I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)

[edwaleni]

I would have completed the Monticello bypass before building the extension to McGahee. By the way, when the extension to McGahee is constructed, will it also be signed as Bypass US 278, or might they bring back the AR 569 designation?

https://ardot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=a716eb676065457cae0cf67b99c257fe

It will be called US-278 until a bridge over the Mississippi River is built.

When ARDOT engaged local leadership and business leaders, they said updating the road east to McGahee had more economic impact than extending the bypass farther west and connecting it to a future AR-530.

Most of the hearing material has been taken down by ARDOT on the project site, but a video recap of the project can be found here:

https://vimeo.com/452222439

[Road Hog]

McGehee* (pronounced McGee).

[abqtraveler]

So the latest from ArDOT on the Monticello-McGehee section of I-69:  the Next 3 Letting page is back on ArDOT's website, and it now appears that they will be breaking up the Monticello-McGehee section into two contracts.  The first construction contract will construct the first two lanes of Future I-69 from the east end of the Monticello Bypass at US-278 to AR-293.  That contract is currently scheduled to be let on August 10th.  Let's see if they hold to that schedule.

https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022-May-Letting-to-Post.pdf

[abqtraveler]

The next section of Future I-69 in Arkansas has been advertised for bid, with the letting date schedule for August 10th. This section starts at the east end of the Monticello Bypass at US-278 and ends at AR-293.  This contract will construct the first two lanes of I-69 between US-278 and AR-293, for a total length of 8.252 miles. Interestingly, this section, once completed, will carry the "temporary" designation of AR-569, as indicated in the title of the construction plans for this segment. But don't hold your breath on the road getting its "permanent" designation of I-69 anytime soon.

https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/020678_plans.pdf

[MikieTimT]

ARDOT just released the draft 2023-2026 STIP.  The next segment to be funded is the AR-293 to US-65 portion across Bayou Bartholomew in 2026 for $54.4M if the STIP isn't modified when finalized.

https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2023-2026_STIP_Draft_General_Electronic.pdf Pg. 5 (Slide 36)

[The Ghostbuster]

Is there a date planned yet to complete the AR 530 "missing link"  between AR 11 and AR 35? I would think it should have been constructed by now.

[Road Hog]

Is there a date planned yet to complete the AR 530 "missing link"  between AR 11 and AR 35? I would think it should have been constructed by now.

Without a date definite, I think ARDOT is wise to hold off on this final section. They decided to split the baby by dissecting Warren and Monticello, so they robbed themselves of any impetus to finish a major connector to Central Arkansas.

[MikieTimT]

Is there a date planned yet to complete the AR 530 "missing link"  between AR 11 and AR 35? I would think it should have been constructed by now.

Without a date definite, I think ARDOT is wise to hold off on this final section. They decided to split the baby by dissecting Warren and Monticello, so they robbed themselves of any impetus to finish a major connector to Central Arkansas.

Upon consulting land records in Lincoln County and Drew County, other than around AR-11 and Kiowa Rd., ARDOT doesn't own any of the ROW in the gap.  Thankfully it's pretty much all timber production and isn't likely to be built up in the next couple of decades, so I'm sure ARDOT isn't in a rush to purchase the land either.  I would expect nothing to change in the foreseeable future, and there's nothing in the STIP for Project Development for AR/I-530 in the next 2 years for Drew or Lincoln Counties.  Project Development line items are for ROW acquisition for ARDOT, which is obviously required before any construction would commence.  Until then, it's all timber and poultry production for the foreseeable future for the current landowners.  Unless the area grows organically without the built-out I-69 infrastructure, it's likely that the urgency for this project is quite low for everyone involved.

[edwaleni]

Is there a date planned yet to complete the AR 530 "missing link"  between AR 11 and AR 35? I would think it should have been constructed by now.

Without a date definite, I think ARDOT is wise to hold off on this final section. They decided to split the baby by dissecting Warren and Monticello, so they robbed themselves of any impetus to finish a major connector to Central Arkansas.

Upon consulting land records in Lincoln County and Drew County, other than around AR-11 and Kiowa Rd., ARDOT doesn't own any of the ROW in the gap.  Thankfully it's pretty much all timber production and isn't likely to be built up in the next couple of decades, so I'm sure ARDOT isn't in a rush to purchase the land either.  I would expect nothing to change in the foreseeable future, and there's nothing in the STIP for Project Development for AR/I-530 in the next 2 years for Drew or Lincoln Counties.  Project Development line items are for ROW acquisition for ARDOT, which is obviously required before any construction would commence.  Until then, it's all timber and poultry production for the foreseeable future for the current landowners.  Unless the area grows organically without the built-out I-69 infrastructure, it's likely that the urgency for this project is quite low for everyone involved.

I just looked at the parcel maps myself and it does show ArDOT owning a few strips here and there in Drew and Lincoln Counties. But it is clear to the land owners where ArDOT plans to take AR-530 through as they are not touching the land and leaving it as is in many places leaving a clear delineation on the aerials where the routing will go. Some states, once they record the centerline of a future ROW, will leave the land "as is" so that the farmer can still work the land until the local DOT advises them when construction will begin.

I watched Tennessee leave the I-69 ROW to the farmers to use as they saw fit until the road was funded. Then the farmers left the ROW fallow when notified that construction was about to begin and they didn't plant on it.

[TBKS1]

Hello everyone! It's been almost THREE YEARS since the last post here. I do want to bring this back for a little bit as I drove by and clinched the Monticello Bypass earlier today. The bypass extension to AR 293 is running ahead of schedule and is expected to be completed in June 2026 according to the construction signs posted there. The ground is cleared out for pavement to be laid overtop, although there is no pavement or signs up yet, and that probably won't be for several months at the earliest.

I still have no idea what this will be designated as, I assume as just US 278 Bypass, although someone quoted an out-of-context post I made on this forum years ago about it being designated as AR 569, but I can't find any evidence as to what it'll be designated as. I could just phone up the district office if I wanted to but I kinda want to be surprised lol

From US 278



Southern terminus of AR 293 at US 278, the bypass will be extended just barely north of this, and you can see the same sign in the background.



~ Ethan

[bwana39]

You know, I am not sure ANYONE in Arkansas even is still onboard for the "preferred route" any more.

Mississippi is totally off of any thoughts on the bridge at Arkansas City.

Arkansas is seemingly invested on the new Memphis Bridge (which I think is badly misplaced. )

Yes, there will be improvements to US-278. I personally don't think they will get to the point of the I-69 track for at least 50 years.

[TBKS1]

Here's how I see it.

I'm 22. I'm just here for a good time, not a long time. Yes, the Monticello bypass is relevant to the I-69 project, but for what it's worth the completion of I-69 isn't really on my mind at all. I don't really care what happens to it, but any new road infrastructure projects in Arkansas are an excuse for highway clinching and picture taking, which is primarily what I do in my corner of the roadgeek hobby.

Once the bypass gets built, that's a highway clinching opportunity for me. If it gets extended further, or new developments happen later on, that's another clinching opportunity for me.

Obviously I just sent that here since it's technically relevant to the I-69 project. Of course any developments relative to the project outside of that bypass are very minimal, but I still consider it some form of progress for what it's worth.

[The Ghostbuster]

There isn't a lot of progress shown on Satellite Mode on Google Maps for the US 278 to AR 293 segment under construction. Are there any other map apps that show more progress?

[Rick Powell]

There isn't a lot of progress shown on Satellite Mode on Google Maps for the US 278 to AR 293 segment under construction. Are there any other map apps that show more progress?

Copernicus Browser

https://tinyurl.com/278-Bypass

[Henry]

There isn't a lot of progress shown on Satellite Mode on Google Maps for the US 278 to AR 293 segment under construction. Are there any other map apps that show more progress?

Copernicus Browser

https://tinyurl.com/278-Bypass

It seems to me that AR is very much further along with I-69 than LA and MS ever will be. However, my prediction remains that nobody using this forum now will still be alive when the entire national corridor is completed.

[Rick Powell]

It seems to me that AR is very much further along with I-69 than LA and MS ever will be. However, my prediction remains that nobody using this forum now will still be alive when the entire national corridor is completed.

I agree that completion of every last link of the I-69 corridor is looking like year 2100 or so. I do think that the following will be accomplished within next 20 years:
* In TX, most of the corridor west of Houston including I-69E will be done, progress will be made on all the bypasses between Houston and Tenaha, and there will be no traffic signals remaining between Brownsville and Tenaha.
* I-69 will be continuous between Dyersburg, TN and Port Huron, MI
* Progress will be made on the I-369 corridor in TX with bypasses reducing the amount of traffic signals on the route.
* No additional mileage in MS or progress on the Charles Dean bridge between AR and MS.
* AR will complete the section from the west Monticello bypass to US 65 as an initial 2-lane.
* A little bit of progress will be made in LA with that access road they are proposing along the proposed I-69 route.

I'll make sure to open this time capsule in 2045 if I (and the forum) are still around.

[RoadWarrior56]

I predict that the entire I-69 corridor will never be completed, as it is currently envisioned.  It was too ambitious, especially considering the lack of federal support, and that it was proposed at least 40 years too late, for it to have a chance to be built in its entirety.

IMO, the two most useful sections are north from Memphis to Fort Huron, and south from Texarkana to Mexico, but using only the I-69E branch. and I-69 should begin in Memphis and go north, and the route in TX should have a single number that is compatable with the grid, not 369/69/69E.

The sections through MS, AR, and LA were likely located for political reasons, would serve no major population centers, and that "missing link" is already served by I-40/I/30.  Just 6-lane those roadways.  And yes I know I am not the first person to express these opinions.