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 144785 times)

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 #225 on: May 05, 2016, 03:39:04 PM »

Texas is going to build their I-69 spur regardless of what anyone else does.

Louisiana's job 1 is completing I-49 from New Orleans to Texarkana. Beyond that, I wouldn't make any bets. The north and south ends can't agree on very much. Southern Louisiana folks aren't going to cheer for the current I-69 as the Baton Rouge bottleneck gets worse. I wouldn't be surprised if someone from South Louisiana gets on board with the idea of extending I-57 all the way to I-10 via US 165 and I-530. That project would unify south and north and would give us more of a reason to work with our friends in Arkansas than I-69 does.
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 #226 on: May 05, 2016, 11:13:45 PM »

Texas is going to build their I-69 spur regardless of what anyone else does.

Louisiana's job 1 is completing I-49 from New Orleans to Texarkana. Beyond that, I wouldn't make any bets. The north and south ends can't agree on very much. Southern Louisiana folks aren't going to cheer for the current I-69 as the Baton Rouge bottleneck gets worse. I wouldn't be surprised if someone from South Louisiana gets on board with the idea of extending I-57 all the way to I-10 via US 165 and I-530. That project would unify south and north and would give us more of a reason to work with our friends in Arkansas than I-69 does.

If LA would give up their short section of I-69 in trade off for an I-57 to just east of Lake Charles would be awesome and make just upgrading US 82 from Texarkana to Lake Village for I-69.

I fear state highway depts are so married to current plans a divorce from them would be ugly.

Like I said, to get MS. to play along and nix a new I-69 bridge , move the bridge effort to the Southern Gateway V1-1 where it is much more useful and beneficial directly connecting the Tunica area to Arkansas's intermodal facilities.
Logged

BullRebel95

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Oxford, MS/Cleveland, MS
  • Last Login: July 16, 2019, 02:53:22 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #227 on: June 09, 2016, 07:05:50 AM »

Looks like there will be another meeting for the I-69 Coalition in McGehee at 1 today.
http://www.magnoliareporter.com/news_and_business/regional_news/article_f8d66376-2c79-11e6-9677-13423ab6e034.html
Logged

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 #228 on: June 09, 2016, 11:32:46 AM »

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.

News flash, people: While LA should emphasize finishing I-49 South, the Shreveport I-49 ICC, and the Baton Rouge I-10 mess as Jobs #1-1B, they are not going to abandon I-69 through Shreveport just yet. They still need that segment of I-69 to complete the Outer Loop extension of LA 3132, now that Barksdale AFB has put its foot down against extending I-220 through there.

Extending I-155 west to meet the US 67 upgrade? Count me in on that.

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 #229 on: June 09, 2016, 12:15:40 PM »

News flash, people: While LA should emphasize finishing I-49 South, the Shreveport I-49 ICC, and the Baton Rouge I-10 mess as Jobs #1-1B, they are not going to abandon I-69 through Shreveport just yet. They still need that segment of I-69 to complete the Outer Loop extension of LA 3132, now that Barksdale AFB has put its foot down against extending I-220 through there.

And how are they getting south Louisiana legislators and voters on board with that? Since we're apparently going to be on hook to cover the Legislature's failure to balance the budget, why should we support a freeway that benefits only a small portion of the state?
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

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 #230 on: October 23, 2016, 10:23:09 AM »

This Oct. 20 editorial is not about I-69, except that it is about a relief route for I-10, I-20, I-30 and I-40: U.S. 82 (which already has a new bridge over the Mississippi River):

Quote
A public involvement meeting was held in El Dorado this week regarding the widening of six miles of U.S. 82 from the west side bypass to the South Arkansas Regional Airport ....
It is possible that by 2026, drivers will have four lanes on U.S. 82 from the east side of El Dorado to the Red River Bridge.
We have our doubts that Interstate 69 will ever be completed through Arkansas and Louisiana in our lifetime. The work on U.S. 82 makes sense now.
Interstates 10, 20 and 30 are heavily traveled and U.S. 82 could become an important secondary route Ė but only if the widening across South Arkansas takes place sooner than later.

I-69 appears to be way down the Arkansas priority list.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2016, 07:58:14 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2103
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: October 19, 2019, 10:32:09 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #231 on: October 23, 2016, 12:13:13 PM »

Louisiana really has no business trying to build a new interstate right now...whether it be 69 or 57. IMO, 69 is as useless as tits on a boar hog. Just let AR buy a bunch of 69 shields & hang them on the same sign posts where they have I-40 & I-30 shields from Memphis to Texarkana. Give it to Texas at Texarkana, then call that project done. You put the I-69 completion date further ahead than where it is now.

The BR projects & I-49 definitely need LaDOTD's full attention with statewide maintenance issues next. Money is at a premium. LA is broke. No new projects need to be even considered until these are finished.

Maybe this is why TxDOT hasn't pushed the EIS for SIU 16?
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

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 #232 on: October 23, 2016, 12:30:33 PM »

Louisiana really has no business trying to build a new interstate right now...whether it be 69 or 57. IMO, 69 is as useless as tits on a boar hog. Just let AR buy a bunch of 69 shields & hang them on the same sign posts where they have I-40 & I-30 shields from Memphis to Texarkana. Give it to Texas at Texarkana, then call that project done. You put the I-69 completion date further ahead than where it is now.

The BR projects & I-49 definitely need LaDOTD's full attention with statewide maintenance issues next. Money is at a premium. LA is broke. No new projects need to be even considered until these are finished.

Maybe this is why TxDOT hasn't pushed the EIS for SIU 16?

The problem with that is that Shreveport needs I-69 to be completed in order to complete their loop now that I-220 is now essentially truncated to a gate entrance to Barksdale Air Force Base and LA 3132 (the Inner Loop) still needs a connection to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier. The fear is that if I-369 is completed to Texarkana first and then it's decided to truncate I-69 to US 59/I-30/I-40 (or US 59/I-30/US 67/I-155), then Shreveport and south Arkansas will be shut out completely.

Personally, I'd probably have Shreveport settle for completing I-49 through their city via the ICC; and use US 165 from Lake Charles through Alexandria, Monroe, and Bastrop, and US 425/AR 530/I-530 to Monticello/Pine Bluff/Little Rock to cover south Arkansas, while upgrading US 82 across that section to Greenville and US 61 from Vicksburg to Tunica. A SW to NE interstate might not be a real priority right now compared to I-49 and BTR, but it would do more to complete the LA freeway system than I-69 through NW LA would.
Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2103
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: October 19, 2019, 10:32:09 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #233 on: October 23, 2016, 02:55:32 PM »

Louisiana really has no business trying to build a new interstate right now...whether it be 69 or 57. IMO, 69 is as useless as tits on a boar hog. Just let AR buy a bunch of 69 shields & hang them on the same sign posts where they have I-40 & I-30 shields from Memphis to Texarkana. Give it to Texas at Texarkana, then call that project done. You put the I-69 completion date further ahead than where it is now.

The BR projects & I-49 definitely need LaDOTD's full attention with statewide maintenance issues next. Money is at a premium. LA is broke. No new projects need to be even considered until these are finished.

Maybe this is why TxDOT hasn't pushed the EIS for SIU 16?

The problem with that is that Shreveport needs I-69 to be completed in order to complete their loop now that I-220 is now essentially truncated to a gate entrance to Barksdale Air Force Base and LA 3132 (the Inner Loop) still needs a connection to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier. The fear is that if I-369 is completed to Texarkana first and then it's decided to truncate I-69 to US 59/I-30/I-40 (or US 59/I-30/US 67/I-155), then Shreveport and south Arkansas will be shut out completely.

In the name of good common economical sense, I must say, "Too damn bad for being left out. Y'all should have never been included to begin with." After I-49 & BR are finished, upgrade LA 3132 to interstate grade, then continue building east, turn north toward I-20 and tie in around MP 30 or 31. Then you have created I-620. (face it...if it was 420, sign thefts would become a problem)

Quote
Personally, I'd probably have Shreveport settle for completing I-49 through their city via the ICC; and use US 165 from Lake Charles through Alexandria, Monroe, and Bastrop, and US 425/AR 530/I-530 to Monticello/Pine Bluff/Little Rock to cover south Arkansas, while upgrading US 82 across that section to Greenville and US 61 from Vicksburg to Tunica. A SW to NE interstate might not be a real priority right now compared to I-49 and BTR, but it would do more to complete the LA freeway system than I-69 through NW LA would.

I completely agree. Take it to Lake Charles, build on the western edge of the Kayouche Coulee Golf Course & tie in to I-10 & I-210.
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

amroad17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1097
  • NYSDOT has decided--Community Grid (for now)

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Northern Kentucky
  • Last Login: October 14, 2019, 03:11:29 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #234 on: October 24, 2016, 01:31:27 AM »

Mississippi and Arkansas should have utilized the US 82 bridge over the Mississippi for I-69.  I-69 could have been routed along the US 61 corridor to Greenville, crossed the river, then followed US 65 and US 165 to Monroe, LA and duplexed with I-20 to Shreveport.  There is where I-69 could join its proposed routing to Texas.

If this was done, there would be no need for the Pine Bluff connector--or there could be a scaled-down version of it (two-lane limited access).
Logged
I don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10807
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: October 19, 2019, 11:57:30 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #235 on: October 24, 2016, 07:37:20 AM »

Quote
The problem with that is that Shreveport needs I-69 to be completed in order to complete their loop

Does Shreveport really need a full loop?
Logged

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 #236 on: October 24, 2016, 09:58:43 AM »

Quote
The problem with that is that Shreveport needs I-69 to be completed in order to complete their loop

Does Shreveport really need a full loop?

Not necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.
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 #237 on: October 24, 2016, 10:07:01 AM »

Does Shreveport really need a full loop?

Not necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.

There we go. I-649 from I-49 to I-20, connecting to LA 3132. The rest of I-69 in Louisiana is pork.
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10807
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: October 19, 2019, 11:57:30 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #238 on: October 24, 2016, 01:42:35 PM »

Quote
Not necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.

I was under the impression that an extension of LA 3132 was proposed which would connect the port to I-49 and (conversely) I-20.
Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2103
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: October 19, 2019, 10:32:09 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #239 on: October 24, 2016, 05:22:15 PM »

Quote
Not necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.

I was under the impression that an extension of LA 3132 was proposed which would connect the port to I-49 and (conversely) I-20.

Yes, but if you build my I-620 idea, traffic needing to go from the port to east bound I-20 can avoid both back tracking & the heavy in-city traffic.
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

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 #240 on: October 26, 2016, 09:28:08 AM »

Quote
Not necessarily...but the Port of Shreveport-Bossier could use a connection to both I-49 and I-20.

I was under the impression that an extension of LA 3132 was proposed which would connect the port to I-49 and (conversely) I-20.

The current LA 3132 extension being proposed would connect to the Port of Shreveport, but only indirectly through via a connection through an upgraded LA 1 or a new terrain route to proposed I-69, which would run from I-49 near Ellerbe Road to I-20 near Haughton. The original plan was for LA 3132 to have its own Red River crossing rather than use I-69, but that depended on the original plan of going through Barksdale AFB.

If LA 3132 was extended on its own as an I-x49, it would probably require its own Red River crossing; that would go against NWCOG's stated aim of using the extension's connection to I-69 for the completion of the southern portion of the loop. That's why I can't see Shreveport or NW LA abandoning their section of I-69. Also, the fear is that if Texas commits everything to I-369 to Texarkana before SIU's 14 and 15 of I-69 and then backs out of the LA/AR segment, Shreveport loses out on becoming a major crossroads.

Remember that highways are built as much on political coalitions as they are on gas taxes. Would Louisiana care as much about I-69 if it did bypass them for Texarkana/Little Rock, and if Shreveport didn't get consolation in the form of a full Inner Loop or the I-49 ICC??
Logged

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 #241 on: October 26, 2016, 11:14:27 AM »

Mississippi and Arkansas should have utilized the US 82 bridge over the Mississippi for I-69.  I-69 could have been routed along the US 61 corridor to Greenville, crossed the river, then followed US 65 and US 165 to Monroe, LA and duplexed with I-20 to Shreveport.  There is where I-69 could join its proposed routing to Texas.

If this was done, there would be no need for the Pine Bluff connector--or there could be a scaled-down version of it (two-lane limited access).


just use the Texas I-69 spur to Texarkana as the main route and then upgrade US 82 across southern Arkansas to the US 82 bridge and call it I -69. Arkansas could then run 530 all the way down to the LA border as a 2 lane limited access upgradable to interstate one day as an extention of I-57 to at least Monroe.

This would eliminate the need for a new bridge. Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.

I'd rather see any effort for a new bridge across he Mississippi reserve for the Memphis area or at least Helena as part of a new 4 lane to Batesville.
Logged

Interstate 69 Fan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 466
  • You cannot deny that I-69 will never be completed.

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Last Login: October 19, 2019, 12:25:02 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #242 on: November 01, 2016, 11:40:54 AM »

Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.
I-69 in LA was not dropped. LADOT said right now it's main priority is finishing I-49 (To New Orleans and Connecting the 2 segments, creating one highway from Texarkana and Lafayette via Shreveport), then they will focus on I-69.

I-69 is just on hold.
For now.

However, I saw a post on the Future I-69 page on facebook that LA 3132 was numbered I-269. Is that actually proposed or what?
Logged
Apparently Iím a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

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 #243 on: November 01, 2016, 11:47:29 AM »

Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.
I-69 in LA was not dropped. LADOT said right now it's main priority is finishing I-49 (To New Orleans and Connecting the 2 segments, creating one highway from Texarkana and Lafayette via Shreveport), then they will focus on I-69.

I-69 is just on hold.
For now.

He didn't say that it was dropped. The statement was suggestive, not a declaration of fact.

Where do you get the idea that Louisiana has any plans to focus on I-69, even post-I-49? The I-10 cluster in Baton Rouge needs attention.

However, I saw a post on the Future I-69 page on facebook that LA 3132 was numbered I-269. Is that actually proposed or what?

This would be news to most of us on here.
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Interstate 69 Fan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 466
  • You cannot deny that I-69 will never be completed.

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Last Login: October 19, 2019, 12:25:02 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #244 on: November 01, 2016, 12:25:41 PM »

Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.
I-69 in LA was not dropped. LADOT said right now it's main priority is finishing I-49 (To New Orleans and Connecting the 2 segments, creating one highway from Texarkana and Lafayette via Shreveport), then they will focus on I-69.

I-69 is just on hold.
For now.

He didn't say that it was dropped. The statement was suggestive, not a declaration of fact.

Where do you get the idea that Louisiana has any plans to focus on I-69, even post-I-49? The I-10 cluster in Baton Rouge needs attention.

However, I saw a post on the Future I-69 page on facebook that LA 3132 was numbered I-269. Is that actually proposed or what?

This would be news to most of us on here.

First, I'm sorry. I took that the wrong way. And a friend of mine went to a I-49 public hearing, and he asked a LADOT official about I-69, and he said we will probably begin studies after I-49 is done.
Logged
Apparently Iím a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

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 #245 on: November 01, 2016, 01:37:12 PM »

And a friend of mine went to a I-49 public hearing, and he asked a LADOT official about I-69, and he said we will probably begin studies after I-49 is done.

Studies are cheap, relatively speaking.
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 #246 on: November 01, 2016, 02:25:35 PM »

Mississippi and Arkansas should have utilized the US 82 bridge over the Mississippi for I-69.  I-69 could have been routed along the US 61 corridor to Greenville, crossed the river, then followed US 65 and US 165 to Monroe, LA and duplexed with I-20 to Shreveport.  There is where I-69 could join its proposed routing to Texas.

If this was done, there would be no need for the Pine Bluff connector--or there could be a scaled-down version of it (two-lane limited access).


just use the Texas I-69 spur to Texarkana as the main route and then upgrade US 82 across southern Arkansas to the US 82 bridge and call it I -69. Arkansas could then run 530 all the way down to the LA border as a 2 lane limited access upgradable to interstate one day as an extention of I-57 to at least Monroe.

This would eliminate the need for a new bridge. Give LA a little something for dropping it's segment for I-69.

I'd rather see any effort for a new bridge across he Mississippi reserve for the Memphis area or at least Helena as part of a new 4 lane to Batesville.

Problem with that would be that would create an even longer stretch for I-69 if it was signed on US 82 between Texarkana and Greenville, and then US 61 from there to Memphis. The existing proposed route, even if a bit distorted, at least is more direct and serves as a direct route from Shreveport to Memphis. The only way a Greenville route through the US 82 bridge would be useful as part of I-69 would be either if I-69 was routed further east through Monroe, or if it was split between a South Texas-Corpus Christi-Houston-Texarkana section and a Lake Charles-Monroe-Greenville-Memphis segment.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13884
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:23:59 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #247 on: November 01, 2016, 02:54:22 PM »

The existing proposed route, even if a bit distorted, at least is more direct and serves as a direct route from Shreveport to Memphis.
False. Using EIS mileage, Shreveport-Memphis via I-49/30/40 is 12 miles SHORTER than the proposed route of I-69.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 755
  • 2016 WS champs!!!!

  • Last Login: October 19, 2019, 09:58:38 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #248 on: November 01, 2016, 04:08:55 PM »

Would it be cheaper to widen 30 and 40 rather than building the new terrain 69? It seems more feasible to do IMO.
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6030
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 19, 2019, 02:43:43 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #249 on: November 01, 2016, 05:07:11 PM »

Would it be cheaper to widen 30 and 40 rather than building the new terrain 69? It seems more feasible to do IMO.

If I-30 and I-40 could be widened by additional lane(s) in the median rather than having to acquire significant adjoining properties, then -- even with the bayou-hopping nature of I-40 between Little Rock & Memphis, which requires a substantial number of bridge structures -- it would be likely that widening of those routes would indeed cost less than the new-terrain I-69.  Subtract the "Great River" bridge on I-69 and it would probably come a little closer to parity.  But the fact is that the routing -- and the concept to begin with in this region -- is largely a result of decades of politicking and persistent lobbying by representatives and interests in south Arkansas, an area that is locally perceived to have been neglected, especially in comparison with other parts of the state.  Sure, it has neither significant population centers nor much in the way of tourist attraction -- but what's there has been vocal (and manipulative) enough to get a multi-state corridor aligned through it.  For better or worse (aka, "like it or not"), highway facilities are often the manifestations of political will; this portion of I-69 is an example of that process -- although the final product might be "tweaked" down the line to accommodate fiscal and/or localized realities. 
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.