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 144123 times)

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 #350 on: July 17, 2019, 12:31:28 PM »

This article 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 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:



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

Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1330
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 05:02:04 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #351 on: July 17, 2019, 12:38:26 PM »

This article 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 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:



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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5929
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:47:10 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #352 on: July 17, 2019, 08:09:52 PM »

This article 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 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:



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?     
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 281
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: September 19, 2019, 10:17:29 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #353 on: July 18, 2019, 01:25:02 PM »

This article 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 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:



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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5929
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:47:10 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #354 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.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1793
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: September 22, 2019, 10:44:20 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #355 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.
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.