I-69 in Arkansas

[MikieTimT]

If funding is an issue for I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, why isn't US 82/US 278 Greenville bridge used to connect both states?

Because that would bend I-69 into an even more ridiculous "L" shape route than it already is. The currently proposed I-69 route going through McGehee and Arkansas City offers little if any mileage savings over the I-30/I-40 combo as it is. The Greenville Bridge is another 25 miles farther South from the proposed Great River Bridge location. If I-69 was routed over that bridge then all of I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi would only be of value to local traffic. The long distance traffic would stay on I-40 and I-30. It might still work out that way anyway.

In addition to the aforementioned projects for I-49 and I-57, I would suspect that ArDOT would prioritize widening I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock over I-69.

It's ridiculous I-40 isn't already built in a 3x3 lanes or greater configuration between Little Rock and Memphis. The amount of truck traffic on that segment is unreal. A completed I-57 might work as a pressure valve to relieve some of the congestion. But that stretch of I-40 has to be upgraded regardless. If it weren't for the I-57 and I-69 projects either proposed or under construction I'd be calling for I-40 to be built 4x4 all the way from Little Rock to Memphis.

Use US 70.

You mean this US-70?  The narrow, heaved pavement, truck destroyed road that is basically 4 parallel ditches with no shoulders for large chunks of eastern Arkansas anytime it rains?  It's basically less safe than most of eastern Arkansas' state highways, and with a 55MPH (not 75) speed limit, you aren't exactly on a comparable facility, especially slowing down for the towns along the way.  The stretch between Biscoe and Brinkley is so narrow between the tree lines with such a steep drop off from the edge of the pavement lacking shoulders at all that you couldn't even get off the roadway at all in the event of car trouble for about a 10 mile stretch.  The bridges are all super narrow.

It's a lovely sentiment to think that old US highways can still serve more than just local usage since the advent of Interstates, but it's not practical in any sense as additional capacity.

[edwaleni]

Quite frankly, I think it's stupid for them to be heading east with the next segment anyway, when they could do the segment west of US-425 and complete the Monticello Bypass portion with Super-2.

At a highly attended public hearing including several business owners, they convinced ArDOT planners that improving connectivity for Monticello should be to the east, not the west. So ArDOT and money set aside by a regional planning group were combined to get the US-278 improvement pushed east towards US-65 north of McGehee.

The first construction segment is east to just south of Selma. The second one will be from Selma to a specific intersection south of the ARDOT Desha office. The ROW will roughly align to an existing power line easement.

[abqtraveler]

Quite frankly, I think it's stupid for them to be heading east with the next segment anyway, when they could do the segment west of US-425 and complete the Monticello Bypass portion with Super-2.

At a highly attended public hearing including several business owners, they convinced ArDOT planners that improving connectivity for Monticello should be to the east, not the west. So ArDOT and money set aside by a regional planning group were combined to get the US-278 improvement pushed east towards US-65 north of McGehee.

The first construction segment is east to just south of Selma. The second one will be from Selma to a specific intersection south of the ARDOT Desha office. The ROW will roughly align to an existing power line easement.

There used to be a "Future I-69 Corridor <-->" sign at that spot on US-65 where I-69 will eventually have an interchange. That sign was present through at least 2019, but it looks like it was missing as of 2022.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6692071,-91.4208908,3a,75y,0.54h,85.74t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sgjQla0gQ6wyN12NUcd98iA!2e0!5s20191101T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DgjQla0gQ6wyN12NUcd98iA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D0.5437902772056304%26pitch%3D4.26211870606916%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu

[edwaleni]

Quite frankly, I think it's stupid for them to be heading east with the next segment anyway, when they could do the segment west of US-425 and complete the Monticello Bypass portion with Super-2.

At a highly attended public hearing including several business owners, they convinced ArDOT planners that improving connectivity for Monticello should be to the east, not the west. So ArDOT and money set aside by a regional planning group were combined to get the US-278 improvement pushed east towards US-65 north of McGehee.

The first construction segment is east to just south of Selma. The second one will be from Selma to a specific intersection south of the ARDOT Desha office. The ROW will roughly align to an existing power line easement.

There used to be a "Future I-69 Corridor <-->" sign at that spot on US-65 where I-69 will eventually have an interchange. That sign was present through at least 2019, but it looks like it was missing as of 2022.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6692071,-91.4208908,3a,75y,0.54h,85.74t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sgjQla0gQ6wyN12NUcd98iA!2e0!5s20191101T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DgjQla0gQ6wyN12NUcd98iA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D0.5437902772056304%26pitch%3D4.26211870606916%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu

On the 2022 image, look in the ditch to the right. You will see what remains of the I-69 shield from the sign in the grass. Either mower took it out, or a drunk driver did. If memory serves from the public hearing, there will be ground level intersection there. Left turn lane on the NB US-65 side and extended merge/turn lanes on the SB US-65 side.

[abqtraveler]

Quite frankly, I think it's stupid for them to be heading east with the next segment anyway, when they could do the segment west of US-425 and complete the Monticello Bypass portion with Super-2.

At a highly attended public hearing including several business owners, they convinced ArDOT planners that improving connectivity for Monticello should be to the east, not the west. So ArDOT and money set aside by a regional planning group were combined to get the US-278 improvement pushed east towards US-65 north of McGehee.

The first construction segment is east to just south of Selma. The second one will be from Selma to a specific intersection south of the ARDOT Desha office. The ROW will roughly align to an existing power line easement.

There used to be a "Future I-69 Corridor <-->" sign at that spot on US-65 where I-69 will eventually have an interchange. That sign was present through at least 2019, but it looks like it was missing as of 2022.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6692071,-91.4208908,3a,75y,0.54h,85.74t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sgjQla0gQ6wyN12NUcd98iA!2e0!5s20191101T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DgjQla0gQ6wyN12NUcd98iA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D0.5437902772056304%26pitch%3D4.26211870606916%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu

On the 2022 image, look in the ditch to the right. You will see what remains of the I-69 shield from the sign in the grass. Either mower took it out, or a drunk driver did. If memory serves from the public hearing, there will be ground level intersection there. Left turn lane on the NB US-65 side and extended merge/turn lanes on the SB US-65 side.

I see what's left of the sign there. As for the interchange at US-65, last time I looked at plans, it showed a folded diamond interchange being built there, with all ramps east of US-65 due to the railroad runs adjacent and west of US-65. ArDOT would almost have to build an interchange there, unless they're okay with an at-grade railroad crossing immediately west of an at-grade intersection with US-65.

[edwaleni]

I see what's left of the sign there. As for the interchange at US-65, last time I looked at plans, it showed a folded diamond interchange being built there, with all ramps east of US-65 due to the railroad runs adjacent and west of US-65. ArDOT would almost have to build an interchange there, unless they're okay with an at-grade railroad crossing immediately west of an at-grade intersection with US-65.

You are correct.

[edwaleni]

For those who ask what that ring of dirt is around the proposed exit ramps at US-65, it was the relocation work for a water main.

[abqtraveler]

For those who ask what that ring of dirt is around the proposed exit ramps at US-65, it was the relocation work for a water main.

That would make sense. Complete all of the utility relocations now, so you don't have to worry about that when the funding for the stretch from AR-293 to US-65 comes in. Just award a construction construction contract and start moving dirt.

[Rothman]

For those who ask what that ring of dirt is around the proposed exit ramps at US-65, it was the relocation work for a water main.

That would make sense. Complete all of the utility relocations now, so you don't have to worry about that when the funding for the stretch from AR-293 to US-65 comes in. Just award a construction construction contract and start moving dirt.

Utility relocations are usually associated with an active construction project.

[abqtraveler]

For those who ask what that ring of dirt is around the proposed exit ramps at US-65, it was the relocation work for a water main.

That would make sense. Complete all of the utility relocations now, so you don't have to worry about that when the funding for the stretch from AR-293 to US-65 comes in. Just award a construction construction contract and start moving dirt.

Utility relocations are usually associated with an active construction project.

True, but I've also seen utility relocations broken out and done well in advance of physical construction. There was a major intersection reconstruction project that just finished up here in Albuquerque. While construction on the intersection itself began last fall, the utility relocations were done almost two years prior, so everything would be ready to start working on the intersection once the funding dropped.

Back to Future I-69 at US-65, they were anticipating funding for that in 2022, so it appears that they did the utility relocations around the future US-65 interchange in advance to get ready for construction. Thanks to Bidenomics, the funding they got in 2022 only got them from US-278 to AR-293, so now the stretch from AR-293 to US-65 had to be put off until FY-2026. But at least the utilities will be taken care of.

[Rothman]

For those who ask what that ring of dirt is around the proposed exit ramps at US-65, it was the relocation work for a water main.

That would make sense. Complete all of the utility relocations now, so you don't have to worry about that when the funding for the stretch from AR-293 to US-65 comes in. Just award a construction construction contract and start moving dirt.

Utility relocations are usually associated with an active construction project.

True, but I've also seen utility relocations broken out and done well in advance of physical construction. There was a major intersection reconstruction project that just finished up here in Albuquerque. While construction on the intersection itself began last fall, the utility relocations were done almost two years prior, so everything would be ready to start working on the intersection once the funding dropped.

Back to Future I-69 at US-65, they were anticipating funding for that in 2022, so it appears that they did the utility relocations around the future US-65 interchange in advance to get ready for construction. Thanks to Bidenomics, the funding they got in 2022 only got them from US-278 to AR-293, so now the stretch from AR-293 to US-65 had to be put off until FY-2026. But at least the utilities will be taken care of.

Ah, politics.  Not your first time crossing the line...

Anyway, utility relocations are defined in Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&Es), upon which construction funding is authorized.  I haven't had experience with a project where utility relocations are based upon anything less.  At least in NY, you have to have agreements or betterments with utilities in place before anything moves and that is all part of the PS&E package.

Makes me wonder if there are other issues coming into play into what you're talking about.  Sometimes, DOTs will promise FHWA that ROW or utilities will be cleared by award (i.e., a ROW projection or signing their State money away in case things go wrong) and then something does indeed go awry.  I've heard that a lot of states "advance construct" (authorize but do not obligate) construction funding to the very limit of FHWA's flexibility (used to be three years out over one year's worth of obligation limitation).  Wonder if states where they authorize to the very limit are finding that they have to halt projects temporarily.

I've always thought NY could advance construct more than it does, but perhaps this is a cautionary tale.

Either way, States painting such delays as prudent preparation seems like a smoke and mirrors game to me.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[Plutonic Panda]

What is up with the mods letting these political statements slip by lately. Pro biden statements here. Referring to something about socialism in the NYC Congestion pricing thread.

[edwaleni]

Looking at the latest sat image, it looks like the dirt is turning for I-69 between Monticello and McGehee.

[edwaleni]

For those who ask what that ring of dirt is around the proposed exit ramps at US-65, it was the relocation work for a water main.

The City of McGehee, in anticipation of a future I-69 coming through, annexed the land up US-65 to where a future exit complex would be. Planning for future gas stations or hotels, they ran a water main along the highway.

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't find it surprising that the future Interstate 69 corridor is paralleling the right-of-way of power lines. It seems like the most logical place to put a new roadway in a rural area.

[RoadMaster09]

I have talked about this before. When Bob Moore was on the Highway Commission, and before that speaker of the Arkansas House of Representatives, he pushed I-69. It went through his extremely rural home town / county.  With him retired from both now, it will languish and die. They MIGHT  eventually run I-69 along US-82 and use the existing bridge south of Greenville, but the route through Desha county is pretty much dead in the water.

If you route it easterly at ElDorado and cut off the dog-leg via Hamburg and Lake Village, it would actually be shorter.

It would be slightly longer, but it would be faster as many trucks would likely avoid the core of Memphis and the truck logjam that is I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis. Plus, it would also serve some more populated areas such as El Dorado and Greenville, and would be useful for east-west travel between the I-20 and I-40 corridors as well, so that could add a secondary purpose.

[MikieTimT]

Also would be useful for avoiding the congestion of Texarkana and especially Little Rock as well if completed.

[CtrlAltDel]

Makes me wonder if there are other issues coming into play into what you're talking about.  Sometimes, DOTs will promise FHWA that ROW or utilities will be cleared by award (i.e., a ROW projection or signing their State money away in case things go wrong) and then something does indeed go awry.

I've heard that a lot of states "advance construct" (authorize but do not obligate) construction funding to the very limit of FHWA's flexibility (used to be three years out over one year's worth of obligation limitation).  Wonder if states where they authorize to the very limit are finding that they have to halt projects temporarily.

I have to admit that I don't think I'm quite following you here. Could you elaborate a bit on these construction/finance tactics?

[edwaleni]

Makes me wonder if there are other issues coming into play into what you're talking about.  Sometimes, DOTs will promise FHWA that ROW or utilities will be cleared by award (i.e., a ROW projection or signing their State money away in case things go wrong) and then something does indeed go awry.

I've heard that a lot of states "advance construct" (authorize but do not obligate) construction funding to the very limit of FHWA's flexibility (used to be three years out over one year's worth of obligation limitation).  Wonder if states where they authorize to the very limit are finding that they have to halt projects temporarily.

I have to admit that I don't think I'm quite following you here. Could you elaborate a bit on these construction/finance tactics?

The state authorizes the work, but waits out the entire three years to actually obligate (issue bids) for work to begin.

I can't read the mind of the poster here, but I think he is stating that sometimes, the priorities change in the three years between authorize and obligate (pay for it).

[edwaleni]

If the dough becomes available, which part of SIU-13 should it go to?

Connecting AR-530 and the Monicello Bypass to Warren (US-63) ?

or

Building out the El Dorado Bypass from US-167 to US-82?

[The Ghostbuster]

I would vote for the former. I would like to see the western half of the Monticello Bypass and the missing link in AR 530 to be constructed first. The latter can come later, if it comes at all.

[Anthony_JK]

I'm still not sold on diverting I-69 east via US 82 and the Greenville/Leland bridge, because that would require major updates or overlaying US 61 north from Greenville up to near Tunica, and the existing cloverleaf interchange between US 61 and US 82 would have to be modified for the traffic movements shifting between 61 and 59. If they're not going to use the alignment they approved originally (including the Dean Bridge), then what is the main purpose of building it to begin with?

I say it again: Truncate the Texas portion of I-69 at Texarkana through the 151 Loop ending at I-49; rename the rest of the US 59 freeway to I-130. Extend I-530/AR 530 south to I-20 at Monroe, then build a real freeway along US 165 down to Alexandria and ultimately to I-10 east of Lake Charles (I-53). Build the Southern Gateway extension of I-269 as an extended loop south of Memphis to I-40, then build a connector from there along US 79 over to Pine Bluff where existing I-530 ends. Simply 4-lane US 82 from Monticello (or even Texarkana) to the Leland bridge as an expressway with localized freeway bypass segments. Convert the TX/LA portions of proposed I-69 from Woods/Tenaha into Stonewall/Shreveport into a connector for the Port of Shreveport-Bossier over to Haughton. Call it a decade.

[bwana39]

I'm still not sold on diverting I-69 east via US 82 and the Greenville/Leland bridge, because that would require major updates or overlaying US 61 north from Greenville up to near Tunica, and the existing cloverleaf interchange between US 61 and US 82 would have to be modified for the traffic movements shifting between 61 and 59. If they're not going to use the alignment they approved originally (including the Dean Bridge), then what is the main purpose of building it to begin with?

I say it again: Truncate the Texas portion of I-69 at Texarkana through the 151 Loop ending at I-49; rename the rest of the US 59 freeway to I-130. Extend I-530/AR 530 south to I-20 at Monroe, then build a real freeway along US 165 down to Alexandria and ultimately to I-10 east of Lake Charles (I-53). Build the Southern Gateway extension of I-269 as an extended loop south of Memphis to I-40, then build a connector from there along US 79 over to Pine Bluff where existing I-530 ends. Simply 4-lane US 82 from Monticello (or even Texarkana) to the Leland bridge as an expressway with localized freeway bypass segments. Convert the TX/LA portions of proposed I-69 from Woods/Tenaha into Stonewall/Shreveport into a connector for the Port of Shreveport-Bossier over to Haughton. Call it a decade.

There is similar (maybe less)  mileage using the existing US-82 bridge versus the "PREFERRED ROUTE"  ***IF*** it goes directly from ElDorado to the bridge. That said, i agree that it puts more road miles in already cash strapped Mississippi, ***BUT*** these extra miles would probably cost less than their cost of the Dean Bridge. The Greenville Bridge is underutilized and is sufficient for a rural river crossing.

While I agree that a Pine Bluff to Monroe Freeway makes more sense, the issue of where it goes from there is less clear. I tend to prefer Monroe to Natchez and on to Baton Rouge.

The clearcut problem is that Louisiana has no use for a west to east freeway. A candidate for governor of LA some years ago pretty much summed it up that he knew "That Shreveport wasn't a part of Texas" .

The real need in Louisiana is how to evacuate for hurricanes. The Natchez based route that I suggested is good to help evacuate the most populous Parishes in LA.

[bwana39]

I need to add one thing. I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock is slammed. If you can divert the traffic from Houston and Shreveport, it will improve the traffic flow. There may not be a mileage saving, but there isn't room for any more trucks (in particular) between TXK and NLR.

Building I-69 through Arkansas is going to cost similarly to completely rebuilding I-30. Widening it will amount to completely rebuilding it.  The traffic backups for this reconstruction will be intolerable. Just the widening project through Texarkana has caused backups of close to an hour without a wreck. It goes even longer when there is a wreck.

[Rothman]

Define "slammed."