AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in MS  (Read 74792 times)

Stephane Dumas

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1884
  • Last Login: Today at 06:23:29 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #175 on: June 07, 2018, 07:57:17 PM »

Wouldn't be more easier to upgrade that part of US-61 as I-69? Since others parts of US-61 will become part of I-69 like the current Clarksdale bypass.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1786
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 03:03:55 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #176 on: June 08, 2018, 11:43:47 AM »

In some respects it is easier to build a brand new Interstate on new terrain near or parallel to an existing 4 lane highway. In the case of US-61 in Mississippi frontage roads would be a must in some areas for an Interstate upgrade to prevent access to farms or buildings from being removed. There's a lot of driveways and farm access entrances coming off of US-61. An Interstate with frontage roads eats a lot more land (and existing buildings too close to the ROW). Tunica and North Tunica would need a new freeway bypass regardless. I don't know how well the existing US-61 pavement complies with Interstate standards. A bunch of those main lanes and shoulders might have to be rebuilt from scratch. That would compound costs (removing old road bed and building new).

A good stretch of US-61 South of Tunica would be good for rebuilding as an Interstate since there's hardly any buildings next to the road until it gets near Clarksdale. But there's still the issue of maintaining access to farm land.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5914
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:02:33 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #177 on: June 08, 2018, 05:59:25 PM »

In some respects it is easier to build a brand new Interstate on new terrain near or parallel to an existing 4 lane highway. In the case of US-61 in Mississippi frontage roads would be a must in some areas for an Interstate upgrade to prevent access to farms or buildings from being removed. There's a lot of driveways and farm access entrances coming off of US-61. An Interstate with frontage roads eats a lot more land (and existing buildings too close to the ROW). Tunica and North Tunica would need a new freeway bypass regardless. I don't know how well the existing US-61 pavement complies with Interstate standards. A bunch of those main lanes and shoulders might have to be rebuilt from scratch. That would compound costs (removing old road bed and building new).

A good stretch of US-61 South of Tunica would be good for rebuilding as an Interstate since there's hardly any buildings next to the road until it gets near Clarksdale. But there's still the issue of maintaining access to farm land.

Generally speaking, when a presently divided general-access facility is selected for a freeway upgrade, the choice to use the existing alignment is dependent upon such issues as number of private driveways and other access roads are present; how much actual space is between the main carriageways and the adjacent buildings (i.e., room to deploy frontage roads without impinging too much on private lands), the median width and whether the private access includes crossovers to the opposite-direction lanes, and the details of the existing facility -- whether it meets or can be readily upgraded to Interstate-grade geometry; whether there is sufficient room for periodic grade separations, and how interchanges are to be handled and whether or not the frontage roads figure into the interchange schematics.  Compound that with local resentments regarding inconveniences imposed by having to make multiple driving moves to regain the access provided by the prior non-limited-access facility, and you have much of the reason why in many circumstances existing divided facilities are fully bypassed by parallel new-terrain routes.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #178 on: August 10, 2018, 02:24:30 PM »

This August 1 article discusses Coahoma County projects contained (or not) in Mississippi's draft STIP; a MDOT official indicates that there could be discussion about I-69 at a public meeting held on August 2:

Quote
When members of the Mississippi Departmemt of Transportation unveil its Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan plan to members of the public this Thursday, there's going to be little mention of Coahoma County.
Mitch Turner, who is district engineer with the Department of Treansportation's District 2 office in Batesville, said there is "limited" mention of Coahoma County in the plan as most of the projects that will be unveiled are "long-range type plans." ....
One project that could eventually have an impact would be Interstate 69.
"I think there'll be some discussion about the future of I-69 and how it will affect Coahomas County and the area," Turner said, but added, "There won't be any specifics, because there aren't any specifics about that right now."

To sum it up, aside from paying off bonds for the section connecting Memphis to Tunica, there are no I-69 projects in the Draft STIP.

Here's the link to the 2019-2022 Draft STIP:

http://mdot.ms.gov/FiveYearPlanData/2019-2022%20Draft%20STIP/2019-2022%20STIP%20Draft.pdf
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 02:45:11 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 257
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 06:28:54 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #179 on: August 08, 2019, 01:35:35 AM »

A lot of the proposed I-69 route through Mississippi will run over the US-61 alignment. If I were MDOT, I would start the transition of US-61 to I-69 by doing some very simple upgrades when it comes time for periodic resurfacing projects, like widening shoulders, closing off some at-grade intersections that don't draw a lot of cross traffic, and adding cable barriers where appropriate. Each year, look at replacing one major intersection with and interchange. A typical rural diamond interchange costs around $6 to 8 million to build on average. Save the new-terrain sections and the Great River Bridge until the money is there to build those portions.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1786
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 03:03:55 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #180 on: August 08, 2019, 11:10:58 AM »

A lot of US-61 between Clarksdale and Tunica can be upgraded pretty easily since its in rural areas. Normal diamond interchanges can replace some intersections while other at-grade crossings can be replaced with non-exit bridges or just dead-ended at the highway.

Some other areas are going to require more work. The town of Tunica will require a new terrain bypass. Just North of Clarksdale there is a modest yet still significant amount of development hugging too close to US-61/49. Either a bunch of those properties would have to be bought and demolished to upgrade the existing road or the Clarksdale bypass would have to be extended North around those properties. The upgrade will be a long term thing. If they choose to upgrade the existing highway a program of clearing properties and building one or more frontage roads through that zone could lay the ground work for the eventual Interstate upgrade.
Logged

mwb1848

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 194
  • Location: El Paso, TX
  • Last Login: September 16, 2019, 10:43:55 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #181 on: August 08, 2019, 12:29:46 PM »

Was just thinking yesterday about the very different approach to rural Interstate construction in my home state (Mississippi) and my adopted home state (Texas).

Virtually everywhere, Mississippi has constructed interstates generally parallel to the U.S. routes by which they were pre-dated; meanwhile, Texas integrated those U.S. routes into the eventual interstate alignments.

As states (none so much as Mississippi) struggle with funding on-going maintenance costs, you just have to think that redundancy has factored into the hole they're trying to dig out of. Thought I-69 in Mississippi isn't very long, hopefully MDOT recognizes the on-going impacts of maintaining two such parallel facilities with I-69 and US 61 and uses the Texas approach.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1786
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 03:03:55 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #182 on: August 08, 2019, 12:48:25 PM »

Unfortunately Interstate highways require a much wider ROW, regardless if they're flanked by frontage roads or not. Many places across the country have busy 4-lane roads where commercial and residential development has been allowed to build right up on the main lanes of the highway, even with driveways allowing 90° turning traffic to enter the main lanes at very slow speeds. We all know it can be very difficult both politically and logistically to improve such a 4-lane divided highway up to Interstate standards. Lots of property has to be cleared yet not everyone in the path of the new highway is in a position to pull up stakes and move. That's where we get a lot of the parallel, redundant routes with more miles of road for the state to maintain. It's also, in part, how we get new Interstate highways built on anything but a reasonably direct path.

Texas lucked out by being very forward-looking with highway development decades ago. Some of these divided streets with giant medians were configured that way decades before a freeway was finally planted in the median. But it sure made building the freeway so much easier when the time finally came. Too many other states (cough, Oklahoma) only do things good enough to get by for today; they don't think about what they're going to need 20-30 years in the future.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2269
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 11:36:41 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #183 on: August 08, 2019, 04:05:00 PM »

Will any more of Interstate 69 in Mississippi (or anywhere outside of Texas and Kentucky) be built within our lifetimes. If I had a crystal ball, I suspect it would say no.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5914
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:02:33 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #184 on: August 08, 2019, 04:19:28 PM »

Will any more of Interstate 69 in Mississippi (or anywhere outside of Texas and Kentucky) be built within our lifetimes. If I had a crystal ball, I suspect it would say no.

While there's a remote possibility -- if Memphis-area exurban development stretches south in the vicinity of US 61 -- that Tunica-to-Clarksdale could happen within 20-25 years, unless there's some action regarding the Mississippi River "Great Bridge", it's not likely MS will have any incentive to put what funds it can raise, scrounge, or borrow into an Interstate-level improvement of US 61 south of the Clarksdale bypass.   They're as close to broke as a state can be these days, and the central I-69 segment doesn't seem to be highly prioritized in any of the states it traverses -- so that combination doesn't bode well for the corridor.   
Logged

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 564
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: September 16, 2019, 06:26:25 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #185 on: August 08, 2019, 06:48:30 PM »

Will any more of Interstate 69 in Mississippi (or anywhere outside of Texas and Kentucky) be built within our lifetimes. If I had a crystal ball, I suspect it would say no.
I agree, it's hard to see much of a prospect for I-69 in MS or AR. But the Tennessee portion will get built. Eventually. Very slowly, no doubt.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 281
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: September 16, 2019, 10:53:48 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #186 on: August 08, 2019, 08:55:50 PM »

I agree, it's hard to see much of a prospect for I-69 in MS or AR. But the Tennessee portion will get built. Eventually. Very slowly, no doubt.

Progress is being made on I-69 in Arkansas around the Monticello area and eastward to US-65, but other than that, not much in the works unless we decide to extend the half cent sales tax in perpetuity.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 257
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 06:28:54 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #187 on: August 09, 2019, 12:15:19 AM »

I agree, it's hard to see much of a prospect for I-69 in MS or AR. But the Tennessee portion will get built. Eventually. Very slowly, no doubt.

Progress is being made on I-69 in Arkansas around the Monticello area and eastward to US-65, but other than that, not much in the works unless we decide to extend the half cent sales tax in perpetuity.

As I follow things, Arkansas is taking the same approach with I-69 as it is with building its remaining portions of I-49.  Start off by building 2-lane segments, with enough ROW to eventually expand to full interstate later on.  From what I've read, we may see ARDOT let a contract to build the first two lanes for the Monticello to US-65 section in the foreseeable future.

Over in Mississippi, they're broke, and it looks like the political establishment there has no appetite to come up with new revenue streams to fix the existing highway system, let alone build new roads. The only reason they were able to get the section built between US-61 and I-55 is from the revenue generated by the Tunica casinos.  But beyond Tunica, there is no money to be had to build I-69.  That's why I suggested that when MDOT performs routine work on US-61 they do what they can to start getting the roadway closer to what it needs to be to accommodate I-69.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 195
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:43 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #188 on: August 11, 2019, 10:19:27 AM »

I agree, it's hard to see much of a prospect for I-69 in MS or AR. But the Tennessee portion will get built. Eventually. Very slowly, no doubt.

Progress is being made on I-69 in Arkansas around the Monticello area and eastward to US-65, but other than that, not much in the works unless we decide to extend the half cent sales tax in perpetuity.

As I follow things, Arkansas is taking the same approach with I-69 as it is with building its remaining portions of I-49.  Start off by building 2-lane segments, with enough ROW to eventually expand to full interstate later on.  From what I've read, we may see ARDOT let a contract to build the first two lanes for the Monticello to US-65 section in the foreseeable future.

Over in Mississippi, they're broke, and it looks like the political establishment there has no appetite to come up with new revenue streams to fix the existing highway system, let alone build new roads. The only reason they were able to get the section built between US-61 and I-55 is from the revenue generated by the Tunica casinos.  But beyond Tunica, there is no money to be had to build I-69.  That's why I suggested that when MDOT performs routine work on US-61 they do what they can to start getting the roadway closer to what it needs to be to accommodate I-69.

The Tunica Casinos are stuggling now, several have closed.

I'll say it again, that segment of I-69 screams for a bridge and connector to I-40 near Lehi AR (old Nascar Track) to take strain off of the Old Bridge in Memphis

Eventually a second new bridge connecting the I-55/I-555 junction to the future I-69/I-I-269 junction in Millington for a complete outer loop of Memphis. That just me wishing away some time.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 257
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 06:28:54 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #189 on: August 11, 2019, 11:55:03 AM »

Agreed. It would make perfect sense to extend I-269 across the river from Millington to I-55, and extend the I-269 designation over I-69 to where 69 splits with MS-304, then continue westward over 304 paat Tunica to a new bridge to Arkansas to complete a full loop around Memphis. This was done many years ago up around St. Louis and it appears to be working for them.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 564
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: September 16, 2019, 06:26:25 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #190 on: August 12, 2019, 07:09:16 PM »

Agreed. It would make perfect sense to extend I-269 across the river from Millington to I-55, and extend the I-269 designation over I-69 to where 69 splits with MS-304, then continue westward over 304 paat Tunica to a new bridge to Arkansas to complete a full loop around Memphis. This was done many years ago up around St. Louis and it appears to be working for them.
Seems like a no-brainer, whether I-69 ever gets built or not. Was a full loop never even considered?
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 468
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:42 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #191 on: August 12, 2019, 10:18:43 PM »

Agreed. It would make perfect sense to extend I-269 across the river from Millington to I-55, and extend the I-269 designation over I-69 to where 69 splits with MS-304, then continue westward over 304 paat Tunica to a new bridge to Arkansas to complete a full loop around Memphis. This was done many years ago up around St. Louis and it appears to be working for them.
Seems like a no-brainer, whether I-69 ever gets built or not. Was a full loop never even considered?

The bridges for MS-304 north of Tunica over US-61 were designed to be extended in some future date.

Though it is not likely to see a west bypass of Memphis in some years to come. Probably not until some significant portion of I-69 is finished in Mississippi or traffic coming and going on I-55 exceeds its capacity in the city.

If the Memphis-Arkansas ever comes up for a replacement perhaps they might divert to the DeSoto or a new west bypass if it exists by that time.

I would say getting rid of that unsafe semi-cloverleaf for Crump to reach the bridge would be a higher priority.

Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5914
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:02:33 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #192 on: August 13, 2019, 12:10:35 AM »

Agreed. It would make perfect sense to extend I-269 across the river from Millington to I-55, and extend the I-269 designation over I-69 to where 69 splits with MS-304, then continue westward over 304 paat Tunica to a new bridge to Arkansas to complete a full loop around Memphis. This was done many years ago up around St. Louis and it appears to be working for them.
Seems like a no-brainer, whether I-69 ever gets built or not. Was a full loop never even considered?

The bridges for MS-304 north of Tunica over US-61 were designed to be extended in some future date.

Though it is not likely to see a west bypass of Memphis in some years to come. Probably not until some significant portion of I-69 is finished in Mississippi or traffic coming and going on I-55 exceeds its capacity in the city.

If the Memphis-Arkansas ever comes up for a replacement perhaps they might divert to the DeSoto or a new west bypass if it exists by that time.

I would say getting rid of that unsafe semi-cloverleaf for Crump to reach the bridge would be a higher priority.


In full agreement re prioritization of a fix for the Crump mess.  Ideally -- but unlikely in the near term given MS' dire fiscal straits -- would be to (a) do a Mississippi River crossing as a western MS 304 extension, then swing it north to I-55 at or near the I-40 junction, (b) upgrade the Hernando 55/69/269 interchange with flyovers (converting it to a stack or turbine) (c) reroute I-55 over the new facility, (d) reroute I-240 over the Harahan bridge to terminate at I-40 in West Memphis, (3) re-sign I-55 from Hernando to I-240 and I-240 north to I-40 as I-69.  Also -- for the time being, remove the I-69 reassurance signs from the Tunica extension, and let the MS 713 "spur" be just that for the time being -- with I-69 having an interim terminus at I-55/Hernando.   If and when I-69 gets extended further SW down US 61, the final signage can be resolved then (although ramps from the new bridge to and from I-69/south would be appropriate). 

But this being MS and TN, getting Crump fixed would itself be very welcome -- and about all we could possibly expect in the region in the near term.     
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 10754
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 06:45:49 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #193 on: August 13, 2019, 09:40:59 AM »

Several bridge locations were studied in the mid-2000s.  The study looked at a combination road/rail bridge to add redundancy in the event of a New Madrid repeat, given that the existing railroad and I-55 bridges are seismically vulnerable (the I-40 bridge has been seismically retrofitted).  While Arkansas has placed some priority on a crossing extending from MS 304, it would tie into I-40 too far to the west (near Jenette) to be useful for I-55 through traffic.  A crossing at MS 304 was also deemed to have a poor benefit-cost ratio compared to crossings closer to the Memphis core, but the study did not rule out full elimination as it may be useful in the future for "economic development".  The study recommended three possible locations for a new bridge...one in the vicinity of the mid-river island downstream of President's Island, and two locations north of I-40 that would tie into TN 300.  These latter locations would then either tie into the western I-40/I-55 interchange or connect with I-55 north of Marion.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 468
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:42 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #194 on: August 13, 2019, 08:36:48 PM »

Agreed. It would make perfect sense to extend I-269 across the river from Millington to I-55, and extend the I-269 designation over I-69 to where 69 splits with MS-304, then continue westward over 304 paat Tunica to a new bridge to Arkansas to complete a full loop around Memphis. This was done many years ago up around St. Louis and it appears to be working for them.
Seems like a no-brainer, whether I-69 ever gets built or not. Was a full loop never even considered?

The bridges for MS-304 north of Tunica over US-61 were designed to be extended in some future date.

Though it is not likely to see a west bypass of Memphis in some years to come. Probably not until some significant portion of I-69 is finished in Mississippi or traffic coming and going on I-55 exceeds its capacity in the city.

If the Memphis-Arkansas ever comes up for a replacement perhaps they might divert to the DeSoto or a new west bypass if it exists by that time.

I would say getting rid of that unsafe semi-cloverleaf for Crump to reach the bridge would be a higher priority.


In full agreement re prioritization of a fix for the Crump mess.  Ideally -- but unlikely in the near term given MS' dire fiscal straits -- would be to (a) do a Mississippi River crossing as a western MS 304 extension, then swing it north to I-55 at or near the I-40 junction, (b) upgrade the Hernando 55/69/269 interchange with flyovers (converting it to a stack or turbine) (c) reroute I-55 over the new facility, (d) reroute I-240 over the Harahan bridge to terminate at I-40 in West Memphis, (3) re-sign I-55 from Hernando to I-240 and I-240 north to I-40 as I-69.  Also -- for the time being, remove the I-69 reassurance signs from the Tunica extension, and let the MS 713 "spur" be just that for the time being -- with I-69 having an interim terminus at I-55/Hernando.   If and when I-69 gets extended further SW down US 61, the final signage can be resolved then (although ramps from the new bridge to and from I-69/south would be appropriate). 

But this being MS and TN, getting Crump fixed would itself be very welcome -- and about all we could possibly expect in the region in the near term.   

I agree, extend I-55 to essentially a west Memphis bypass on the Arkansas side, co-sign with I-69 after crossing the river and let it join its current route at Hernando.

The current I-55 and the Memphis-Arkansas can be demoted to a US route for local trucks only, not through traffic.  Then the Crump issue can remain static as it is simply an intersection of 2 urban collectors. In fact, you could rip out that ancient cloverleaf completely. Let north/south traffic use Riverside and east west traffic use Crump. Then if/when the Memphis-Arkansas is refurbished it takes all the pressure off I-40 and the DeSoto.

Great idea!
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.