 STIP (http://www.arkansashighways.com/stip/2013-2016/2013-2016_Prelim_STIP.pdf):

Quote
Q: In the Preliminary 2013-16 STIP (http://www.arkansashighways.com/stip/2013-2016/2013-2016_Prelim_STIP.pdf ), Project No. 020462 is listed as a FY 2015 $69 million letting for the I-69 Monticello Bypass in Drew County.  However, no mileage or other description is provided for the project. Is this letting intended for the entire "US 278 to US 278" Monticello Bypass, or is this simply the paving contract for the section of the Monticello Bypass that is currently being graded (US 425 eastward to US 278)?  Similarly, if this project is for the entire Monticello Bypass, does it also include the new terrain short stub of Highway 530 that will be built between I-69 and US 278?

A: 20462 is the preliminary engineering number – there are four jobs broken from that for the bypass. 20484 is the base and surface job for the 8.6 mile-section currently under construction. 20470/20481 are the grading/structures and the base/surface jobs for the 11.3 mile-section west of Highway 425.

I'm guessing that the $69 million would cover 20484 and 20470. It looks like the Highway 530 stub will be a separate project.

EDIT

Quote
Highway department spokesman Randy Ort said .... $175 million has already been spent on the I-530 or I-69 connector, and when the section in Lincoln County is completed, along with the other sections, all but 9.5 miles of the project, with an estimated cost of between $50 million to $60 million, will remain.

I do not see any projects related to the final 9.5 miles of the Highway 530/I-69 Connector in the Preliminary STIP.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: formulanone on August 06, 2012, 11:32:07 PM
This one was on northbound US 65, "intersecting" it between Dumas and McGehee:

(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/FutureInt69sign.jpg)

The routing of this interstate is a bit of a head-scratcher to me.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: Grzrd on August 07, 2012, 06:16:44 PM
It's no great surprise, but no projects for the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge are included in the Preliminary 2013-16 STIP (http://www.arkansashighways.com/stip/2013-2016/2013-2016_Prelim_STIP.pdf), and it appears to be on hold at least through 2016 ... no SIU 12 projects approaching the bridge are included.
(above quote from I-69 Mississippi River Bridge (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg155195#msg155195) thread)
This one was on northbound US 65, "intersecting" it between Dumas and McGehee .... The routing of this interstate is a bit of a head-scratcher to me.

Did AHTD at least have it in the correct location along US 65 (at least as shown in this map of SIU 12) (http://i.imgur.com/cedC7.jpg)?:
(http://i.imgur.com/XEhAI.jpg)

FWIW this map (http://i.imgur.com/fTDIm.jpg) has I-69's entire route through Arkansas:
(http://i.imgur.com/5FD8M.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: formulanone on August 07, 2012, 08:01:36 PM
^ Okay, I thought it was following I-530 for a bit; that map above makes more sense now.

It was quite dark and empty out when I took the photo, so I have no reason to doubt that's at the incorrect place.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR
Post by: O Tamandua on August 15, 2012, 03:28:34 PM
Here's an article with photos published two days ago: http://searktoday.com/2012/08/13/aerial-photos-of-interstate-69-project-in-southeast-arkansas/#more-10586
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/ AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on December 04, 2012, 10:16:27 AM
I emailed Glenn Bolick at AHTD and asked him for a general update on progress along the Connector.  To make a long story short, the section from the I-530 interchange to Star City should be open in approximately two years.  His response:
Quote
... When those two projects are completed - about two years probably – we will be able to open it from Pine Bluff to Star City ...

I recently received an email update from Mr. Bolick and it currently appears that the I-69 Connector from Pine Bluff to Star City could be open to traffic by this time next year:

Quote
They are hopeful of opening it from PB to around Star City in about a year.

I thought it was following I-530 for a bit; that map above makes more sense now.

In this thread I have posted about both mainline I-69 from Mississippi to Louisiana and the I-69 Connector from Pine Bluff to Wilmar (currently projected to be temporarily designated as AR 530).  Both routes are part of the statutorily designated I-69 Corridor "system" in Arkanasas, so I initially named the thread "I-69 in AR"; however, it occurred to me that doing so might be confusing to the casual I-69 observer.  In an effort to minimize confusion, I have modified the name of the thread to clarify that it covers two routes, particularly as the Pine Bluff to Star City opening approaches.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/ AR 530)
Post by: lamsalfl on December 04, 2012, 12:27:15 PM
I guess it will be a while until I-530 makes it down to Star City being this new road is a two-lane.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/ AR 530)
Post by: US71 on December 06, 2012, 08:26:06 PM
I guess it will be a while until I-530 makes it down to Star City being this new road is a two-lane.

I believe it will be AR 530 when it first opens.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/ AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on January 28, 2013, 10:32:00 PM
Here's an article with photos published two days ago: http://searktoday.com/2012/08/13/aerial-photos-of-interstate-69-project-in-southeast-arkansas/#more-10586

Google Maps now has an aerial image of the I-69 Monticello Bypass construction (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Monticello,+AR&hl=en&ll=33.588454,-91.716785&spn=0.143,0.227623&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=67.927902,116.542969&oq=monticello+ar&t=h&hnear=Monticello,+Drew,+Arkansas&z=13).
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/ AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on January 29, 2013, 11:45:15 AM
Google Maps now has an aerial image of the I-69 Monticello Bypass construction (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Monticello,+AR&hl=en&ll=33.588454,-91.716785&spn=0.143,0.227623&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=67.927902,116.542969&oq=monticello+ar&t=h&hnear=Monticello,+Drew,+Arkansas&z=13).
In regard to Highway 530/I-69 SIU 28/I-69 Connector, a third paving project, from Highway 212 southward to construction of a Highways 11/425 Connector (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=33.94747520684965~-91.90555000305176&lvl=14&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Star%20City%2C%20AR&form=LMLTCC) is scheduled to be let on March 21 (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/JOBS_include.aspx)
The low bid was awarded by AHTD today, March 26 (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/letting/Mar%20'12%20Award%20List.pdf)

The updated Google images (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Star+City,+AR&hl=en&ll=33.858228,-91.875486&spn=0.071275,0.113811&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=9.241645,14.567871&oq=star+city+ar&t=h&hnear=Star+City,+Lincoln,+Arkansas&z=14) also provide a good view of the Highways 11/425 Connector.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: lamsalfl on April 30, 2013, 11:58:04 AM
How updated are the Google aerial images of the AR 530 construction south of Pine Bluff?  I'm kinda disappointed to see an at-grade at AR 54/114 even though traffic may be light bc it looks like they left no room for future upgrades.  When is this road scheduled to be complete?

Edit:  I see the cleared trees for future ramps now.  It's AR 212 that has no future interchange. 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 30, 2013, 12:04:04 PM
From what I understand, AR 530 is planned to be initially built as a modified Super-2 with some interchanges and some temporary at-grades for now. Once the core of I-69 in Arkansas gets more substansial funding, I'm assuming they will complete the Pine Bluff Connector as a full 4-lane I-grade freeway and convert it to a true I-530 extension.

Some of us would love to see it further extended S to I-20 in Monroe via US 425/US 165...but I won't get too greedy for now.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: lamsalfl on April 30, 2013, 12:37:45 PM
Monroe?  How about Natchez to BR and drop the zero from 530 leaving just I-53?  That couldn't be any more perfect. 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on May 24, 2013, 01:05:35 PM
This article (http://arkansasnews.com/2012/03/21/bids-let-for-93-2-million-in-road-projects/) indicates that ... 9.5 miles of the 38 mile road will remain to be constructed at a cost of approximately $50 million to $60 million after this paving project and the other ongoing paving projects are completed, and that in the future it will cost approximately $350 million to upgrade the entire 38 miles from a Super 2 to four lanes:
Quote
Ort said $175 million has already been spent on the I-530 or I-69 connector, and when the section in Lincoln County is completed, along with the other sections, all but 9.5 miles of the project, with an estimated cost of between $50 million to $60 million, will remain.
Highway officials plan to eventually widen the connector from two to four lanes and construct interchanges. Estimated cost on that project is about $350 million, Ort said.

In this article (http://www.salineriverchronicle.blogspot.in/2013/05/arkansas-highway-and-transportation.html), Arkansas Highway and Transportation Director Scott Bennett is reported to estimate that the current cost for completion of the I-69 Connector/AR 530 is now $603 million:

Quote
The Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition conducted its annual banquet Tuesday, May 21 on the campus of UAM .... Keynote speaker of the evening was Arkansas Highway and Transportation Director Scott Bennett .... Scott Bennett covered the current status of the Arkansas Highway system and what it will take to make improvements and expansion.  He reported Arkansas has 16,430 miles of state highways but only $58,536 per mile to maintain the system.  Completion of the I-530 connector from Pine Bluff to Highway 278 will cost around $603,000,000.

I wonder if the $603 million figure includes the $175 million already spent on the project as of March 2012 (175+60+350 = 585)? $18 million increase in estimated cost after fourteen months seems reasonable.



Bennett briefly mentioned "mainline" I-69 and is reported to estimate the completion cost to be $2.4 billion:

Quote
In specific comments about I-69, Mr. Bennet stated the total project going through numerous states consists of 2730 miles and will cost $22 billion.  Arkansas's portion of I-69 is 185 miles and will cost $2.4 billion.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on June 18, 2013, 04:15:00 PM
In this article (http://www.salineriverchronicle.blogspot.in/2013/05/arkansas-highway-and-transportation.html):
Quote
The Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition conducted its annual banquet Tuesday, May 21 on the campus of UAM

AHTD has posted the PowerPoint presentation for the May 21 Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition banquet (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/052113_SEB-Moore_SEACoalition.pdf).  One map indicates that 15.7 miles of AR 530 from I-530 to Highway 212 should open this summer, and that another section should open by the end of the year.  The map also shows future projects that will bring AR 530 up to interstate grade (page 11/49 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/D8IYxR7.png)

The above pdf is a little blurry, but I think it provides that the small section of AR 530 from US 278 to I-69 will be included in a 2015 western I-69 Monticello Bypass project.



The PowerPoint presentation also has a map showing the current state of I-69 in Arkansas and a Future I-530 shield on it hints that "Future I-530 Corridor" green signs may be placed on the I-69 Connector (page 41/49 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/GeK28pA.png)
Title: Is AHTD Relocating US 425 Onto the New Terrain AR 530?
Post by: Grzrd on August 08, 2013, 09:25:00 PM
AHTD has posted the PowerPoint presentation for the May 21 Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition banquet (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/052113_SEB-Moore_SEACoalition.pdf).  One map indicates that 15.7 miles of AR 530 from I-530 to Highway 212 should open this summer, and that another section should open by the end of the year.

Although this article (paywall) (http://pbcommercial.com/sections/news/local/highway-425-between-pine-bluff-star-city-open-soon.html) quotes an AHTD spokesperson talking about the upcoming opening of a new section of US 425, I think the article is about the upcoming opening of a section of AR 530 that was referenced in the May presentation:

Quote
Motorists traveling on Interstate 530 between The Pines mall and the Olive Street/Highway 63 exit over the past several weeks undoubtedly noticed a flurry of activity in and around the new interchange with Highway 425.
Danny Straessle, a spokesman with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, said Thursday that the activity heralds the imminent opening of the roadway between Pine Bluff and Star City.
“We are looking at opening the approximately 18-mile stretch of Highway 425 between Pine Bluff and Star City either by the end of this month or sometime after Labor Day,” Straessle said. “The new highway will intersect with Highway 114 just outside of Star City. The contractor is putting the finishing touches on the interchange with Interstate 530 right now and did some overlay of 2.2 miles of Highway 114 into Star City.”
Straessle said signage for the new roadway has already been installed on the interstate but will be covered until the road actually opens to traffic.
“The money was there for the completion of the interchange and the construction of the first two lanes of what will ultimately be a four lane roadway,” Straessle said. “So for now the new stretch of road will be one lane in each direction.”
Straessle said the next section of roadway to be constructed will extend to just past Highway 11.

Is AHTD relocating US 425 onto this roadway?

The article also provides an update on the I-69 Monticello Bypass:

Quote
“Eventually Highway 425 will connect with the yet-to-be constructed Interstate 69 near Monticello,” Straessle said.
Straessle said the Monticello bypass project is moving along on schedule.
“The current project on the eastern half of the Monticello bypass is scheduled for completion by September 2014,” Straessle said. “The current work involves construction of two bridges; one over Drew County Road 36 and the other over the Union-Pacific railroad tracks; as well as dirt work and the installation of box culverts. This time next year we plan to let the contract for paving that section.”
Straessle said that work on the western part of the bypass is not expected to begin until sometime in 2016.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on August 09, 2013, 02:39:04 PM
Although this article (paywall) (http://pbcommercial.com/sections/news/local/highway-425-between-pine-bluff-star-city-open-soon.html) quotes an AHTD spokesperson talking about the upcoming opening of a new section of US 425, I think the article is about the upcoming opening of a section of AR 530

I just received an email from AHTD stating that it was newspaper error:

Quote
This was an error on the part of the newspaper.
The new route will be signed State Highway 530. Highway 425 remains.
We have requested a correction by the paper.

edit

Here's the August 13 correction notice (http://pbcommercial.com/sections/news/local/correction.html-34):

Quote
Correction
An article in Friday’s Commercial misidentified the designation of the new stretch of highway between Pine Bluff and Star City that is expected to open by Labor Day.
The roadway will likely be designated State Highway 530 and will serve as the future Interstate 69 Connector according to Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department spokesman Danny Straessle.
end edit

Maybe the reporter became confused over comments about the 425 Connector.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Rover_0 on August 09, 2013, 03:13:20 PM
Although this article (paywall) (http://pbcommercial.com/sections/news/local/highway-425-between-pine-bluff-star-city-open-soon.html) quotes an AHTD spokesperson talking about the upcoming opening of a new section of US 425, I think the article is about the upcoming opening of a section of AR 530

I just received an email from AHTD stating that it was newspaper error:

Quote
This was an error on the part of the newspaper.
The new route will be signed State Highway 530. Highway 425 remains.
We have requested a correction by the paper.

Maybe the reporter became confused over comments about the 425 Connector.


[off-topic rant]
Too bad US-425 can't become a US-x65.
[/off-topic rant]

:bigass:

Is the AR/I-530 construction on time?
Title: AR 530 18 Mile Section Has Dedication Ceremony - To Open Sept. 12
Post by: Grzrd on September 07, 2013, 09:15:43 PM
In this article (http://www.salineriverchronicle.blogspot.in/2013/05/arkansas-highway-and-transportation.html), Arkansas Highway and Transportation Director Scott Bennett is reported to estimate that the current cost for completion of the I-69 Connector/AR 530 is now $603 million:
Quote
Completion of the I-530 connector from Pine Bluff to Highway 278 will cost around $603,000,000.

This Sept. 7 article (behind paywall) (http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/sep/07/star-city-dedicates-i-69-link-highway-20130907/) reports on a Sept. 6 dedication ceremony in Star City for an eighteen-mile section of AR 530, and further reports that it will open to traffic on Sept. 12 and that the current estimated cost for AR 530 is now $608 million:

Quote
The sun baked the newly laid asphalt on Arkansas 530 just outside Star City on Friday morning where 200 people gathered for the roadway’s official dedication. The road will officially open Thursday, and many in southeast Arkansas are eager to drive on it ....
The $120 million Arkansas 530 project is part of a planned 38-mile four-lane highway known as the Interstate 69 connector road. It is to eventually connect Interstate 530 in Pine Bluff to Arkansas 278 near Wilmar and to the proposed Interstate 69 ....
The portion of Arkansas 530 dedicated Friday is 18 miles long and runs to Arkansas 114 just west of Star City.
Another completed portion of the highway stretches between Arkansas 35 and U.S. 278 just west of Monticello.
In 2014, a third section of the highway will be completed between Arkansas 114 and a connector road stretching from Arkansas 11 to U.S. 425. The cost of that project is $32.2 million, Highway Department officials said.
Arkansas 530 is currently two lanes but will be widened as funds become available, according to the Highway Department. A completion date for the entire 38-mile highway has not been set because funds are not yet available to finish it, Highway Department spokesman Glenn Bolick said.
The entire 38-mile project is estimated to cost $608 million, Bolick said.

edit

Two photos from the ribbon-cutting can be found here (http://pbcommercial.com/sections/news/local/highway-dedication.html), one of which includes a banner describing the new road as "The I-530 Connect Road".

second edit

This article (http://pbcommercial.com/sections/news/region/new-state-highway-530-opens.html) reports that the 18-mile section did open to traffic on Sept. 12:

Quote
With the removal of tarps covering road signs and barrels blocking the on- and off-ramps, crews with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department on Thursday morning officially opened to traffic the Exit 44 State Highway 530 interchange with Interstate 530 on the south side of Pine Bluff.
The new highway extends 18 miles between Pine Bluff and the intersection with State Highway 114 in Lincoln County north of Star City according to AHTD assistant public information officer Danny Straessle.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bassoon1986 on September 09, 2013, 10:52:25 AM
So what will the existing I-530 from the new interchange to the US 425 last exit be called? Will 530 just be dropped and US 63 and US 79 remain?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on September 09, 2013, 03:14:10 PM
So what will the existing I-530 from the new interchange to the US 425 last exit be called? Will 530 just be dropped and US 63 and US 79 remain?

US 63-65-79 are signed along with I-530 on this stretch and this stretch only, so I'm guessing the interstate designation will be removed along this stretch.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on October 02, 2013, 10:47:14 AM
Several months ago I signed up to receive email updates about I-69 from the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition. I received one last night with no news that has not already been posted in the Forum, but I thought some might be interested in seeing their "I-69 Updates" banner that includes an I-530 shield:

(http://i.imgur.com/QtFZeLw.png)

No fooling around with an AR 530!  :D
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 02, 2013, 01:23:19 PM
that is a really shoddy attempt at '57 spec I-69.  hint: it's not just the size of the numbers that is different!
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: rte66man on October 03, 2013, 11:30:31 AM
Several months ago I signed up to receive email updates about I-69 from the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition. I received one last night with no news that has not already been posted in the Forum, but I thought some might be interested in seeing their "I-69 Updates" banner that includes an I-530 shield:

(http://i.imgur.com/QtFZeLw.png)

No fooling around with an AR 530!  :D

Wonder where the photo was taken?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on October 03, 2013, 12:07:58 PM
Several months ago I signed up to receive email updates about I-69 from the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition. I received one last night with no news that has not already been posted in the Forum, but I thought some might be interested in seeing their "I-69 Updates" banner that includes an I-530 shield:

(http://i.imgur.com/QtFZeLw.png)

No fooling around with an AR 530!  :D

Wonder where the photo was taken?

Most likely along I-530. There about a dozen or so Subway stores in the Pine Bluff area, so I am using Street View to try to locate the sign (note the blue space from a removed logo sign).
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bassoon1986 on October 03, 2013, 06:46:11 PM
Several months ago I signed up to receive email updates about I-69 from the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition. I received one last night with no news that has not already been posted in the Forum, but I thought some might be interested in seeing their "I-69 Updates" banner that includes an I-530 shield:

(http://i.imgur.com/QtFZeLw.png)

No fooling around with an AR 530!  :D

Wonder where the photo was taken?

Most likely along I-530. There about a dozen or so Subway stores in the Pine Bluff area, so I am using Street View to try to locate the sign (note the blue space from a removed logo sign).

Actually, would it be closer to southern Little Rock? The exit number from the blue food service sign appears to be a single digit. There's a Subway at exits 3 and 7, too
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Road Hog on October 05, 2013, 08:16:16 AM
Definitely a photo taken in Pulaski County northbound. Single digit exits are a giveaway. Looks like about noon in late spring, judging the shadows and the greenery. Trying to figure the period when Subway triplicate logo was in use.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on October 06, 2013, 06:52:34 PM
Definitely a photo taken in Pulaski County northbound. Single digit exits are a giveaway. Looks like about noon in late spring, judging the shadows and the greenery. Trying to figure the period when Subway triplicate logo was in use.

Lots of guide signs still use the triplicate Subway logo. I've been unable to find this sign either at Exit 3 or Exit 7, though the date is 2009 on the Googleview, so the signs may have been put up later.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: NE2 on October 06, 2013, 07:32:42 PM
The two carriageways appear to follow different vertical alignments in the foreground.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Pintailkiller on October 08, 2013, 08:49:48 PM
Looks like it is a southbound shot on I530 going towards the Dixon Rd exit.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: NE2 on October 08, 2013, 09:17:46 PM
Looks like it is a southbound shot on I530 going towards the Dixon Rd exit.
Doubtful. No shield on the green sign, and that looks like a centered tab. And I just noticed what appears to be an overpass in the far back of the photo.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on October 10, 2013, 07:23:36 PM
If anyone still wants to try to figure out the location, then it looks like you need to take the clues identified above and expand the search on a national scale. The answer I received to an email query:

Quote
It is just a stock photo of an interstate. Not an actually image of I-69.
Thanks for asking!

Zack A. Tucker, Director
Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition
UAM Harris 331
P.O. Box 3084
Monticello, Ark 71656
Tucker@uamont.edu

Happy hunting!
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on November 22, 2013, 10:29:11 PM
PowerPoint presentation for the May 21 Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition banquet (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/052113_SEB-Moore_SEACoalition.pdf) ... (page 11/49 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/D8IYxR7.png)

AHTD's Nov. 21 Presentation at the Legislative Joint Transportation Committee Meeting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/112113_SEB_TEXARKANA.pdf) indicates that the anticipated opening for the section of AR 530 from Highway 212 to the Highways 11/425 Connector has been pushed back from late 2013 to late 2014 (page 26/51 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/hh6X8CJ.jpg)



this article (paywall) (http://pbcommercial.com/sections/news/local/highway-425-between-pine-bluff-star-city-open-soon.html)
Quote
Danny Straessle, a spokesman with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department
.... also provides an update on the I-69 Monticello Bypass:
Quote
“Straessle said the Monticello bypass project is moving along on schedule.
“The current project on the eastern half of the Monticello bypass is scheduled for completion by September 2014,” Straessle said.

The map from the presentation also indicates that the anticipated completion date for the current project on the eastern half of the I-69 Monticello Bypass has been pushed back from September 2014 to "Mid 2015".  I'm not sure why both projects have been delayed; I had thought this past summer had been a good construction season.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on January 21, 2014, 08:44:04 AM
AHTD's Nov. 21 Presentation at the Legislative Joint Transportation Committee Meeting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/112113_SEB_TEXARKANA.pdf) ....
The map from the presentation also indicates that the anticipated completion date for the current project on the eastern half of the I-69 Monticello Bypass has been pushed back from September 2014 to "Mid 2015".  I'm not sure why both projects have been delayed; I had thought this past summer had been a good construction season.
The I-69 project around Monticello shows up as US 69 as well.
(bottom quote from I-40 Lonoke County : New Exit? (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11397.msg272818#msg272818) thread)

The iDrive Arkansas website (http://www.idrivearkansas.com/) is currently showing an estimated completion date of Late 2014 for the "US 69" project.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on January 23, 2014, 02:16:27 PM
AHTD's Nov. 21 Presentation at the Legislative Joint Transportation Committee Meeting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/112113_SEB_TEXARKANA.pdf) ....
The map from the presentation also indicates that the anticipated completion date for the current project on the eastern half of the I-69 Monticello Bypass has been pushed back from September 2014 to "Mid 2015".  I'm not sure why both projects have been delayed; I had thought this past summer had been a good construction season.
The I-69 project around Monticello shows up as US 69 as well.
(bottom quote from I-40 Lonoke County : New Exit? (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11397.msg272818#msg272818) thread)

The iDrive Arkansas website (http://www.idrivearkansas.com/) is currently showing an estimated completion date of Late 2014 for the "US 69" project.

Thank you for calling this to our attention! At this time we have removed the route marker designation to avoid any confusion. Here's what we think happened: internally we refer to this job as I-69. In fact it's the first stretch of I-69 to be constructed in Arkansas. However we can't list it on a map as such until FHWA gives approval. Our planners are in the process of reviewing this to determine how this route will be signed once the project is complete. Not sure how the U.S. Highway shield got on there either.
 
We'll post additional information on this as it becomes available. Thanks again for pointing that out to us!
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: codyg1985 on January 23, 2014, 02:20:06 PM
AR 569?  :colorful:
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: mgk920 on January 24, 2014, 10:42:12 AM
AR 69?

 :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: pj3970 on January 24, 2014, 01:00:30 PM
AR 69?

 :nod:

Mike

There already is AR 69...in the North Central part of the state...however any x69 would fit the bill, but as with Arkansas, they always have multiple routes with the same number, so it could happen
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: dariusb on January 24, 2014, 11:27:22 PM
I was just wondering what are the traffic counts along I-530 in Pine Bluff?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US 41 on January 24, 2014, 11:33:55 PM
Too me it appears like most of the DOT money in Arkansas is going to AR 530 and the US 67 (AR226 - US63) freeway. I-69 looks like it will be the main project in about 5 years. I-49 may be finished in about 15 years from Texarkana - Fort Smith. Isn't the US 67 freeway supposed to go to Missouri though? That project seems to be a bigger concern to Arkansas than I-69. For good reason too. A good route between Little Rock and St. Louis. I-49 might also be a long ways away from being finished as it will go through some rough terrain. Arkansas has a lot of future projects, but Arkansas seems to move fairly slow when it comes to actually starting and finishing them. 

I also have to say that I really like the interchange design at I-530 and AR530.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on January 25, 2014, 11:09:11 PM
I was just wondering what are the traffic counts along I-530 in Pine Bluff?

You can find the answer to your question here: http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/technical_services/TrafficCountyMaps/2012ADT/counties/Jefferson_35A.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/technical_services/TrafficCountyMaps/2012ADT/counties/Jefferson_35A.pdf)
 
2012 is the latest count information we have. 2013 will be available in the spring. You can find historical traffic data here: http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/technical_services/traffic_map.aspx (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/technical_services/traffic_map.aspx)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on January 25, 2014, 11:16:09 PM
Too me it appears like most of the DOT money in Arkansas is going to AR 530 and the US 67 (AR226 - US63) freeway. I-69 looks like it will be the main project in about 5 years. I-49 may be finished in about 15 years from Texarkana - Fort Smith. Isn't the US 67 freeway supposed to go to Missouri though? That project seems to be a bigger concern to Arkansas than I-69. For good reason too. A good route between Little Rock and St. Louis. I-49 might also be a long ways away from being finished as it will go through some rough terrain. Arkansas has a lot of future projects, but Arkansas seems to move fairly slow when it comes to actually starting and finishing them. 

I also have to say that I really like the interchange design at I-530 and AR530.

The improvement of U.S. 67 from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri line is on hold at this time because Missouri had to back away from a prior commitment to meet us there. Not throwing our friends at MoDOT under the bus, mind you, both states have been in similar circumstances. It happens. But because of this, we are back to square one on how to get from Walnut Ridge and with what type of a facility.
 
We are in the process of completing a study examining this very question. Once the Arkansas Highway Commission approves it, we'll post it in this forum for review. Should be late spring or summer of this year.
 
Thank you for the kind comments regarding the I-530/SH530 interchange. That stretch of road opened just this last year and in our working with Google, we got the route to appear on their maps. At this time they have yet to add it to their streetview and live traffic features, but at least you can find it on the map.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on January 26, 2014, 02:55:57 AM
Does I-530 transition into AR 530 and the freeway continues as simply US 63-65-79 or, as I fear, does AR 530 simply split off from I-530 which still ends at the big stack interchange?  Please tell me you guys didn't do that.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: NE2 on January 26, 2014, 03:36:56 AM
Does I-530 transition into AR 530 and the freeway continues as simply US 63-65-79 or, as I fear, does AR 530 simply split off from I-530 which still ends at the big stack interchange?  Please tell me you guys didn't do that.
Probably the latter, since the Highway 530 exit is signed as exit 44 from I-530: http://pbcommercial.com/sections/news/region/new-state-highway-530-opens.html
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on January 27, 2014, 12:19:43 AM
Does I-530 transition into AR 530 and the freeway continues as simply US 63-65-79 or, as I fear, does AR 530 simply split off from I-530 which still ends at the big stack interchange?  Please tell me you guys didn't do that.


All three U.S. Highways you mention already have a unique (separate) alignment south of Pine Bluff. The sole purpose of State Highway 530 is to provide connectivity to the I-69 Corridor, thus the name I-69 Connector.


There is another project on the drawing board that extends connectivity down to I-20 in Louisiana. This is called the I-69 Extender.


State Highway 530 is only two lanes of an ultimate four-lane facility. What exists now is actually the northbound lanes (same with the Bella Vista Bypass). The Monticello Bypass under construction is also two lanes of the ultimate four. Under construction is what will eventually be the eastbound lanes.

Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: NE2 on January 27, 2014, 12:29:04 AM
Does I-530 transition into AR 530 and the freeway continues as simply US 63-65-79 or, as I fear, does AR 530 simply split off from I-530 which still ends at the big stack interchange?  Please tell me you guys didn't do that.

All three U.S. Highways you mention already have a unique (separate) alignment south of Pine Bluff. The sole purpose of State Highway 530 is to provide connectivity to the I-69 Corridor, thus the name I-69 Connector.
What he is asking is whether I-530 is still signed beyond the Highway 530 exit. In other words, do I-530 and Highway 530 form a single corridor?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on January 27, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
At this time they are two separate facilities. I-530 does not end at the SH 530 interchange. Will double-check that for you.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on January 27, 2014, 05:32:31 AM
Does I-530 transition into AR 530 and the freeway continues as simply US 63-65-79 or, as I fear, does AR 530 simply split off from I-530 which still ends at the big stack interchange?  Please tell me you guys didn't do that.
All three U.S. Highways you mention already have a unique (separate) alignment south of Pine Bluff. The sole purpose of State Highway 530 is to provide connectivity to the I-69 Corridor, thus the name I-69 Connector.

You don't understand.  I'm talking about the piece of highway between the 530/530 interchange and the big stack at 65B/425. 

The purpose of AR 530, just like any other highway, is provide a route from point A to point B, and those points can be anywhere along the route.  A lot of traffic on this road will be local, and won't be driving on I-69.  If its sole purpose was to connect Pine Bluff with I-69 it wouldn't have any interchanges along it.

Quote
There is another project on the drawing board that extends connectivity down to I-20 in Louisiana. This is called the I-69 Extender.

I-69 Extender....sounds kinda kinky.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Road Hog on January 27, 2014, 08:33:47 AM
To I-20 in Louisiana ... That's a lot of freeway for a 3di. Could be the makings for an I-53 to Baton Rouge. Or a recurving I-57.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on January 27, 2014, 09:24:51 AM
To I-20 in Louisiana ... That's a lot of freeway for a 3di. Could be the makings for an I-53 to Baton Rouge. Or a recurving I-57.

Now just where do the powers-that-be plan on tying I-530 with I-20? Then what would be the path of "I-53" to BR?:hmmm: (my apologies to the mods if my questions sound fictional-roadesque)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on January 27, 2014, 09:31:27 AM
To I-20 in Louisiana ... That's a lot of freeway for a 3di. Could be the makings for an I-53 to Baton Rouge. Or a recurving I-57.
Now just where do the powers-that-be plan on tying I-530 with I-20? Then what would be the path of "I-53" to BR?:hmmm: (my apologies to the mods if my questions sound fictional-roadesque)

AHTD, do you have any plans, studies, reports, etc. about the I-69 Extender that you can post?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: lamsalfl on January 27, 2014, 02:52:45 PM
Yeah I would LOVE I-53 from BR to Natchez to Rayville to Little Rock.  Make it happen!
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Henry on January 27, 2014, 03:08:35 PM
To I-20 in Louisiana ... That's a lot of freeway for a 3di. Could be the makings for an I-53 to Baton Rouge. Or a recurving I-57.
I-476 disagrees with you.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on January 27, 2014, 07:13:09 PM
To I-20 in Louisiana ... That's a lot of freeway for a 3di. Could be the makings for an I-53 to Baton Rouge. Or a recurving I-57.
I-476 disagrees with you.

It's a Spur off a Spur.  730 ;)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 29, 2014, 05:02:23 AM
To I-20 in Louisiana ... That's a lot of freeway for a 3di. Could be the makings for an I-53 to Baton Rouge. Or a recurving I-57.

More like an I-53 or I-51 to Alexandria via US 165/LA 425...with future extension to Lake Charles via US 165.

I can't see LA or MS approving an upgraded US 425 to Ferriday/Natchez, then upgrading US 61 the rest of the way. 165 is the more deserving corridor, especially considering the lack of a  SW/NE I-corridor in LA.

{OOPS....am I getting into Fictional Freeways territory?? Sorry, Steve.}

An I-530 extension to I-20 in Monroe, though, is doable...and it's been in the plans.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on January 29, 2014, 10:53:44 AM

An I-530 extension to I-20 in Monroe, though, is doable...and it's been in the plans.

I read somewhere that AR 530 would eventually become I-530 when completed and existing 530 would revert to US 65 past this junction. Hey Bugo: was it you who was telling me this?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on January 30, 2014, 05:50:41 PM
To I-20 in Louisiana ... That's a lot of freeway for a 3di. Could be the makings for an I-53 to Baton Rouge. Or a recurving I-57.
Now just where do the powers-that-be plan on tying I-530 with I-20? Then what would be the path of "I-53" to BR? :hmmm: (my apologies to the mods if my questions sound fictional-roadesque)

AHTD, do you have any plans, studies, reports, etc. about the I-69 Extender that you can post?

Sure do! Take a look at this feasibility study: http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-69_Extender.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-69_Extender.pdf)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: NE2 on January 30, 2014, 06:51:08 PM
Sure do! Take a look at this feasibility study: http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-69_Extender.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-69_Extender.pdf)
Question: why was a corridor along US 65 to Tallulah not considered? This would better satisfy the supposed 'purpose and need' for a freeway connection to I-20, since it would end up providing a shorter route to I-20 east (and I-20 west traffic would be served by I-69).
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on January 30, 2014, 08:40:47 PM
http://www.bastropenterprise.com/news/x1439481320/Work-starts-today-on-I-69-in-Arkansas
Quote
In 2008, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and the AHTD held public meetings in Bastrop and Crossett on a proposed corridor that would connect I-20 in Louisiana to the I-69 extension near Monticello. The proposed routes for a corridor through northeast Louisiana were through Beekman and Perryville to meet I-20 at Monroe and through Mer Rouge and Oak Ridge to meet I-20 at Rayville.
Louisiana DOTD District 5 Engineer Administrator Marshall Hill said the proposed northeast corridor has been supplanted by a planned route on SIU 14 that will go from I-69 in Arkansas down through Haynesville and link to I-20 near Minden.
(above quote from US 425 in LA (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3796.msg122585#msg122585) thread)

Has I-69 truly "supplanted" the Extender, or is I-69 simply higher up the priority chain than the Extender (fully realizing that I-69 will never be completed through Arkansas in my lifetime)?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on January 31, 2014, 02:56:35 PM

An I-530 extension to I-20 in Monroe, though, is doable...and it's been in the plans.

I read somewhere that AR 530 would eventually become I-530 when completed and existing 530 would revert to US 65 past this junction. Hey Bugo: was it you who was telling me this?

That was a possibility that I came up with.  That would explain why US 63/65/79 are signed along this stretch.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on April 24, 2014, 12:18:27 AM
Although the recent good news about progress on I-49 in Arkansas is dominating recent news coverage, this April 21 article (http://www.salineriverchronicle.blogspot.in/2014/04/intermodal-will-need-additional-local.html) reports that the Southeast Arkansas Intermodal Facility Authority Board wants the Arkansas Congressional delegation and the Arkansas Highway Commission to be more aggressive in seeking funding for I-69 and AR 530/Future I-530:

Quote
During the monthly meeting of the Southeast Arkansas Intermodal Facility Authority Board April 16th conducted in Monticello ....
The meeting concluded with a general discussion about the need to see progress made on the I-530 and I-69 interstate highway projects.  Intermodal Chairman John Lipton taled at lenth about the need for the Arkansas Congressional delegation to work to secure federal funding to get both projects moving.  He made the point that without federal assistance neither would ever be completed.  Nita McDaniel, a board member representing Monticello, voiced her concern that the Arkansas Highway Commission needs to be more aggressive in pushing for both projects.

Unfortunately, the federal money fairy does not seem to have much wherewithal at the moment .....
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 24, 2014, 01:22:40 AM
I don't see how I-69 in SE Arkansas can become the top priority highway project for the state until there is both definitive progress toward building the Great River Bridge and Mississippi is doing more to build its part of I-69. If I was calling the shots about highway projects in Arkansas I would wait until a lot more of I-69 was built in Texas and Louisiana before building a lot of it in Arkansas.

The biggest economic growth and population growth is happening in NW Arkansas. With the US-67 freeway extension stopping for at least the next few years or so in Walnut Ridge, that would make building segments of I-49 a bigger priority. The Belle Vista bypass is arguably the biggest near term priority. The Fort Smith area needs a new I-49 bridge over the Arkansas River and remodeled interchange with I-40. Texas has to build its sliver of I-49 and contribute for a Red River bridge crossing. From there the two separate "North" and "South" sections of I-49 can work on meeting somewhere in the Ouachita Mountains. I just hope it happens sometime within the next 10-15 years rather than 20-30 years.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: richllewis on April 25, 2014, 12:08:45 AM
I-69 in Mississippi is high on MDOT's priority list, but that depends on a funding source. And the legislature appropriated some money, but founded another committee to look at funding for MDOT's road projects to give its report next legislative session in January 2015. And it also depends on the Federal Government's next appropriations for Road Construction. This was the reason that the Secretary of Transportation was in Jackson earlier this month and why he was in Shreveport earlier this week. See http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12144.0 for more details
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 25, 2014, 12:59:23 AM
I hope MDOT is able to make as much progress as they can with their segment of I-69. Not to mention I-269 either. But with the method the Federal government is currently using to fund Interstate highway projects (or more accurately, make the states pay a lot more of the cost themselves) I don't see Mississippi generating the funds needed to build all of their portion of I-69 anytime soon.

In the short term, most of the progress we're going to see with the I-69 corridor will be in Texas, a much larger state. Yeah, Texas has its own budget deficit problems, but Texas has more ability to push through major road projects either as freeways or toll roads. They're actively building new stretches of I-69E and I-69C in South Texas. The rest of I-69 is at least getting very well planned and "shovel ready." I have a feeling Texas proceeded with this in a manner of chutzpah with the addition of the I-369 corridor up to Texarkana. Bascially, Texas intends to get their entire part of the I-69 system built for their own specific benefits regardless of what neighboring states are able to manage.

There's only a couple little pieces of the future I-69 corridor built thus far in Arkansas. There's virtually none of it built in Louisiana.

Again, if I am the one calling the shots in Arkansas regarding road construction, I would be putting as much resources as I could behind I-49. That is a corridor that is nearly complete outside of Arkansas. AHTD only has to connect it in-state. A whole lot more has to be done with I-69. If AHTD built most of its segment of I-69 right now it would mostly be a road to nowhere. Texas and Louisiana must be actively at work on their segments of I-69 to make the route viable. And, biggest of all, that Great River Bridge across the Mississippi River, must be funded. None of that is in place at this point.

Until then, the I-49 corridor is something Arkansas has entirely under its control. Missouri is already committed to building their segment of I-49 to meet the Belle Vista Bypass. Texas has every interest in building their short segment of I-49 for their own economic purposes near Texarkana. The other corridors Arkansas is trying to improve are far more iffy. The US-67 freeway (and future I-30/I-57) is stuck ending in Walnut Ridge until Missouri can do something. I-69 is dependent on even more iffy factors.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on April 25, 2014, 06:56:12 AM
What segments of I-69 are completed in Arkansas?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on April 25, 2014, 04:03:03 PM
Currently we are constructing the eastern portion of the Monticello bypass. From U.S. Highway 425 to U.S. Highway 278. We are constructing the first two lanes of the ultimate four-lane facility. See this map:
 
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/monticello-bypass.png (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/monticello-bypass.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on April 25, 2014, 04:12:35 PM
Although the recent good news about progress on I-49 in Arkansas is dominating recent news coverage, this April 21 article (http://www.salineriverchronicle.blogspot.in/2014/04/intermodal-will-need-additional-local.html) reports that the Southeast Arkansas Intermodal Facility Authority Board wants the Arkansas Congressional delegation and the Arkansas Highway Commission to be more aggressive in seeking funding for I-69 and AR 530/Future I-530:

Quote
During the monthly meeting of the Southeast Arkansas Intermodal Facility Authority Board April 16th conducted in Monticello ....
The meeting concluded with a general discussion about the need to see progress made on the I-530 and I-69 interstate highway projects.  Intermodal Chairman John Lipton taled at lenth about the need for the Arkansas Congressional delegation to work to secure federal funding to get both projects moving.  He made the point that without federal assistance neither would ever be completed.  Nita McDaniel, a board member representing Monticello, voiced her concern that the Arkansas Highway Commission needs to be more aggressive in pushing for both projects.

Unfortunately, the federal money fairy does not seem to have much wherewithal at the moment .....


This does seem to be the case, however members of our congressional delegation have begun somewhat of a renewed effort to promote the corridor. We developed this document for them to use in that effort:
 
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf)
 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on April 26, 2014, 02:45:17 PM
members of our congressional delegation have begun somewhat of a renewed effort to promote the corridor. We developed this document for them to use in that effort:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf)

AHTD, thanks for posting the pamphlet!

On the "Representative Corridor" page, shouldn't SIU 14 in AR/LA be the yellow color since FHWA has issued a Record of Decision?:

http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69_SIUs_14_and_15/I-69%20SIU%2014/I-69%20SIU%2014%20Signed%20ROD%20%2004-27-2012.pdf

Changing that would help the Congressional members demonstrate that a Record of Decision has been issued for every proposed mile of I-69 in Arkansas.

Similarly, several sections of I-69 in Texas have been approved and are open to traffic; they should have the same purple color as SIU 10 in Mississippi. The sections that are open are listed on this page:

http://www.i69texasalliance.com/

Showing the "purple" in Texas should do nothing but help the case for Arkansas.

I know these are small details, but it tends to be easier to obtain funding if you have good visual representations of any type of progress.

edit

Also, SIU 15 in LA has a Final EIS that has been issued since the Draft EIS:

http://www.i69dotd.com/FEIS.htm
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: thefro on April 27, 2014, 10:37:29 AM
The date says Feb 2012 on the I-69 representative coordinator map, so that's why it's out of date.

Other changes
1) SIU 3 in Indiana should show "open" all the way to where the 3 circle is
2) Most of SIU 4 should probably be green or "open" since I-164 is already approved to be re-designated I-69 in the fall.
3) SIU 5 should probably be green.

All sorts of stuff going on in Texas as well.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Mr. Hughes on May 02, 2014, 02:06:28 PM
 
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf)
 
[/quote]


I-69 in Arkansas is supposed to connect Memphis, TN to Shreveport, LA, correct?

I-40, I-30, I-49 in AR, & I-49 in LA under construction also connects Memphis, TN to Shreveport, LA, correct?

Perhaps it's been discussed before, but why the need for I-69 in MS & AR? Looking at the map in this document just reminds me of something I don't understand.

Furthermore, minus the US 67 section between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO, Indianapolis is already connected to Shreveport. Can somebody explained to me what I'm missing? Seems like I-69 shouldn't be a high priority right now, especially south of Memphis.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: thefro on May 02, 2014, 04:01:09 PM
Furthermore, minus the US 67 section between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO, Indianapolis is already connected to Shreveport. Can somebody explained to me what I'm missing? Seems like I-69 shouldn't be a high priority right now, especially south of Memphis.

Evansville, IN, a decent-sized city in Indiana (along with several small towns in Indiana like Washington) wanted a direct Interstate connection to Indianapolis.  Studies showed this wouldn't be cost-effective on its own so the idea was cooked up for I-69 to be extended all the way down to Texas as a "Canada to Mexico" road to get Federal $$$$ and political support.

I agree that there's not much independent utility in the current Memphis to Shreveport route.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: rte66man on May 02, 2014, 06:51:46 PM
Furthermore, minus the US 67 section between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO, Indianapolis is already connected to Shreveport. Can somebody explained to me what I'm missing? Seems like I-69 shouldn't be a high priority right now, especially south of Memphis.

Evansville, IN, a decent-sized city in Indiana (along with several small towns in Indiana like Washington) wanted a direct Interstate connection to Indianapolis.  Studies showed this wouldn't be cost-effective on its own so the idea was cooked up for I-69 to be extended all the way down to Texas as a "Canada to Mexico" road to get Federal $$$$ and political support.

I agree that there's not much independent utility in the current Memphis to Shreveport route.

If you've ever driven I40 from Memphis to Little Rock, you would understand the need for a relief route.. It's not the Memphis to Shreveport, but Memphis to Dallas rout that needs the relief.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 03, 2014, 12:15:17 AM
Actually, I-69's main national objective is to have a transnational route connecting South Texas/Mexico with the Great Lakes/Detroit/Canada. The routing through South Texas via Houston and Corpus Christi is supposed to promote access to the main Texas ports. Shreveport just happens to be on the path of least resistance.

Personally, I think that I-69 should have been broken up into three segments:

1) A Laredo/Corpus Christi/Houston/Lufkin/Texarkana freeway along US 59, with an extension of I-37 along US 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville

2) A freeway along the US 165/US 425 corridor from E of Lake Charles through Alexandria and Monroe to meet the existing I-530/AR 530 extension, then splitting off at Monticello along the proposed I-69 route towards Memphis

3) The proposed Memphis/Evansville/Bloomington/Indianapolis segment.

Shreveport can be served just as well by I-20, I-49, and fourlaning US 84 and US 79.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Road Hog on May 03, 2014, 03:19:14 AM
I'm not high on I-69 myself. Memphis to Shreveport is probably shorter and quicker via Little Rock than it will be via the future route that plunges way south before it cuts west and meanders to pick up every South Arkansas town of any size.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bjrush on May 03, 2014, 11:44:24 AM
Just think of how many miles of I-49 could be built with the gigantic sum of cash that will go to the Charles Dean Bridge...
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: RBBrittain on May 06, 2014, 08:10:24 PM
Just think of how many miles of I-49 could be built with the gigantic sum of cash that will go to the Charles Dean Bridge...
(a) IIRC only Mississippi calls it the "Charles W. Dean Bridge"; AHTD still calls it the "Great River Bridge".  I doubt anyone here in Arkansas cares a flying rat's behind about Dean; IMO, if we ever name it it's more likely to be for Robert S. Moore, Jr., a highway commissioner from nearby Arkansas City, much like the Bobby Hopper Tunnel.  (Maybe it'll be the Dean-Moore or Moore-Dean Bridge, like the Hoover Dam Bypass' O'Callaghan-Tillman Bridge which also crosses a state line and was hyphenated to honor each state's wishes.)

(b) And let's not forget the Arkansas *and* Red River bridges on I-49 (I understand the Arkansas River one alone will likely be >$500M), *plus* upgrading the Little River crossing thru Pond Creek NWR (on or next to existing US 71).  It'll take big bucks for AHTD to complete both I-49 & I-69, plus a lot of political maneuvering so the rest of Arkansas either (a) doesn't pay for it or (b) gets some pittance (North Belt, finish US 67, etc.) so they will accept a statewide tax hike.  (Our GOP leaders will accept it eventually; too many of them live near I-49, and too many Tom Cotton fans live near I-69 or the Connector. ;) )  Not to mention playing hardball with the surrounding DOTs on completing their pieces, ETC interoperability if tolls are used, etc.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on May 06, 2014, 09:19:35 PM
Arkansas is building I-69 through the southeastern part of the state before they build the rest of I-49 because the terrain is flatter and the road is easier and cheaper to build.  They are notorious for doing such.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: RBBrittain on May 06, 2014, 09:27:32 PM
Arkansas is building I-69 through the southeastern part of the state before they build the rest of I-49 because the terrain is flatter and the road is easier and cheaper to build.  They are notorious for doing such.
That could change easily if there's more demand for I-49 than I-69.  Since I-49 is a NWA priority and the vast majority of its unbuilt portion is in AR, I see more political will to build that than I-69 with unbuilt pieces in multiple states.  Still, it'll be a huge challenge to get either one built in AR.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on May 06, 2014, 11:03:48 PM

I-69 in Arkansas is supposed to connect Memphis, TN to Shreveport, LA, correct?

I-40, I-30, I-49 in AR, & I-49 in LA under construction also connects Memphis, TN to Shreveport, LA, correct?


I-49 won't directly connect to Memphis: you'd have to jump off 49 onto I-30 to I-40 or simply I-49 to I-40

I-49 will connect New Orleans to Kansas City via Shreveport and Fort Smith.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: richllewis on May 07, 2014, 05:16:31 AM
As far as the section of I-69 through the Mississippi Delta, as well as the Bridge across the Mississippi, the MDOT money crisis will have to be solved first. And I do not know how far the legislature will kick this can down the road. Also, I hope that our congressional delegation is working for some funds to contribute to the cause.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on May 07, 2014, 09:05:11 AM

I-69 in Arkansas is supposed to connect Memphis, TN to Shreveport, LA, correct?

I-40, I-30, I-49 in AR, & I-49 in LA under construction also connects Memphis, TN to Shreveport, LA, correct?


I-49 won't directly connect to Memphis: you'd have to jump off 49 onto I-30 to I-40 or simply I-49 to I-40

I think he meant 49-30-40.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US 41 on May 10, 2014, 11:14:24 PM
Has Oklahoma ever showed interest in building I-49 along the eastern edge of the state?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: rte66man on May 11, 2014, 09:54:18 PM
Has Oklahoma ever showed interest in building I-49 along the eastern edge of the state?

Actually, yes.  Back in the late 80's/early 90's there was a proposal backed by the chair of the OK House Appropriations committee to build a freeway/tollway from the I40/Muskogee Turnpike south and west to near Shady Point, where it would connect with a extension of I540 roughly parallel to OK112. From there, the road would run generally along US 59 to south of Heavener. At some point, it would veer east into Arkansas and end up near DeQueen.  Preliminary studies showed IT was a bigger boondoggle than the Chickasaw, but he almost pulled it off.  ODOT bought him off with a promise to four lane US59 south from Sallisaw as well as build a Poteau bypass.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on May 11, 2014, 10:25:27 PM
Has Oklahoma ever showed interest in building I-49 along the eastern edge of the state?

Actually, yes.  Back in the late 80's/early 90's there was a proposal backed by the chair of the OK House Appropriations committee to build a freeway/tollway from the I40/Muskogee Turnpike south and west to near Shady Point, where it would connect with a extension of I540 roughly parallel to OK112. From there, the road would run generally along US 59 to south of Heavener. At some point, it would veer east into Arkansas and end up near DeQueen.  Preliminary studies showed IT was a bigger boondoggle than the Chickasaw, but he almost pulled it off.  ODOT bought him off with a promise to four lane US59 south from Sallisaw as well as build a Poteau bypass.

I had never heard that the Muskogee extension was supposed to go past Poteau, and I had never heard of the OK 112 upgrade (that highway really needs to be at least a 4 lane expressway if not a freeway).

A highway running from Poteau to DeQueen would likely enter Arkansas where 59/270 does now because the mountains south of Page and especially south of Big Cedar are brutal.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cbalducc on May 22, 2014, 10:37:21 AM
What is the purpose of Highway 530 in Arkansas?  It looks unnecessary to me.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 22, 2014, 12:16:11 PM
I have problems with the overall intended purpose of I-69 -mainly the whole trans Mexico to Canada thing.

If I-69 is really supposed to function as a "direct" Interstate link tailored for trans-continental traffic, why is the route so freaking crooked and wasteful in terms of distance? This is particularly true for the segments running South of Indianapolis all the way into Arkansas. Even some of the segments in Texas aren't exactly all that straight. With the route running so crooked and its overall completion being perhaps 20-30 or more years in the future (if ever) I have a hard time believing I-69 will pull long haul trucks off some other cross country routes.

I don't think there's any problem with most of what is proposed for I-69 in Texas, except for there being two Interstates going down to the South end of Texas. However, that area of Texas has been gaining population pretty rapidly. When I-69 gets past Shreveport and Texarkana it gets a little more difficult to justify building some of those sections. I-30 is pretty close to the proposed I-69 route. With Mississippi showing little, if any, sign at all they'll build more of their part of I-69 anytime in the near future it seems wasteful to me for Arkansas to direct a bunch of its resources into building I-69 rather than I-49. I hear the arguments about making a relief route between Dallas and Memphis. I-69 will be significantly out of the way for Dallas bound traffic. With the Great River Bridge being a giant question mark I have to wonder if adding additional lanes to I-40 and I-30 would be a better idea.

Completing I-49 in Arkansas will have a much better near term payoff economically than messing with I-69. If I was running things in Arkansas I wouldn't mess around much with I-69 until Texas was well on the way to completing its sections between Houston and Texarkana. A completed I-49 would tie directly into I-369 and Texas' portion of I-69 -creating a direct Interstate highway link between the ports of Houston and all the development going on in NW Arkansas. The ports of Houston will soon get more busy with a newly expanded Panama Canal.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on May 22, 2014, 12:35:30 PM
I have problems with the overall intended purpose of I-69 -mainly the whole trans Mexico to Canada thing.

If I-69 is really supposed to function as a "direct" Interstate link tailored for trans-continental traffic, why is the route so freaking crooked and wasteful in terms of distance? This is particularly true for the segments running South of Indianapolis all the way into Arkansas. Even some of the segments in Texas aren't exactly all that straight. With the route running so crooked and its overall completion being perhaps 20-30 or more years in the future (if ever) I have a hard time believing I-69 will pull long haul trucks off some other cross country routes.

IMO, a lot is probably politics: everyone wanting a hand in the cookie jar.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bjrush on May 22, 2014, 02:21:08 PM
What is the purpose of Highway 530 in Arkansas?  It looks unnecessary to me.

it is part of a future Interstate 530 extension to meet I-69 in Monticello
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cbalducc on May 22, 2014, 06:12:08 PM
What is the purpose of Highway 530 in Arkansas?  It looks unnecessary to me.

it is part of a future Interstate 530 extension to meet I-69 in Monticello

Couldn't US Highway 425 have been upgraded between Monticello and Pine Bluff?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bjrush on May 22, 2014, 08:17:35 PM
Yes and I am not sure why that is not happening. I saw an estimate of $300 million to complete the so called I-69 connector
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on May 23, 2014, 12:23:10 AM
It's cheaper to build highways in the flat Delta region than it is in the rugged Ouachita Mountains, and we all know how AHTD likes to be cheap (except for sign replacement).
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 23, 2014, 02:27:50 PM
Unfortunately I-69 in Southern Arkansas will be a dead end route as long as the Great River Bridge has no time line for funding and Mississippi has no time line for building their section of I-69. Those are two huge variables beyond the control of Arkansas' government. If Arkansas DOT went ahead and completed their section of I-69 and the extension of I-530 all it would do is link Pine Bluff with Shreveport. But then again, Louisiana DOT has to build their section of I-69 to make that happen. So, add yet another variable to that situation.

Completion of I-49 is far more within the control of Arkansas DOT. Missouri DOT at least has real plans to build their last section of I-49 down to the Arkansas border. Texas DOT intends to build their sliver of I-49, partly as a means to connect I-369 and the I-69 corridor into it.

Even though it will be more expensive for Arkansas DOT to build I-49 between Fort Smith & Texarkana it will be money far better spent. IMHO, I-69 in Arkansas deserves to be put on the proverbial back burner with projects like the US 67 connection between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on May 23, 2014, 02:35:19 PM
The US 67 freeway (Future I-30) between Little Rock and the I-55/57 junction is basically redundant to I-40/55 through West Memphis.  It will only save about 50 miles between NLR and Sikeston.  I-49 is a far more important corridor both locally and nationally.  The current US 67 in northeastern Arkansas is mostly a straight, flat highway, while US 71 is curvy, hilly, and dangerous (much of it is on a pre-1920s alignment).  Of course, AHTD takes the cheapie way out again and builds the road that is easier to build rather than the one that is really needed.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 23, 2014, 06:42:42 PM
The US 67 freeway (Future I-30) between Little Rock and the I-55/57 junction is basically redundant to I-40/55 through West Memphis.  It will only save about 50 miles between NLR and Sikeston.  I-49 is a far more important corridor both locally and nationally.  The current US 67 in northeastern Arkansas is mostly a straight, flat highway, while US 71 is curvy, hilly, and dangerous (much of it is on a pre-1920s alignment).  Of course, AHTD takes the cheapie way out again and builds the road that is easier to build rather than the one that is really needed.

You have forgotten where the former Legislator and Current Gov. is from.  :biggrin:

Quite Frankly, we could use some functional redundancy.  I hate the I-69 alignment in Miss, It has Trent Lott all over it. Can't for the life of me think it shouldn't have ran to Helena/West Helena and the Bridge there be used. The spur was the Jay Dickey compromise on that right?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on June 05, 2014, 05:41:55 PM
AHTD's June 4, 2014 Presentation to the Highway Commission (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2014/060414_Commission%20Meeting%20Powerpoint.pdf) includes an interesting slide showing how I-69 fits into the Arkansas four-lane grid system page 42/83 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/5kORjJt.png)



It's cheaper to build highways in the flat Delta region than it is in the rugged Ouachita Mountains, and we all know how AHTD likes to be cheap (except for sign replacement).

I was surprised by another slide that estimates it will cost more to complete I-69 in Arkansas ($3.5 billion) than it will cost to complete I-49 in Arkansas ($2.7 billion) (page 43/83 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/oEJzLcN.png)

I suppose the bridge over the Mississippi River is a major factor; that said, I'm still surprised.  The cost differential seems to be another argument in support of prioritizing I-49 over I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on June 18, 2014, 03:32:17 PM
This May 2, 2014 article (including a video of the quorum Court's discussion) (http://www.monticellolive.com/jps-approve-giving-north-end-of-bordeaux-road-to-residents/) reports that AHTD closed Bordeaux Road (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bordeaux+Rd/@33.6272414,-91.6971981,3184m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x862c5022d3ec10ad:0xe29efdbe502a0a6c) to through traffic several months ago because of I-69 Monticello Bypass construction and that the county has given the northern end of the road to the few residents who live along it:

Quote
Due to the construction of the I-69 bypass, the Arkansas Highway Department closed Bordeaux Road to through traffic several months ago.
The north end of the road only has a few residents on it, and has become a site for illegal dumping.
The quorum Court, at last weeks meeting, approved giving that section of the road to the residents, who plan to put a gate across what is now basically a long driveway.
This action will also end the counties responsibility for maintenance on that road.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 26, 2014, 04:13:10 PM
Quote from: Grzrd
I was surprised by another slide that estimates it will cost more to complete I-69 in Arkansas ($3.5 billion) than it will cost to complete I-49 in Arkansas ($2.7 billion)

It's not cheap to build a super highway into mountains (Lord forbid you have to build any tunnels with construction costs being what they are these days). At the same time, it's not cheap to build a super highway across big stretches of flood plain either. Just looking around Mississippi valley areas in Arkansas where I-69 is proposed it's a good bet those portions of I-69 would have to be built upon some pretty significant berms to avoid flooding. Some parts may have to be build on elevated bridges, just like those big chunks of I-10 in Louisiana.

Nevertheless, the Great River Bridge crossing is probably takes up a few hundred million of that $3.5 billion total. I'm sure AHTD expects Mississippi to pick up a fair share of the cost for building that bridge. Seeing as how Mississippi has no plans to fund that bridge anytime soon it would leave I-69 in Arkansas hitting a dead end in Monticello (or McGehee if they bother building it that far).
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on June 26, 2014, 05:02:03 PM
members of our congressional delegation have begun somewhat of a renewed effort to promote the corridor. We developed this document for them to use in that effort:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/grb-update.pdf)
Quote from: Grzrd
I was surprised by another slide that estimates it will cost more to complete I-69 in Arkansas ($3.5 billion) than it will cost to complete I-49 in Arkansas ($2.7 billion)
... it's not cheap to build a super highway across big stretches of flood plain either. Just looking around Mississippi valley areas in Arkansas where I-69 is proposed it's a good bet those portions of I-69 would have to be built upon some pretty significant berms to avoid flooding. Some parts may have to be build on elevated bridges ....
the Great River Bridge crossing is probably takes up a few hundred million of that $3.5 billion total. I'm sure AHTD expects Mississippi to pick up a fair share of the cost for building that bridge.

The document that AHTD developed for the congressional delegation estimates that, in regard to the entirety of Segment of Independent Utility 12 ("SIU 12"), it would currently cost Arkansas $910 million to build 12.6 miles of roadway approaches, 3.1 miles of approach spans, and the 0.3 mile for the Arkansas half of the Great River Bridge main river span (Mississippi is estimated to have similar current costs of $390 million) (page 2/4 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/NUocyLq.png)

The 3.1 miles of approach spans alone are estimated to currently cost $560 million*.  Nevertheless, excluding SIU 12 from the calculations still leaves a rough estimated cost of $2.6 billion for the remainder of I-69 from the Louisiana state line to McGehee.  Considering I-49's financial needs as well, it all seems like a daunting, if not impossible, task.

edit

* Compare this estimate for the approach spans alone to AHTD's estimate of $350 million to $400 million to build thirteen miles of I-49 from I-40 to AR 22, including the Arkansas River crossing:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg308272#msg308272
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on July 10, 2014, 06:06:48 PM
This Sept. 7 article (behind paywall) (http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/sep/07/star-city-dedicates-i-69-link-highway-20130907/) reports on a Sept. 6 dedication ceremony in Star City for an eighteen-mile section of AR 530, and further reports that it will open to traffic on Sept. 12 and that the current estimated cost for AR 530 is now $608 million
AHTD's Nov. 21 Presentation at the Legislative Joint Transportation Committee Meeting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/112113_SEB_TEXARKANA.pdf) indicates that the anticipated opening for the section of AR 530 from Highway 212 to the Highways 11/425 Connector has been pushed back from late 2013 to late 2014 (page 26/51 of pdf) ....
The map from the presentation also indicates that the anticipated completion date for the current project on the eastern half of the I-69 Monticello Bypass has been pushed back from September 2014 to "Mid 2015".

Small progress. This snip from the 2014-15 Arkansas Highway Tourist Map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/Trans_Plan_Policy/mapping_graphics/State%20Highway%20Map%20-%20State%20Side%202014-2015.PDF) shows the recently opened section of AR 530:

(http://i.imgur.com/zjb9zUK.jpg)

AHTD, is the section of AR 530 from from Highway 114 to the Highways 11/425 Connector still on track to be opened to traffic by the end of the year? Similarly, is the current Monticello Bypass project still on track to be completed by mid-2015?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on July 10, 2014, 06:14:14 PM
This Sept. 7 article (behind paywall) (http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/sep/07/star-city-dedicates-i-69-link-highway-20130907/) reports on a Sept. 6 dedication ceremony in Star City for an eighteen-mile section of AR 530, and further reports that it will open to traffic on Sept. 12 and that the current estimated cost for AR 530 is now $608 million
AHTD's Nov. 21 Presentation at the Legislative Joint Transportation Committee Meeting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/112113_SEB_TEXARKANA.pdf) indicates that the anticipated opening for the section of AR 530 from Highway 212 to the Highways 11/425 Connector has been pushed back from late 2013 to late 2014 (page 26/51 of pdf) ....
The map from the presentation also indicates that the anticipated completion date for the current project on the eastern half of the I-69 Monticello Bypass has been pushed back from September 2014 to "Mid 2015".

Small progress. This snip from the 2014-15 Arkansas Highway Tourist Map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/Trans_Plan_Policy/mapping_graphics/State%20Highway%20Map%20-%20State%20Side%202014-2015.PDF) shows the recently opened section of AR 530:

(http://i.imgur.com/zjb9zUK.jpg)

AHTD, is the section of AR 530 from from Highway 114 to the Highways 11/425 Connector still on track to be opened to traffic by the end of the year? Similarly, is the current Monticello Bypass project still on track to be completed by mid-2015?

Check our travel and construction information site: www.idrivearkansas.com (http://www.idrivearkansas.com). Click on the orange lines (they mark where our projects are located) and a dialog box will appear. The estimated completion date is updated regularly by our Construction Division. Consider this the most accurate and updated information.
 
 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on July 11, 2014, 03:44:46 AM
Small progress. This snip from the 2014-15 Arkansas Highway Tourist Map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/Trans_Plan_Policy/mapping_graphics/State%20Highway%20Map%20-%20State%20Side%202014-2015.PDF) shows the recently opened section of AR 530:

(http://i.imgur.com/zjb9zUK.jpg)

It's interesting how that short section of 4 lane US 425 between Yorktown and Nebo is basically a waste of money now because I-530 will be the through route.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on July 11, 2014, 03:45:40 AM
What will the Monticello bypass be signed as?  AR 569 would be a leading contender, I would think.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on July 11, 2014, 03:38:45 PM
Small progress. This snip from the 2014-15 Arkansas Highway Tourist Map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/Trans_Plan_Policy/mapping_graphics/State%20Highway%20Map%20-%20State%20Side%202014-2015.PDF) shows the recently opened section of AR 530:

(http://i.imgur.com/zjb9zUK.jpg)

It's interesting how that short section of 4 lane US 425 between Yorktown and Nebo is basically a waste of money now because I-530 will be the through route.

BEFORE I-69 gained momentum, our original plan was to improve U.S. 425 from Pine Bluff to the Louisiana state line as an alternating four and five-lane facility. Among the first steps was a replacement of the Bayou Bartholomew bridge. Shortly after this project was underway/completed, members of the state congressional delegation obtained earmark funding for the I-69 Connector.
 
The earmark required this to be a four-lane, controlled access facility and as a result, we scrapped the plans for improving U.S. 425 as stated above. All of the right of way has been acquired for the I-69 Connector. At this time we only have enough money to build the first two lanes of the ultimate four.
 
 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: RBBrittain on July 12, 2014, 12:30:25 AM
What will the Monticello bypass be signed as?  AR 569 would be a leading contender, I would think.
I always thought US 278 would be rerouted onto the bypass, especially after the west half is completed.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on July 12, 2014, 09:38:02 AM
What will the Monticello bypass be signed as?  AR 569 would be a leading contender, I would think.
I always thought US 278 would be rerouted onto the bypass, especially after the west half is completed.

I'm talking about when the eastern half is opened.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US 41 on July 14, 2014, 09:07:46 PM
It would have made more sense to extend I-155 west via Jonesboro to US 67 and run I-69 down US 67 to Little Rock. Then have I-69 head south at Texarkana along US 59 (future I-369). I-69 in southern Arkansas is just a waste of money. The interstate wouldn't have went to Memphis if it went on that route. Although if you cross the river on 155, you can take 55 south to Memphis. US 51 is already multilaned in Tennessee. So I guess it could have been upgraded and became I-569. Except now I'm getting into fictional ideas.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on July 15, 2014, 09:45:00 AM
Folks, the Delta is about to explode with growth and a realized I-69 might just be the catalyst.
 
Much investment is already being made for intermodal facilities along the eastern corridor, and why not give a good shot in the arm for an area of the south that could really use it?
 
Although we are committed to completing projects toward this end as we can (Monticello bypass and I-69 Extender), we're likely to see I-49 completed before I-69. HOWEVER... keep an eye on the state congressional delegation - we have recently brought them up to speed on what it would take to see this corridor realized in Arkansas.
 
First things first, though....  gotta get that Highway Trust Fund thing figured out!
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on July 15, 2014, 10:51:50 AM
What makes you think the delta is going to have an increase in population?  It has been stagnant or worse for a long time.  I can understand why NWA has exploded because it's a nice area and has scenic beauty.  The delta is flat and miserable in comparison.  I don't think the population is going to change for a long time.  I can't think of many advantages of the delta over the northwestern half of the state.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Wayward Memphian on July 15, 2014, 03:52:28 PM
The Memphis area just lost out on a 2 million square foot UnderArmor distribution center. Gotta think a completed I-69 corridor woulda made a difference.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on July 19, 2014, 04:56:32 PM
Google Maps has April 2014 Street View imagery of the I-69 Monticello Bypass from the perspective of US 425 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Monticello,+AR+71655/@33.567927,-91.800967,3a,75y,90.27h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-VZVXbxfxeQCKUBfQFONig!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x862c4f6124d3312f:0xcab4e520e2988e10), featuring a "Road Closed" sign.

There is also April 2014 Street View imagery along the recently opened section of AR 530, including the AR 212 intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.958979,-91.907853,3a,75y,330.75h,86.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s85iPNtj2f9Kefk-SO6j8lA!2e0).
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bjrush on July 19, 2014, 05:15:06 PM
Are the future lanes going to the west? I can't tell which side they would go on based on the sections I looked at

Did AHTD acquire the full interstate right-of-way? Surely they did
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on July 19, 2014, 05:48:33 PM
Are the future lanes going to the west?

Based on this southward looking view from just south of the I-530/AR 530 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.162638,-91.984445,3a,75y,186.94h,85.59t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sklD_i8X1woowl-xMuic-2w!2e0), it looks like the future lanes will be on the western side.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: txstateends on July 19, 2014, 09:09:43 PM
Are the future lanes going to the west?

Based on this southward looking view from just south of the I-530/AR 530 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.162638,-91.984445,3a,75y,186.94h,85.59t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sklD_i8X1woowl-xMuic-2w!2e0), it looks like the future lanes will be on the western side.

Something tells me either that two-way traffic sign or the keep right sign will be eventual victims of a smartphone user or a drunk driver.  I know they're temporary, but with the $$$$ situation, 'temporary' could be a while.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on July 21, 2014, 07:42:10 AM
I'm surprised to see US 65 signed at the I-530/AR 530 (that has the potential to be confusing) interchange on NB AR 530.  I'm also surprised to see state name shields at the north end of AR 530.  They look a lot better than those atrocities on I-49.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on August 04, 2014, 02:22:46 PM
Google Maps has April 2014 Street View imagery of the I-69 Monticello Bypass from the perspective of US 425 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Monticello,+AR+71655/@33.567927,-91.800967,3a,75y,90.27h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-VZVXbxfxeQCKUBfQFONig!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x862c4f6124d3312f:0xcab4e520e2988e10), featuring a "Road Closed" sign.
Quote

Go north of there, and turn around (while still in SV), and you'll pick up a LGS marked "Future I-69 Corridor (crossing-arrow)"...
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on August 04, 2014, 02:31:46 PM
Google Maps has April 2014 Street View imagery of the I-69 Monticello Bypass from the perspective of US 425 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Monticello,+AR+71655/@33.567927,-91.800967,3a,75y,90.27h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-VZVXbxfxeQCKUBfQFONig!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x862c4f6124d3312f:0xcab4e520e2988e10), featuring a "Road Closed" sign.
Quote

Go north of there, and turn around (while still in SV), and you'll pick up a LGS marked "Future I-69 Corridor (crossing-arrow)"...
I have a similar photo on my Flickr page ;)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on August 28, 2014, 12:38:58 PM
This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.26.14Laredo69W.html) about the recent I-69W unveiling reports that, at the ceremony, Transportation Commission Member Jeff Austin provided a report about recent I-69 discussions with AHTD:

Quote
Transportation Commission Member Jeff Austin ....
noted that the length of the I-69 route in Texas is greater than the combined mileage on the national I-69 route through Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and Indiana. He reported on recent discussions he has had about the national I-69 route with leaders of the Arkansas Department of Transportation.

AHTD, the article does not provide any details about Commissioner Austin's report on his I-69 discussions with the Department.  Is there anything noteworthy resulting from those discussions that you can share with us?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on September 02, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.26.14Laredo69W.html) about the recent I-69W unveiling reports that, at the ceremony, Transportation Commission Member Jeff Austin provided a report about recent I-69 discussions with AHTD:

Quote
Transportation Commission Member Jeff Austin ....
noted that the length of the I-69 route in Texas is greater than the combined mileage on the national I-69 route through Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and Indiana. He reported on recent discussions he has had about the national I-69 route with leaders of the Arkansas Department of Transportation.

AHTD, the article does not provide any details about Commissioner Austin's report on his I-69 discussions with the Department.  Is there anything noteworthy resulting from those discussions that you can share with us?

Sure thing!
 
Commissioner Austin met with AHTD Director of Highways and Transportation Scott Bennett and Arkansas Highway Commissioner Robert S. Moore, Jr. You may know that Commissioner Moore is a BIG proponent for the I-69 Corridor and he was invited by Director Bennett to be part of the meeting requested by Commissioner Austin.
 
AHTD is the administrative agency acting on behalf of the 8-state member I-69 Steering Committee.
 
Commissioner Austin was bringing Director Bennett up to speed on the happenings in Texas - specifically that a group in Texas has started its own I-69 Coalition - dedicated to the effort in the Lone Star State. AHTD brought him up to speed on what's happening in Arkansas.
 
 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on October 09, 2014, 02:35:48 PM
Another milestone for I-69 in Arkansas is approaching: the first paving project. The AHTD website indicates that the March 10, 2015 letting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pdf) is currently scheduled to include the base and surfacing contract for the eastern part of the Monticello Bypass (page 4/4 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/OT2MIBk.png)

edit

What will the Monticello bypass be signed as?  AR 569 would be a leading contender, I would think.

It's interesting that the eastern part of the Bypass is referred to as "I-69" for the letting instead of an alternative designation.



PowerPoint presentation for the May 21 Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition banquet (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/052113_SEB-Moore_SEACoalition.pdf) ... (page 11/49 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/vzAlf7Z.png)
this article (paywall) (http://pbcommercial.com/sections/news/local/highway-425-between-pine-bluff-star-city-open-soon.html) .... also provides an update on the I-69 Monticello Bypass:
Quote
Straessle said the Monticello bypass project is moving along on schedule.
“The current project on the eastern half of the Monticello bypass is scheduled for completion by September 2014,” Straessle said. “The current work involves construction of two bridges; one over Drew County Road 36 and the other over the Union-Pacific railroad tracks; as well as dirt work and the installation of box culverts. This time next year we plan to let the contract for paving that section.”
Straessle said that work on the western part of the bypass is not expected to begin until sometime in 2016.

As for the western part of the Monticello Bypass ......

AHTD, since the paving contract for the eastern part of the Monticello Bypass looks like it will be let approximately seven months later than the previously anticipated August, 2014 date, is the Department still looking at letting the grading and structures contract for the western part of the Monticello Bypass in 2016?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on November 13, 2014, 01:37:01 PM
In Arkansas, El Dorado is located where I-69 SIU 14 meets SIU 13. In a Nov. 12 presentation to the El Dorado Chamber of Commerce (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2014/111214_Moore_ElDoradoChamber.pdf), AHTD focuses on progress that is being made on the I-69 Connector/ AR 530, presumably based on the notion that the I-69 Connector is an initial phase of a direct interstate connection between El Dorado and Little Rock (pp. 23-25/45 of pdf).  As a minor side note, AHTD presented a slide to the El Dorado audience indicating that SIU 14 was still in the Draft EIS phase, even though a Record of Decision was issued in 2012 (page 23/45 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/VE35VLm.png)

Granted, SIU 14 will probably prove to be the lowest I-69 priority for both Arkansas and Louisiana, but it still would have been nice if accurate information had been provided to the El Dorado audience, especially since AHTD has a more current update available:

(http://i.imgur.com/xhQfzku.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on November 14, 2014, 02:46:49 AM
In Arkansas, El Dorado is located where I-69 SIU 14 meets SIU 13. In a Nov. 12 presentation to the El Dorado Chamber of Commerce (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2014/111214_Moore_ElDoradoChamber.pdf), AHTD focuses on progress that is being made on the I-69 Connector/ AR 530, presumably based on the notion that the I-69 Connector is an initial phase of a direct interstate connection between El Dorado and Little Rock (pp. 23-25/45 of pdf). 

Wouldn't US 167 be quicker? It would definitely be shorter. Besides, AHTD is slowly upgrading US 167 into a 4 lane route south of Little Rock.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 14, 2014, 03:47:56 PM
The I-69 route between Arkansas and Kentucky sure is crooked. I would expect at least some long distance traffic coming from Mexico headed to the Northeast US to bypass some of that by taking other Interstates in the region.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on November 14, 2014, 07:05:17 PM
In Arkansas, El Dorado is located where I-69 SIU 14 meets SIU 13. In a Nov. 12 presentation to the El Dorado Chamber of Commerce (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2014/111214_Moore_ElDoradoChamber.pdf), AHTD focuses on progress that is being made on the I-69 Connector/ AR 530, presumably based on the notion that the I-69 Connector is an initial phase of a direct interstate connection between El Dorado and Little Rock (pp. 23-25/45 of pdf). 

Wouldn't US 167 be quicker? It would definitely be shorter. Besides, AHTD is slowly upgrading US 167 into a 4 lane route south of Little Rock.

I think all that's left to widen is the Saline River area and a segment north of Fordyce.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on November 21, 2014, 04:54:50 PM
Another milestone for I-69 in Arkansas is approaching: the first paving project. The AHTD website indicates that the March 10, 2015 letting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pdf) is currently scheduled to include the base and surfacing contract for the eastern part of the Monticello Bypass:
(http://i.imgur.com/OT2MIBk.png)

The AHTD website indicates that the I-69 Monticello Bypass project has been dropped from the March 10 letting and does not appear on the list for the April 21 letting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pdf).  I don't know if this means that AHTD is beginning to follow Tennessee's lead in scaling back new projects because of the lack of a multi-year reauthorization.  It is possible that it simply reflects a delay in the completion of the grading and structures contract, for which IDriveArkansas now projects a mid-2015 completion (http://www.idrivearkansas.com/):

(http://i.imgur.com/exDU9Rq.png)



In Arkansas, El Dorado is located where I-69 SIU 14 meets SIU 13. In a Nov. 12 presentation to the El Dorado Chamber of Commerce (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2014/111214_Moore_ElDoradoChamber.pdf), AHTD focuses on progress that is being made on the I-69 Connector/ AR 530, presumably based on the notion that the I-69 Connector is an initial phase of a direct interstate connection between El Dorado and Little Rock (pp. 23-25/45 of pdf). 
Wouldn't US 167 be quicker? It would definitely be shorter. Besides, AHTD is slowly upgrading US 167 into a 4 lane route south of Little Rock.
I think all that's left to widen is the Saline River area and a segment north of Fordyce.

Pages 18-19/45 of the Nov. 12 presentation pdf show the widening schedule for US 167.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on December 19, 2014, 11:18:35 AM
The AHTD website indicates that the I-69 Monticello Bypass project has been dropped from the March 10 letting and does not appear on the list for the April 21 letting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pdf).

Effective December 18, the I-69 Monticello Bypass project is back to being scheduled for the March 10 letting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/cHLOXiD.png)

edit

Also, Google Maps recently updated its aerial imagery of the construction (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Monticello,+AR+71655/@33.6376397,-91.6922098,800m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x862c4f6124d3312f:0xcab4e520e2988e10), which in particular provides an improved perspective of where I-69 will intersect with US 278.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on February 10, 2015, 10:55:20 AM
IDriveArkansas now projects a mid-2015 completion (http://www.idrivearkansas.com/)
Effective December 18, the I-69 Monticello Bypass project is back to being scheduled for the March 10 letting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pdf)

In a February 3 presentation to the Springdale Chamber of Commerce (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2015/020315_Lorie_SpringdaleChamber.pdf), AHTD lists five "no go" projects for the March 10 letting due to uncertainties related to the Highway Trust Fund (page 28/52 of pdf); the I-69 Monticello Bypass paving project is not included in that list.  However, the I-69 Monticello Bypass paving project is not one of the projects included in the March 10 letting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/JOBS_include.aspx)*.  In addition, IDriveArkansas now projects a mid-2016 completion (http://www.idrivearkansas.com/) for the grading and structures contract, which represents a one year delay from the November, 2014 estimate:

(http://i.imgur.com/CGAtYKP.png)

AHTD, is it correct to assume that the I-69 Monticello Bypass paving project was removed from the March 10 letting because of delays arising in the grading and structures contract?  If so, what are the issues that continue to delay the grading and structures contract?

edit

*  It also does not appear as a scheduled project in the April, June and July lettings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pdf).
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on February 14, 2015, 09:52:41 PM
IDriveArkansas now projects a mid-2015 completion (http://www.idrivearkansas.com/)
Effective December 18, the I-69 Monticello Bypass project is back to being scheduled for the March 10 letting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pdf)

In a February 3 presentation to the Springdale Chamber of Commerce (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2015/020315_Lorie_SpringdaleChamber.pdf), AHTD lists five "no go" projects for the March 10 letting due to uncertainties related to the Highway Trust Fund (page 28/52 of pdf); the I-69 Monticello Bypass paving project is not included in that list.  However, the I-69 Monticello Bypass paving project is not one of the projects included in the March 10 letting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/JOBS_include.aspx)*.  In addition, IDriveArkansas now projects a mid-2016 completion (http://www.idrivearkansas.com/) for the grading and structures contract, which represents a one year delay from the November, 2014 estimate:

(http://i.imgur.com/CGAtYKP.png)

AHTD, is it correct to assume that the I-69 Monticello Bypass paving project was removed from the March 10 letting because of delays arising in the grading and structures contract?  If so, what are the issues that continue to delay the grading and structures contract?

edit

*  It also does not appear as a scheduled project in the April, June and July lettings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pdf).


Your assumptions are correct. Not sure of the exact circumstances, but if memory serves the contractor is behind schedule. Not sure if we're into damages yet or not.

The Department is committed to completing the first two lanes of the I-69 Connector (AR 530) from Pine Bluff to the Monticello Bypass. It is also committed to completing the first two lanes of the Monticello Bypass.

Again, if memory serves, funding is Congressional earmark.

Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on March 24, 2015, 12:51:12 PM
As for the western part of the Monticello Bypass ......
AHTD, since the paving contract for the eastern part of the Monticello Bypass looks like it will be let approximately seven months later than the previously anticipated August, 2014 date, is the Department still looking at letting the grading and structures contract for the western part of the Monticello Bypass in 2016?

This article (http://www.monticellolive.com/public-hearing-for-bypass-from-278-west-to-425-south-april-9-4-7-pm-at-dchs-cafeteria/) reports that there will be a public hearing in Monticello on April 9 to present and discuss the proposed design of the 11.3 mile western portion of the Monticello Bypass:

Quote
The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) will conduct a design public hearing to present and discuss the proposed design of the western portion of the Monticello Bypass, from Highway 278 West to Highway 425.
The proposed 11.3 mile project will be located in Drew County and consists of constructing a two lane highway on new location. The project will be a part of the future four lane divided highway that will connect to I-530.

It looks like a 2016 letting is still possible.  This section of Future I-69 is interesting because it will be the eventual site of the I-69/ I-530 interchange (assuming I-69 will be built in Arkansas).
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on April 10, 2015, 09:08:42 PM
PowerPoint presentation for the May 21 Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition banquet (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/052113_SEB-Moore_SEACoalition.pdf) ... (page 11/49 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/vzAlf7Z.png)
This article (http://www.monticellolive.com/public-hearing-for-bypass-from-278-west-to-425-south-april-9-4-7-pm-at-dchs-cafeteria/) reports that there will be a public hearing in Monticello on April 9 to present and discuss the proposed design of the 11.3 mile western portion of the Monticello Bypass:
Quote
The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) will conduct a design public hearing to present and discuss the proposed design of the western portion of the Monticello Bypass, from Highway 278 West to Highway 425.
The proposed 11.3 mile project will be located in Drew County and consists of constructing a two lane highway on new location. The project will be a part of the future four lane divided highway that will connect to I-530.

AHTD has posted the Environmental GIS map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2015/020470/020470_2012.05.09_AOFM_Aer.pdf) that was on display at the meeting:

(http://i.imgur.com/eUbIA6A.jpg)

AHTD has also posted a Hearing Packet (http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2015/020470/public%20hearing%20packet.pdf) that provides general information about the project:

Quote
The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), will conduct an open forum Design Public Hearing to discuss the proposed design for the western portion of the Monticello Bypass, from Hwy. 278 West to Hwy. 425. The proposed 11.3 mile project will be located in Drew County and consists of constructing a highway on new location. The project consists of constructing a two lane highway that will be a part of the future four lane divided highway that will connect to I-530 ....
The information presented at this hearing is preliminary and is the best indication of what the Department is proposing at this time. The Department is sensitive to the concerns of the citizenry and final plans will be developed after the comments from this public hearing are received and an evaluation of all impacts of the project can be completed.

As best as I can tell from the Environmental GIS map and the Hearing Packet's project description, it looks like AHTD intends to purchase ROW for both the western segment of the I-69 Monticello Bypass and the short segment of AR 530 between US 278 and the western segment of the I-69 Monticello Bypass , but that construction on the AR 530 section is planned to occur at a separate, later time.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on April 14, 2015, 12:45:43 PM
AHTD has posted the Environmental GIS map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2015/020470/020470_2012.05.09_AOFM_Aer.pdf) that was on display at the meeting ....
As best as I can tell from the Environmental GIS map and the Hearing Packet's project description, it looks like AHTD intends to purchase ROW for both the western segment of the I-69 Monticello Bypass and the short segment of AR 530 between US 278 and the western segment of the I-69 Monticello Bypass , but that construction on the AR 530 section is planned to occur at a separate, later time.

I recently had an email Q & A with AHTD about the scope of the project and received a clarification that the I-69 and AR 530 construction will occur at the same time, including some type of intersection at the site of the future interchange at the western end of the project:

(http://i.imgur.com/5eiK8ub.png)

Here is the Q & A with AHTD, which, in addition to providing the clarification, also states that the grading and structures contract should be let in mid-2016 and includes some interesting comments about the pavement that will be used on the future paving project:

Quote
Q: It looks like AHTD intends to purchase ROW for the western part of the bypass, the short piece of AR 530 between US 278 and the bypass, and an interchange that will link the bypass to US 278 on the west end.  Does AHTD intend to construct the short piece of AR 530 and the 278 interchange (or even the short new road that would be needed to link US 278 to the bypass) at the same that the western part of the bypass would be constructed?

A: Yes, this is all one project.
We are purchasing all ROW for the entire future four-lane divided Interstate facility, however you may remember we are only constructing two lanes at this time.
We anticipate letting a contract in mid-2016 for the grading and structures. As soon as that project is done, we’ll let a contract for the base and surfacing (paving).
At this time, the full (final) interchanges are not being constructed. They will exist as at-grade crossings with stop signs, maybe traffic lights ....
The curious part about this Monticello Bypass is that the pavement we are putting down now for the two lane highway is not the final pavement for what will be the future eastbound lanes.
In short, we are paving a two-lane asphalt highway whose geometry is a little different than what the final concrete section will look like. So eventually this two-lane asphalt highway will be removed and the final pavement will be installed.

But I don’t think that will be anytime soon.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: codyg1985 on April 14, 2015, 01:26:48 PM
I would what designation these segments of future I-69 will receive? AR 569?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on April 14, 2015, 09:09:28 PM
Remove ashpalt to later replace it with the final pavement surface...well now how much more does that add to the project versus going ahead and putting down concrete and finishing off half of the new 4-lane road the first time??  :pan: What a waste of tax payer money.  :banghead:
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on April 15, 2015, 01:59:24 AM
I would what designation these segments of future I-69 will receive? AR 569?

I wonder the same thing. AR 569 would make sense and has precedent but knowing AHTD they'll give it some ridiculous number. Another possibility is SPUR US 278 which also has precedent because the western half of I-530 around Pine Bluff was originally SPUR US 65.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: thefro on April 15, 2015, 02:01:49 PM
This link has a "Video Tour" of diagrams showing the future portion of the Monticello bypass.  Basically just some guy from the local paper videoing the diagrams with a shakey camera while talking to the Arkansas DOT person there

http://www.monticellolive.com/video-tour-of-proposed-i-69-west-from-425-south-to-278-near-wilmar/
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: AHTD on April 22, 2015, 10:32:51 PM
Remove ashpalt to later replace it with the final pavement surface...well now how much more does that add to the project versus going ahead and putting down concrete and finishing off half of the new 4-lane road the first time??  :pan: What a waste of tax payer money.  :banghead:

On the contrary. Our estimates are that I-69 won't be realized within the next 25 years, which is the design life of the pavement we are putting down. So why not go ahead and provide a useable segment for the locals and help improve things in and around Monticello?
 
Hey, if we find ourselves in a windfall situation and funding is found for I-69, not just in Arkansas but in surrounding states, who would argue with pulling up the asphalt (with two-lane highway geometry design) and replacing it with pavement (concrete) with a geometry design for a four-lane divided Interstate?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on April 22, 2015, 11:27:44 PM
Remove ashpalt to later replace it with the final pavement surface...well now how much more does that add to the project versus going ahead and putting down concrete and finishing off half of the new 4-lane road the first time??  :pan: What a waste of tax payer money.  :banghead:

On the contrary. Our estimates are that I-69 won't be realized within the next 25 years, which is the design life of the pavement we are putting down. So why not go ahead and provide a useable segment for the locals and help improve things in and around Monticello?
 
Hey, if we find ourselves in a windfall situation and funding is found for I-69, not just in Arkansas but in surrounding states, who would argue with pulling up the asphalt (with two-lane highway geometry design) and replacing it with pavement (concrete) with a geometry design for a four-lane divided Interstate?

I agree that the people should have a usable road.  My argument was against putting down pavement just to pull it right back up.  But if it is going to be that long before the interstate is created, then it's not as bad as I originally thought.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on August 10, 2015, 01:59:25 PM
AHTD has issued an August 10 Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2015/NR%2015-274.pdf) stating that AHTD tentatively has scheduled the opening of the next section of Hwy. 530 south of Hwy. 114 and the new Hwy. 11 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Star+City,+AR+71667/@33.8515686,-91.8746259,3452m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x862d02bc741b9ddd:0x8c8f6f80cab0f063!6m1!1e1) for Tuesday, August 18th, 2015:

Quote
The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department tentatively has scheduled the opening of the next section of Hwy. 530 south of Hwy. 114 and the new Hwy. 11 for Tuesday, August 18th, 2015.
The newly constructed Hwy. 11 begins at Newton Chapel and extends across to Hwy. 425. The section of Hwy. 530 that is being opened will extend from Hwy. 114 to the Hwy. 11 Connector. These two new sections of roadway will allow the traveling public to travel to Hwy. 425 via Hwy. 530 without having to detour through Star City. Once the new sections are open to traffic, drivers should be aware that the crossing of Hwy. 530 at Hwy. 114 will become a stop condition for the traffic traveling on Hwy. 114 and the traffic traveling on Hwy. 530 will have the right-of-way. Drivers should also be aware that a new stop condition will be installed on the old section of Hwy. 11 at Newton Chapel.

The 2015-16 Arkansas Highway Map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/Trans_Plan_Policy/mapping_graphics/State%20Highway%20Map%20-%20State%20Side%202015-2016.PDF) already shows this project as a completed project:

(http://i.imgur.com/M7GIJCb.png)

Also, this September 17, 2013 Minute Order (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/mo-2013.92.pdf) explains the AR 11S designation on the above snip: in short, AR 11S is a spur:

(http://i.imgur.com/AIiBFzn.png)

Here is a snip from the Minute Order's map illustrating the redesignation of part of AR 11 as AR 11S:

(http://i.imgur.com/dSGwgqu.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Henry on August 10, 2015, 02:23:23 PM
I would what designation these segments of future I-69 will receive? AR 569?

I wonder the same thing. AR 569 would make sense and has precedent but knowing AHTD they'll give it some ridiculous number. Another possibility is SPUR US 278 which also has precedent because the western half of I-530 around Pine Bluff was originally SPUR US 65.
I also believe that AR 569 would be used to balance out the AR 549 (Future I-49) on the other side of the state.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 10, 2015, 04:01:53 PM
Arkansas home to AR 549 and AR 569? What's the obsession with future Interstate Highways with state designations starting with a 5?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Road Hog on August 10, 2015, 10:01:20 PM
Arkansas home to AR 549 and AR 569? What's the obsession with future Interstate Highways with state designations starting with a 5?

Two future interstate highways are hardly an "obsession." The 500 series is an unused block of numbers and it makes sense for AHTD to use them.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on August 11, 2015, 09:42:28 AM
Arkansas home to AR 549 and AR 569? What's the obsession with future Interstate Highways with state designations starting with a 5?

Two future interstate highways are hardly an "obsession." The 500 series is an unused block of numbers and it makes sense for AHTD to use them.

540 ;)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on August 11, 2015, 06:08:13 PM
Arkansas home to AR 549 and AR 569? What's the obsession with future Interstate Highways with state designations starting with a 5?

Two future interstate highways are hardly an "obsession." The 500 series is an unused block of numbers and it makes sense for AHTD to use them.

540 ;)

530, 540, 549, 569...that should cover them all, right?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 11, 2015, 07:11:16 PM
You're forgetting 555, the long-proposed Interstate designation upgrade on US 63 between Turrell and Jonesboro.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: NE2 on August 11, 2015, 07:13:04 PM
Arkansas home to AR 549 and AR 569? What's the obsession with future Interstate Highways with state designations starting with a 5?
Why the hell not? 1-399 are normal routes, 4xx are old alignments, 600 (and 400) are state parks, and 801+ are facility routes. All that's left is 5xx and 7xx.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on August 11, 2015, 07:48:28 PM
Arkansas home to AR 549 and AR 569? What's the obsession with future Interstate Highways with state designations starting with a 5?
Why the hell not? 1-399 are normal routes, 4xx are old alignments, 600 (and 400) are state parks, and 801+ are facility routes. All that's left is 5xx and 7xx.

You forgot 980 ;)

Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: NE2 on August 11, 2015, 11:10:27 PM
801+ are facility routes
You forgot 980 ;)
You fucked up.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on August 12, 2015, 09:02:57 AM
]
Why the hell not? 1-399 are normal routes, 4xx are old alignments, 600 (and 400) are state parks, and 801+ are facility routes. All that's left is 5xx and 7xx.
1xx, 2xx?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on August 12, 2015, 03:58:28 PM
]
Why the hell not? 1-399 are normal routes, 4xx are old alignments, 600 (and 400) are state parks, and 801+ are facility routes. All that's left is 5xx and 7xx.
1xx, 2xx?

That falls in the 1-399 range NE2 mentioned.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on August 18, 2015, 01:43:45 PM
AHTD has issued an August 10 Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2015/NR%2015-274.pdf) stating that AHTD tentatively has scheduled the opening of the next section of Hwy. 530 south of Hwy. 114 and the new Hwy. 11 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Star+City,+AR+71667/@33.8515686,-91.8746259,3452m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x862d02bc741b9ddd:0x8c8f6f80cab0f063!6m1!1e1) for Tuesday, August 18th, 2015

This August 18 AHTD Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2015/NR%2015-289.pdf) provides a notification that the new, recently opened section of AR 530 will be dedicated at 2:15 pm on Friday, August 21:

Quote
WHEN: Friday, August 21
10:00 am. Montrose
11:15 am. Lake Village
2:15 pm. Near Star City
WHERE:
The MONTROSE event is a dedication of the new U.S. Highway 82 railroad overpass at the intersection of U.S. Highway 82 and State Highway 165.
The LAKE VILLAGE event is a groundbreaking for a bridge replacement project on State Highway 144 north of downtown Lake Village.
The NEAR STAR CITY event is to dedicate the new section of State Highway 530 that recently opened from State Highway 114 south to U.S. Highway 425 south of Star City.
WHY:
To celebrate the completion of two projects and the beginning of another.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: codyg1985 on August 18, 2015, 01:55:15 PM
Looks like they made a boo boo and mislabeled US 165 as AR 165 for the bridge dedication.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on August 18, 2015, 02:38:31 PM
AHTD has issued an August 10 Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2015/NR%2015-274.pdf) stating that AHTD tentatively has scheduled the opening of the next section of Hwy. 530 south of Hwy. 114 and the new Hwy. 11 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Star+City,+AR+71667/@33.8515686,-91.8746259,3452m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x862d02bc741b9ddd:0x8c8f6f80cab0f063!6m1!1e1) for Tuesday, August 18th, 2015

This August 18 AHTD Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2015/NR%2015-289.pdf) provides a notification that the new, recenty opened section of AR 530 will be dedicated at 2:15 pm on Friday, August 21:

Quote
WHEN: Friday, August 21
10:00 am. Montrose
11:15 am. Lake Village
2:15 pm. Near Star City
WHERE:
The MONTROSE event is a dedication of the new U.S. Highway 82 railroad overpass at the intersection of U.S. Highway 82 and State Highway 165.
The LAKE VILLAGE event is a groundbreaking for a bridge replacement project on State Highway 144 north of downtown Lake Village.
The NEAR STAR CITY event is to dedicate the new section of State Highway 530 that recently opened from State Highway 114 south to U.S. Highway 425 south of Star City.
WHY:
To celebrate the completion of two projects and the beginning of another.

Wish I could go, but don't have the time to spare
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on August 21, 2015, 04:49:08 PM
This August 18 AHTD Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2015/NR%2015-289.pdf) provides a notification that the new, recently opened section of AR 530 will be dedicated at 2:15 pm on Friday, August 21

This August 15 article entitled "Road projects near Star City create bypass" (http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/aug/15/road-projects-near-star-city-create-byp/?f=news-arkansas) describes how part of the "new" AR 11 and the new section of AR 530 create a de facto bypass of Star City:

Quote
A new section of Arkansas 530 in Lincoln County and a newly constructed Arkansas 11 are scheduled to open Tuesday.
Together, the new highways will allow motorists to travel to U.S. 425 via Arkansas 530 without having to detour through Star City, the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department said.

I wonder if AHTD will install/ has installed signage for motorists describing this route as a Star City bypass?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on August 21, 2015, 09:02:59 PM

I wonder if AHTD will install/ has installed signage for motorists describing this route as a Star City bypass?

I'm guessing there will be "TO 530" signs at AR 11/US 425 and possibly guide signs pointing the way to Pine Bluff.   Of course, 530 may also be routed along "New 11" back to 425.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on August 22, 2015, 01:47:04 PM
This August 18 AHTD Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2015/NR%2015-289.pdf) provides a notification that the new, recently opened section of AR 530 will be dedicated at 2:15 pm on Friday, August 21:
Quote
WHEN: Friday, August 21
10:00 am. Montrose
11:15 am. Lake Village
2:15 pm. Near Star City
Wish I could go, but don't have the time to spare

Life is full of second chances; maybe this is one of them: This August 18 AHTD Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2015/NR%2015-289.pdf) (maybe the original release had a typo?) has the dedication ceremony occurring on August 28:

Quote
WHEN: Friday, August 28
10:00 am. Montrose
11:15 am. Lake Village
2:15 pm. Near Star City



I'm guessing there will be "TO 530" signs at AR 11/US 425 and possibly guide signs pointing the way to Pine Bluff.   Of course, 530 may also be routed along "New 11" back to 425.

Some photos from the occasion would be nice, too.   :D
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on August 22, 2015, 03:25:44 PM
This August 18 AHTD Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2015/NR%2015-289.pdf) provides a notification that the new, recently opened section of AR 530 will be dedicated at 2:15 pm on Friday, August 21:
Quote
WHEN: Friday, August 21
10:00 am. Montrose
11:15 am. Lake Village
2:15 pm. Near Star City
Wish I could go, but don't have the time to spare

Life is full of second chances; maybe this is one of them: This August 18 AHTD Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2015/NR%2015-289.pdf) (maybe the original release had a typo?) has the dedication ceremony occurring on August 28:

Quote
WHEN: Friday, August 28
10:00 am. Montrose
11:15 am. Lake Village
2:15 pm. Near Star City



I'm guessing there will be "TO 530" signs at AR 11/US 425 and possibly guide signs pointing the way to Pine Bluff.   Of course, 530 may also be routed along "New 11" back to 425.

Some photos from the occasion would be nice, too.   :D

28th I'm committed to a show. I may try to sneak down in a couple weeks to check signing.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on August 28, 2015, 10:31:43 PM
This August 18 AHTD Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2015/NR%2015-289.pdf) (maybe the original release had a typo?) has the dedication ceremony occurring on August 28

This article (http://pbcommercial.com/news/local/another-segment-arkansas-530-dedicated) reports that the ribbon cutting ceremony did indeed take place on August 28:

Quote
Officials with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department joined elected officials from Star City and Lincoln County on Friday afternoon to officially dedicate another section of what will be a four-lane connector between Interstate 530 at Pine Bluff and the planned Interstate 69 near Wilmar.
The approximately 18-mile section, designated Arkansas 530, will allow truck traffic to avoid downtown Star City
, said Glenn Bolick, special projects coordinator for the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department.
“Downtown Star City is going to be a lot safer now,” Bolick said.
State Highway Commissioner Robert Moore, who is from Arkansas City ....
said there is still work to be done before the entire interstate connector is completed.
“We’re 10 miles and $50 million short of completing the project,” Moore said.
According to information from the highway department, eight contracts have been let on the planned corridor since April, 2004, and so far, nearly $150 million has been awarded and completed ....
A contract to complete the remaining 10.5-mile section between Arkansas Highway 11/U.S. 425 and Arkansas Highway 35 has not been let yet, highway officials said ....
The ribbon cutting on Arkansas 530 was the third event highway department officials attended Friday in Southeast Arkansas.
Friday morning, they dedicated the new U.S. 82 railroad overpass at intersection of U.S. 82 and Arkansas 165 at Montrose, and later Friday morning, broke ground for the replacement of two bridge structures north of Lake Village.

Another 10.5 miles of two lanes and then start working on adding the other two lanes .............
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on August 31, 2015, 06:19:43 PM
This August 18 AHTD Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2015/NR%2015-289.pdf) (maybe the original release had a typo?) has the dedication ceremony occurring on August 28

This article (http://pbcommercial.com/news/local/another-segment-arkansas-530-dedicated) reports that the ribbon cutting ceremony did indeed take place on August 28:

Quote
Officials with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department joined elected officials from Star City and Lincoln County on Friday afternoon to officially dedicate another section of what will be a four-lane connector between Interstate 530 at Pine Bluff and the planned Interstate 69 near Wilmar.
The approximately 18-mile section, designated Arkansas 530, will allow truck traffic to avoid downtown Star City
, said Glenn Bolick, special projects coordinator for the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department.
“Downtown Star City is going to be a lot safer now,” Bolick said.
State Highway Commissioner Robert Moore, who is from Arkansas City ....
said there is still work to be done before the entire interstate connector is completed.
“We’re 10 miles and $50 million short of completing the project,” Moore said.
According to information from the highway department, eight contracts have been let on the planned corridor since April, 2004, and so far, nearly $150 million has been awarded and completed ....
A contract to complete the remaining 10.5-mile section between Arkansas Highway 11/U.S. 425 and Arkansas Highway 35 has not been let yet, highway officials said ....
The ribbon cutting on Arkansas 530 was the third event highway department officials attended Friday in Southeast Arkansas.
Friday morning, they dedicated the new U.S. 82 railroad overpass at intersection of U.S. 82 and Arkansas 165 at Montrose, and later Friday morning, broke ground for the replacement of two bridge structures north of Lake Village.

Another 10.5 miles of two lanes and then start working on adding the other two lanes .............

Google maps has updated AR 530 as of this morning, but the new AR 11 has not been updated.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: KamKam on September 09, 2015, 10:51:10 PM
AR 530 between AR 11 and Interstate 530 has a speed limit of 55, which is somewhat effective
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on October 25, 2015, 07:33:47 PM
a delay in the completion of the grading and structures contract, for which IDriveArkansas now projects a mid-2015 completion (http://www.idrivearkansas.com/):
(http://i.imgur.com/exDU9Rq.png)
what are the issues that continue to delay the grading and structures contract?
Not sure of the exact circumstances, but if memory serves the contractor is behind schedule. Not sure if we're into damages yet or not.

IDriveArkansas (https://www.idrivearkansas.com/) now projects a mid-2017 completion date for the grading and structures contract:

(http://i.imgur.com/xVKFdDy.jpg)

I hope that a delay from mid 2015 to mid 2017 gets into damages.  Also, nice touch in identifying the project as a US 425 project.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: KamKam on October 30, 2015, 11:59:36 AM
2 Year delay? I wonder why. They've been working on this portion for a long time
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on October 30, 2015, 12:43:14 PM
2 Year delay? I wonder why. They've been working on this portion for a long time
Money?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: KamKam on November 01, 2015, 11:01:26 PM
I'm sure it's not cause of Money considering since they may have started on the projec
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on December 12, 2015, 04:05:05 PM
2 Year delay? I wonder why. They've been working on this portion for a long time.
This article (http://www.magnoliareporter.com/news_and_business/local_news/article_82b7d068-9e5c-11e5-bcff-b7b9aa3c336c.html) reports that Arkansas highway officials recently told a group in El Dorado that construction of the Great River Bridge is the key to building the porkier pieces in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi, but that Congress will have to foot most of the bill for the bridge ....
A video of the meeting has been posted on Youtube:
(above quote from I-69 Mississippi River Bridge (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg2111396#msg2111396) thread)

At approximately the 27:25 mark of the above video, AHTD Director Scott Bennett is asked if money is available to pay for the current grading and structures project for the Monticello Bypass because it is "just sitting there".  Bennett replies that the money is there to pay for it, but "the contractor is just sitting there".  Bennett goes on to note, "That's been a weird one".  The questioner then asks Bennett if the contractor has a time limit.  Bennett replies, "Yeah, he does", but provides no further explanation for the delay.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on December 18, 2015, 03:25:05 PM
A video of the meeting has been posted on Youtube:
(above quote from I-69 Mississippi River Bridge (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg2111396#msg2111396) thread)
At approximately the 27:25 mark of the above video, AHTD Director Scott Bennett is asked if money is available to pay for the current grading and structures project for the Monticello Bypass because it is "just sitting there".  Bennett replies that the money is there to pay for it, but "the contractor is just sitting there".  Bennett goes on to note, "That's been a weird one".  The questioner then asks Bennett if the contractor has a time limit.  Bennett replies, "Yeah, he does", but provides no further explanation for the delay.

AHTD has posted AHTD Director Scott Bennett's presentation to the December 7, 2015 Interstate 69 Coalition (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2015/120715_SEB_I-69.pdf) meeting. A slide about the Monticello Bypass notes that the groundbreaking for the grading and structures contract was in November, 2011; as a result, over four years have elapsed since the groundbreaking ( p. 11/15 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/agNt6dk.png)

With Bennett stating that the estimated completion date  is now late 2017 (at approximately the 24:25 mark of the above video), it looks like this will end up being a six-year project. Yep, that's weird.



.... it looks like AHTD intends to purchase ROW for both the western segment of the I-69 Monticello Bypass and the short segment of AR 530 between US 278 and the western segment of the I-69 Monticello Bypass ...
Here is the Q & A with AHTD, which ... states that the grading and structures contract should be let in mid-2016 ...:
Quote
Q: It looks like AHTD intends to purchase ROW for the western part of the bypass, the short piece of AR 530 between US 278 and the bypass, and an interchange that will link the bypass to US 278 on the west end.  Does AHTD intend to construct the short piece of AR 530 and the 278 interchange (or even the short new road that would be needed to link US 278 to the bypass) at the same that the western part of the bypass would be constructed?
A: Yes, this is all one project.
We are purchasing all ROW for the entire future four-lane divided Interstate facility, however you may remember we are only constructing two lanes at this time.
We anticipate letting a contract in mid-2016 for the grading and structures. As soon as that project is done, we’ll let a contract for the base and surfacing (paving).

I do not know if this is related to the snail's pace of the grading and structures contract on the eastern part of the Monticello Bypass, but, at about the 22:45 mark of the above video, Director Bennett states that they will "do everything at once" on the western part of the Bypass, which I took to mean that the grading and structures contract will be combined with a paving contract.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on January 18, 2016, 07:20:30 PM
A video of the meeting has been posted on Youtube:
(above quote from I-69 Mississippi River Bridge (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg2111396#msg2111396) thread)
At approximately the 27:25 mark of the above video, AHTD Director Scott Bennett is asked if money is available to pay for the current grading and structures project for the Monticello Bypass because it is "just sitting there".  Bennett replies that the money is there to pay for it, but "the contractor is just sitting there".  Bennett goes on to note, "That's been a weird one".  The questioner then asks Bennett if the contractor has a time limit.  Bennett replies, "Yeah, he does", but provides no further explanation for the delay.
... With Bennett stating that the estimated completion date  is now late 2017 (at approximately the 24:25 mark of the above video), it looks like this will end up being a six-year project. Yep, that's weird.

Maybe Director Bennett has persuaded the contractor to pick up the pace. AHTD is now projecting a June 22, 2016 letting date (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pdf) for the base and surfacing contract (p. 4/4 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/HelLS7s.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 19, 2016, 05:03:59 PM
After the completion of two-lane SR 530, how long does anyone think it will be until the roadway will upgraded into four-laned Interstate 530?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on January 21, 2016, 12:33:17 PM
Our estimates are that I-69 won't be realized within the next 25 years
After the completion of two-lane SR 530, how long does anyone think it will be until the roadway will upgraded into four-laned Interstate 530?
Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson proposes using state budget  surplus  (http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/01/19/governor-pay-for-roads-with-surplus-and-general-revenue-while-boosting-highway-dept-oversight) to pay for fixing the roads
(above quote from Arkansas to Use Budget Surplus to Fix Roads (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17296.msg2120875#msg2120875) thread)

The Governor's Working Group on Highway Funding Short-Term Recommendation (http://ee-governor-2015.ark.org/images/uploads/HFWG_FINAL_Short-Term_Recommendation_.pdf) also acknowledges mid-term target, long-term target, and ultimate needs goals. The timetable for Ultimate Needs is "ten years in the future" and includes the completion of I-69 as one of the needs (pp. 4-5/15 of pdf; pp. 3-4 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/EsKSl23.png)
....
(http://i.imgur.com/fgCu5jc.png)

A slide from the January 20, 2016 AHTD presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2016/012016_AHC_Meeting.pdf) provides a concise summary of the different goals (p. 19/104 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/e5ZcOHf.png)

Regardless of whether you consider AR 530/ Future I-530 as part of I-69 or as part of the Four-Lane Grid System, it is included as an "Ultimate Need".

Above all said, I am not even sure that the Working Group will ever present an "Ultimate Needs" report.  If the Working Group does present an "Ultimate Needs" report meeting the funding objectives and its recommendations are adopted, then twenty-five years might be a good guess for the completion of I-530.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: O Tamandua on January 21, 2016, 04:06:43 PM
(Just a side note, but this is Wiki's current Interstate "map".  If I didn't know better I'd swear someone from this particular forum section furnished it.  :awesomeface: It seems pretty evident that there is "a place to be" for future Interstate construction, whether it will "be" or not.  Glad to see Gov. Hutchinson's committee at least coming up with I-49 and I-69 in their 10 year plan.)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Map_of_current_Interstates.svg/689px-Map_of_current_Interstates.svg.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: aboges26 on January 21, 2016, 08:36:03 PM
(Just a side note, but this is Wiki's current Interstate "map".  If I didn't know better I'd swear someone from this particular forum section furnished it.  :awesomeface: It seems pretty evident that there is "a place to be" for future Interstate construction, whether it will "be" or not.  Glad to see Gov. Hutchinson's committee at least coming up with I-49 and I-69 in their 10 year plan.)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Map_of_current_Interstates.svg/689px-Map_of_current_Interstates.svg.png)

It's missing I-41 and I-14's proposed route... bummer.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on February 28, 2016, 09:02:10 PM
A video of the meeting has been posted on Youtube:
(above quote from I-69 Mississippi River Bridge (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg2111396#msg2111396) thread)
At approximately the 27:25 mark of the above video, AHTD Director Scott Bennett is asked if money is available to pay for the current grading and structures project for the Monticello Bypass because it is "just sitting there".  Bennett replies that the money is there to pay for it, but "the contractor is just sitting there".  Bennett goes on to note, "That's been a weird one".  The questioner then asks Bennett if the contractor has a time limit.  Bennett replies, "Yeah, he does", but provides no further explanation for the delay.
... With Bennett stating that the estimated completion date  is now late 2017 (at approximately the 24:25 mark of the above video), it looks like this will end up being a six-year project. Yep, that's weird.
Maybe Director Bennett has persuaded the contractor to pick up the pace. AHTD is now projecting a June 22, 2016 letting date (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pdf) for the base and surfacing contract (p. 4/4 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/HelLS7s.jpg)

Or, perhaps Bennett has decided to Keep AHTD Weird, so to speak.  The base and surfacing contract letting no longer appears in the June 22 letting on the Next Three Lettings page (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pdf), and it does not appear in the August 10 letting, either.  The long wait continues ....................
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on March 22, 2016, 01:40:11 PM
AHTD has posted AHTD Director Scott Bennett's presentation to the December 7, 2015 Interstate 69 Coalition (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2015/120715_SEB_I-69.pdf) meeting .... ( p. 11/15 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/agNt6dk.png)

AHTD's 2016-2020 Draft STIP (http://www.arkansashighways.com/stip/2016-2020/STIP_report_2016-2020_b.pdf) projects a letting for the grading and structures for the western part of the Monticello Bypass in 2016, a letting for paving the eastern part of the Monticello Bypass in 2017, and preliminary engineering and ROW acquisition in "Various" counties in 2020 (p. 21/351 of pdf; p. 5 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/LtElyfo.png)
....
(http://i.imgur.com/7ihZZ1Y.png)



AHTD, are they acquiring ROW all of the way to US 65?
Yes! The entire SIU.
(above two quotes from I-69 Mississippi River Bridge (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg315850#msg315850) thread)

Since ROW acquisition is already underway for all of the Arkansas section of the I-69 Mississippi River bridge SIU 12, and the entire Monticello Bypass is already covered elsewhere in the STIP, which sections of I-69 in "Various" counties are the most likely candidates for ROW acquisition and preliminary engineering in 2020?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 22, 2016, 04:37:08 PM
It will probably be a long time before we see Interstate 69 shields in Arkansas. I'm sure it will be the last state to see Interstate 69 signs.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: rte66man on March 22, 2016, 08:06:41 PM
It will probably be a long time before we see Interstate 69 shields in Arkansas. I'm sure it will be the last state to see Interstate 69 signs.

That's not much of a gamble as Louisiana is the only state w/o any existing, signed mileage (not counting TN because they have 269). Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Texas all have portions signed.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on April 20, 2016, 03:21:41 PM
AHTD's 2016-2020 Draft STIP (http://www.arkansashighways.com/stip/2016-2020/STIP_report_2016-2020_b.pdf) projects .... preliminary engineering and ROW acquisition in "Various" counties in 2020 (p. 21/351 of pdf; p. 5 of document) ....
which sections of I-69 in "Various" counties are the most likely candidates for ROW acquisition and preliminary engineering in 2020?

AHTD has posted an I-69 FASTLANE grant application (http://www.arkansashighways.com/FastLane/I69/FASTLANE%20I-69%20PROJECT%202016%20FINAL.pdf) for ROW acquisition and design of I-69 from the eastern Monticello Bypass I-69/ US 278 interchange to the western approach of the I-69 Mississippi River (Great River) Bridge.  Here is a snip of the proposed project area (p. 7/17 of pdf; p. 4 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/OEUk2tj.png)

The cost of the project is described as follows (p. 8/17 of document; p. 5 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/opHhyb5.png)

AHTD's April 20 presentation to the Arkansas Highway Commission (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2016/042016_AHC_Meeting.pdf) indicates that AHTD submitted the application on April 14 (p. 16/46 of pdf).
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on April 21, 2016, 11:32:38 AM
AHTD has posted an I-69 FASTLANE grant application (http://www.arkansashighways.com/FastLane/I69/FASTLANE%20I-69%20PROJECT%202016%20FINAL.pdf) for ROW acquisition and design of I-69 from the eastern Monticello Bypass I-69/ US 278 interchange to the western approach of the I-69 Mississippi River (Great River) Bridge.

Even though it is questionable whether the I-69 Connector is necessary (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12569.msg304199#msg304199), and AHTD recently submitted the I-69 FASTLANE grant application, this April 20 article (http://www.monticellolive.com/local-leaders-visit-dc-about-seark-needs/) reports that civic leaders from Monticello were recently in Washington, D.C. emphasizing their belief that progress is needed on the I-69 Connector (Future I-530) in order to advance Monticello's economic development:

Quote
Ten local businesses and community leaders from Monticello have been in Washington DC, yesterday and today, meeting with our congressmen and senators, discussing local needs for Monticello and Southeast Arkansas.
The group, representing MEDC and 20 for the Future ....
Members and associates of the Monticello Economic Development Commission make an annual trip to the nations capital to discuss economic, industrial, medical and educational needs of our area, which can be helped with by making our national representatives aware ....
Transportation issues include the I-69 Connector.
Transportation continues to be a stumbling block for economic development for Monticello, Drew County and the Southeast Arkansas region. Recruiting new industry is dependent upon low transportation costs. In the past 5 years, more than 10 Requests for Information have been responded to by the MEDC. Two of these RFI’s resulted in landing a commitment from Zilkha Biomass Energy and enviraPAC Monticello, LLC. However, two were lost due to transportation costs. Now, more than ever, the promise of completing Interstate 530 southward from Pine Bluff must be honored as the connector to the Future Interstate 69 – Canada to Mexico corridor.

Tough problem for Monticello: which interstate to complete first?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: abqtraveler on April 26, 2016, 12:22:18 PM
AHTD has posted an I-69 FASTLANE grant application (http://www.arkansashighways.com/FastLane/I69/FASTLANE%20I-69%20PROJECT%202016%20FINAL.pdf) for ROW acquisition and design of I-69 from the eastern Monticello Bypass I-69/ US 278 interchange to the western approach of the I-69 Mississippi River (Great River) Bridge.

Even though it is questionable whether the I-69 Connector is necessary (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12569.msg304199#msg304199), and AHTD recently submitted the I-69 FASTLANE grant application, this April 20 article (http://www.monticellolive.com/local-leaders-visit-dc-about-seark-needs/) reports that civic leaders from Monticello were recently in Washington, D.C. emphasizing their belief that progress is needed on the I-69 Connector (Future I-530) in order to advance Monticello's economic development:

Quote
Ten local businesses and community leaders from Monticello have been in Washington DC, yesterday and today, meeting with our congressmen and senators, discussing local needs for Monticello and Southeast Arkansas.
The group, representing MEDC and 20 for the Future ....
Members and associates of the Monticello Economic Development Commission make an annual trip to the nations capital to discuss economic, industrial, medical and educational needs of our area, which can be helped with by making our national representatives aware ....
Transportation issues include the I-69 Connector.
Transportation continues to be a stumbling block for economic development for Monticello, Drew County and the Southeast Arkansas region. Recruiting new industry is dependent upon low transportation costs. In the past 5 years, more than 10 Requests for Information have been responded to by the MEDC. Two of these RFI’s resulted in landing a commitment from Zilkha Biomass Energy and enviraPAC Monticello, LLC. However, two were lost due to transportation costs. Now, more than ever, the promise of completing Interstate 530 southward from Pine Bluff must be honored as the connector to the Future Interstate 69 – Canada to Mexico corridor.

Tough problem for Monticello: which interstate to complete first?

I'd probably say finish the 530 Connector first (or at least get the entire Super 2 portion done) since most of it has already been built.  The biggest portion remaining for 530 is approximately 14 miles from AR-11 near Star City to AR-35 north of Wilmar.  Getting that finished will establish a continuous connection to Pine Bluff and the interstate system via I-530.  Then focus on getting I-69 built and deal with 4-laning the 530 Connector later.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 27, 2016, 01:03:49 AM

I'd probably say finish the 530 Connector first (or at least get the entire Super 2 portion done) since most of it has already been built.  The biggest portion remaining for 530 is approximately 14 miles from AR-11 near Star City to AR-35 north of Wilmar.  Getting that finished will establish a continuous connection to Pine Bluff and the interstate system via I-530.  Then focus on getting I-69 built and deal with 4-laning the 530 Connector later.

Or, as a substitute, work on getting it extended southward to Monroe and I-20, or even further southward to Alexandria.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on April 27, 2016, 08:22:13 AM
Or, as a substitute, work on getting it extended southward to Monroe and I-20, or even further southward to Alexandria.

If you're going to take it to Alexandria then you might as well take it down US 165 to Iowa. Unless there is a compelling reason to take it from Monroe to Natchez and Baton Rouge instead. (One compelling reason: Hurricane evacuation.)

Now that Arkansas is pushing for I-57 to follow US 67 to Little Rock, having I-57 consume I-530 and flow all the way to Baton Rouge or Iowa would make I-57 a true trans-national interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 27, 2016, 10:01:52 AM
I'll take both for $1000, Alex.  :sombrero: :sombrero: :sombrero:


Going back to the real realm, I'd still keep the Monticello Bypass just in case they want to 4-lane US 82 to Greenville. That would justify completing the current I-530 extension even if I-69 isn't built as planned.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on April 28, 2016, 01:41:05 PM
(Just a side note, but this is Wiki's current Interstate "map".  If I didn't know better I'd swear someone from this particular forum section furnished it.  :awesomeface: It seems pretty evident that there is "a place to be" for future Interstate construction, whether it will "be" or not.  Glad to see Gov. Hutchinson's committee at least coming up with I-49 and I-69 in their 10 year plan.)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Map_of_current_Interstates.svg/689px-Map_of_current_Interstates.svg.png)

It's missing I-41 and I-14's proposed route... bummer.
I-41 should be included, as much of US 41 is being converted to Interstate standards, but the green only shows routes that are Actually Under Construction... (and I did not provide the map)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on May 04, 2016, 02:45:28 PM
This article (http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/local-news/gtedc-promoting-i-69-through-south-arkansas) reports on a presentation made by Dan Flowers, Arkansas VP for the eight states I-69 Mid-Continent Highway Coalition and former Director of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, to the Golden Triangle Economic Development Corporation (GTEDC) at the El Dorado Chamber of Commerce, in which Flowers advised GTEDC that now is the time to make I-69 a priority in south Arkansas or they could risk losing I-69 to options involving I-30 and/or I-40:

Quote
The future of Interstate 69 across South Arkansas was the primary topic of discussion Wednesday at the monthly board meeting of the Golden Triangle Economic Development Corporation (GTEDC) at the El Dorado Chamber of Commerce.
The GTEDC board voted unanimously to make I-69 completion our number one priority goal.
Dan Flowers, Arkansas VP for the eight states I-69 Mid-Continent Highway Coalition and former Director of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, spoke to the group concerning the future of I-69.
He urged the Golden Triangle membership, local and federal elected official, business, and industry leaders to become involved in the Coalition.
I-69 has been designated a “Freight Corridor of the Future” by the U.S. Department of Transportation, one of only six such routes in the country.
“We have the best opportunity to further construction of I-69 through south Arkansas now due to the recent passage of the new federal-aid transportation act,” Flowers said. “The act contains provisions for funding grants for routes that improve the safety and efficiency of freight operations in America. If we do not take action now, other states have offered alternative routes connecting with overcrowded I-30 and I-40 bypassing the South Arkansas region completely.”

NE2 has posted a Fictional Highways Alternative to I-69 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7601.msg172066#msg172066) that makes a lot of sense and has been reinforced by the recent proposed Future I-57 designation.  The threat of south Arkansas losing I-69 could very well be real.



AHTD has posted an I-69 FASTLANE grant application (http://www.arkansashighways.com/FastLane/I69/FASTLANE%20I-69%20PROJECT%202016%20FINAL.pdf) for ROW acquisition and design of I-69 from the eastern Monticello Bypass I-69/ US 278 interchange to the western approach of the I-69 Mississippi River (Great River) Bridge.

The article also mentions how FASTLANE grants could expedite I-69 progress and that AHTD should hear a decision about its current I-69 FASTLANE grant application in late fall:

Quote
Arkansas State Highway Commissioner Robert Moore also added to the meeting.
“Congress passing of the $300 Billion Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015 has led to the state’s application submission of a very significant grant application to help provide funding for I-69,” he said.
The “FASTLANE” grant has been submitted and Commissioner Moore expects to hear from the grant by late fall.
“The corridor serves manufacturing and agricultural production centers plus major metropolitan areas from South Texas to the Great Lakes states. It connects to 16 key pieces of the Interstate Highway System and provides improved freight connectivity for the eastern half of the nation,” Moore said ....
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: mvak36 on May 04, 2016, 03:29:08 PM
I probably won't mind if I-69 gets cancelled in LA, AR, and MS. It'd probably be cheaper to build the rest of I-57, and make I-30 and I-40 3 lanes statewide (in AR). I would think it would have the same effect as having I-69, just not as much new terrain building.

NE2: You, sir, are a genius.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 04, 2016, 04:39:51 PM
Expand I-57, Using US 67 to Little Rock, convert 530 to I-57, continue it to LA line from there to Monroe and then to Alexandria, done. I-57 From Chicago to Alexandria, not one new Mississippi River Bridge.

Arkansas scrap I-69 routing, focuses on upgrading US 82 from Texarkana to Lake Village, using new bridge there as River crossing. This becomes I-69 routing to Mississippi.

Sheeveport get a connector to US 82 for their part of I- 69. This would be I-69 South. The Texarkana Spur is connected to US 82 and this becomes I-69 North till both merge east of Texarkana.

Money for new I-69 bridge instead spent for new crossing at Memphis for Southern Gateway.

Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on May 04, 2016, 05:13:48 PM
Sheeveport get a connector to US 82 for their part of I- 69. This would be I-69 South. The Texarkana Spur is connected to US 82 and this becomes I-69 North till both merge east of Texarkana.

How is this different from I-49?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 04, 2016, 05:38:10 PM
Sheeveport get a connector to US 82 for their part of I- 69. This would be I-69 South. The Texarkana Spur is connected to US 82 and this becomes I-69 North till both merge east of Texarkana.

How is this different from I-49?

What Texas wants is what Texas gets. Texas wants a I-69 spur to Texarkana as seen here.
(http://i.imgur.com/ka8uZNp.jpg)

So, when I say there would be a I-69 North, that's the Texas spur that splits from the main alignment continued on through Arkansas  via US 82 till it meets up with the main alignment that passes through Shreveport again in South Arkansas. Basically, you have I -35 situation in the  Dallas Metroplex.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on May 04, 2016, 07:17:07 PM
Why would they do that if they are scrapping I-69 in Arkansas? Do you actually mean to reroute I-69 along US 82? 

Arkansas scrap I-69 routing, focuses on upgrading US 82 from Texarkana to Lake Village, using new bridge there as River crossing. This becomes I-69 routing to Mississippi.

Basically, the question at this point is whether to build the stretch of I-69 planned from the Texas spur to the piece in Mississippi. The impression I get from your message is that we should scrap that stretch, but improve the US 82 corridor... as I-69?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 04, 2016, 10:58:59 PM
Why would they do that if they are scrapping I-69 in Arkansas? Do you actually mean to reroute I-69 along US 82? 

Arkansas scrap I-69 routing, focuses on upgrading US 82 from Texarkana to Lake Village, using new bridge there as River crossing. This becomes I-69 routing to Mississippi.

Basically, the question at this point is whether to build the stretch of I-69 planned from the Texas spur to the piece in Mississippi. The impression I get from your message is that we should scrap that stretch, but improve the US 82 corridor... as I-69?

Yes, use US 82 from Texarkana to Lake Village and use the new bridge between LV and Greenville as the I-69 crossing. As for I 69 for Texarkana and Shreveport, split routing at Marshall tying back together at El Dorado.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 09:50:29 AM
So you want two new freeways in a corridor that arguably cannot justify having one new freeway.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 05, 2016, 02:58:55 PM
So you want two new freeways in a corridor that arguably cannot justify having one new freeway.
isn't that pretty much what is happening even with the current plans?

Texas will get their spur of I-69 to Texarkana and Sheep ort will get their segment to the Arkansas Missouri line. And.... I-49 will run right down the middle of the two from Texarkana to Sheveveport. That is what is on the books now whether or not I-69 is built at the current alignment or by some off chance it gets pushed further south along US-82. I can't understand why Texas is going for a I-69 spur  when it is basically paralleling I-49 and only be a few miles at that. That is as wasteful as it gets, well besides the I-_9 bridge over the Mississippi.

My whole argument was to shift I-69 to the 278/82 bridge from Lake Village to Greenville to escape the billion dollar and rising cost and to do so by using US 82 as the basic route for I-69. Just further extend I-530 from Monticello to Hamburg.

Under my US 82 for I-69 routing suggestion:

I have to think building road from Texarkana along US 82 to wherever the Shreveport part of I-69 intersects US 82 and extending I- 69, an additional ( maybe) 30 miles to Greenville  instead of the current crossing proposal  and extending 530 would be cheaper than the cost of a new bridge combined.

The savings should then be pushed toward a new bridge like the V1-1 proposal of the Southern Gateway plan that mutually benefits the same two states(AR and MS) as the now abandoned I-69 would have done. You get Tennessee to ride along by pushing for a Northern Bridge  of the Southern Gateway Plan like V1-7 that benefits them, particularly their state owned Mega site. All three states gain a complete I-269 loop connecting strategic economic areas of all three states.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 03:39:04 PM
Texas is going to build their I-69 spur regardless of what anyone else does.

Louisiana's job 1 is completing I-49 from New Orleans to Texarkana. Beyond that, I wouldn't make any bets. The north and south ends can't agree on very much. Southern Louisiana folks aren't going to cheer for the current I-69 as the Baton Rouge bottleneck gets worse. I wouldn't be surprised if someone from South Louisiana gets on board with the idea of extending I-57 all the way to I-10 via US 165 and I-530. That project would unify south and north and would give us more of a reason to work with our friends in Arkansas than I-69 does.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 05, 2016, 11:13:45 PM
Texas is going to build their I-69 spur regardless of what anyone else does.

Louisiana's job 1 is completing I-49 from New Orleans to Texarkana. Beyond that, I wouldn't make any bets. The north and south ends can't agree on very much. Southern Louisiana folks aren't going to cheer for the current I-69 as the Baton Rouge bottleneck gets worse. I wouldn't be surprised if someone from South Louisiana gets on board with the idea of extending I-57 all the way to I-10 via US 165 and I-530. That project would unify south and north and would give us more of a reason to work with our friends in Arkansas than I-69 does.

If LA would give up their short section of I-69 in trade off for an I-57 to just east of Lake Charles would be awesome and make just upgrading US 82 from Texarkana to Lake Village for I-69.

I fear state highway depts are so married to current plans a divorce from them would be ugly.

Like I said, to get MS. to play along and nix a new I-69 bridge , move the bridge effort to the Southern Gateway V1-1 where it is much more useful and beneficial directly connecting the Tunica area to Arkansas's intermodal facilities.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: BullRebel95 on June 09, 2016, 07:05:50 AM
Looks like there will be another meeting for the I-69 Coalition in McGehee at 1 today.
http://www.magnoliareporter.com/news_and_business/regional_news/article_f8d66376-2c79-11e6-9677-13423ab6e034.html
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 09, 2016, 11:32:46 AM
I probably won't mind if I-69 gets cancelled in LA, AR, and MS. It'd probably be cheaper to build the rest of I-57, and make I-30 and I-40 3 lanes statewide (in AR). I would think it would have the same effect as having I-69, just not as much new terrain building.

NE2: You, sir, are a genius.

News flash, people: While LA should emphasize finishing I-49 South, the Shreveport I-49 ICC, and the Baton Rouge I-10 mess as Jobs #1-1B, they are not going to abandon I-69 through Shreveport just yet. They still need that segment of I-69 to complete the Outer Loop extension of LA 3132, now that Barksdale AFB has put its foot down against extending I-220 through there.

Extending I-155 west to meet the US 67 upgrade? Count me in on that.

Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on June 09, 2016, 12:15:40 PM
News flash, people: While LA should emphasize finishing I-49 South, the Shreveport I-49 ICC, and the Baton Rouge I-10 mess as Jobs #1-1B, they are not going to abandon I-69 through Shreveport just yet. They still need that segment of I-69 to complete the Outer Loop extension of LA 3132, now that Barksdale AFB has put its foot down against extending I-220 through there.

And how are they getting south Louisiana legislators and voters on board with that? Since we're apparently going to be on hook to cover the Legislature's failure to balance the budget, why should we support a freeway that benefits only a small portion of the state?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on October 23, 2016, 10:23:09 AM
This Oct. 20 editorial (http://www.magnoliareporter.com/news_and_business/mike_mcneills_diary/article_a150caaa-9697-11e6-8339-9bf2ac5c147f.html) is not about I-69, except that it is about a relief route for I-10, I-20, I-30 and I-40: U.S. 82 (which already has a new bridge over the Mississippi River):

Quote
A public involvement meeting was held in El Dorado this week regarding the widening of six miles of U.S. 82 from the west side bypass to the South Arkansas Regional Airport ....
It is possible that by 2026, drivers will have four lanes on U.S. 82 from the east side of El Dorado to the Red River Bridge.
We have our doubts that Interstate 69 will ever be completed through Arkansas and Louisiana in our lifetime. The work on U.S. 82 makes sense now.
Interstates 10, 20 and 30 are heavily traveled and U.S. 82 could become an important secondary route – but only if the widening across South Arkansas takes place sooner than later.

I-69 appears to be way down the Arkansas priority list.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on October 23, 2016, 12:13:13 PM
Louisiana really has no business trying to build a new interstate right now...whether it be 69 or 57. IMO, 69 is as useless as tits on a boar hog. Just let AR buy a bunch of 69 shields & hang them on the same sign posts where they have I-40 & I-30 shields from Memphis to Texarkana. Give it to Texas at Texarkana, then call that project done. You put the I-69 completion date further ahead than where it is now.

The BR projects & I-49 definitely need LaDOTD's full attention with statewide maintenance issues next. Money is at a premium. LA is broke. No new projects need to be even considered until these are finished.

Maybe this is why TxDOT hasn't pushed the EIS for SIU 16?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 23, 2016, 12:30:33 PM
Louisiana really has no business trying to build a new interstate right now...whether it be 69 or 57. IMO, 69 is as useless as tits on a boar hog. Just let AR buy a bunch of 69 shields & hang them on the same sign posts where they have I-40 & I-30 shields from Memphis to Texarkana. Give it to Texas at Texarkana, then call that project done. You put the I-69 completion date further ahead than where it is now.

The BR projects & I-49 definitely need LaDOTD's full attention with statewide maintenance issues next. Money is at a premium. LA is broke. No new projects need to be even considered until these are finished.

Maybe this is why TxDOT hasn't pushed the EIS for SIU 16?

The problem with that is that Shreveport needs I-69 to be completed in order to complete their loop now that I-220 is now essentially truncated to a gate entrance to Barksdale Air Force Base and LA 3132 (the Inner Loop) still needs a connection to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier. The fear is that if I-369 is completed to Texarkana first and then it's decided to truncate I-69 to US 59/I-30/I-40 (or US 59/I-30/US 67/I-155), then Shreveport and south Arkansas will be shut out completely.

Personally, I'd probably have Shreveport settle for completing I-49 through their city via the ICC; and use US 165 from Lake Charles through Alexandria, Monroe, and Bastrop, and US 425/AR 530/I-530 to Monticello/Pine Bluff/Little Rock to cover south Arkansas, while upgrading US 82 across that section to Greenville and US 61 from Vicksburg to Tunica. A SW to NE interstate might not be a real priority right now compared to I-49 and BTR, but it would do more to complete the LA freeway system than I-69 through NW LA would.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on October 23, 2016, 02:55:32 PM
Louisiana really has no business trying to build a new interstate right now...whether it be 69 or 57. IMO, 69 is as useless as tits on a boar hog. Just let AR buy a bunch of 69 shields & hang them on the same sign posts where they have I-40 & I-30 shields from Memphis to Texarkana. Give it to Texas at Texarkana, then call that project done. You put the I-69 completion date further ahead than where it is now.

The BR projects & I-49 definitely need LaDOTD's full attention with statewide maintenance issues next. Money is at a premium. LA is broke. No new projects need to be even considered until these are finished.

Maybe this is why TxDOT hasn't pushed the EIS for SIU 16?

The problem with that is that Shreveport needs I-69 to be completed in order to complete their loop now that I-220 is now essentially truncated to a gate entrance to Barksdale Air Force Base and LA 3132 (the Inner Loop) still needs a connection to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier. The fear is that if I-369 is completed to Texarkana first and then it's decided to truncate I-69 to US 59/I-30/I-40 (or US 59/I-30/US 67/I-155), then Shreveport and south Arkansas will be shut out completely.

In the name of good common economical sense, I must say, "Too damn bad for being left out. Y'all should have never been included to begin with." After I-49 & BR are finished, upgrade LA 3132 to interstate grade, then continue building east, turn north toward I-20 and tie in around MP 30 or 31. Then you have created I-620. (face it...if it was 420, sign thefts would become a problem)

Quote
Personally, I'd probably have Shreveport settle for completing I-49 through their city via the ICC; and use US 165 from Lake Charles through Alexandria, Monroe, and Bastrop, and US 425/AR 530/I-530 to Monticello/Pine Bluff/Little Rock to cover south Arkansas, while upgrading US 82 across that section to Greenville and US 61 from Vicksburg to Tunica. A SW to NE interstate might not be a real priority right now compared to I-49 and BTR, but it would do more to complete the LA freeway system than I-69 through NW LA would.

I completely agree. Take it to Lake Charles, build on the western edge of the Kayouche Coulee Golf Course & tie in to I-10 & I-210.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: amroad17 on October 24, 2016, 01:31:27 AM
Mississippi and Arkansas should have utilized the US 82 bridge over the Mississippi for I-69.  I-69 could have been routed along the US 61 corridor to Greenville, crossed the river, then followed US 65 and US 165 to Monroe, LA and duplexed with I-20 to Shreveport.  There is where I-69 could join its proposed routing to Texas.

If this was done, there would be no need for the Pine Bluff connector--or there could be a scaled-down version of it (two-lane limited access).
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2016, 07:37:20 AM
Quote
The problem with that is that Shreveport needs I-69 to be completed in order to complete their loop

Does Shreveport really need a full loop?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 24, 2016, 09:58:43 AM
Quote
The problem with that is that Shreveport needs I-69 to be completed in order to complete their loop

Does Shreveport really need a full loop?

Not necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on October 24, 2016, 10:07:01 AM
Does Shreveport really need a full loop?

Not necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.

There we go. I-649 from I-49 to I-20, connecting to LA 3132. The rest of I-69 in Louisiana is pork.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2016, 01:42:35 PM
Quote
Not necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.

I was under the impression that an extension of LA 3132 was proposed which would connect the port to I-49 and (conversely) I-20.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on October 24, 2016, 05:22:15 PM
Quote
Not necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.

I was under the impression that an extension of LA 3132 was proposed which would connect the port to I-49 and (conversely) I-20.

Yes, but if you build my I-620 idea, traffic needing to go from the port to east bound I-20 can avoid both back tracking & the heavy in-city traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 26, 2016, 09:28:08 AM
Quote
Not necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.

I was under the impression that an extension of LA 3132 was proposed which would connect the port to I-49 and (conversely) I-20.

The current LA 3132 extension being proposed would connect to the Port of Shreveport, but only indirectly through via a connection through an upgraded LA 1 or a new terrain route to proposed I-69, which would run from I-49 near Ellerbe Road to I-20 near Haughton. The original plan was for LA 3132 to have its own Red River crossing rather than use I-69, but that depended on the original plan of going through Barksdale AFB.

If LA 3132 was extended on its own as an I-x49, it would probably require its own Red River crossing; that would go against NWCOG's stated aim of using the extension's connection to I-69 for the completion of the southern portion of the loop. That's why I can't see Shreveport or NW LA abandoning their section of I-69. Also, the fear is that if Texas commits everything to I-369 to Texarkana before SIU's 14 and 15 of I-69 and then backs out of the LA/AR segment, Shreveport loses out on becoming a major crossroads.

Remember that highways are built as much on political coalitions as they are on gas taxes. Would Louisiana care as much about I-69 if it did bypass them for Texarkana/Little Rock, and if Shreveport didn't get consolation in the form of a full Inner Loop or the I-49 ICC??
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Wayward Memphian on October 26, 2016, 11:14:27 AM
Mississippi and Arkansas should have utilized the US 82 bridge over the Mississippi for I-69.  I-69 could have been routed along the US 61 corridor to Greenville, crossed the river, then followed US 65 and US 165 to Monroe, LA and duplexed with I-20 to Shreveport.  There is where I-69 could join its proposed routing to Texas.

If this was done, there would be no need for the Pine Bluff connector--or there could be a scaled-down version of it (two-lane limited access).


just use the Texas I-69 spur to Texarkana as the main route and then upgrade US 82 across southern Arkansas to the US 82 bridge and call it I -69. Arkansas could then run 530 all the way down to the LA border as a 2 lane limited access upgradable to interstate one day as an extention of I-57 to at least Monroe.

This would eliminate the need for a new bridge. Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.

I'd rather see any effort for a new bridge across he Mississippi reserve for the Memphis area or at least Helena as part of a new 4 lane to Batesville.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on November 01, 2016, 11:40:54 AM
Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.
I-69 in LA was not dropped. LADOT said right now it's main priority is finishing I-49 (To New Orleans and Connecting the 2 segments, creating one highway from Texarkana and Lafayette via Shreveport), then they will focus on I-69.

I-69 is just on hold.
For now.

However, I saw a post on the Future I-69 page on facebook that LA 3132 was numbered I-269. Is that actually proposed or what?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on November 01, 2016, 11:47:29 AM
Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.
I-69 in LA was not dropped. LADOT said right now it's main priority is finishing I-49 (To New Orleans and Connecting the 2 segments, creating one highway from Texarkana and Lafayette via Shreveport), then they will focus on I-69.

I-69 is just on hold.
For now.

He didn't say that it was dropped. The statement was suggestive, not a declaration of fact.

Where do you get the idea that Louisiana has any plans to focus on I-69, even post-I-49? The I-10 cluster in Baton Rouge needs attention.

However, I saw a post on the Future I-69 page on facebook that LA 3132 was numbered I-269. Is that actually proposed or what?

This would be news to most of us on here.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on November 01, 2016, 12:25:41 PM
Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.
I-69 in LA was not dropped. LADOT said right now it's main priority is finishing I-49 (To New Orleans and Connecting the 2 segments, creating one highway from Texarkana and Lafayette via Shreveport), then they will focus on I-69.

I-69 is just on hold.
For now.

He didn't say that it was dropped. The statement was suggestive, not a declaration of fact.

Where do you get the idea that Louisiana has any plans to focus on I-69, even post-I-49? The I-10 cluster in Baton Rouge needs attention.

However, I saw a post on the Future I-69 page on facebook that LA 3132 was numbered I-269. Is that actually proposed or what?

This would be news to most of us on here.

First, I'm sorry. I took that the wrong way. And a friend of mine went to a I-49 public hearing, and he asked a LADOT official about I-69, and he said we will probably begin studies after I-49 is done.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on November 01, 2016, 01:37:12 PM
And a friend of mine went to a I-49 public hearing, and he asked a LADOT official about I-69, and he said we will probably begin studies after I-49 is done.

Studies are cheap, relatively speaking.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 01, 2016, 02:25:35 PM
Mississippi and Arkansas should have utilized the US 82 bridge over the Mississippi for I-69.  I-69 could have been routed along the US 61 corridor to Greenville, crossed the river, then followed US 65 and US 165 to Monroe, LA and duplexed with I-20 to Shreveport.  There is where I-69 could join its proposed routing to Texas.

If this was done, there would be no need for the Pine Bluff connector--or there could be a scaled-down version of it (two-lane limited access).


just use the Texas I-69 spur to Texarkana as the main route and then upgrade US 82 across southern Arkansas to the US 82 bridge and call it I -69. Arkansas could then run 530 all the way down to the LA border as a 2 lane limited access upgradable to interstate one day as an extention of I-57 to at least Monroe.

This would eliminate the need for a new bridge. Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.

I'd rather see any effort for a new bridge across he Mississippi reserve for the Memphis area or at least Helena as part of a new 4 lane to Batesville.

Problem with that would be that would create an even longer stretch for I-69 if it was signed on US 82 between Texarkana and Greenville, and then US 61 from there to Memphis. The existing proposed route, even if a bit distorted, at least is more direct and serves as a direct route from Shreveport to Memphis. The only way a Greenville route through the US 82 bridge would be useful as part of I-69 would be either if I-69 was routed further east through Monroe, or if it was split between a South Texas-Corpus Christi-Houston-Texarkana section and a Lake Charles-Monroe-Greenville-Memphis segment.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: NE2 on November 01, 2016, 02:54:22 PM
The existing proposed route, even if a bit distorted, at least is more direct and serves as a direct route from Shreveport to Memphis.
False. Using EIS mileage (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13977), Shreveport-Memphis via I-49/30/40 is 12 miles SHORTER than the proposed route of I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: mvak36 on November 01, 2016, 04:08:55 PM
Would it be cheaper to widen 30 and 40 rather than building the new terrain 69? It seems more feasible to do IMO.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on November 01, 2016, 05:07:11 PM
Would it be cheaper to widen 30 and 40 rather than building the new terrain 69? It seems more feasible to do IMO.

If I-30 and I-40 could be widened by additional lane(s) in the median rather than having to acquire significant adjoining properties, then -- even with the bayou-hopping nature of I-40 between Little Rock & Memphis, which requires a substantial number of bridge structures -- it would be likely that widening of those routes would indeed cost less than the new-terrain I-69.  Subtract the "Great River" bridge on I-69 and it would probably come a little closer to parity.  But the fact is that the routing -- and the concept to begin with in this region -- is largely a result of decades of politicking and persistent lobbying by representatives and interests in south Arkansas, an area that is locally perceived to have been neglected, especially in comparison with other parts of the state.  Sure, it has neither significant population centers nor much in the way of tourist attraction -- but what's there has been vocal (and manipulative) enough to get a multi-state corridor aligned through it.  For better or worse (aka, "like it or not"), highway facilities are often the manifestations of political will; this portion of I-69 is an example of that process -- although the final product might be "tweaked" down the line to accommodate fiscal and/or localized realities. 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: rte66man on November 01, 2016, 09:37:52 PM
The existing proposed route, even if a bit distorted, at least is more direct and serves as a direct route from Shreveport to Memphis.
False. Using EIS mileage (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13977), Shreveport-Memphis via I-49/30/40 is 12 miles SHORTER than the proposed route of I-69.

That's because they refused to send it in a straight line across Arkansas. 

However, I would hope it would provide some traffic relief.  The large number of semis on I40 between Little Rock and Memphis is unreal.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bjrush on November 06, 2016, 01:24:14 PM
Did you know Scott Bennett is Chairman of the eight state I-69 Steering Committee?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on November 27, 2016, 09:57:34 AM
Would it be cheaper to widen 30 and 40 rather than building the new terrain 69? It seems more feasible to do IMO.
AHTD is already widening parts of I-40 west of Memphis, or at least widening several bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: abqtraveler on November 29, 2016, 12:13:46 AM
The existing proposed route, even if a bit distorted, at least is more direct and serves as a direct route from Shreveport to Memphis.
False. Using EIS mileage (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13977), Shreveport-Memphis via I-49/30/40 is 12 miles SHORTER than the proposed route of I-69.

That's because they refused to send it in a straight line across Arkansas. 

However, I would hope it would provide some traffic relief.  The large number of semis on I40 between Little Rock and Memphis is unreal.
The routing of I-69 from Memphis to Houston is crookeder than a dog's hind leg, and with the Highway Trust Fund, Tennessee, Mississippi,Arkansas, and Louisiana all being broke, I doubt I'll see this section of I-69 built in my lifetime (maybe my kids might be able to drive on it someday).  Politics definitely played a leading role in defining the I-69 route through Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and northeast Texas.  It would be more logical for I-69 to tie into I-155 at Dyersburg, then follow either I-55 and I-40 (or possibly US-67) to Little Rock, then I-30 to Texarkana, where it would follow its planned alignment to Houston and points south. 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: compdude787 on November 30, 2016, 01:23:46 AM
Or, just end I-69 in Memphis and renumber the Texas section of I-69 to something like I-47. I totally agree that the portion of I-69 through Arkansas is a waste of money and nothing more than a pork-barrel project. I'm pretty sure that if it does get built, it would get very little use.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 30, 2016, 04:20:50 PM
Maybe Interstate 69 could follow US 61 in Mississippi to Interstate 20, then ride along Interstate 20 to Shreveport, en route to connect with the segment in Texas. The Arkansas segment does seem like the portion of Interstate 69 that is the least likely of all the 69 segments to be constructed. But what would become of the AR 530 connector if that was done?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on November 30, 2016, 04:38:03 PM
Maybe Interstate 69 could follow US 61 in Mississippi to Interstate 20, then ride along Interstate 20 to Shreveport, en route to connect with the segment in Texas.

What benefit would that bring over just going I-55, I-220, I-20?

But what would become of the AR 530 connector if that was done?

What could happen: Make plans to extend it to Monroe, LA. Upgrade US 165. Make the whole corridor an Interstate.

What probably will happen: Nothing.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on December 02, 2016, 10:57:45 AM
AHTD has posted an I-69 FASTLANE grant application (http://www.arkansashighways.com/FastLane/I69/FASTLANE%20I-69%20PROJECT%202016%20FINAL.pdf) for ROW acquisition and design of I-69 from the eastern Monticello Bypass I-69/ US 278 interchange to the western approach of the I-69 Mississippi River (Great River) Bridge.  Here is a snip of the proposed project area (p. 7/17 of pdf; p. 4 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/OEUk2tj.png)
The cost of the project is described as follows (p. 8/17 of document; p. 5 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/opHhyb5.png)

AHTD is apparently going to try to get FASTLANE funding for this I-69 project again. In Scott Bennett's Nov. 30 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2016/113016_AHC_%20Meeting.pdf), this project is one of three that AHTD intends to submit (p. 18/65 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_02_12_16_10_55_42.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 02, 2016, 12:03:43 PM
Meanwhile I-49 sits on the back burner with all this I-69 nonsense. We may all be dead and buried before the Great River Bridge ever gets built. The only hope of it getting built any time in the foreseeable future is the federal government stepping in and funding the entire thing.

The sections of I-69 in Texas and the spur just to Shreveport are really the only new sections of I-69 that will compliment the Interstate highway system as a whole. The crooked, curvy crap between Indianapolis and Memphis will only be useful to local traffic, and only to a limited extent since the highway is bypassing most places.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bjrush on December 02, 2016, 03:25:35 PM
Robert S. Moore's personal driveway is a priority for AHTD
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 02, 2016, 05:01:56 PM
I made my proposal as a way around an Interstate through Arkansas that may not be needed or constructed. It may be impractical, I'll admit that, but to my thinking, Interstate 69 already exists west of Interstate 55 and is already planned to follow the US 61 corridor. If construction of 69 through Arkansas is unlikely to happen, maybe 69 should avoid the state altogether.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: codyg1985 on December 05, 2016, 08:12:32 AM
I made my proposal as a way around an Interstate through Arkansas that may not be needed or constructed. It may be impractical, I'll admit that, but to my thinking, Interstate 69 already exists west of Interstate 55 and is already planned to follow the US 61 corridor. If construction of 69 through Arkansas is unlikely to happen, maybe 69 should avoid the state altogether.

IMO the orphaned section of I-69 in MS should be incorporated into a westward extension of either I-269 or I-22 that crosses the MS River, terminating at I-40 near Jennette, AR. Maybe even take the loop to the north to I-555 or I-55. This would provide a true bypass of Memphis and a third MS River crossing, which would be good in the event of a New Madrid quake.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: rte66man on December 05, 2016, 02:11:47 PM
I made my proposal as a way around an Interstate through Arkansas that may not be needed or constructed. It may be impractical, I'll admit that, but to my thinking, Interstate 69 already exists west of Interstate 55 and is already planned to follow the US 61 corridor. If construction of 69 through Arkansas is unlikely to happen, maybe 69 should avoid the state altogether.

IMO the orphaned section of I-69 in MS should be incorporated into a westward extension of either I-269 or I-22 that crosses the MS River, terminating at I-40 near Jennette, AR. Maybe even take the loop to the north to I-555 or I-55. This would provide a true bypass of Memphis and a third MS River crossing, which would be good in the event of a New Madrid quake.

 :clap:  :clap:  :clap:
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 05, 2016, 04:35:41 PM
One thing is certain, the casinos in Tunica would certainly love a Mississippi River bridge crossing in their immediate area. Keep MS-304 running due West across the river and over to Hughes, AR. I don't know about curving the road up to Jennette however. I think it would probably work better merging into I-40 just East of Forrest City, especially if the road were to carry an I-22 designation. Traffic coming from Little Rock or farther West would have a straight shot into Tunica, or places farther along the I-22 corridor.

In the near term It's certainly easier to make a good case for building a new Mississippi River bridge crossing near the casinos than it is building a bridge 100 miles farther South. I have a feeling it would take Arkansas needing to build out much of its section of I-69 and somehow getting Mississippi to build the 100+ miles of I-69 they need to build between Tunica and Benoit just to set the stage for funding The Great River Bridge.

Meanwhile the old Memphis-Arkansas Bridge (I-55) is really badly in need of replacement itself. It's just two narrow lanes in each direction, has no shoulders and does not comply with modern Interstate standards. The Hernando de Soto Bridge (I-40) has no shoulders either, but has 3 lanes in each direction.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on December 05, 2016, 05:22:29 PM
One thing is certain, the casinos in Tunica would certainly love a Mississippi River bridge crossing in their immediate area. Keep MS-304 running due West across the river and over to Hughes, AR. I don't know about curving the road up to Jennette however. I think it would probably work better merging into I-40 just East of Forrest City, especially if the road were to carry an I-22 designation. Traffic coming from Little Rock or farther West would have a straight shot into Tunica, or places farther along the I-22 corridor.

Perhaps we could get the casinos to pay for a large part of it? Perhaps offer naming rights?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: silverback1065 on December 05, 2016, 05:37:56 PM
isn't the us 278 bridge enough?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on December 05, 2016, 05:38:55 PM
One thing is certain, the casinos in Tunica would certainly love a Mississippi River bridge crossing in their immediate area. Keep MS-304 running due West across the river and over to Hughes, AR. I don't know about curving the road up to Jennette however. I think it would probably work better merging into I-40 just East of Forrest City, especially if the road were to carry an I-22 designation. Traffic coming from Little Rock or farther West would have a straight shot into Tunica, or places farther along the I-22 corridor.

Perhaps we could get the casinos to pay for a large part of it? Perhaps offer naming rights?

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: codyg1985 on December 06, 2016, 08:10:05 AM
isn't the us 278 bridge enough?

Spend the money on what was going to be the I-69/US 278 bridge over the river and spend it on the bridge near Tunica/Robinsonville.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Road Hog on December 06, 2016, 05:57:37 PM
I seriously doubt Arkansas will lift a finger to help pay for a conduit that will allow tax money to exit the state more freely.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on December 08, 2016, 12:59:06 AM
isn't the us 278 bridge enough?

Spend the money on what was going to be the I-69/US 278 bridge over the river and spend it on the bridge near Tunica/Robinsonville.
I seriously doubt Arkansas will lift a finger to help pay for a conduit that will allow tax money to exit the state more freely.

The above observation is likely correct; Arkansas (as a state as well as a collection of interest groups) has a negative interest in expediting its residents access to out-of-state casinos; support for a Tunica bridge would probably be limited to east of the river.  Alternately, the I-69 route as planned potentially benefits a number of larger towns in southern AR (El Dorado, Warren, Monticello) -- or so its backers contend.  If the FASTLANE grant is approved, that would mean actual construction on about a third of the total AR I-69 mileage (including the Monticello bypass currently underway).  I think those local interests see a combination of Interstate access and relatively cheap land bringing businesses like distribution and/or warehousing to the area (as well as the usual travel-related roadside services); as I've contended in previous posts, that is the primary reason the corridor is what it is between Shreveport and Memphis; efficiency of travel between those two points is, while touted, a secondary consideration. 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Strider on December 08, 2016, 02:49:22 PM
isn't the us 278 bridge enough?

Spend the money on what was going to be the I-69/US 278 bridge over the river and spend it on the bridge near Tunica/Robinsonville.


Isn't the US 278 bridge (Greenville Bridge) up to interstate standards? If so, why spend more money on that bridge? I am not sure I understand what is going on here. Also, aren't they building the Greenville bypass?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: NE2 on December 08, 2016, 03:12:35 PM
I-69 would cross near Benoit, about 25 miles north of the Greenville Bridge. Seems it would make more sense around Rosedale, but pork will be pork.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: codyg1985 on December 08, 2016, 03:48:49 PM
isn't the us 278 bridge enough?

Spend the money on what was going to be the I-69/US 278 bridge over the river and spend it on the bridge near Tunica/Robinsonville.


Isn't the US 278 bridge (Greenville Bridge) up to interstate standards? If so, why spend more money on that bridge? I am not sure I understand what is going on here. Also, aren't they building the Greenville bypass?

They were building the US 82 Greenville bypass, but that work seems to have stalled out due to lack of funding and greater needs elsewhere in Mississippi.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: silverback1065 on December 08, 2016, 04:59:03 PM
I-69 would cross near Benoit, about 25 miles north of the Greenville Bridge. Seems it would make more sense around Rosedale, but pork will be pork.

 :-D :clap:
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on December 13, 2016, 10:48:34 AM
Or, perhaps Bennett has decided to Keep AHTD Weird, so to speak.  The base and surfacing contract letting no longer appears in the June 22 letting on the Next Three Lettings page (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pdf), and it does not appear in the August 10 letting, either.  The long wait continues ....................

The grading and structures contract was let in 2011 and this slide from Scott Bennett's December 12 presentation to the Highway Commission and Review Subcommittee (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2016/121216_SB_HCRAS.pdf) estimates that it is 74% complete and that it should be finished in mid-2017 (p.15/21 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_13_12_16_10_45_09.png)

Time marches on ...........
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on December 16, 2016, 02:39:33 AM
I-69 would cross near Benoit, about 25 miles north of the Greenville Bridge. Seems it would make more sense around Rosedale, but pork will be pork.

 :-D :clap:

IIRC, the crossing at Benoit was intended to avoid the confluence of the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers for two reasons: environmental (I don't recall the exact situation) and practical:  avoiding multiple structures across both waterways and their floodplains.  Apparently just west of Benoit is the narrowest combination of channel + floodplain below the confluence, thus the most practical/feasible location for the bridge. 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2016, 11:03:22 AM
Yeah, building an I-69 bridge across the Mississippi near Rosedale would be a heck of a lot more costly. It's 8 miles due west from Rosedale to reach stable, dry land. There's not only the Mississippi River to deal with, but the Arkansas River too. The White River also ends in that area (and creates a pretty big flood plain of its own. There's a large wildlife refuge in that area. It's pretty easy to see why I-69 would be crossing the Mississippi between Benoit, MS and McGehee, AR. But that's also assuming the segment of I-69 between Memphis and Shreveport needs to be built at all. I would be happy with MS-304 passing the casinos in Tunica, going due West across the Mississippi and dove-tailing into I-40 in Arkansas.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: silverback1065 on December 16, 2016, 12:54:03 PM
Yeah, building an I-69 bridge across the Mississippi near Rosedale would be a heck of a lot more costly. It's 8 miles due west from Rosedale to reach stable, dry land. There's not only the Mississippi River to deal with, but the Arkansas River too. The White River also ends in that area (and creates a pretty big flood plain of its own. There's a large wildlife refuge in that area. It's pretty easy to see why I-69 would be crossing the Mississippi between Benoit, MS and McGehee, AR. But that's also assuming the segment of I-69 between Memphis and Shreveport needs to be built at all. I would be happy with MS-304 passing the casinos in Tunica, going due West across the Mississippi and dove-tailing into I-40 in Arkansas.

it will be built, but that doesn't mean it needs to be built, that's another story. 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: codyg1985 on December 16, 2016, 01:23:41 PM
Yeah, building an I-69 bridge across the Mississippi near Rosedale would be a heck of a lot more costly. It's 8 miles due west from Rosedale to reach stable, dry land. There's not only the Mississippi River to deal with, but the Arkansas River too. The White River also ends in that area (and creates a pretty big flood plain of its own. There's a large wildlife refuge in that area. It's pretty easy to see why I-69 would be crossing the Mississippi between Benoit, MS and McGehee, AR. But that's also assuming the segment of I-69 between Memphis and Shreveport needs to be built at all. I would be happy with MS-304 passing the casinos in Tunica, going due West across the Mississippi and dove-tailing into I-40 in Arkansas.

it will be built, but that doesn't mean it needs to be built, that's another story. 

At this rate, I am not so sure it will be built anytime soon. Louisiana doesn't seem to have any interest in it, and AR and MS are moving at a snail's pace to do their portion.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2016, 03:34:42 PM
With the current infrastructure funding environment I don't see the Great River Bridge getting built within the next 30 years.

The forecast for I-69 projects is the Southern Indiana portion getting finished first, followed by the longer projects in South Texas and East Texas. Those probably won't be all done before 2030. By that time Louisiana might be wrapping up I-49 South and be able to start connecting Shreveport to Texas' I-69 system. Arkansas will be divided between building I-69 projects in the Southern part of the state or I-49 projects in the Western part of the state. The I-49 effort might be more beneficial since there isn't a $1 billion high clearance bridge to install on the route (just a $400 million one going over barge traffic in Fort Smith). Mississippi is in a contest to be dead last at everything in the U.S. and seems perpetually broke. Oklahoma is certainly vying for the title of crappiest state, but still has some hard work to do to beat Mississippi at sucking. That portion of I-69 between Tunica and Benoit might be among the last segments of I-69 to be built. And then the Great River Bridge would only get built after all that other stuff gets built. By that time the bridge might cost a few billion dollars to get built rather than the 2012 estimate of $750 million.

Of course the federal government could get big into highway infrastructure again, providing a lot of funding and putting these projects on a much faster track similar to what took place when the original Interstate system was getting built (an average of 1000 miles of new freeway per year). Unfortunately Washington loves to talk big and expect other people (the states) to foot the bill for all the big talk.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: silverback1065 on December 16, 2016, 04:23:28 PM
With the current infrastructure funding environment I don't see the Great River Bridge getting built within the next 30 years.

The forecast for I-69 projects is the Southern Indiana portion getting finished first, followed by the longer projects in South Texas and East Texas. Those probably won't be all done before 2030. By that time Louisiana might be wrapping up I-49 South and be able to start connecting Shreveport to Texas' I-69 system. Arkansas will be divided between building I-69 projects in the Southern part of the state or I-49 projects in the Western part of the state. The I-49 effort might be more beneficial since there isn't a $1 billion high clearance bridge to install on the route (just a $400 million one going over barge traffic in Fort Smith). Mississippi is in a contest to be dead last at everything in the U.S. and seems perpetually broke. Oklahoma is certainly vying for the title of crappiest state, but still has some hard work to do to beat Mississippi at sucking. That portion of I-69 between Tunica and Benoit might be among the last segments of I-69 to be built. And then the Great River Bridge would only get built after all that other stuff gets built. By that time the bridge might cost a few billion dollars to get built rather than the 2012 estimate of $750 million.

Of course the federal government could get big into highway infrastructure again, providing a lot of funding and putting these projects on a much faster track similar to what took place when the original Interstate system was getting built (an average of 1000 miles of new freeway per year). Unfortunately Washington loves to talk big and expect other people (the states) to foot the bill for all the big talk.

why doesn't i-49 use i-540? 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on December 16, 2016, 04:51:17 PM
The forecast for I-69 projects is the Southern Indiana portion getting finished first, followed by the longer projects in South Texas and East Texas. Those probably won't be all done before 2030. By that time Louisiana might be wrapping up I-49 South and be able to start connecting Shreveport to Texas' I-69 system.

By 2030, we will probably have I-49 through Lafayette and down to Des Allemands complete. We may have the Shreveport ICC done. I have a feeling we will not have I-49 between Des Allemands and the Westbank Expressway complete.

But, in the meantime, we have major issues in Baton Rouge. I-10 needs more lanes coming off of the Mississippi River Bridge. We also need to figure out how we're going to get traffic around Baton Rouge. Be it with a loop, a freeway/tollway along Airline Highway, something using LA 1 and LA 3127 to Boutte, etc.

If by some miracle we are able to finish both I-49 and Baton Rouge by 2030, we still have a consideration as to whether I-69 really benefits the state. If Alexandria, Lake Charles and Monroe continue to grow, those areas may demand an upgrade of US 165 to freeway grade. Shreveport will argue that it needs I-69 to better connect it to Houston. Some will counter-argue that since Texas is building infrastructure to connect Houston and Texarkana, there is no need for us to build the I-69 branch from Shreveport to Texas.

The end result that I see is that we may build I-69 from Logansport to Shreveport, but not from Shreveport to Arkansas. Not the latter until it demonstrates that it is of more economic benefit to all of Louisiana than other projects (e.g. a freeway from Monroe to Little Rock or Memphis).

Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: lordsutch on December 16, 2016, 06:07:13 PM
Meanwhile I-49 sits on the back burner with all this I-69 nonsense. We may all be dead and buried before the Great River Bridge ever gets built. The only hope of it getting built any time in the foreseeable future is the federal government stepping in and funding the entire thing.

The reality is I-69 was proposed years before I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana, so it's largely a matter of prioritizing based on project order. Plus building in southeast Arkansas is a lot cheaper per mile than the rugged terrain along US 71.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on December 17, 2016, 12:41:20 PM
The reality is I-69 was proposed years before I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana, so it's largely a matter of prioritizing based on project order. Plus building in southeast Arkansas is a lot cheaper per mile than the rugged terrain along US 71.

Cheaper/easier shouldn't move projects up to higher ranks in a priority list. IMHO, finishing 49 should always outrank finishing 69. Relieving the traffic on rugged US 71 is a greater need than creating a crooked-route pork-barrel project that isn't relieving...anything.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 18, 2016, 03:32:59 PM
Quote from: silverback1065
why doesn't i-49 use i-540?

Looking at satellite imagery in Google Earth/Maps it's pretty easy to see why I-540 in Fort Smith isn't incorporated into I-49. All of I-540 in Fort Smith is boxed in with development. There is no easy/clear way to spur a new Interstate corridor off I-540 along that existing alignment. US-71 between Exit 12 of I-540 and the Fort Chaffee portion of I-49 is all cramped with commercial and residential property. There's no affordable way to upgrade that into an Interstate quality road. By the time I-540 reaches a place where it's not totally encroached with development the road has already gone Westward a mile or so into Oklahoma.

Quote from: jbnv
By 2030, we will probably have I-49 through Lafayette and down to Des Allemands complete. We may have the Shreveport ICC done. I have a feeling we will not have I-49 between Des Allemands and the Westbank Expressway complete.

It's going to be a struggle getting I-49 built through Lafayette. That's really by far the hardest part of building I-49 South. It's not going to be a picnic punching the freeway through Broussard and other areas just South of Lafayette either. There is a lot of development along the US-90 corridor. Some of it is set back far enough for frontage roads, but a bunch of other properties are not.

The rest of the un-built segments of I-49 to New Orleans will be a little easier to complete, including the incomplete portion of the Westbank Expressway. At least the right of way is already there and reserved for the future freeway main lanes, unlike the situation in Lafayette. I'm actually kind of surprised they didn't start the I-49 South project in New Orleans first and work their way West. Build out the rest of the Westbank Expressway, then push around or through Avondale & Boutte, connect to I-310, bypass Paradis, Des Allemands and finally connect to the existing US-90 freeway in Raceland. I don't know what I-49 has in store for Bayou Vista, Idlewild and Patterson, but that's going to require a bunch of property to be bought and cleared for ROW.

Quote from: lordsutch
The reality is I-69 was proposed years before I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana, so it's largely a matter of prioritizing based on project order. Plus building in southeast Arkansas is a lot cheaper per mile than the rugged terrain along US 71.

Are you sure the I-69 NAFTA highway thing was proposed first? Whether it was formal or not, I can recall I-49 being imagined as a potential New Orleans to Kansas City highway as far back as the 1980's. Some of the freeway segments in Arkansas and Missouri that were re-signed as I-49 have been around since the 1980's or even earlier. IIRC, the I-69 extension thing is an idea that was born in the 1990's to give NAFTA a little more oomph.

At any rate, more of I-49 is actually finished. And the final big gap in the corridor within Arkansas would be a lot easier and less expensive to complete than all the stuff along the I-69 corridor. The bridge over the Arkansas River by Fort Smith is the most costly project.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on December 18, 2016, 06:19:53 PM
Quote from: jbnv
By 2030, we will probably have I-49 through Lafayette and down to Des Allemands complete. We may have the Shreveport ICC done. I have a feeling we will not have I-49 between Des Allemands and the Westbank Expressway complete.

It's going to be a struggle getting I-49 built through Lafayette. That's really by far the hardest part of building I-49 South. It's not going to be a picnic punching the freeway through Broussard and other areas just South of Lafayette either. There is a lot of development along the US-90 corridor. Some of it is set back far enough for frontage roads, but a bunch of other properties are not.

It's not going to be easy, but the project has some degree of momentum. It's a freight train slowly starting to move, but starting to move nonetheless. If the anti-freeway forces don't derail it, I can see it getting done by 2030.

I don't know what I-49 has in store for Bayou Vista, Idlewild and Patterson, but that's going to require a bunch of property to be bought and cleared for ROW.

That may not get done by 2030. But...

The rest of the un-built segments of I-49 to New Orleans will be a little easier to complete, including the incomplete portion of the Westbank Expressway. At least the right of way is already there and reserved for the future freeway main lanes, unlike the situation in Lafayette. I'm actually kind of surprised they didn't start the I-49 South project in New Orleans first and work their way West. Build out the rest of the Westbank Expressway, then push around or through Avondale & Boutte, connect to I-310, bypass Paradis, Des Allemands and finally connect to the existing US-90 freeway in Raceland.

Yes, it will be easier to extend the Westbank Expressway to the Huey Long Bridge connector than it will be to build I-49 through Lafayette. So why haven't they done it yet? Based on my experience traveling in the Westbank, I would venture that the perception of need isn't there yet. The area between the I-310 junction and the start of the Westbank Expressway isn't well-developed. People who live in Boutte, Paradis, etc. take I-310 to get to New Orleans. I doubt that the lack of a full-freeway Westbank Expressway isn't hurting traffic too much in Westwego at this point.

I have lived along the 10-12-90 corridor for most of my life. My experience with US 90 between Houma and the Westbank suggests to me that there isn't as much perceived urgency as there is between Lafayette and Houma. US 90 from Lafayette to Morgan City needs a lot of work. There's a need to create a freeway bypass through Patterson. In spite of the ROW problem, that need will lead to it getting done before the Des Allemands - Westbank segment.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on December 18, 2016, 08:00:50 PM
AHTD is apparently going to try to get FASTLANE funding for this I-69 project again. In Scott Bennett's Nov. 30 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2016/113016_AHC_%20Meeting.pdf), this project is one of three that AHTD intends to submit (p. 18/65 of pdf)

AHTD has posted the I-69 FASTLANE application (http://www.arkansashighways.com/FastLane/I69/FASTLANE%20-%20I-69%20application.pdf). There are some significant changes from last year, summarized as follows (p.5/27 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_18_12_16_7_42_15.jpeg)

Here's a map of the project area (p.5/27 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_18_12_16_7_53_05.jpeg)



why doesn't i-49 use i-540?

Some historical info from the EIS:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2079077#msg2079077
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2079426#msg2079426
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 18, 2016, 08:36:30 PM
[
Quote from: jbnv
By 2030, we will probably have I-49 through Lafayette and down to Des Allemands complete. We may have the Shreveport ICC done. I have a feeling we will not have I-49 between Des Allemands and the Westbank Expressway complete.

It's going to be a struggle getting I-49 built through Lafayette. That's really by far the hardest part of building I-49 South. It's not going to be a picnic punching the freeway through Broussard and other areas just South of Lafayette either. There is a lot of development along the US-90 corridor. Some of it is set back far enough for frontage roads, but a bunch of other properties are not.

The rest of the un-built segments of I-49 to New Orleans will be a little easier to complete, including the incomplete portion of the Westbank Expressway. At least the right of way is already there and reserved for the future freeway main lanes, unlike the situation in Lafayette. I'm actually kind of surprised they didn't start the I-49 South project in New Orleans first and work their way West. Build out the rest of the Westbank Expressway, then push around or through Avondale & Boutte, connect to I-310, bypass Paradis, Des Allemands and finally connect to the existing US-90 freeway in Raceland. I don't know what I-49 has in store for Bayou Vista, Idlewild and Patterson, but that's going to require a bunch of property to be bought and cleared for ROW.

Actually, building the Connector through Lafayette won't be as much a struggle once you get past the NIMBYism. The main issues will be how to handle the opposition of Sterling Grove against an elevated or depressed/semi-covered freeway shadowing them, and how to handle cleaning up the old Southern Pacific railyard site that has been found to be more contaminated than previously. Once you get south of Johnston Street, there are much fewer residential displacements, and the ROW of the Evangeline Thruway/US 90 corridor is already set up for easy upgradability (save for the Verot School Road and Southpark Road interchanges that would have to overpass the abutting rail line.

There is a lot more development along 90 from Broussard south to the LA 88 interchange, but one-way frontage roads and mainline overpasses at Captain Cade Road, Young Street/Youngsville Parkway, and Ambassador Caffery Parkway along with the now under construction overpass at Albertsons Parkway should resolve that.

The main reason LADOTD wants to finish the Connector and US 90 segments southward to Morgan City first rather than the Raceland to NOLA segments is legitimate: to get the I-49 corridor established. Once the Lafayette portions are finished and the West Lake Outlet to Berwick segment is completed, you are basically 2/3rds of the way finished towards the extension.

The original plans for Raceland to NOLA was to have the mainline fully elevated in its entirity for protection against flooding and to bypass Des Allemands and Paradis to the south. That was ultimately rejected as too costly, so now the plans are to cannibalize most of the US 90 corridor using the existing US 90 Bayou Des Allemands bridge, a closer bypass of east Des Allemands and Paradis, and an interchange using an extension of the existing I-310/LA 3137 roadway. Supplemental EIS's will have to be processed to reflect the changes, so that's why the delay there.



[Sorry, Grz, for hijacking a thread on I-69, but gotta go where the post is to respond.]
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 18, 2016, 09:46:18 PM
Even though talk of I-49 seems off-topic, it's still highly relevant since further development of I-69 projects in Arkansas would obviously take away from I-49 efforts. Without a HUGE amount of financial help from the federal government there is no way for Arkansas to build out both I-49 and I-69 in any sort of timely manner. And by timely, I mean a pace that would see either or both roads finished within the next 10-15 years. Right now with both federal and state governments handing out tax cuts as political candy and voters stupidly believing things like roads can build themselves for free there's not much hope for either I-49 or I-69 being finished any time soon.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: jbnv on December 19, 2016, 09:23:13 AM
It's also relevant in regards to Louisiana's participation in the project. If Louisiana had incentive to move on I-69 between Shreveport and Arkansas, that would help Arkansas prioritize and move forward on it. On the other hand, both states have significant incentives with I-49, and the result is movement in both states.

Even though talk of I-49 seems off-topic, it's still highly relevant since further development of I-69 projects in Arkansas would obviously take away from I-49 efforts. Without a HUGE amount of financial help from the federal government there is no way for Arkansas to build out both I-49 and I-69 in any sort of timely manner. And by timely, I mean a pace that would see either or both roads finished within the next 10-15 years. Right now with both federal and state governments handing out tax cuts as political candy and voters stupidly believing things like roads can build themselves for free there's not much hope for either I-49 or I-69 being finished any time soon.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on February 13, 2017, 03:49:26 PM
The grading and structures contract was let in 2011 and this slide from Scott Bennett's December 12 presentation to the Highway Commission and Review Subcommittee (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2016/121216_SB_HCRAS.pdf) estimates that it is 74% complete and that it should be finished in mid-2017 (p.15/21 of pdf)

Maybe AHTD really does intend for the grading and structures contract to be completed by mid-2017. They have released a projected letting date of July 19 For the paving contract (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pd) (p. 3/3 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_13_02_17_3_38_33.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: 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
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on April 12, 2017, 01:01:36 PM
The grading and structures contract was let in 2011 and this slide from Scott Bennett's December 12 presentation to the Highway Commission and Review Subcommittee (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2016/121216_SB_HCRAS.pdf) estimates that it is 74% complete and that it should be finished in mid-2017 (p.15/21 of pdf)

Maybe AHTD really does intend for the grading and structures contract to be completed by mid-2017. They have released a projected letting date of July 19 For the paving contract (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pd) (p. 3/3 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_13_02_17_3_38_33.png)

If the Eastern half of the Monticello Bypass is completed, What will it  be number as?  AR 569?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on April 12, 2017, 04:42:00 PM
If the Eastern half of the Monticello Bypass is completed, What will it  be number as?  AR 569?

That's one possibility.  Just as likely is US 278, with the current route relegated to business loop status.  Also look for some prominent "Future I-69" signage along the bypass.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Henry on April 13, 2017, 10:39:18 AM
If the Eastern half of the Monticello Bypass is completed, What will it  be number as?  AR 569?

That's one possibility.  Just as likely is US 278, with the current route relegated to business loop status.  Also look for some prominent "Future I-69" signage along the bypass).
Hey, better late than never, right? Then maybe LA and MS will be inspired to get serious about building their own sections of I-69, however slow the progress may be.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: codyg1985 on April 13, 2017, 10:43:41 AM
If the Eastern half of the Monticello Bypass is completed, What will it  be number as?  AR 569?

That's one possibility.  Just as likely is US 278, with the current route relegated to business loop status.  Also look for some prominent "Future I-69" signage along the bypass).
Hey, better late than never, right? Then maybe LA and MS will be inspired to get serious about building their own sections of I-69, however slow the progress may be.

I think MS would be a little more serious if they had more money. MDOT is working on a design to extend I-69 to the south from its current terminus for a few miles, so that is some progress.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on April 16, 2017, 05:43:58 PM
If the Eastern half of the Monticello Bypass is completed, What will it  be number as?  AR 569?

That's one possibility.  Just as likely is US 278, with the current route relegated to business loop status.  Also look for some prominent "Future I-69" signage along the bypass).
Hey, better late than never, right? Then maybe LA and MS will be inspired to get serious about building their own sections of I-69, however slow the progress may be.

I don't see LA being anymore interested in I-69, no matter the progress in MS & AR. They are still broke and still have other projects that are more important.

I'm surprised that they have decided to build a new Jimmy Davis bridge across the Red River next to the old one. Then they plan on making the old bridge a pedestrian & bike crossing to connect the river trails that run parallel to the Clyde Fant & Arthur Ray Teague parkways.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on April 16, 2017, 05:53:11 PM
Unless 278 goes all the way back around, I doubt there will be a number change. If it's only between US 278 and US 425, I would expect Spur 278 or Bypass 278 ala Paragould
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on April 18, 2017, 04:41:10 AM
Unless 278 goes all the way back around, I doubt there will be a number change. If it's only between US 278 and US 425, I would expect Spur 278 or Bypass 278 ala Paragould

AFAIK, the future I-69 Monticello bypass is "double ended", tying into US 278 both east and west of town -- although I do recall reading that the halves were broken up into different projects, tying together at the US 425 interchange.  Also, I seem to have read that AR 530 was supposed to be extended, at least as a 2-lane facility, south to meet the new bypass (although the connection may be a simple intersection for the time being rather than an interchange); this may be done as a separate project.  Thus, the possiblity of a US 278 reroute over the bypass remains.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on April 18, 2017, 08:30:11 AM
Unless 278 goes all the way back around, I doubt there will be a number change. If it's only between US 278 and US 425, I would expect Spur 278 or Bypass 278 ala Paragould

AFAIK, the future I-69 Monticello bypass is "double ended", tying into US 278 both east and west of town -- although I do recall reading that the halves were broken up into different projects, tying together at the US 425 interchange.  Also, I seem to have read that AR 530 was supposed to be extended, at least as a 2-lane facility, south to meet the new bypass (although the connection may be a simple intersection for the time being rather than an interchange); this may be done as a separate project.  Thus, the possiblity of a US 278 reroute over the bypass remains.
You know more than I do, then. What I have seen of the area is only the section between 278 and 425.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on April 18, 2017, 03:37:45 PM
Unless 278 goes all the way back around, I doubt there will be a number change. If it's only between US 278 and US 425, I would expect Spur 278 or Bypass 278 ala Paragould

AFAIK, the future I-69 Monticello bypass is "double ended", tying into US 278 both east and west of town -- although I do recall reading that the halves were broken up into different projects, tying together at the US 425 interchange.  Also, I seem to have read that AR 530 was supposed to be extended, at least as a 2-lane facility, south to meet the new bypass (although the connection may be a simple intersection for the time being rather than an interchange); this may be done as a separate project.  Thus, the possiblity of a US 278 reroute over the bypass remains.
You know more than I do, then. What I have seen of the area is only the section between 278 and 425.

The bypass project is split into two, with the western half receiving funding earlier than the eastern portion, which looks like it's been grubbed and cleared but not graded as of yet.  And it is quite certain that completion of the western side will precede the remainder by at least a couple of years -- in which case, I have no idea what will be posted on that section upon completion; my speculation was for the full bypass.  The previous speculation that a designation of AR 569, consistent with previous practice, would be just as valid as anything; I'd assume that any rerouting of US 278 wouldn't occur until the full bypass was finished. 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on April 26, 2017, 07:37:46 PM
AHTD appeared to put a lot of emphasis on I-69 and the I-69 Connector in their requests to the Trump Administration for the infrastructure plan (p.9/132 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_26_04_17_5_56_52.jpeg)

Both the Great River Bridge and completion of the I-69 Connector are ready to go in early 2018.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on April 26, 2017, 11:59:42 PM
AHTD appeared to put a lot of emphasis on I-69 and the I-69 Connector in their requests to the Trump Administration for the infrastructure plan (p.9/132 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_26_04_17_5_56_52.jpeg)

Both the Great River Bridge and completion of the I-69 Connector are ready to go in early 2018.

Ironically, the legislator most responsible for the inclusion of I-530/AR530 (the "I-69 Connector") in the I-69/HPC 18 authorizing legislation, former Congressman Jay Dickey (the Pine Bluff routing was compensation for the rejection of the Dickey Split, which would have taken a branch of I-69 straight up US 79 to I-40 near West Memphis), passed away on the 20th of this month. 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: chays on May 08, 2017, 11:31:04 AM
For the life of me I cannot find information on the estimated completion date of the Monticello Bypass (at least the southeastern portion of it).  Does anyone know?  IDriveArkansas says mid-2017 but that doesn't seem right.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on May 08, 2017, 04:36:15 PM
Maybe AHTD really does intend for the grading and structures contract to be completed by mid-2017. They have released a projected letting date of July 19 For the paving contract (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Lettings.pd) (p. 3/3 of pdf):
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_13_02_17_3_38_33.png)
For the life of me I cannot find information on the estimated completion date of the Monticello Bypass (at least the southeastern portion of it).  Does anyone know?  IDriveArkansas says mid-2017 but that doesn't seem right.

No telling. The paving contract has disappeared from the "next 3 lettings" list (and it is not in this month's letting). They have spent about six years on the grading contract. I can't even guess when they will start the paving contract, much less finish it.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on May 14, 2017, 08:31:01 PM
This May 10 article (http://salineriverchronicle.blogspot.in/2017/05/i-69-coalition-meeting.html) reports on an update of I-69 in Arkansas:

Quote
A meeting of the Arkansas I-69 Coalition, a group organized to promote the development of the I-69 interstate through Arkansas, meet for an update and planning session May 9th at the Saddie Johnson Center in Monticello, Arkansas.  Attendees from several counties of South Arkansas were present along with representatives of Louisiana and Mississippi.
The meeting was called to order by Dan Flowers, former head of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, who is serving as a volunteer coordinator of the Arkansas I-69 group.  A welcome was given by Drew County Judge Robert Akin, (I).  Highway Commissioner Robert Moore, who represents Southeast Arkansas on the Highway Commission made comments and introduced Lori Tudor, Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department.  Ms. Tudor presented a detailed status report on the I-69 project.
Ms. Tudor told those attending that the entire project covers 2730 miles from Canada to Mexico.  It is estimated to cost $30 billion to complete and that massive federal help is the only way to make it a reality.  The Arkansas portion of the interstate is 180 miles in length and will cost some 3.6 billion dollars.  The bridge across the Mississippi River near McGehee will cost around $1.3 billion.
Arkansas must provide $910 million for the bridge.  She went on to say all studies show the interstate will benefit Southeast Arkansas economically and from a safety standpoint.
The group was then addressed by Fourth District Congressman Bruce Westerman, (R).  He spoke of his support for all the highway projects in Arkansas and especially the I-69 and I-69 connector highways through South Arkansas.  He stated that their is talk by the Trump Administration of pursuing a trillion dollar infrastructure program to provide funding for projects such as I-69.  He said making a case for I-69 is easy, but nothing will be done until tax reform is accomplished. He did not explain how tax reform will make a trillion dollars available for infrastructure or what tax reform consist of.
Congressman Westerman told the organization that he believes the Congress should go back to allowing earmarks for projects in order for the congress to be able to constitutionally legislate how money is spent.  Earmarks have been eliminated by congress due to the unhappiness of some members over the type projects earmarked.  The Congressman stated that he did not want administration staff determining what projects receive funding.
It was pointed out to Congressman Westerman several times that the I-69 project in Arkansas is "shovel ready" meaning all environmental studies are complete and right of way has been purchased.  It is ready for construction, when money is available.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on May 26, 2017, 10:48:05 AM
In its May 9 presentation to the I-69 Coalitiom (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2017/I-69%20Coalition%20Mtg.pdf), AHTD provided a funding update for the I-69 Connector/ Future I-530 (SIU 28)(p. 9/16):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_26_05_17_10_35_22.png)

and a funding update for I-69 in Arkansas (SIUs 12-14) (p. 13/16 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_26_05_17_10_46_12.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 26, 2017, 12:25:30 PM
Ugh, the Interstate shields in those graphics are butt ugly. I don't know what's going on with the shape of that I-530 shield. Arial numerals make me want to gag. MS Office presents amateur graphics with default fonts!

I realize I'm nitpicking details not many would notice. However, for projects needing so much funding it might help to have a more professional looking presentation rather than look like something that was made to present to the local Rotary chapter.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on June 10, 2017, 05:29:12 PM
Ugh, the Interstate shields in those graphics are butt ugly. I don't know what's going on with the shape of that I-530 shield. Arial numerals make me want to gag. MS Office presents amateur graphics with default fonts!

I realize I'm nitpicking details not many would notice. However, for projects needing so much funding it might help to have a more professional looking presentation rather than look like something that was made to present to the local Rotary chapter.

Totally agree! They could at least downloaded the Roadgeek fonts!
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 11, 2017, 12:56:03 AM
They need to get the fonts right and the shape of the shields right. Hell, the "designers" don't even have to do any work. Pull up a Wikipedia page on either route and they could snag a reasonably accurate piece of SVG artwork. Of course the "designers" probably need more than MS Office and PowerPoint to use those assets. But there are plenty of other vector-based design applications that can use SVG files, both commercial (Adobe apps, CorelDRAW, Affinity Designer, etc.) and free apps (Inkscape).

Given it's a state DOT, they should have plenty of copies of the proper fonts and art files of properly designed Interstate shields. So, basically, I see zero excuse for them goofing up the Interstate shields in a presentation like this. It's a big design face-palm.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: qguy on June 11, 2017, 04:57:19 PM
They need to get the fonts right and the shape of the shields right. Hell, the "designers" don't even have to do any work. Pull up a Wikipedia page on either route and they could snag a reasonably accurate piece of SVG artwork. Of course the "designers" probably need more than MS Office and PowerPoint to use those assets. But there are plenty of other vector-based design applications that can use SVG files, both commercial (Adobe apps, CorelDRAW, Affinity Designer, etc.) and free apps (Inkscape).

Given it's a state DOT, they should have plenty of copies of the proper fonts and art files of properly designed Interstate shields. So, basically, I see zero excuse for them goofing up the Interstate shields in a presentation like this. It's a big design face-palm.

I encountered this same thing when I worked at PennDOT. When I started there, I expected to see Highway Gothic everywhere. Instead, I saw it nowhere. I mean zipsville. I was well and truly shocked.

Except for a handful of engineers, no one in the offices knew what it was or even what I was talking about when I asked about it. That includes all of the PennDOT maintenance organizations in the counties. (That told me one reason why there are so many crummy signs out there.)

To my knowledge I was the first person in all of PennDOT (yes the entire state-wide organization) to use Highway Gothic in various "non-plan" communications, like printed Word documents or PowerPoint presentations. I used (and still use, for the ease of it) the approximating Blue Highway typeface.

People would ask me how I got my shield and sign graphics to look so good. I shared the typeface liberally but in my experience a lot of office types just don't care.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on June 11, 2017, 05:10:11 PM

People would ask me how I got my shield and sign graphics to look so good. I shared the typeface liberally but in my experience a lot of office types just don't care.

Probably some low level serf.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on September 06, 2017, 02:53:33 PM
For the life of me I cannot find information on the estimated completion date of the Monticello Bypass (at least the southeastern portion of it).  Does anyone know?  IDriveArkansas says mid-2017 but that doesn't seem right.
No telling. The paving contract has disappeared from the "next 3 lettings" list (and it is not in this month's letting). They have spent about six years on the grading contract. I can't even guess when they will start the paving contract, much less finish it.

ARDOT has awarded the paving contract (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/letting/Aug%20'17%20Awards%20List.pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_06_09_17_2_46_48.png)

Assuming the grading contract is finished after approximately six years, mainline I-69 in Arkansas will soon have its first pavement (excluding AR 530/I-69 SIU 28).
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on September 06, 2017, 04:37:07 PM
For the life of me I cannot find information on the estimated completion date of the Monticello Bypass (at least the southeastern portion of it).  Does anyone know?  IDriveArkansas says mid-2017 but that doesn't seem right.
No telling. The paving contract has disappeared from the "next 3 lettings" list (and it is not in this month's letting). They have spent about six years on the grading contract. I can't even guess when they will start the paving contract, much less finish it.

ARDOT has awarded the paving contract (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/letting/Aug%20'17%20Awards%20List.pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_06_09_17_2_46_48.png)

Assuming the grading contract is finished after approximately six years, mainline I-69 in Arkansas will soon have its first pavement (excluding AR 530/I-69 SIU 28).

IIRC, this is for the initial 2 lanes of the ultimate 4, at least for the time being -- as it is with AR 530 in the vicinity? 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on September 06, 2017, 06:38:48 PM
Pine Bluff Sand & Gravel???????? When the hell did they get into the paving business???

I went there many times to get material samples while working with the paving company building I-530, US 65 widening south of Pine Bluff, etc. in the mid to late 90s.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on September 06, 2017, 07:38:56 PM
IIRC, this is for the initial 2 lanes of the ultimate 4, at least for the time being -- as it is with AR 530 in the vicinity?

Further, as forum member AHTD (has he changed his name to ARDOT?) has stated, the asphalt laid down wiil never see a 4-lane I-69:

Remove ashpalt to later replace it with the final pavement surface...well now how much more does that add to the project versus going ahead and putting down concrete and finishing off half of the new 4-lane road the first time??  :pan: What a waste of tax payer money.  :banghead:
On the contrary. Our estimates are that I-69 won't be realized within the next 25 years, which is the design life of the pavement we are putting down. So why not go ahead and provide a useable segment for the locals and help improve things in and around Monticello?
Hey, if we find ourselves in a windfall situation and funding is found for I-69, not just in Arkansas but in surrounding states, who would argue with pulling up the asphalt (with two-lane highway geometry design) and replacing it with pavement (concrete) with a geometry design for a four-lane divided Interstate?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on September 06, 2017, 07:45:37 PM
IIRC, this is for the initial 2 lanes of the ultimate 4, at least for the time being -- as it is with AR 530 in the vicinity?

Further, as forum member AHTD (has he changed his name to ARDOT?) has stated, the asphalt laid down wiil never see a 4-lane I-69:

Remove ashpalt to later replace it with the final pavement surface...well now how much more does that add to the project versus going ahead and putting down concrete and finishing off half of the new 4-lane road the first time??  :pan: What a waste of tax payer money.  :banghead:
On the contrary. Our estimates are that I-69 won't be realized within the next 25 years, which is the design life of the pavement we are putting down. So why not go ahead and provide a useable segment for the locals and help improve things in and around Monticello?
Hey, if we find ourselves in a windfall situation and funding is found for I-69, not just in Arkansas but in surrounding states, who would argue with pulling up the asphalt (with two-lane highway geometry design) and replacing it with pavement (concrete) with a geometry design for a four-lane divided Interstate?

Now that's taking the SIU concept to the next level -- it's not an Interstate, it's a placeholder!
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on September 09, 2017, 09:39:13 AM
AHTD has posted the I-69 FASTLANE application (http://www.arkansashighways.com/FastLane/I69/FASTLANE%20-%20I-69%20application.pdf). There are some significant changes from last year, summarized as follows (p.5/27 of pdf):
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_18_12_16_7_42_15.jpeg)

ARDOT's Sept. 6 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2017/20170906%20AHC%20Meeting.pdf) contains some INFRA grant applications, and apparently in the transition from FASTLANE to INFRA, ARDOT decided to shorten the application from the east end of the Monticello Bypass to U.S. 65 (p. 19/83 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_09_09_17_9_35_06.png)

Maybe ARDOT is trying to be more realistic in terms what will be granted.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on September 10, 2017, 02:28:33 PM
AHTD has posted the I-69 FASTLANE application (http://www.arkansashighways.com/FastLane/I69/FASTLANE%20-%20I-69%20application.pdf). There are some significant changes from last year, summarized as follows (p.5/27 of pdf):
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_18_12_16_7_42_15.jpeg)

ARDOT's Sept. 6 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2017/20170906%20AHC%20Meeting.pdf) contains some INFRA grant applications, and apparently in the transition from FASTLANE to INFRA, ARDOT decided to shorten the application from the east end of the Monticello Bypass to U.S. 65 (p. 19/83 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_09_09_17_9_35_06.png)

Maybe ARDOT is trying to be more realistic in terms what will be granted.

That, and the possibility that the US 65-to-US 61 segment, including the Great River Bridge, would be bundled into one (admittedly huge) package for presentation as a major, or "statement" regional project involving both AR and MS.  West of US 65, what's left as an extension of the Monticello bypass is a functional local-use SIU, but extending it to a stub-end near the projected bridge anchorage wouldn't really fit the SIU concept; if the bridge itself is stalled or otherwise delayed, a connecting road -- even an initial 2 lanes of 4 -- has little intrinsic value of its own (except to call attention to the bridge project).  Sans bridge, a connecting-road project "just sitting there" would likely draw criticism and derision from both anti-tax and anti-road quarters as wasteful spending and/or an environmental incursion.  Better to "shoot for the moon", fiscal-wise, and treat the project as one entity -- even if it means several additional years of inaction.       
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on September 16, 2017, 09:45:10 AM
For the life of me I cannot find information on the estimated completion date of the Monticello Bypass (at least the southeastern portion of it).  Does anyone know?  IDriveArkansas says mid-2017 but that doesn't seem right.

This Sept. 14 article (http://www.mymonticellonews.net/news/ardot-approves-improvement-bid-drew-county) estimates completion of the paving contract by mid-2018:

Quote
The Arkansas State Highway Commission has approved a bid for improvements to a roadway in Drew County, according to Arkansas Department of Transportation officials.
The purpose of this project is to pave 8.6 miles of the Monticello Bypass (Interstate 69) and construct embankments at each end. The improvements will extend from U.S. Highway 425 to U.S. Highway 278.
Pine Bluff Sand & Gravel Company of Pine Bluff was awarded the contract at $16,197,356.29.
Construction is scheduled to begin in two to four weeks, weather permitting. Completion is expected in mid-2018.

In about a year one should be able to drive on part of I-69 in Arkansas ......... sort of.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on November 20, 2017, 07:45:55 PM
AHTD has posted AHTD Director Scott Bennett's presentation to the December 7, 2015 Interstate 69 Coalition (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2015/120715_SEB_I-69.pdf) meeting. A slide about the Monticello Bypass ... ( p. 11/15 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/agNt6dk.png)

This October 21 article (http://salineriverchronicle.blogspot.com/2017/10/southeast-cornerstone-coalition-votes.html) reports that the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition has voted to transfer $35 million from the western part of the Monticello Bypass to the section closer to US 65 east of Monticello:

Quote
Members of the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition meet for their quarterly meeting October 19th in the conference room of the Monticello Economic Development Commission in Monticello.  There were representatives of all five counties that make up the coalition ....
Nita McDaniel submitted a resolution endorsing the plan to change the highway funding plan for I-69 in Arkansas and to move some $35,000,000 from being spent on the West of Monticello portion of the project to the East of Monticello part of the I-69 corridor.  This was the subject of an intense discussion October 18th at the intermodal board meeting, ( see intermodal article in salineriverchronicle.com ).  Ms. McDaniel presented her case for the change and asked the board to pass the resolution and send it to Highway Commissioner Robert Moore.  The board members present were very favorable in support of the resolution, except for Gregg Reep of Bradley County, who communicated the feelings of most Bradley County people, who feel the $35,000,000 should be spent as previously approve by the highway commission and that the Western portion of I-69 would help get the project moved forward and have a more immediate economic impact by assisting in the development of the intermodal park and the further construction of the I-530 connector North.  He suggested that at least some of the money should remain on the Western part, even if some is redirected.  The Western portion in question is part of what would be a bypass on the south side of Monticello.
Ms. McDaniel stressed her believe that the best thing to do is begin construction to the East of Monticello toward Highway 65.  She stated that all counties, including Bradley would benefit. She also voiced the opinion of Drew County Judge Robert Akin who is against building the Western part of the bypass because it will cause problems on Drew County Roads in the area unless overpasses are constructed.
The board voted overwhelmingly to adopt the resolution to endorse moving the money to the East with Mr. Reep voting no.

I'm not sure what the motivation is, but it is interesting that at least one person doesn't like the two-lane incremental approach.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: lordsutch on November 20, 2017, 09:40:26 PM
Sounds more like Drew County wants traffic coming through Monticello on US 425 as long as possible, rather than bypassing it to the west on AR 530.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on November 23, 2017, 02:14:16 PM
AHTD has posted AHTD Director Scott Bennett's presentation to the December 7, 2015 Interstate 69 Coalition (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2015/120715_SEB_I-69.pdf) meeting. A slide about the Monticello Bypass ... ( p. 11/15 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/agNt6dk.png)

This October 21 article (http://salineriverchronicle.blogspot.com/2017/10/southeast-cornerstone-coalition-votes.html) reports that the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition has voted to transfer $35 million from the western part of the Monticello Bypass to the section closer to US 65 east of Monticello:

Quote
Members of the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition meet for their quarterly meeting October 19th in the conference room of the Monticello Economic Development Commission in Monticello.  There were representatives of all five counties that make up the coalition ....
Nita McDaniel submitted a resolution endorsing the plan to change the highway funding plan for I-69 in Arkansas and to move some $35,000,000 from being spent on the West of Monticello portion of the project to the East of Monticello part of the I-69 corridor.  This was the subject of an intense discussion October 18th at the intermodal board meeting, ( see intermodal article in salineriverchronicle.com ).  Ms. McDaniel presented her case for the change and asked the board to pass the resolution and send it to Highway Commissioner Robert Moore.  The board members present were very favorable in support of the resolution, except for Gregg Reep of Bradley County, who communicated the feelings of most Bradley County people, who feel the $35,000,000 should be spent as previously approve by the highway commission and that the Western portion of I-69 would help get the project moved forward and have a more immediate economic impact by assisting in the development of the intermodal park and the further construction of the I-530 connector North.  He suggested that at least some of the money should remain on the Western part, even if some is redirected.  The Western portion in question is part of what would be a bypass on the south side of Monticello.
Ms. McDaniel stressed her believe that the best thing to do is begin construction to the East of Monticello toward Highway 65.  She stated that all counties, including Bradley would benefit. She also voiced the opinion of Drew County Judge Robert Akin who is against building the Western part of the bypass because it will cause problems on Drew County Roads in the area unless overpasses are constructed.
The board voted overwhelmingly to adopt the resolution to endorse moving the money to the East with Mr. Reep voting no.

I'm not sure what the motivation is, but it is interesting that at least one person doesn't like the two-lane incremental approach.
Sounds more like Drew County wants traffic coming through Monticello on US 425 as long as possible, rather than bypassing it to the west on AR 530.

That appears to be somewhat of a localized policy shift away from emphasis on the AR 530 (aka SIU #28 of the HPC 18/I-69 portfolio) corridor as a connector from Pine Bluff and Little Rock to the SE Arkansas region.  Political figures within AR went to great pains to get the 530 corridor included in the overall project, and clearly more actual construction has taken place along that segment than any other portion of the full I-69 corridor.  It'll be interesting to see if the local groups cited above find themselves at loggerheads with ARDOT or the powers that be in Little Rock regarding any funding shift away from the N-S portion of the regional network to the E-W leg.   
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on December 17, 2017, 10:25:02 PM
Future I-69: AR 569?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on December 18, 2017, 01:32:45 AM
Future I-69: AR 569?

If they're not going to do the initial phase to Interstate geometry or paving standards, it'll probably just be designated as "Bypass US 278" for the time being; the "500+actual number" idiom seems reserved for more advanced facilities, like the stub end of what's now I-49 south of Texarkana, the Barling segment, and the initial Bella Vista bypass lanes.  In other words -- if it looks reasonably like an Interstate but isn't quite yet, it gets a "5xx" number; otherwise, it's just referenced to the existing highway.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: yakra on December 19, 2017, 04:21:32 PM
Quote
like the stub end of what's now I-49 south of Texarkana
The whole thing was numbered as 549 before the switch to I-49 proper, but...
"stub end"? :confused:
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on December 19, 2017, 10:26:51 PM
Quote
like the stub end of what's now I-49 south of Texarkana
The whole thing was numbered as 549 before the switch to I-49 proper, but...
"stub end"? :confused:

Since it (AR 549) ended before the LA state line for quite some time, I would classify it as a "stub end" during that period (albeit a relatively lengthy "stub"); if someone has a more appropriate term, I certainly wouldn't quibble.  Seems to be a moot point these days as I-49 has been in place for several years. 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: RBBrittain on December 20, 2017, 08:04:44 PM
ARDOT's 2017-19 state highway map shows the east half of the Monticello Bypass as US 278B, as if it's open. (It's not the only road it shows as open when it's not; it shows the entire AR 13 Searcy bypass as open.)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: froggie on December 21, 2017, 09:03:48 AM
If the map is dated to 2019, presumably they'll be open by then.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on December 28, 2017, 06:52:44 PM
ARDOT's 2017-19 state highway map shows the east half of the Monticello Bypass as US 278B, as if it's open. (It's not the only road it shows as open when it's not; it shows the entire AR 13 Searcy bypass as open.)
They also show AR 440 as open, oddly... I wonder if with whatever plans they have for I-440 they do a sort of flyover to Gravel Ridge... :hmmm:
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: bugo on December 29, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
ARDOT's 2017-19 state highway map shows the east half of the Monticello Bypass as US 278B, as if it's open. (It's not the only road it shows as open when it's not; it shows the entire AR 13 Searcy bypass as open.)
They also show AR 440 as open, oddly... I wonder if with whatever plans they have for I-440 they do a sort of flyover to Gravel Ridge... :hmmm:

Huh? AR 440 opened to traffic in 2003.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on December 29, 2017, 04:44:04 PM
ARDOT's 2017-19 state highway map shows the east half of the Monticello Bypass as US 278B, as if it's open. (It's not the only road it shows as open when it's not; it shows the entire AR 13 Searcy bypass as open.)
They also show AR 440 as open, oddly... I wonder if with whatever plans they have for I-440 they do a sort of flyover to Gravel Ridge... :hmmm:

Huh? AR 440 opened to traffic in 2003.

IIRC there was at one time a very tentative proposal to extend AR 440 north and west as a loop around North Little Rock and rejoining  I-40 somewhere around the I-430 interchange; perhaps the AR Roadgeek is making reference to that potential extension -- the plans for which don't seem to have been followed up by any further action.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on December 29, 2017, 10:40:46 PM
ARDOT's 2017-19 state highway map shows the east half of the Monticello Bypass as US 278B, as if it's open. (It's not the only road it shows as open when it's not; it shows the entire AR 13 Searcy bypass as open.)
They also show AR 440 as open, oddly... I wonder if with whatever plans they have for I-440 they do a sort of flyover to Gravel Ridge... :hmmm:

Huh? AR 440 opened to traffic in 2003.

IIRC there was at one time a very tentative proposal to extend AR 440 north and west as a loop around North Little Rock and rejoining  I-40 somewhere around the I-430 interchange; perhaps the AR Roadgeek is making reference to that potential extension -- the plans for which don't seem to have been followed up by any further action.
I believe so, AR 440 is a stub at an interchange with itself and US 67. It could (one day) pick back up, but unlikely.

Also sparker, I recall reading somewhere in plans or on here about a loop regarding AR 440 around NLR and a reconnection point.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Road Hog on January 04, 2018, 01:58:26 PM
An AR 440 extension to AR 107 would be extremely useful. However, west of that any farther extension would be problematic because of Camp Robinson. The new highway would have to be routed around it and through developed areas, with a fearsome ROW tab.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on April 23, 2018, 08:18:11 PM
ARDOT's Sept. 6 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2017/20170906%20AHC%20Meeting.pdf) contains some INFRA grant applications, and apparently in the transition from FASTLANE to INFRA, ARDOT decided to shorten the application from the east end of the Monticello Bypass to U.S. 65 (p. 19/83 of pdf):
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_09_09_17_9_35_06.png)
This October 21 article (http://salineriverchronicle.blogspot.com/2017/10/southeast-cornerstone-coalition-votes.html) reports that the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition has voted to transfer $35 million from the western part of the Monticello Bypass to the section closer to US 65 east of Monticello

It's a little dated news, but this February 11 article (http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/feb/11/bypass-for-monticello-takes-back-seat-t/?f=business) reports that the Arkansas Highway Commission followed the lead of the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition and shifted the money intended for the western part of the Monticello Bypass to building I-69 east to U.S. 65. This illustration from the article sums it up nicely:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_23_04_18_8_14_05.jpeg)

Perhaps they are shifting the funding in part to increase their odds of getting the INFRA grant.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on June 18, 2018, 07:46:25 PM
ARDOT's Sept. 6 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2017/20170906%20AHC%20Meeting.pdf) contains some INFRA grant applications, and apparently in the transition from FASTLANE to INFRA, ARDOT decided to shorten the application from the east end of the Monticello Bypass to U.S. 65 (p. 19/83 of pdf):
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_09_09_17_9_35_06.png)
This October 21 article (http://salineriverchronicle.blogspot.com/2017/10/southeast-cornerstone-coalition-votes.html) reports that the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition has voted to transfer $35 million from the western part of the Monticello Bypass to the section closer to US 65 east of Monticello
It's a little dated news, but this February 11 article (http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/feb/11/bypass-for-monticello-takes-back-seat-t/?f=business) reports that the Arkansas Highway Commission followed the lead of the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition and shifted the money intended for the western part of the Monticello Bypass to building I-69 east to U.S. 65. This illustration from the article sums it up nicely:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_23_04_18_8_14_05.jpeg)
Perhaps they are shifting the funding in part to increase their odds of getting the INFRA grant.

The focus was on the Bella Vista Bypass project not being awarded an INFRA grant, but this June 8 article (http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2018/jun/08/no-federal-money-for-bella-vista-bypass/) quotes ARDOT spokesman Danny Straessle as saying that no Arkansas projects received a grant:

Quote
Danny Straessle, a spokesman for the Arkansas Department of Transportation, said Thursday no Arkansas projects made the cut. A list of projects was released earlier this week.

Here is a snip of the Arkansas applications from the comprehensive list of USDOT (https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/subdoc/246/infra-2017-2018-applicationlist.pdf) (p. 1/6 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_18_06_18_7_44_27.jpeg)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on July 08, 2018, 08:28:21 PM
It's a little dated news, but this February 11 article (http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/feb/11/bypass-for-monticello-takes-back-seat-t/?f=business) reports that the Arkansas Highway Commission followed the lead of the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition and shifted the money intended for the western part of the Monticello Bypass to building I-69 east to U.S. 65.

ARDOT has released the 2019-2022 Draft STIP (http://www.ardot.gov/stip/2019-2022/2019_2022_STIP_Draft_General_Electronic.pdf) and it shows that they are willing to go with construction east to US 65 in 2022 and buy ROW for the westwern part of the Monticello Bypass in 2019 (p. 32/216 of pdf; p. 4 of document):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_08_07_18_8_26_51.jpeg)
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on July 08, 2018, 11:45:37 PM
It's a little dated news, but this February 11 article (http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/feb/11/bypass-for-monticello-takes-back-seat-t/?f=business) reports that the Arkansas Highway Commission followed the lead of the Southeast Arkansas Cornerstone Coalition and shifted the money intended for the western part of the Monticello Bypass to building I-69 east to U.S. 65.

ARDOT has released the 2019-2022 Draft STIP (http://www.ardot.gov/stip/2019-2022/2019_2022_STIP_Draft_General_Electronic.pdf) and it shows that they are willing to go with construction east to US 65 in 2022 and buy ROW for the westwern part of the Monticello Bypass in 2019 (p. 32/216 of pdf; p. 4 of document):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_08_07_18_8_26_51.jpeg)

IIRC, that eastern extension to US 65 is a full-width ROW like what's U.C. now, but also with 2 lanes as per present construction.  Will this include any grade separation structures or will simply be the initial lanes of the eventual facility, with at-grade interim intersections? 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on October 10, 2018, 02:01:50 PM
Finally, the ribbon-cutting for the first two lanes of the Monticello Bypass (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2018/NR%2018-307.pdf) will be held on Octoiber 11:

Quote
WHAT: Ribbon-cutting to celebrate completion of the first segment of the Monticello Bypass
WHO: Members of the Arkansas Highway Commission, ARDOT Officials, Lt. Governor Tim Griffin, and local area officials
WHEN: Thursday, October 11 at 11:00 a.m.
WHERE: See attached map. Travel south on U.S Highway 425 to the intersection of Future U.S. Highway 69, turn east on 278 Bypass, proceed for one mile to event site.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: US71 on October 10, 2018, 02:40:56 PM
Finally, the ribbon-cutting for the first two lanes of the Monticello Bypass (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2018/NR%2018-307.pdf) will be held on Octoiber 11:

Quote
WHAT: Ribbon-cutting to celebrate completion of the first segment of the Monticello Bypass
WHO: Members of the Arkansas Highway Commission, ARDOT Officials, Lt. Governor Tim Griffin, and local area officials
WHEN: Thursday, October 11 at 11:00 a.m.
WHERE: See attached map. Travel south on U.S Highway 425 to the intersection of Future U.S. Highway 69, turn east on 278 Bypass, proceed for one mile to event site.

tempting, but can't do it on less than 24 hours notice.

Wait! Did they say US 69?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on October 10, 2018, 04:52:06 PM
Finally, the ribbon-cutting for the first two lanes of the Monticello Bypass (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2018/NR%2018-307.pdf) will be held on Octoiber 11:

Quote
WHAT: Ribbon-cutting to celebrate completion of the first segment of the Monticello Bypass
WHO: Members of the Arkansas Highway Commission, ARDOT Officials, Lt. Governor Tim Griffin, and local area officials
WHEN: Thursday, October 11 at 11:00 a.m.
WHERE: See attached map. Travel south on U.S Highway 425 to the intersection of Future U.S. Highway 69, turn east on 278 Bypass, proceed for one mile to event site.

tempting, but can't do it on less than 24 hours notice.

Wait! Did they say US 69?

Of course they did.  They're garden-variety PR folks who can't be bothered to (a) vet their info through the planners down the hall, or (b) discern any details about things that don't personally affect them.   Nevertheless, that certainly isn't enhancing their employer's reputation!   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on October 10, 2018, 05:42:21 PM
Finally, the ribbon-cutting for the first two lanes of the Monticello Bypass (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2018/NR%2018-307.pdf) will be held on Octoiber 11:

Quote
WHAT: Ribbon-cutting to celebrate completion of the first segment of the Monticello Bypass
WHO: Members of the Arkansas Highway Commission, ARDOT Officials, Lt. Governor Tim Griffin, and local area officials
WHEN: Thursday, October 11 at 11:00 a.m.
WHERE: See attached map. Travel south on U.S Highway 425 to the intersection of Future U.S. Highway 69, turn east on 278 Bypass, proceed for one mile to event site.

tempting, but can't do it on less than 24 hours notice.

Wait! Did they say US 69?

Of course they did.  They're garden-variety PR folks who can't be bothered to (a) vet their info through the planners down the hall, or (b) discern any details about things that don't personally affect them.   Nevertheless, that certainly isn't enhancing their employer's reputation!   :rolleyes:

I hope there is a US 69 shield in the field up there. That would make the trip worth taking.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on October 11, 2018, 01:22:38 AM
I hope there is a US 69 shield in the field up there. That would make the trip worth taking.

I'll bet that the guys in the field are a bit more savvy than your typical HQ PR flack; besides, there's been a few "future corridor" MGS's in the field with a shield facsimile for comparison.  And -- most telling -- since US 69 never entered the state, there's no US 69 shields lying around in some corporate yard to be misappropriated!  :-P
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: txstateends on October 11, 2018, 04:41:06 AM
That kind of mess is one of the big reasons I'm not wild about the interstate being numbered 69 in TX.  There will be potential for all kinds of wrong-type/wrong-highway mixups and such.  Few will know which 69 is meant in those cases.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: codyg1985 on October 11, 2018, 03:45:28 PM
Looks like the Moniticello bypass is being signed as Bypass US 278:
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on October 11, 2018, 04:14:19 PM
That kind of mess is one of the big reasons I'm not wild about the interstate being numbered 69 in TX.  There will be potential for all kinds of wrong-type/wrong-highway mixups and such.  Few will know which 69 is meant in those cases.

Well, TX has been duplicating designations for as long as I can remember (35, 87, 20 -- the list goes on).  Would be fun to see if any wrong shield types have been posted over the years (pictures would be appreciated!). 
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 11, 2018, 05:22:38 PM
Bypass US 278? What happened to the Highway 569 designation? Once the whole Monticello Bypass is complete, could the bypass be given the mainline US 278 designation, given that making it a four-lane Interstate 69 freeway is light-years away?
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 12, 2018, 03:59:01 PM
Finally, the ribbon-cutting for the first two lanes of the Monticello Bypass (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2018/NR%2018-307.pdf) will be held on Octoiber 11:

Quote
WHAT: Ribbon-cutting to celebrate completion of the first segment of the Monticello Bypass
WHO: Members of the Arkansas Highway Commission, ARDOT Officials, Lt. Governor Tim Griffin, and local area officials
WHEN: Thursday, October 11 at 11:00 a.m.
WHERE: See attached map. Travel south on U.S Highway 425 to the intersection of Future U.S. Highway 69, turn east on 278 Bypass, proceed for one mile to event site.

tempting, but can't do it on less than 24 hours notice.

Wait! Did they say US 69?
US 10 :-D :spin:
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: cjk374 on October 12, 2018, 10:55:42 PM
Bypass US 278? What happened to the Highway 569 designation? Once the whole Monticello Bypass is complete, could the bypass be given the mainline US 278 designation, given that making it a four-lane Interstate 69 freeway is light-years away?

I find that designation very interesting. Perhaps Arkansas may be giving up on I-69 despite their future corridor signs?  :hmmm:
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on October 13, 2018, 01:10:55 AM
Bypass US 278? What happened to the Highway 569 designation? Once the whole Monticello Bypass is complete, could the bypass be given the mainline US 278 designation, given that making it a four-lane Interstate 69 freeway is light-years away?

I find that designation very interesting. Perhaps Arkansas may be giving up on I-69 despite their future corridor signs?  :hmmm:

At this point, doubtful.  Until more of the corridor is built, this "half bypass" has only one function, and that is to bypass US 278's eastern portion in Monticello.  The designation is appropriate for that purpose, since US 425 traffic intending to turn east on US 278 can now bypass the in-town segment on the new alignment.  If the remainder presently planned eastward to US 65 at McGehee is also 2 lanes as well, expect that bypass designation to continue east -- unless ARDOT simply decides to reroute the US 278 mainline over the nascent I-69 alignment.  Until either divided segments are built, or grade separation structures are in the works, don't expect to see any I-69 field references beyond the sporadic stuff that's deployed right now.   As arguably the most isolated portion of the whole I-69 corridor -- and, as such, not really useful as a functional (as opposed to legislated) SIU -- premature signage would be something of a joke!
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Grzrd on July 17, 2019, 12:31:28 PM
This article (https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/jun/13/road-panel-studies-wish-list-20190613/) about the proposed extension of the half-cent sales tax Shows ArDOT's "wish list" for the next twenty years
I found a more detailed map at https://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2019/20190612%20AHC%20Meeting%20Slides.pdf (page 45)
(above quotes from I-49 in Arkansas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2422867#msg2422867) thread)

I wanted to mention that the map to which mvak36 provided a link only sets aside $150 million for selected two-lane segments of I-69:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_17_07_19_12_27_31.png)

It looks like four-lane interstate construction won't happen for I-69 unless the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge is funded.

Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 17, 2019, 12:38:26 PM
This article (https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/jun/13/road-panel-studies-wish-list-20190613/) about the proposed extension of the half-cent sales tax Shows ArDOT's "wish list" for the next twenty years
I found a more detailed map at https://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2019/20190612%20AHC%20Meeting%20Slides.pdf (page 45)
(above quotes from I-49 in Arkansas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2422867#msg2422867) thread)

I wanted to mention that the map to which mvak36 provided a link only sets aside $150 million for selected two-lane segments of I-69:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_17_07_19_12_27_31.png)

It looks like four-lane interstate construction won't happen for I-69 unless the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge is funded.



The important thing here, though, is that there is a full commitment on Arkansas' part to ultimately complete their portion of I-69, rather than cancel it and settle for the option of truncating it at Texarkana via I-369. It may not happen soon, and it may be at less than glacier's pace, but it will happen.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on July 17, 2019, 08:09:52 PM
This article (https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/jun/13/road-panel-studies-wish-list-20190613/) about the proposed extension of the half-cent sales tax Shows ArDOT's "wish list" for the next twenty years
I found a more detailed map at https://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2019/20190612%20AHC%20Meeting%20Slides.pdf (page 45)
(above quotes from I-49 in Arkansas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2422867#msg2422867) thread)

I wanted to mention that the map to which mvak36 provided a link only sets aside $150 million for selected two-lane segments of I-69:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_17_07_19_12_27_31.png)

It looks like four-lane interstate construction won't happen for I-69 unless the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge is funded.



The important thing here, though, is that there is a full commitment on Arkansas' part to ultimately complete their portion of I-69, rather than cancel it and settle for the option of truncating it at Texarkana via I-369. It may not happen soon, and it may be at less than glacier's pace, but it will happen.

I'm guessing that the "missing link" on the I-69 alignment between Monticello and US 65 is because of the previously announced separate funding for that segment.  Building the entire AR section out to a 2-lane expressway (assuming they're not going to go "all out" at present with a Super-2 featuring full grade separation) is probably the most rational way to approach the project; provide a facility with Interstate-grade geometry and lines of sight (arguably safer than present regional roads) that will be regionally functional in the interim.  And it looks like ADOT is taking care of the in-state priority of providing the AR 530 branch from Monticello to Pine Bluff and on to LR in this phase; that was probably long preordained!  At this point, one would have to speculate as to whether LA would consider following suit with a 2-lane facility for the I-69 corridor from I-20 north to the AR state line.   Side thought:  if there is follow-through on this project phase, can we expect "AR 569" signs to appear on completed 2-lane segments of the corridor?     
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: MikieTimT on July 18, 2019, 01:25:02 PM
This article (https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/jun/13/road-panel-studies-wish-list-20190613/) about the proposed extension of the half-cent sales tax Shows ArDOT's "wish list" for the next twenty years
I found a more detailed map at https://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2019/20190612%20AHC%20Meeting%20Slides.pdf (page 45)
(above quotes from I-49 in Arkansas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2422867#msg2422867) thread)

I wanted to mention that the map to which mvak36 provided a link only sets aside $150 million for selected two-lane segments of I-69:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_17_07_19_12_27_31.png)

It looks like four-lane interstate construction won't happen for I-69 unless the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge is funded.



The important thing here, though, is that there is a full commitment on Arkansas' part to ultimately complete their portion of I-69, rather than cancel it and settle for the option of truncating it at Texarkana via I-369. It may not happen soon, and it may be at less than glacier's pace, but it will happen.

I'm guessing that the "missing link" on the I-69 alignment between Monticello and US 65 is because of the previously announced separate funding for that segment.  Building the entire AR section out to a 2-lane expressway (assuming they're not going to go "all out" at present with a Super-2 featuring full grade separation) is probably the most rational way to approach the project; provide a facility with Interstate-grade geometry and lines of sight (arguably safer than present regional roads) that will be regionally functional in the interim.  And it looks like ADOT is taking care of the in-state priority of providing the AR 530 branch from Monticello to Pine Bluff and on to LR in this phase; that was probably long preordained!  At this point, one would have to speculate as to whether LA would consider following suit with a 2-lane facility for the I-69 corridor from I-20 north to the AR state line.   Side thought:  if there is follow-through on this project phase, can we expect "AR 569" signs to appear on completed 2-lane segments of the corridor?     

It seems to currently be standard operating procedure in this state for all of the Future I-** segments to be designated AR-5** if they weren't already a US highway beforehand.  I'd be shocked if it were different.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: sparker on July 18, 2019, 05:52:10 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
While "AR 569" signs may indeed appear on subsequently opened interim I-69 segments, the Monticello bypass, the first let project on the AR portion of the mainline corridor, is currently slated to be signed as "Bypass US 278"; no reference to any other number has been forwarded by ADOT.  Of course, this may change as additional segments are constructed to this "first phase" level.
Title: Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 18, 2019, 06:41:15 PM
I wouldn't even expect AR DOT to build interim segments of "AR-569" with any at-grade separation. They might as well build segments of proposed I-69 in Arkansas just like the Southern extension of I-530, a 2-lane AR-530 route. That one has minimal grade separation, just 3 bridges on the Northern part of 2 disconnected segments. It only qualifies as a Super-2 based on the geometry and grade quality of the 2 lane road. While the road is far from being like a complete Interstate highway the established route takes the vital step of securing the ROW along that corridor. AR-530 can be upgraded into I-530 in phases without having to acquire any more land.

It's probably going to be more difficult in certain locations for I-49 to be built between Fort Smith and Texarkana in phases of 2 lanes first then 4 lanes later. I-49 will probably be extended South from Fort Smith in a pretty slow manner. I think overall progress will move down in one direction unless TX DOT gets involved and builds their little portion of the road near Texarkana. Then that might give AR DOT more incentive to put down initial 2-lane sections of "AR-549" from Ashdown to DeQueen. The bypasses around towns like Waldron or Mena will happen independent of that progress (I think). The construction in the mountains will likely be last.