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 152341 times)

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
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: 1370
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:53 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: 6557
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 08, 2020, 04:02:03 PM
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

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 352
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 09:44:32 AM
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: 6557
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 08, 2020, 04:02:03 PM
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: 2081
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: April 08, 2020, 05:59:48 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

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 99
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 09:25:35 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #356 on: March 20, 2020, 02:39:28 PM »

In a nutshell. US 67 (Future I-57) goes through Pulaski County. I-530 goes to Pulaski County.
I-49 goes to Bentonville.

The priorities are Future I-57 and I-530.

I-49 will get built gradually over time.

I 69 has a proposed Arkansas route that is circumnavigous and has a more local flair than inter-state. The proposed Mississippi River bridge seems too far south; almost redundant to the Greenville bridge (Less than 30 ROAD miles apart) It is about seventy miles from the proposed site to the US 49 bridge which is an older narrow 2 lane structure.  . The Louisiana portion is decades away.  I-69 north of Bossier City seems fairly low down the priority list both in Little Rock and Baton Rouge.

Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6557
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 08, 2020, 04:02:03 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #357 on: March 21, 2020, 02:28:16 AM »

In a nutshell. US 67 (Future I-57) goes through Pulaski County. I-530 goes to Pulaski County.
I-49 goes to Bentonville.

The priorities are Future I-57 and I-530.

I-49 will get built gradually over time.

I 69 has a proposed Arkansas route that is circumnavigous and has a more local flair than inter-state. The proposed Mississippi River bridge seems too far south; almost redundant to the Greenville bridge (Less than 30 ROAD miles apart) It is about seventy miles from the proposed site to the US 49 bridge which is an older narrow 2 lane structure.  . The Louisiana portion is decades away.  I-69 north of Bossier City seems fairly low down the priority list both in Little Rock and Baton Rouge.



The I-69 portion from I-20 to Monticello will, along with the Great River bridge, almost certainly be the last segments of the I-69 corridor to be constructed.   The multi-section SIU concept applied to I-69 has its advantages and its drawbacks -- the advantages are that a motivated state like IN, KY, or TX is able to take control of the process and get more and more mileage deployed.  Like TX with the I-369 portion of the corridor, the AR 530 connector, joining the state's southern tier with Little Rock, will get much of the initial attention and subsequent funding; the SIU (28) that constitutes the AR 530 project was added on to the corridor's definition as a "consolation prize" for the denial of the state's original preferred I-69 corridor up US 79 through Pine Bluff; as a high-priority corridor, the Feds pick up a substantial share of the cost.  Even though Monticello-McGehee, along the main trunk line, has been under study for about five years now, don't expect much actual activity there until the initial 2-lane expressway on AR 530 has been completed, providing a seamless route from Little Rock to Monticello and eventually the LA line along US 425.  In AR -- except for NWA -- all top priority roads seem to converge on Little Rock!
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 99
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 09:25:35 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #358 on: March 21, 2020, 01:48:24 PM »

I did more research. This thing almost surely will be built where planned if it is ever built. Robert S. Moore, Jr.  is from Arkansas City. He has been a political heavyweight in  Arkansas for years. He has among other Jobs served in the Arkansas House when the Dean Bridge ROW was purchased (eventually being Speaker of The Republican controlled House while being a Democrat.)

He currently serves as the Chairman of the Arkansas Highway Comission.

« Last Edit: March 24, 2020, 11:08:03 AM by bwana39 »
Logged

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 149
  • The Interstate Ideas just keep coming!

  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: April 06, 2020, 01:00:37 AM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #359 on: March 22, 2020, 09:27:31 PM »

I did more research. This thing almost surely will be built where planned. Robert S. Moore, Jr.  is from Arkansas City. He has been a political heavyweight in  Arkansas for years. He has among other Jobs served in the Arkansas House when the Dean Bridge ROW was purchased (eventually being Speaker of The Republican controlled House while being a Democrat.)

He currently serves as the Chairman of the Arkansas Highway Comission.

i know its not Tennessee, but is there a I-69 in tennessee post? i haven't found one, if there is can you link it please
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3845
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: April 08, 2020, 11:28:56 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #360 on: March 22, 2020, 09:57:44 PM »

I did more research. This thing almost surely will be built where planned. Robert S. Moore, Jr.  is from Arkansas City. He has been a political heavyweight in  Arkansas for years. He has among other Jobs served in the Arkansas House when the Dean Bridge ROW was purchased (eventually being Speaker of The Republican controlled House while being a Democrat.)

He currently serves as the Chairman of the Arkansas Highway Comission.

i know its not Tennessee, but is there a I-69 in tennessee post? i haven't found one, if there is can you link it please
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3841.0

Go the section, Mid-South, type Ctrl-F, and search "I-69".
Logged

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 149
  • The Interstate Ideas just keep coming!

  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: April 06, 2020, 01:00:37 AM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #361 on: March 22, 2020, 10:36:24 PM »

I did more research. This thing almost surely will be built where planned. Robert S. Moore, Jr.  is from Arkansas City. He has been a political heavyweight in  Arkansas for years. He has among other Jobs served in the Arkansas House when the Dean Bridge ROW was purchased (eventually being Speaker of The Republican controlled House while being a Democrat.)

He currently serves as the Chairman of the Arkansas Highway Comission.

i know its not Tennessee, but is there a I-69 in tennessee post? i haven't found one, if there is can you link it please
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3841.0

Go the section, Mid-South, type Ctrl-F, and search "I-69".

ok thanks that helps
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 303
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: April 08, 2020, 09:24:37 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #362 on: March 24, 2020, 11:53:45 AM »

In a nutshell. US 67 (Future I-57) goes through Pulaski County. I-530 goes to Pulaski County.
I-49 goes to Bentonville.

The priorities are Future I-57 and I-530.

I-49 will get built gradually over time.

I 69 has a proposed Arkansas route that is circumnavigous and has a more local flair than inter-state. The proposed Mississippi River bridge seems too far south; almost redundant to the Greenville bridge (Less than 30 ROAD miles apart) It is about seventy miles from the proposed site to the US 49 bridge which is an older narrow 2 lane structure.  . The Louisiana portion is decades away.  I-69 north of Bossier City seems fairly low down the priority list both in Little Rock and Baton Rouge.



The I-69 portion from I-20 to Monticello will, along with the Great River bridge, almost certainly be the last segments of the I-69 corridor to be constructed.   The multi-section SIU concept applied to I-69 has its advantages and its drawbacks -- the advantages are that a motivated state like IN, KY, or TX is able to take control of the process and get more and more mileage deployed.  Like TX with the I-369 portion of the corridor, the AR 530 connector, joining the state's southern tier with Little Rock, will get much of the initial attention and subsequent funding; the SIU (28) that constitutes the AR 530 project was added on to the corridor's definition as a "consolation prize" for the denial of the state's original preferred I-69 corridor up US 79 through Pine Bluff; as a high-priority corridor, the Feds pick up a substantial share of the cost.  Even though Monticello-McGehee, along the main trunk line, has been under study for about five years now, don't expect much actual activity there until the initial 2-lane expressway on AR 530 has been completed, providing a seamless route from Little Rock to Monticello and eventually the LA line along US 425.  In AR -- except for NWA -- all top priority roads seem to converge on Little Rock!

I have an app called ON-X, which is used mainly by hunters to depict the land boundaries and different game management areas.  One thing of note is it shows areas where ROWs for future highways have been acquired. Looking at Arkansas' map, On-X shows that ARDOT has acquired the complete ROW for the western approach to the Charles W. Dean Bridge from US-65 to the Mississippi River. Mississippi has not yet started ROW acquisition on its side, thanks to Mississippi being about as close to bankrupt as a state can be, outside of California or Illinois.

Related to that, it's worth noting that ARDOT currently doesn't have the ROW to complete the AR-530 gap between AR-11 and US-278. Instead, leaders in southeastern Arkansas are pressing ARDOT to prioritize getting the first two lanes of I-69 built from Monticello to McGehee and worry about the rest later. But also keep in mind that completing I-69 through Arkansas is facing competition from other major projects for funding:  finishing I-49 between Texarkana and Ft. Smith, and completing US-67/Future I-57 to the Missouri state line.
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, H1, H2, H3, H201

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6557
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 08, 2020, 04:02:03 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #363 on: March 24, 2020, 03:29:32 PM »

Related to that, it's worth noting that ARDOT currently doesn't have the ROW to complete the AR-530 gap between AR-11 and US-278. Instead, leaders in southeastern Arkansas are pressing ARDOT to prioritize getting the first two lanes of I-69 built from Monticello to McGehee and worry about the rest later. But also keep in mind that completing I-69 through Arkansas is facing competition from other major projects for funding:  finishing I-49 between Texarkana and Ft. Smith, and completing US-67/Future I-57 to the Missouri state line.

Now that's interesting -- it points to a divergence of prioritization between state (read ADOT and their LR political handlers) and local interests along the state's southern tier.   Looks like the local area is more interested in addressing their local needs via the Monticello-McGehee "semi-super 2" that will be the initial I-69 effort than in expediting an additional route to the state capitol!   If the remaining unacquired ROW on 530 doesn't consist of a lot of improved property -- and eminent domain still holds sway -- then it's likely that there's no particular hurry to acquire those properties if local (Monticello etc.) interests aren't clamoring for 530's completion.   As much as ADOT planners may want the N-S project completed,  holding off on any more work simply means that it's funds not spent there that can be deployed elsewhere.   Now whether south AR interests can get that redirected to Monticello-McGehee/I-69 or whether it'll just go to other locations in the state has yet TBD.  With both I-49 and now I-57 in the in-state mix, the funding shell game just got more intriguing!
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 654
  • Last Login: April 08, 2020, 02:11:18 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #364 on: March 24, 2020, 06:40:39 PM »

If I was Monticello I would be pushing I-69, not the "Connector".

That "Connector" simply helps college kids get up to UA-LR and UA-PB and back. If it had anything serious on it, they would have pushed the entire way.

Being connected to the rest of the US east-west is way more important for commerce and employment than a road that allows local politicians to get to the capitol floor and back.

Quote
Related to that, it's worth noting that ARDOT currently doesn't have the ROW to complete the AR-530 gap between AR-11 and US-278.

This is incorrect. ARDOT owns all the required ROW to US-278. One simple scan of Google Maps will tell you that. Just because it isn't built out doesn't mean they don't own it. 
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 352
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 09:44:32 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #365 on: March 24, 2020, 08:05:11 PM »


Quote
Related to that, it's worth noting that ARDOT currently doesn't have the ROW to complete the AR-530 gap between AR-11 and US-278.

This is incorrect. ARDOT owns all the required ROW to US-278. One simple scan of Google Maps will tell you that. Just because it isn't built out doesn't mean they don't own it.

Looks like a nearly a complete strip of taller trees the width of a 4-lane freeway right-of-way between the AR-530 segments.  Don't see any south of US-278, so they might not have that stretch to the Monticello Bypass/Future I-69 that loops south of there.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 99
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 09:25:35 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #366 on: March 25, 2020, 12:15:14 AM »

In a nutshell. US 67 (Future I-57) goes through Pulaski County. I-530 goes to Pulaski County.
I-49 goes to Bentonville.

The priorities are Future I-57 and I-530.

I-49 will get built gradually over time.

I 69 has a proposed Arkansas route that is circumnavigous and has a more local flair than inter-state. The proposed Mississippi River bridge seems too far south; almost redundant to the Greenville bridge (Less than 30 ROAD miles apart) It is about seventy miles from the proposed site to the US 49 bridge which is an older narrow 2 lane structure.  . The Louisiana portion is decades away.  I-69 north of Bossier City seems fairly low down the priority list both in Little Rock and Baton Rouge.



The I-69 portion from I-20 to Monticello will, along with the Great River bridge, almost certainly be the last segments of the I-69 corridor to be constructed.   The multi-section SIU concept applied to I-69 has its advantages and its drawbacks -- the advantages are that a motivated state like IN, KY, or TX is able to take control of the process and get more and more mileage deployed.  Like TX with the I-369 portion of the corridor, the AR 530 connector, joining the state's southern tier with Little Rock, will get much of the initial attention and subsequent funding; the SIU (28) that constitutes the AR 530 project was added on to the corridor's definition as a "consolation prize" for the denial of the state's original preferred I-69 corridor up US 79 through Pine Bluff; as a high-priority corridor, the Feds pick up a substantial share of the cost.  Even though Monticello-McGehee, along the main trunk line, has been under study for about five years now, don't expect much actual activity there until the initial 2-lane expressway on AR 530 has been completed, providing a seamless route from Little Rock to Monticello and eventually the LA line along US 425.  In AR -- except for NWA -- all top priority roads seem to converge on Little Rock!

I have an app called ON-X, which is used mainly by hunters to depict the land boundaries and different game management areas.  One thing of note is it shows areas where ROWs for future highways have been acquired. Looking at Arkansas' map, On-X shows that ARDOT has acquired the complete ROW for the western approach to the Charles W. Dean Bridge from US-65 to the Mississippi River. Mississippi has not yet started ROW acquisition on its side, thanks to Mississippi being about as close to bankrupt as a state can be, outside of California or Illinois.

Related to that, it's worth noting that ARDOT currently doesn't have the ROW to complete the AR-530 gap between AR-11 and US-278. Instead, leaders in southeastern Arkansas are pressing ARDOT to prioritize getting the first two lanes of I-69 built from Monticello to McGehee and worry about the rest later. But also keep in mind that completing I-69 through Arkansas is facing competition from other major projects for funding:  finishing I-49 between Texarkana and Ft. Smith, and completing US-67/Future I-57 to the Missouri state line.

Yes Mississippi is pretty broke. The point though is that Mississippi wants the bridge farther north.  Arkansas picked the crossing point right where the biggest advocate for Desha County wanted it. It is like the 1963 Jimmie Davis Bridge in Bossier City LA. Buy / build until they cannot or will not turn back.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 352
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 09:44:32 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #367 on: March 25, 2020, 08:25:45 PM »

Yes Mississippi is pretty broke. The point though is that Mississippi wants the bridge farther north.  Arkansas picked the crossing point right where the biggest advocate for Desha County wanted it. It is like the 1963 Jimmie Davis Bridge in Bossier City LA. Buy / build until they cannot or will not turn back.

That's crazy.  You'd think that Arkansas would want more Interstate mileage on our side of the border, which a bridge further north would dictate.  I guess Arkansas didn't want the expense of 2 more river crossings.  The current White River crossing of I-40 and the forever 20 years into the future I-49 Arkansas River crossing must be daunting enough for the state to tackle.
Logged

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 149
  • The Interstate Ideas just keep coming!

  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: April 06, 2020, 01:00:37 AM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #368 on: March 26, 2020, 12:10:52 PM »

Yes Mississippi is pretty broke. The point though is that Mississippi wants the bridge farther north.  Arkansas picked the crossing point right where the biggest advocate for Desha County wanted it. It is like the 1963 Jimmie Davis Bridge in Bossier City LA. Buy / build until they cannot or will not turn back.

That's crazy.  You'd think that Arkansas would want more Interstate mileage on our side of the border, which a bridge further north would dictate.  I guess Arkansas didn't want the expense of 2 more river crossings.  The current White River crossing of I-40 and the forever 20 years into the future I-49 Arkansas River crossing must be daunting enough for the state to tackle.

yea i've hear ARDOT is struggling in Funds, Especially Since the have to Build, I-57, I-49, I-530 Extension, and I-69 with 2 New Bridges
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6557
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 08, 2020, 04:02:03 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #369 on: March 26, 2020, 01:35:24 PM »

Yes Mississippi is pretty broke. The point though is that Mississippi wants the bridge farther north.  Arkansas picked the crossing point right where the biggest advocate for Desha County wanted it. It is like the 1963 Jimmie Davis Bridge in Bossier City LA. Buy / build until they cannot or will not turn back.

That's crazy.  You'd think that Arkansas would want more Interstate mileage on our side of the border, which a bridge further north would dictate.  I guess Arkansas didn't want the expense of 2 more river crossings.  The current White River crossing of I-40 and the forever 20 years into the future I-49 Arkansas River crossing must be daunting enough for the state to tackle.

yea i've hear ARDOT is struggling in Funds, Especially Since the have to Build, I-57, I-49, I-530 Extension, and I-69 with 2 New Bridges

Quite true -- AR's inability to get the mainline I-69 through Pine Bluff twenty years ago might be, in retrospect, a blessing in disguise -- avoidance of a costly navigation-friendly high-rise Interstate-standard bridge over the Arkansas River at Pine Bluff -- in addition to a similar structure across the Mississippi at Helena.  Now they only have one major bridge project on that corridor -- and one that would split the costs with MS (which is one of the primary reasons that project will be kicked down the road almost indefinitely!). 
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 303
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: April 08, 2020, 09:24:37 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #370 on: March 26, 2020, 10:31:49 PM »

Yes Mississippi is pretty broke. The point though is that Mississippi wants the bridge farther north.  Arkansas picked the crossing point right where the biggest advocate for Desha County wanted it. It is like the 1963 Jimmie Davis Bridge in Bossier City LA. Buy / build until they cannot or will not turn back.

That's crazy.  You'd think that Arkansas would want more Interstate mileage on our side of the border, which a bridge further north would dictate.  I guess Arkansas didn't want the expense of 2 more river crossings.  The current White River crossing of I-40 and the forever 20 years into the future I-49 Arkansas River crossing must be daunting enough for the state to tackle.

yea i've hear ARDOT is struggling in Funds, Especially Since the have to Build, I-57, I-49, I-530 Extension, and I-69 with 2 New Bridges

Quite true -- AR's inability to get the mainline I-69 through Pine Bluff twenty years ago might be, in retrospect, a blessing in disguise -- avoidance of a costly navigation-friendly high-rise Interstate-standard bridge over the Arkansas River at Pine Bluff -- in addition to a similar structure across the Mississippi at Helena.  Now they only have one major bridge project on that corridor -- and one that would split the costs with MS (which is one of the primary reasons that project will be kicked down the road almost indefinitely!).

Speaking of the Charles W. Dean Bridge, the FHWA approved the FEIS and issued a ROD in 2004. Would Arkansas and Mississippi have to go back and update the EIS and request a new ROD from the FHWA if and when they decide to start construction of the bridge?
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, H1, H2, H3, H201

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3845
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: April 08, 2020, 11:28:56 PM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #371 on: March 26, 2020, 11:13:50 PM »

Yes Mississippi is pretty broke. The point though is that Mississippi wants the bridge farther north.  Arkansas picked the crossing point right where the biggest advocate for Desha County wanted it. It is like the 1963 Jimmie Davis Bridge in Bossier City LA. Buy / build until they cannot or will not turn back.

That's crazy.  You'd think that Arkansas would want more Interstate mileage on our side of the border, which a bridge further north would dictate.  I guess Arkansas didn't want the expense of 2 more river crossings.  The current White River crossing of I-40 and the forever 20 years into the future I-49 Arkansas River crossing must be daunting enough for the state to tackle.

yea i've hear ARDOT is struggling in Funds, Especially Since the have to Build, I-57, I-49, I-530 Extension, and I-69 with 2 New Bridges

Quite true -- AR's inability to get the mainline I-69 through Pine Bluff twenty years ago might be, in retrospect, a blessing in disguise -- avoidance of a costly navigation-friendly high-rise Interstate-standard bridge over the Arkansas River at Pine Bluff -- in addition to a similar structure across the Mississippi at Helena.  Now they only have one major bridge project on that corridor -- and one that would split the costs with MS (which is one of the primary reasons that project will be kicked down the road almost indefinitely!).

Speaking of the Charles W. Dean Bridge, the FHWA approved the FEIS and issued a ROD in 2004. Would Arkansas and Mississippi have to go back and update the EIS and request a new ROD from the FHWA if and when they decide to start construction of the bridge?
Yes, and would probably require a Re-Evaluation of the previous FEIS.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 99
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 09:25:35 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #372 on: March 27, 2020, 03:56:05 PM »

My thought is in spite of the ROW purchases in Arkansas, this route is not set in stone.

I think from a Missippi perspective, it would be less expensive to build freeway out from the current Greenville Bridge. This would mandate following an even more east / west route through southern Arkansa than is currently proposed.

Mississippi / Arkansas  also is staring at  another bridge eventually. There seems almost surely to be a need for another bridge for metropolitan Memphis. Population growth would suggest in North Mississippi.  This would be an eventual I-X55 or I-22 extension.  Tennessee might could better afford it, but the location with the missing.

As others have said from time-to-time, the US 79 corridor from Pine Bluff looks better in spite of the need for a bridge or bridges across the Arkansas and White Rivers.
Logged

bjrush

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 373
  • Go Hogs

  • Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 08:56:14 AM
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #373 on: March 27, 2020, 06:54:15 PM »

If they bought ROW, that's where it's going
Logged
Woo Pig Sooie

US71

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

  • Posts: 9519
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: April 08, 2020, 06:49:33 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)
« Reply #374 on: March 27, 2020, 08:10:44 PM »

If they bought ROW, that's where it's going

IIRC, ARDOT has the right of way
Logged
Like Alice, I try to believe three impossible things before breakfast. --5th Doctor

 


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.