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 145470 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6098
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:27:49 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #275 on: December 16, 2016, 02:39:33 AM »

I-69 would cross near Benoit, about 25 miles north of the Greenville Bridge. Seems it would make more sense around Rosedale, but pork will be pork.

 :-D :clap:

IIRC, the crossing at Benoit was intended to avoid the confluence of the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers for two reasons: environmental (I don't recall the exact situation) and practical:  avoiding multiple structures across both waterways and their floodplains.  Apparently just west of Benoit is the narrowest combination of channel + floodplain below the confluence, thus the most practical/feasible location for the bridge. 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1883
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 12:06:15 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #276 on: December 16, 2016, 11:03:22 AM »

Yeah, building an I-69 bridge across the Mississippi near Rosedale would be a heck of a lot more costly. It's 8 miles due west from Rosedale to reach stable, dry land. There's not only the Mississippi River to deal with, but the Arkansas River too. The White River also ends in that area (and creates a pretty big flood plain of its own. There's a large wildlife refuge in that area. It's pretty easy to see why I-69 would be crossing the Mississippi between Benoit, MS and McGehee, AR. But that's also assuming the segment of I-69 between Memphis and Shreveport needs to be built at all. I would be happy with MS-304 passing the casinos in Tunica, going due West across the Mississippi and dove-tailing into I-40 in Arkansas.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3023
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 06:46:53 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #277 on: December 16, 2016, 12:54:03 PM »

Yeah, building an I-69 bridge across the Mississippi near Rosedale would be a heck of a lot more costly. It's 8 miles due west from Rosedale to reach stable, dry land. There's not only the Mississippi River to deal with, but the Arkansas River too. The White River also ends in that area (and creates a pretty big flood plain of its own. There's a large wildlife refuge in that area. It's pretty easy to see why I-69 would be crossing the Mississippi between Benoit, MS and McGehee, AR. But that's also assuming the segment of I-69 between Memphis and Shreveport needs to be built at all. I would be happy with MS-304 passing the casinos in Tunica, going due West across the Mississippi and dove-tailing into I-40 in Arkansas.

it will be built, but that doesn't mean it needs to be built, that's another story. 
Logged

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2063
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 04:11:03 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #278 on: December 16, 2016, 01:23:41 PM »

Yeah, building an I-69 bridge across the Mississippi near Rosedale would be a heck of a lot more costly. It's 8 miles due west from Rosedale to reach stable, dry land. There's not only the Mississippi River to deal with, but the Arkansas River too. The White River also ends in that area (and creates a pretty big flood plain of its own. There's a large wildlife refuge in that area. It's pretty easy to see why I-69 would be crossing the Mississippi between Benoit, MS and McGehee, AR. But that's also assuming the segment of I-69 between Memphis and Shreveport needs to be built at all. I would be happy with MS-304 passing the casinos in Tunica, going due West across the Mississippi and dove-tailing into I-40 in Arkansas.

it will be built, but that doesn't mean it needs to be built, that's another story. 

At this rate, I am not so sure it will be built anytime soon. Louisiana doesn't seem to have any interest in it, and AR and MS are moving at a snail's pace to do their portion.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1883
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 12:06:15 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #279 on: December 16, 2016, 03:34:42 PM »

With the current infrastructure funding environment I don't see the Great River Bridge getting built within the next 30 years.

The forecast for I-69 projects is the Southern Indiana portion getting finished first, followed by the longer projects in South Texas and East Texas. Those probably won't be all done before 2030. By that time Louisiana might be wrapping up I-49 South and be able to start connecting Shreveport to Texas' I-69 system. Arkansas will be divided between building I-69 projects in the Southern part of the state or I-49 projects in the Western part of the state. The I-49 effort might be more beneficial since there isn't a $1 billion high clearance bridge to install on the route (just a $400 million one going over barge traffic in Fort Smith). Mississippi is in a contest to be dead last at everything in the U.S. and seems perpetually broke. Oklahoma is certainly vying for the title of crappiest state, but still has some hard work to do to beat Mississippi at sucking. That portion of I-69 between Tunica and Benoit might be among the last segments of I-69 to be built. And then the Great River Bridge would only get built after all that other stuff gets built. By that time the bridge might cost a few billion dollars to get built rather than the 2012 estimate of $750 million.

Of course the federal government could get big into highway infrastructure again, providing a lot of funding and putting these projects on a much faster track similar to what took place when the original Interstate system was getting built (an average of 1000 miles of new freeway per year). Unfortunately Washington loves to talk big and expect other people (the states) to foot the bill for all the big talk.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3023
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 06:46:53 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #280 on: December 16, 2016, 04:23:28 PM »

With the current infrastructure funding environment I don't see the Great River Bridge getting built within the next 30 years.

The forecast for I-69 projects is the Southern Indiana portion getting finished first, followed by the longer projects in South Texas and East Texas. Those probably won't be all done before 2030. By that time Louisiana might be wrapping up I-49 South and be able to start connecting Shreveport to Texas' I-69 system. Arkansas will be divided between building I-69 projects in the Southern part of the state or I-49 projects in the Western part of the state. The I-49 effort might be more beneficial since there isn't a $1 billion high clearance bridge to install on the route (just a $400 million one going over barge traffic in Fort Smith). Mississippi is in a contest to be dead last at everything in the U.S. and seems perpetually broke. Oklahoma is certainly vying for the title of crappiest state, but still has some hard work to do to beat Mississippi at sucking. That portion of I-69 between Tunica and Benoit might be among the last segments of I-69 to be built. And then the Great River Bridge would only get built after all that other stuff gets built. By that time the bridge might cost a few billion dollars to get built rather than the 2012 estimate of $750 million.

Of course the federal government could get big into highway infrastructure again, providing a lot of funding and putting these projects on a much faster track similar to what took place when the original Interstate system was getting built (an average of 1000 miles of new freeway per year). Unfortunately Washington loves to talk big and expect other people (the states) to foot the bill for all the big talk.

why doesn't i-49 use i-540? 
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3348
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 05:18:42 PM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #281 on: December 16, 2016, 04:51:17 PM »

The forecast for I-69 projects is the Southern Indiana portion getting finished first, followed by the longer projects in South Texas and East Texas. Those probably won't be all done before 2030. By that time Louisiana might be wrapping up I-49 South and be able to start connecting Shreveport to Texas' I-69 system.

By 2030, we will probably have I-49 through Lafayette and down to Des Allemands complete. We may have the Shreveport ICC done. I have a feeling we will not have I-49 between Des Allemands and the Westbank Expressway complete.

But, in the meantime, we have major issues in Baton Rouge. I-10 needs more lanes coming off of the Mississippi River Bridge. We also need to figure out how we're going to get traffic around Baton Rouge. Be it with a loop, a freeway/tollway along Airline Highway, something using LA 1 and LA 3127 to Boutte, etc.

If by some miracle we are able to finish both I-49 and Baton Rouge by 2030, we still have a consideration as to whether I-69 really benefits the state. If Alexandria, Lake Charles and Monroe continue to grow, those areas may demand an upgrade of US 165 to freeway grade. Shreveport will argue that it needs I-69 to better connect it to Houston. Some will counter-argue that since Texas is building infrastructure to connect Houston and Texarkana, there is no need for us to build the I-69 branch from Shreveport to Texas.

The end result that I see is that we may build I-69 from Logansport to Shreveport, but not from Shreveport to Arkansas. Not the latter until it demonstrates that it is of more economic benefit to all of Louisiana than other projects (e.g. a freeway from Monroe to Little Rock or Memphis).

Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

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 #282 on: December 16, 2016, 06:07:13 PM »

Meanwhile I-49 sits on the back burner with all this I-69 nonsense. We may all be dead and buried before the Great River Bridge ever gets built. The only hope of it getting built any time in the foreseeable future is the federal government stepping in and funding the entire thing.

The reality is I-69 was proposed years before I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana, so it's largely a matter of prioritizing based on project order. Plus building in southeast Arkansas is a lot cheaper per mile than the rugged terrain along US 71.
Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

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

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 07:59:22 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #283 on: December 17, 2016, 12:41:20 PM »

The reality is I-69 was proposed years before I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana, so it's largely a matter of prioritizing based on project order. Plus building in southeast Arkansas is a lot cheaper per mile than the rugged terrain along US 71.

Cheaper/easier shouldn't move projects up to higher ranks in a priority list. IMHO, finishing 49 should always outrank finishing 69. Relieving the traffic on rugged US 71 is a greater need than creating a crooked-route pork-barrel project that isn't relieving...anything.
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1883
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 12:06:15 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #284 on: December 18, 2016, 03:32:59 PM »

Quote from: silverback1065
why doesn't i-49 use i-540?

Looking at satellite imagery in Google Earth/Maps it's pretty easy to see why I-540 in Fort Smith isn't incorporated into I-49. All of I-540 in Fort Smith is boxed in with development. There is no easy/clear way to spur a new Interstate corridor off I-540 along that existing alignment. US-71 between Exit 12 of I-540 and the Fort Chaffee portion of I-49 is all cramped with commercial and residential property. There's no affordable way to upgrade that into an Interstate quality road. By the time I-540 reaches a place where it's not totally encroached with development the road has already gone Westward a mile or so into Oklahoma.

Quote from: jbnv
By 2030, we will probably have I-49 through Lafayette and down to Des Allemands complete. We may have the Shreveport ICC done. I have a feeling we will not have I-49 between Des Allemands and the Westbank Expressway complete.

It's going to be a struggle getting I-49 built through Lafayette. That's really by far the hardest part of building I-49 South. It's not going to be a picnic punching the freeway through Broussard and other areas just South of Lafayette either. There is a lot of development along the US-90 corridor. Some of it is set back far enough for frontage roads, but a bunch of other properties are not.

The rest of the un-built segments of I-49 to New Orleans will be a little easier to complete, including the incomplete portion of the Westbank Expressway. At least the right of way is already there and reserved for the future freeway main lanes, unlike the situation in Lafayette. I'm actually kind of surprised they didn't start the I-49 South project in New Orleans first and work their way West. Build out the rest of the Westbank Expressway, then push around or through Avondale & Boutte, connect to I-310, bypass Paradis, Des Allemands and finally connect to the existing US-90 freeway in Raceland. I don't know what I-49 has in store for Bayou Vista, Idlewild and Patterson, but that's going to require a bunch of property to be bought and cleared for ROW.

Quote from: lordsutch
The reality is I-69 was proposed years before I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana, so it's largely a matter of prioritizing based on project order. Plus building in southeast Arkansas is a lot cheaper per mile than the rugged terrain along US 71.

Are you sure the I-69 NAFTA highway thing was proposed first? Whether it was formal or not, I can recall I-49 being imagined as a potential New Orleans to Kansas City highway as far back as the 1980's. Some of the freeway segments in Arkansas and Missouri that were re-signed as I-49 have been around since the 1980's or even earlier. IIRC, the I-69 extension thing is an idea that was born in the 1990's to give NAFTA a little more oomph.

At any rate, more of I-49 is actually finished. And the final big gap in the corridor within Arkansas would be a lot easier and less expensive to complete than all the stuff along the I-69 corridor. The bridge over the Arkansas River by Fort Smith is the most costly project.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2016, 03:35:05 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3348
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 05:18:42 PM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #285 on: December 18, 2016, 06:19:53 PM »

Quote from: jbnv
By 2030, we will probably have I-49 through Lafayette and down to Des Allemands complete. We may have the Shreveport ICC done. I have a feeling we will not have I-49 between Des Allemands and the Westbank Expressway complete.

It's going to be a struggle getting I-49 built through Lafayette. That's really by far the hardest part of building I-49 South. It's not going to be a picnic punching the freeway through Broussard and other areas just South of Lafayette either. There is a lot of development along the US-90 corridor. Some of it is set back far enough for frontage roads, but a bunch of other properties are not.

It's not going to be easy, but the project has some degree of momentum. It's a freight train slowly starting to move, but starting to move nonetheless. If the anti-freeway forces don't derail it, I can see it getting done by 2030.

I don't know what I-49 has in store for Bayou Vista, Idlewild and Patterson, but that's going to require a bunch of property to be bought and cleared for ROW.

That may not get done by 2030. But...

The rest of the un-built segments of I-49 to New Orleans will be a little easier to complete, including the incomplete portion of the Westbank Expressway. At least the right of way is already there and reserved for the future freeway main lanes, unlike the situation in Lafayette. I'm actually kind of surprised they didn't start the I-49 South project in New Orleans first and work their way West. Build out the rest of the Westbank Expressway, then push around or through Avondale & Boutte, connect to I-310, bypass Paradis, Des Allemands and finally connect to the existing US-90 freeway in Raceland.

Yes, it will be easier to extend the Westbank Expressway to the Huey Long Bridge connector than it will be to build I-49 through Lafayette. So why haven't they done it yet? Based on my experience traveling in the Westbank, I would venture that the perception of need isn't there yet. The area between the I-310 junction and the start of the Westbank Expressway isn't well-developed. People who live in Boutte, Paradis, etc. take I-310 to get to New Orleans. I doubt that the lack of a full-freeway Westbank Expressway isn't hurting traffic too much in Westwego at this point.

I have lived along the 10-12-90 corridor for most of my life. My experience with US 90 between Houma and the Westbank suggests to me that there isn't as much perceived urgency as there is between Lafayette and Houma. US 90 from Lafayette to Morgan City needs a lot of work. There's a need to create a freeway bypass through Patterson. In spite of the ROW problem, that need will lead to it getting done before the Des Allemands - Westbank segment.
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 #286 on: December 18, 2016, 08:00:50 PM »

AHTD is apparently going to try to get FASTLANE funding for this I-69 project again. In Scott Bennett's Nov. 30 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission, this project is one of three that AHTD intends to submit (p. 18/65 of pdf)

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



Here's a map of the project area (p.5/27 of pdf):





why doesn't i-49 use i-540?

Some historical info from the EIS:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2079077#msg2079077
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2079426#msg2079426
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1347
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 10:01:40 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #287 on: December 18, 2016, 08:36:30 PM »

[
Quote from: jbnv
By 2030, we will probably have I-49 through Lafayette and down to Des Allemands complete. We may have the Shreveport ICC done. I have a feeling we will not have I-49 between Des Allemands and the Westbank Expressway complete.

It's going to be a struggle getting I-49 built through Lafayette. That's really by far the hardest part of building I-49 South. It's not going to be a picnic punching the freeway through Broussard and other areas just South of Lafayette either. There is a lot of development along the US-90 corridor. Some of it is set back far enough for frontage roads, but a bunch of other properties are not.

The rest of the un-built segments of I-49 to New Orleans will be a little easier to complete, including the incomplete portion of the Westbank Expressway. At least the right of way is already there and reserved for the future freeway main lanes, unlike the situation in Lafayette. I'm actually kind of surprised they didn't start the I-49 South project in New Orleans first and work their way West. Build out the rest of the Westbank Expressway, then push around or through Avondale & Boutte, connect to I-310, bypass Paradis, Des Allemands and finally connect to the existing US-90 freeway in Raceland. I don't know what I-49 has in store for Bayou Vista, Idlewild and Patterson, but that's going to require a bunch of property to be bought and cleared for ROW.

Actually, building the Connector through Lafayette won't be as much a struggle once you get past the NIMBYism. The main issues will be how to handle the opposition of Sterling Grove against an elevated or depressed/semi-covered freeway shadowing them, and how to handle cleaning up the old Southern Pacific railyard site that has been found to be more contaminated than previously. Once you get south of Johnston Street, there are much fewer residential displacements, and the ROW of the Evangeline Thruway/US 90 corridor is already set up for easy upgradability (save for the Verot School Road and Southpark Road interchanges that would have to overpass the abutting rail line.

There is a lot more development along 90 from Broussard south to the LA 88 interchange, but one-way frontage roads and mainline overpasses at Captain Cade Road, Young Street/Youngsville Parkway, and Ambassador Caffery Parkway along with the now under construction overpass at Albertsons Parkway should resolve that.

The main reason LADOTD wants to finish the Connector and US 90 segments southward to Morgan City first rather than the Raceland to NOLA segments is legitimate: to get the I-49 corridor established. Once the Lafayette portions are finished and the West Lake Outlet to Berwick segment is completed, you are basically 2/3rds of the way finished towards the extension.

The original plans for Raceland to NOLA was to have the mainline fully elevated in its entirity for protection against flooding and to bypass Des Allemands and Paradis to the south. That was ultimately rejected as too costly, so now the plans are to cannibalize most of the US 90 corridor using the existing US 90 Bayou Des Allemands bridge, a closer bypass of east Des Allemands and Paradis, and an interchange using an extension of the existing I-310/LA 3137 roadway. Supplemental EIS's will have to be processed to reflect the changes, so that's why the delay there.



[Sorry, Grz, for hijacking a thread on I-69, but gotta go where the post is to respond.]
« Last Edit: December 18, 2016, 08:38:48 PM by Anthony_JK »
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1883
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 12:06:15 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #288 on: December 18, 2016, 09:46:18 PM »

Even though talk of I-49 seems off-topic, it's still highly relevant since further development of I-69 projects in Arkansas would obviously take away from I-49 efforts. Without a HUGE amount of financial help from the federal government there is no way for Arkansas to build out both I-49 and I-69 in any sort of timely manner. And by timely, I mean a pace that would see either or both roads finished within the next 10-15 years. Right now with both federal and state governments handing out tax cuts as political candy and voters stupidly believing things like roads can build themselves for free there's not much hope for either I-49 or I-69 being finished any time soon.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3348
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 05:18:42 PM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #289 on: December 19, 2016, 09:23:13 AM »

It's also relevant in regards to Louisiana's participation in the project. If Louisiana had incentive to move on I-69 between Shreveport and Arkansas, that would help Arkansas prioritize and move forward on it. On the other hand, both states have significant incentives with I-49, and the result is movement in both states.

Even though talk of I-49 seems off-topic, it's still highly relevant since further development of I-69 projects in Arkansas would obviously take away from I-49 efforts. Without a HUGE amount of financial help from the federal government there is no way for Arkansas to build out both I-49 and I-69 in any sort of timely manner. And by timely, I mean a pace that would see either or both roads finished within the next 10-15 years. Right now with both federal and state governments handing out tax cuts as political candy and voters stupidly believing things like roads can build themselves for free there's not much hope for either I-49 or I-69 being finished any time soon.
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 #290 on: February 13, 2017, 03:49:26 PM »

The grading and structures contract was let in 2011 and this slide from Scott Bennett's December 12 presentation to the Highway Commission and Review Subcommittee estimates that it is 74% complete and that it should be finished in mid-2017 (p.15/21 of pdf)

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):

Logged

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 361
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 05:02:26 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 #291 on: March 01, 2017, 12:57:27 AM »

Scott Bennett's "Wish list" for Governor Hutchinson and President Trump: the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge and the I-49 Arkansas River Bridge:  http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/115718/fort-smith-great-river-bridges-comprise-arkansas-wish-list
Logged

GreenLanternCorps

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 306
  • What's behind me, is not important!

  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ohio
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 07:13:22 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #292 on: April 12, 2017, 01:01:36 PM »

The grading and structures contract was let in 2011 and this slide from Scott Bennett's December 12 presentation to the Highway Commission and Review Subcommittee estimates that it is 74% complete and that it should be finished in mid-2017 (p.15/21 of pdf)

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):



If the Eastern half of the Monticello Bypass is completed, What will it  be number as?  AR 569?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6098
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:27:49 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #293 on: April 12, 2017, 04:42:00 PM »

If the Eastern half of the Monticello Bypass is completed, What will it  be number as?  AR 569?

That's one possibility.  Just as likely is US 278, with the current route relegated to business loop status.  Also look for some prominent "Future I-69" signage along the bypass.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2017, 03:06:08 PM by sparker »
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5142
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 08:32:40 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #294 on: April 13, 2017, 10:39:18 AM »

If the Eastern half of the Monticello Bypass is completed, What will it  be number as?  AR 569?

That's one possibility.  Just as likely is US 278, with the current route relegated to business loop status.  Also look for some prominent "Future I-69" signage along the bypass).
Hey, better late than never, right? Then maybe LA and MS will be inspired to get serious about building their own sections of I-69, however slow the progress may be.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2063
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 04:11:03 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #295 on: April 13, 2017, 10:43:41 AM »

If the Eastern half of the Monticello Bypass is completed, What will it  be number as?  AR 569?

That's one possibility.  Just as likely is US 278, with the current route relegated to business loop status.  Also look for some prominent "Future I-69" signage along the bypass).
Hey, better late than never, right? Then maybe LA and MS will be inspired to get serious about building their own sections of I-69, however slow the progress may be.

I think MS would be a little more serious if they had more money. MDOT is working on a design to extend I-69 to the south from its current terminus for a few miles, so that is some progress.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

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

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 07:59:22 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #296 on: April 16, 2017, 05:43:58 PM »

If the Eastern half of the Monticello Bypass is completed, What will it  be number as?  AR 569?

That's one possibility.  Just as likely is US 278, with the current route relegated to business loop status.  Also look for some prominent "Future I-69" signage along the bypass).
Hey, better late than never, right? Then maybe LA and MS will be inspired to get serious about building their own sections of I-69, however slow the progress may be.

I don't see LA being anymore interested in I-69, no matter the progress in MS & AR. They are still broke and still have other projects that are more important.

I'm surprised that they have decided to build a new Jimmy Davis bridge across the Red River next to the old one. Then they plan on making the old bridge a pedestrian & bike crossing to connect the river trails that run parallel to the Clyde Fant & Arthur Ray Teague parkways.
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

US71

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

  • Posts: 8688
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 11:23:13 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #297 on: April 16, 2017, 05:53:11 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
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6098
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:27:49 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #298 on: April 18, 2017, 04:41:10 AM »

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.
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 8688
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 11:23:13 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #299 on: April 18, 2017, 08:30:11 AM »

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.
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

 


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.