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 MS  (Read 67846 times)

Stephane Dumas

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1693
  • Last Login: Today at 11:40:10 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #175 on: June 07, 2018, 07:57:17 PM »

Wouldn't be more easier to upgrade that part of US-61 as I-69? Since others parts of US-61 will become part of I-69 like the current Clarksdale bypass.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1299
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:06:27 AM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #176 on: June 08, 2018, 11:43:47 AM »

In some respects it is easier to build a brand new Interstate on new terrain near or parallel to an existing 4 lane highway. In the case of US-61 in Mississippi frontage roads would be a must in some areas for an Interstate upgrade to prevent access to farms or buildings from being removed. There's a lot of driveways and farm access entrances coming off of US-61. An Interstate with frontage roads eats a lot more land (and existing buildings too close to the ROW). Tunica and North Tunica would need a new freeway bypass regardless. I don't know how well the existing US-61 pavement complies with Interstate standards. A bunch of those main lanes and shoulders might have to be rebuilt from scratch. That would compound costs (removing old road bed and building new).

A good stretch of US-61 South of Tunica would be good for rebuilding as an Interstate since there's hardly any buildings next to the road until it gets near Clarksdale. But there's still the issue of maintaining access to farm land.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4132
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:29:14 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #177 on: June 08, 2018, 05:59:25 PM »

In some respects it is easier to build a brand new Interstate on new terrain near or parallel to an existing 4 lane highway. In the case of US-61 in Mississippi frontage roads would be a must in some areas for an Interstate upgrade to prevent access to farms or buildings from being removed. There's a lot of driveways and farm access entrances coming off of US-61. An Interstate with frontage roads eats a lot more land (and existing buildings too close to the ROW). Tunica and North Tunica would need a new freeway bypass regardless. I don't know how well the existing US-61 pavement complies with Interstate standards. A bunch of those main lanes and shoulders might have to be rebuilt from scratch. That would compound costs (removing old road bed and building new).

A good stretch of US-61 South of Tunica would be good for rebuilding as an Interstate since there's hardly any buildings next to the road until it gets near Clarksdale. But there's still the issue of maintaining access to farm land.

Generally speaking, when a presently divided general-access facility is selected for a freeway upgrade, the choice to use the existing alignment is dependent upon such issues as number of private driveways and other access roads are present; how much actual space is between the main carriageways and the adjacent buildings (i.e., room to deploy frontage roads without impinging too much on private lands), the median width and whether the private access includes crossovers to the opposite-direction lanes, and the details of the existing facility -- whether it meets or can be readily upgraded to Interstate-grade geometry; whether there is sufficient room for periodic grade separations, and how interchanges are to be handled and whether or not the frontage roads figure into the interchange schematics.  Compound that with local resentments regarding inconveniences imposed by having to make multiple driving moves to regain the access provided by the prior non-limited-access facility, and you have much of the reason why in many circumstances existing divided facilities are fully bypassed by parallel new-terrain routes.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3412
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 14, 2018, 02:59:07 PM
Re: I-69 in MS
« Reply #178 on: August 10, 2018, 02:24:30 PM »

This August 1 article discusses Coahoma County projects contained (or not) in Mississippi's draft STIP; a MDOT official indicates that there could be discussion about I-69 at a public meeting held on August 2:

Quote
When members of the Mississippi Departmemt of Transportation unveil its Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan plan to members of the public this Thursday, there's going to be little mention of Coahoma County.
Mitch Turner, who is district engineer with the Department of Treansportation's District 2 office in Batesville, said there is "limited" mention of Coahoma County in the plan as most of the projects that will be unveiled are "long-range type plans." ....
One project that could eventually have an impact would be Interstate 69.
"I think there'll be some discussion about the future of I-69 and how it will affect Coahomas County and the area," Turner said, but added, "There won't be any specifics, because there aren't any specifics about that right now."

To sum it up, aside from paying off bonds for the section connecting Memphis to Tunica, there are no I-69 projects in the Draft STIP.

Here's the link to the 2019-2022 Draft STIP:

http://mdot.ms.gov/FiveYearPlanData/2019-2022%20Draft%20STIP/2019-2022%20STIP%20Draft.pdf
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 02:45:11 PM by Grzrd »
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.