AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)  (Read 145391 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6094
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:42 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #300 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. 
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #301 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):



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

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6094
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:42 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #302 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):



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. 
Logged

chays

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1206
  • Age: 45
  • Location: FL
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 04:25:17 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #303 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.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #304 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 (p. 3/3 of pdf):
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.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2017, 05:05:45 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #305 on: May 14, 2017, 08:31:01 PM »

This May 10 article 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.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #306 on: May 26, 2017, 10:48:05 AM »

In its May 9 presentation to the I-69 Coalitiom, AHTD provided a funding update for the I-69 Connector/ Future I-530 (SIU 28)(p. 9/16):



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

Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1879
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 09:35:17 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #307 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.
Logged

TheArkansasRoadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1040
  • The Dude

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Fort Smith, Arkansas
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 10:38:08 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #308 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!
Logged
Well, that's just like your opinion man...

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1879
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 09:35:17 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #309 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.
Logged

qguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 558
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Lebanon, PA
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 06:39:22 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #310 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.
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8678
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 10:32:43 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #311 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.
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #312 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:



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).
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6094
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:42 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #313 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:



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? 
Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2111
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 06:49:03 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #314 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.
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #315 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?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6094
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:42 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #316 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!
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #317 on: September 09, 2017, 09:39:13 AM »

AHTD has posted the I-69 FASTLANE application. There are some significant changes from last year, summarized as follows (p.5/27 of pdf):

ARDOT's Sept. 6 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission 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):



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

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6094
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:42 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #318 on: September 10, 2017, 02:28:33 PM »

AHTD has posted the I-69 FASTLANE application. There are some significant changes from last year, summarized as follows (p.5/27 of pdf):

ARDOT's Sept. 6 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission 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):



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.       
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #319 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 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.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #320 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 meeting. A slide about the Monticello Bypass ... ( p. 11/15 of pdf):

This October 21 article 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.
Logged

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: March 28, 2019, 10:31:40 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #321 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6094
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:42 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #322 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 meeting. A slide about the Monticello Bypass ... ( p. 11/15 of pdf):

This October 21 article 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.   
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6077
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 09:15:31 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #323 on: December 17, 2017, 10:25:02 PM »

Future I-69: AR 569?
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6094
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:42 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #324 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.
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.