AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)  (Read 144756 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 #200 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 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 for the base and surfacing contract (p. 4/4 of pdf):

Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2319
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: October 18, 2019, 03:34:33 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #201 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?
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 #202 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 to pay for fixing the roads
(above quote from Arkansas to Use Budget Surplus to Fix Roads thread)

The Governor's Working Group on Highway Funding Short-Term Recommendation 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):


....


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



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.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2016, 12:39:38 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 361
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: October 15, 2019, 10:17:12 PM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #203 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.)

Logged

aboges26

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 125
  • GIS Enthusiast / Canyon Country Adventurer

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Farmington, NM
  • Last Login: October 16, 2019, 06:34:00 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #204 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.)



It's missing I-41 and I-14's proposed route... bummer.
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 #205 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 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 for the base and surfacing contract (p. 4/4 of pdf):

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, and it does not appear in the August 10 letting, either.  The long wait continues ....................
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 09:06:02 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 #206 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 meeting .... ( p. 11/15 of pdf):

AHTD's 2016-2020 Draft STIP 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):


....




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 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?
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 02:09:16 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2319
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: October 18, 2019, 03:34:33 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #207 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.
Logged

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1116
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: October 18, 2019, 09:13:54 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #208 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.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

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 #209 on: April 20, 2016, 03:21:41 PM »

AHTD's 2016-2020 Draft STIP 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 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):



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



AHTD's April 20 presentation to the Arkansas Highway Commission indicates that AHTD submitted the application on April 14 (p. 16/46 of pdf).
« Last Edit: April 20, 2016, 10:23:21 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 #210 on: April 21, 2016, 11:32:38 AM »

AHTD has posted an I-69 FASTLANE grant application 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, and AHTD recently submitted the I-69 FASTLANE grant application, this April 20 article 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?
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 261
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: October 18, 2019, 06:51:28 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #211 on: April 26, 2016, 12:22:18 PM »

AHTD has posted an I-69 FASTLANE grant application 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, and AHTD recently submitted the I-69 FASTLANE grant application, this April 20 article 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.
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

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1338
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: October 18, 2019, 01:22:54 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #212 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.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3293
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: October 17, 2019, 05:21:06 PM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #213 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.
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1338
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: October 18, 2019, 01:22:54 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #214 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.
Logged

MikeSantNY78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 121
  • Location: Depew, NY (suburban Buffalo)
  • Last Login: October 12, 2019, 08:32:43 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #215 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.)



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)
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 #216 on: May 04, 2016, 02:45:28 PM »

This article 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 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 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 ....
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 04:25:40 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 755
  • 2016 WS champs!!!!

  • Last Login: October 18, 2019, 10:51:49 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #217 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.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 03:35:02 PM by mvak36 »
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 195
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: October 17, 2019, 05:34:14 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #218 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.

Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3293
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: October 17, 2019, 05:21:06 PM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #219 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?
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 195
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: October 17, 2019, 05:34:14 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #220 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.


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.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3293
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: October 17, 2019, 05:21:06 PM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #221 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?
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 195
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: October 17, 2019, 05:34:14 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #222 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.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3293
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: October 17, 2019, 05:21:06 PM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #223 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.
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 195
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: October 17, 2019, 05:34:14 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #224 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.
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.