News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

I-49 in Arkansas

Started by Grzrd, August 20, 2010, 01:10:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

edwaleni

Quote from: stridentweasel on May 25, 2020, 03:58:29 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on May 17, 2020, 10:14:50 PM
Oklahoma needs to stick to updating the US-75/US-69 corridor between DFW and KCMO.  NAFTA traffic is looking to avoid OKC and Tulsa while heading north.

Serious question, and I've actually been wondering this for a long time:  Why not just use I-35 for DFW-to-KC traffic?  Isn't that what it's there for?  Is OKC traffic really that bad?  Are trucking companies that hard up to avoid the Kansas Turnpike tolls?  And if the latter is a concern, is Oklahoma really going to do this without building a new turnpike and letting US 69 be a side road, if they ever do it at all?

It's an honest question.

For the most part, most logistics using trucks do use the I-35 routing.

However at many times I-35 south of OKC gets congested.  In the last few years there have been many truck accidents where the northbound side gets closed for hours at a time causing several miles of backups.

A recent UPS order I made was sourced in the DFW metro. I followed its path and I thought it would interchange in OKC to go east.  Instead they took it all the way from DFW to KCMO in a single day's drive.  Looking at time to arrive, they had to have used I-35.

Today I-35 is the fastest way to go if no obstacles come into play.  If OK does upgrade the 69-75 corridor and remove the local speed traps and increase the grade separations, it will be possible to cut the time by 30 to 45 minutes.


bwana39

Quote from: edwaleni on May 27, 2020, 12:08:46 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 25, 2020, 03:58:29 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on May 17, 2020, 10:14:50 PM
Oklahoma needs to stick to updating the US-75/US-69 corridor between DFW and KCMO.  NAFTA traffic is looking to avoid OKC and Tulsa while heading north.

Serious question, and I've actually been wondering this for a long time:  Why not just use I-35 for DFW-to-KC traffic?  Isn't that what it's there for?  Is OKC traffic really that bad?  Are trucking companies that hard up to avoid the Kansas Turnpike tolls?  And if the latter is a concern, is Oklahoma really going to do this without building a new turnpike and letting US 69 be a side road, if they ever do it at all?

It's an honest question.

For the most part, most logistics using trucks do use the I-35 routing.

However at many times I-35 south of OKC gets congested.  In the last few years there have been many truck accidents where the northbound side gets closed for hours at a time causing several miles of backups.

A recent UPS order I made was sourced in the DFW metro. I followed its path and I thought it would interchange in OKC to go east.  Instead they took it all the way from DFW to KCMO in a single day's drive.  Looking at time to arrive, they had to have used I-35.

Today I-35 is the fastest way to go if no obstacles come into play.  If OK does upgrade the 69-75 corridor and remove the local speed traps and increase the grade separations, it will be possible to cut the time by 30 to 45 minutes.

No they didn't. It followed the US 69 corridor on the UPRR.  Very few UPS trucks do longhaul. Most of the trailers are put on rail cars for long segments. Your package almost surely went via rail.

Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sprjus4

Per Google Maps, between Dallas and Kansas City.

US-75 / US-69 / I-44 / I-49 - 8 hours 2 minutes, 508 miles
I-35E / I-35 - 8 hours 16 minutes, 552 miles
I-35E / I-35 / I-335 / I-470 / I-70 - 8 hours 19 minutes, 556 miles

Using a 70 mph speed limit, the US-75 routing would be reduced to 7 hours 15 minutes. Considering Oklahoma will begin posting 75 mph on interstate highways in the near future, this would likely be reduced further. An interstate upgrade of US-75 and US-69 between I-45 and I-44 would be a logical extension of I-45.

armadillo speedbump

Quote from: bwana39 on May 27, 2020, 10:21:14 PM

No they didn't. It followed the US 69 corridor on the UPRR.

I'm curious how you know this, since the Union Pacific railroad doesn't offer intermodal service from Texas to Kansas City.  And in the distant past when it did, that was routed via St. Louis because of low volumes and took more than a day's transit time.   



Quotefew UPS trucks do longhaul. Most of the trailers are put on rail cars for long segments. Your package almost surely went via rail.

There are plenty of UPS truck long hauls.  While they use railroad intermodal in some lanes, there aren't that many market pairs that railroads even offer intermodal.  Mostly long distance and high volume lanes.  Transit times, reliability issues, and once a day (or less) schedules are also limiting factors to rail use.

bjrush

Quote from: BrandonC_TX on May 26, 2020, 07:22:35 PM
I am assuming bjrush is talking about railroads here.

Indeed. I know it's heretical on this forum, but rail is much more fuel efficient, less labor intensive, more reliable, and cheaper than truck if they're going to the same place. Especially when you factor in the need to build billion dollar roadways which will never in a million years pay for themselves. Spend 1/10 of those billions and add parallel tracks and replace at grade crossings and you will improve commerce for much cheaper
Woo Pig Sooie

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: bjrush on May 28, 2020, 01:59:47 PM
Quote from: BrandonC_TX on May 26, 2020, 07:22:35 PM
I am assuming bjrush is talking about railroads here.

Indeed. I know it's heretical on this forum, but rail is much more fuel efficient, less labor intensive, more reliable, and cheaper than truck if they're going to the same place. Especially when you factor in the need to build billion dollar roadways which will never in a million years pay for themselves. Spend 1/10 of those billions and add parallel tracks and replace at grade crossings and you will improve commerce for much cheaper
By what measure are you concluding roads will never pay for themselves? You posted some perfectly valid points about the benefits of rail and then shift to an anti road vibe where make half true statements. Rail projects costs in the billions as well so how do those pay for themselves if roads don't?

I was always under the impression roads and rail, well basically all infrastructure, pays for itself in the way of allowing society to function and prosper.

sparker

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 28, 2020, 03:03:48 PM
Quote from: bjrush on May 28, 2020, 01:59:47 PM
Quote from: BrandonC_TX on May 26, 2020, 07:22:35 PM
I am assuming bjrush is talking about railroads here.

Indeed. I know it's heretical on this forum, but rail is much more fuel efficient, less labor intensive, more reliable, and cheaper than truck if they're going to the same place. Especially when you factor in the need to build billion dollar roadways which will never in a million years pay for themselves. Spend 1/10 of those billions and add parallel tracks and replace at grade crossings and you will improve commerce for much cheaper
By what measure are you concluding roads will never pay for themselves? You posted some perfectly valid points about the benefits of rail and then shift to an anti road vibe where make half true statements. Rail projects costs in the billions as well so how do those pay for themselves if roads don't?

I was always under the impression roads and rail, well basically all infrastructure, pays for itself in the way of allowing society to function and prosper.

The UPS/rail joint operation works just like any other "hub and spoke" system; air freight functions much the same.  Trucks handle the short haul, but rail is used to get the goods between widely-spaced metro areas.  But that all depends upon the railroad following a strict scheduling regimen regarding these particular movements.  DFW-KC is ideal, because the UP (former MKT and MP) trackage it uses (and, yes, it goes up the 69/75 corridor) isn't on their transcontinental container routes, which tend to clog up rail traffic.  But on those transcontinental routes (in UP's case, either L.A.-El Paso-DFW or Oakland-Salt Lake-Omaha-Chicago) where UPS trains have to queue between cargo coming out of West Coast ports, the service is parsed out into stuff that has to "be there yesterday", which will be, size permitting, placed on over-the-road trucks, and other less time-sensitive cargo will go by rail.  Generally speaking, by and large the majority of UPS cargo on N-S corridors tends to go by rail regardless of time sensitivity, while E-W corridors receive the "split mode" approach.  The only general N-S rail corridors that regularly exhibit the issues endemic to E-W corridors in general are those paralleling I-85 and/or I-95 on the East Coast (CSX or NS); split-mode is largely utilized there as well.     

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: sparker on May 28, 2020, 07:03:13 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 28, 2020, 03:03:48 PM
Quote from: bjrush on May 28, 2020, 01:59:47 PM
Quote from: BrandonC_TX on May 26, 2020, 07:22:35 PM
I am assuming bjrush is talking about railroads here.

Indeed. I know it's heretical on this forum, but rail is much more fuel efficient, less labor intensive, more reliable, and cheaper than truck if they're going to the same place. Especially when you factor in the need to build billion dollar roadways which will never in a million years pay for themselves. Spend 1/10 of those billions and add parallel tracks and replace at grade crossings and you will improve commerce for much cheaper
By what measure are you concluding roads will never pay for themselves? You posted some perfectly valid points about the benefits of rail and then shift to an anti road vibe where make half true statements. Rail projects costs in the billions as well so how do those pay for themselves if roads don't?

I was always under the impression roads and rail, well basically all infrastructure, pays for itself in the way of allowing society to function and prosper.

The UPS/rail joint operation works just like any other "hub and spoke" system; air freight functions much the same.  Trucks handle the short haul, but rail is used to get the goods between widely-spaced metro areas.  But that all depends upon the railroad following a strict scheduling regimen regarding these particular movements.  DFW-KC is ideal, because the UP (former MKT and MP) trackage it uses (and, yes, it goes up the 69/75 corridor) isn't on their transcontinental container routes, which tend to clog up rail traffic.  But on those transcontinental routes (in UP's case, either L.A.-El Paso-DFW or Oakland-Salt Lake-Omaha-Chicago) where UPS trains have to queue between cargo coming out of West Coast ports, the service is parsed out into stuff that has to "be there yesterday", which will be, size permitting, placed on over-the-road trucks, and other less time-sensitive cargo will go by rail.  Generally speaking, by and large the majority of UPS cargo on N-S corridors tends to go by rail regardless of time sensitivity, while E-W corridors receive the "split mode" approach.  The only general N-S rail corridors that regularly exhibit the issues endemic to E-W corridors in general are those paralleling I-85 and/or I-95 on the East Coast (CSX or NS); split-mode is largely utilized there as well.   
Thank you for the information. That is very interesting and if you don't mind me asking, how do you know this? Did you have a career in this field or just a hobby?

sparker

^^^^^^^^^
My academic training is in the field of public policy; specifically transportation policy -- including a sub-specialty in freight movement in and between metro areas (not too many of us out there plowing that particular field!).  The evolution of UPS over the years has always been intriguing, particularly after about 1996, when FedEx made a major effort to carve out a big slice of the package-delivery world for themselves (FE has a much greater reliance on long-distance trucks -- usually by contract -- than does UPS).  I'm pretty much retired from the field, but occasionally I'll write position paper(s) on a case-by-case basis.  Got a few other irons in the fire in a largely unrelated field (that utilizes UPS and FedEx regularly -- so I try to keep up with what's going on with them at any given time). 

bjrush

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 28, 2020, 03:03:48 PM
Quote from: bjrush on May 28, 2020, 01:59:47 PM
Quote from: BrandonC_TX on May 26, 2020, 07:22:35 PM
I am assuming bjrush is talking about railroads here.

Indeed. I know it's heretical on this forum, but rail is much more fuel efficient, less labor intensive, more reliable, and cheaper than truck if they're going to the same place. Especially when you factor in the need to build billion dollar roadways which will never in a million years pay for themselves. Spend 1/10 of those billions and add parallel tracks and replace at grade crossings and you will improve commerce for much cheaper
By what measure are you concluding roads will never pay for themselves? You posted some perfectly valid points about the benefits of rail and then shift to an anti road vibe where make half true statements. Rail projects costs in the billions as well so how do those pay for themselves if roads don't?

I was always under the impression roads and rail, well basically all infrastructure, pays for itself in the way of allowing society to function and prosper.

Diminishing returns. I don't think the incremental improvements from a new interstate roughly paralleling an existing interstate-quality facility just a few dozen miles to the east or west had the same economic impact as when the first one was put in (thinking specifically of all the proposals fanning out from DFW, but many other examples available). You can drive between any major US city on an interstate. While adding a few more lanes here and there is likely justified, adding new interstates between cities that aren't directly connected likely doesn't pass economic muster given the costs are extremely high and benefits low. Conversely building parallel tracks is still expensive, but an order of magnitude cheaper than interstate construction, and would likely bring similar benefits via efficiency.

Much infrastructure doesn't pay for itself. Think of the water line running down a cul-de-sac to serve 4 houses. That's why the holy grail of PPP has largely gone quiet. Investors don't see a return on investment. Connecting places is fine, but we shouldn't pretend it's on an economic basis. Just like we don't build city parks based on a ROI approach, we build them because we've decided they are an important amenity. That's more of a justification for I-49 between TXK and Ft Smith than a sliced and diced economic analysis. Those can say anything, it's all in the assumptions.
Woo Pig Sooie

rte66man

Quote from: bjrush on May 28, 2020, 01:59:47 PM
Quote from: BrandonC_TX on May 26, 2020, 07:22:35 PM
I am assuming bjrush is talking about railroads here.

Indeed. I know it's heretical on this forum, but rail is much more fuel efficient, less labor intensive, more reliable, and cheaper than truck if they're going to the same place. Especially when you factor in the need to build billion dollar roadways which will never in a million years pay for themselves. Spend 1/10 of those billions and add parallel tracks and replace at grade crossings and you will improve commerce for much cheaper

Emphasis added.  That statement is only true for intermodal hauls to/from major terminals. I can speak from experience that UPRR is not especially interested in mixed short hauls.  They have raised their per car rates so high that my company has been forced to return to trucking product in some markets. They've also discontinued our 3/week unit trains in favor of a daily pickup. Better for them, not as good for us.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

mvak36

https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/construction-on-bella-vista-bypass-i-49-interchange-still-on-track-near-bentonville/48660

Apparently they stopped construction for a few weeks on the SPUI project because an employee tested positive for COVID. Other than that, the rest of the article didn't give any new information.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

US71

Quote from: mvak36 on June 11, 2020, 10:26:50 AM
https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/construction-on-bella-vista-bypass-i-49-interchange-still-on-track-near-bentonville/48660

Apparently they stopped construction for a few weeks on the SPUI project because an employee tested positive for COVID. Other than that, the rest of the article didn't give any new information.

Everything is back to what passes for normal.  I'm hoping to get up that way soon to update the I-49 Fakebook page.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

mvak36

Quote from: US71 on June 11, 2020, 11:11:01 AM
Quote from: mvak36 on June 11, 2020, 10:26:50 AM
https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/construction-on-bella-vista-bypass-i-49-interchange-still-on-track-near-bentonville/48660

Apparently they stopped construction for a few weeks on the SPUI project because an employee tested positive for COVID. Other than that, the rest of the article didn't give any new information.

Everything is back to what passes for normal.  I'm hoping to get up that way soon to update the I-49 Fakebook page.

Yes you are right. I probably should have worded my post better. The article did say they started work on the project again after the Memorial Day weekend.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

O Tamandua

I don't know if this Build I-49 FB setting will allow public viewing, but here is a view north of Rocky Hollow (old Gun Range Road) at the paving that is now going on NORTH of that crossing all the way to the MO state line.



https://www.facebook.com/288089113623/photos/pcb.10158635920753624/10158635912668624/?type=3&theater

cjk374

Quote from: O Tamandua on July 24, 2020, 11:47:28 PM
I don't know if this Build I-49 FB setting will allow public viewing, but here is a view north of Rocky Hollow (old Gun Range Road) at the paving that is now going on NORTH of that crossing all the way to the MO state line.



https://www.facebook.com/288089113623/photos/pcb.10158635920753624/10158635912668624/?type=3&theater

They have put up an exit gore sign already?? 😮😮😮
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

US71

#2616
Quote from: cjk374 on July 25, 2020, 02:16:34 PM


They have put up an exit gore sign already?? 😮😮😮

But not Northbound.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Tomahawkin

I taking it to the Bank that the 49 corridor doesn't get started til 2025. I wish they would build it in segments like IH 22 in Alabama was done. There was hilly terrain there but they committed to it. Not to mention I have been ad nauseam in saying that make it rolled. 50 cents to a dollar for all the snowbirds and spring breakers

edwaleni

Quote from: cjk374 on July 25, 2020, 02:16:34 PM
Quote from: O Tamandua on July 24, 2020, 11:47:28 PM
I don't know if this Build I-49 FB setting will allow public viewing, but here is a view north of Rocky Hollow (old Gun Range Road) at the paving that is now going on NORTH of that crossing all the way to the MO state line.



https://www.facebook.com/288089113623/photos/pcb.10158635920753624/10158635912668624/?type=3&theater

They have put up an exit gore sign already?? 😮😮😮

It's a "Warning, Powerline Overhead" sign.

Scott5114

On two posts? That'd be pretty weird.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

US71

Quote from: Tomahawkin on July 25, 2020, 10:13:26 PM
I taking it to the Bank that the 49 corridor doesn't get started til 2025. I wish they would build it in segments like IH 22 in Alabama was done. There was hilly terrain there but they committed to it. Not to mention I have been ad nauseam in saying that make it rolled. 50 cents to a dollar for all the snowbirds and spring breakers

You mean the Arkansas River Bridge or south of Ft Smith?
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

sparker

Quote from: US71 on July 27, 2020, 09:34:25 PM
Quote from: Tomahawkin on July 25, 2020, 10:13:26 PM
I taking it to the Bank that the 49 corridor doesn't get started til 2025. I wish they would build it in segments like IH 22 in Alabama was done. There was hilly terrain there but they committed to it. Not to mention I have been ad nauseam in saying that make it rolled. 50 cents to a dollar for all the snowbirds and spring breakers

You mean the Arkansas River Bridge or south of Ft Smith?

If work on that bridge is let as soon as 2025, I for one would be surprised (I figured somewhere closer to 2030).  But a few years back the speculation was that the Texarkana-Ft. Smith section would likely be done in small sections, with a Mena bypass the first to be tackled, and the DeQueen-area segment the next on the agenda; the Arkansas River bridge would be done -- more or less -- as its own SIU as a Fort Smith bypass (and to make the AR 549 freeway south of there less of a speculative anomaly).  But, AFAIK, there's been no significant expenditures to date toward ROW acquisition or even structure design; it seems as if that particular can has been kicked down the road as far as possible. 

Bobby5280

#2622
I think AR DOT will have to shift priorities on the Fort Smith to Texarkana leg of I-49.

Obviously completion of the Belle Vista Bypass is the current priority. But once that's done focus will shift South. In the past the Alma to Barling segment, with its expensive Arkansas River bridge, was seen as the next project to build. Then progress would slowly extend South. Due to all the funding issues that game plan just isn't going to work.

I think the next steps for I-49 should be building the bypasses for Waldron, Mena, DeQueen and Ashdown. Maybe build them initially as Super 2 routes just to secure the ROW. Then start working on filling in the gaps where it's feasible. Those segments of I-49 are going to be less expensive to build and may get completed faster, especially if the state has to work on its own to at least flesh out the basics of the route segments. AR DOT can build those segments without having to worry about what happens in Fort Smith or what Texas does or does not do with its short segment of I-49.

The only thing that can be done with the Alma-Barling segment is securing ROW. Everything else is going to be pricey and, likely, postponed. The existing I-40/I-49 interchange has to be modified significantly, if not completely re-built for I-49 to extend South. Then there's all the grading work and bridge building needed to raise I-49 out of the flood plain near the river. I think AR DOT will need a lot of funding help from some future national infrastructure package via the US Congress to get the Fort Smith section completed.

The most difficult project farther South is the mountain pass between Mena and Waldron. But that's not a road block to just getting the town bypasses built in Super 2 or 4-lane configuration. The upshot to tackling some of the rural and small town segments first is it may give off the illusion of overall progress happening faster. Nothing is going to happen at all anytime soon if all progress must wait until the Alma to Barling segment is built.

sparker

Like the old cliche' goes, the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time!  But it's also wise not to start with trying to digest the tusks!  If scarce available funds are to be allocated all over the state, a single project such as the remainder of I-49 is best tackled in a way, as stated in the previous post, that publicly shows progress on the corridor, regardless of how limited (like an initial Super-2 around Mena or De Queen).  Enough of them, and for the most part it'll be a matter of connecting the dots except for the mountainous segment that'll essentially overlay US 71 between Mena and Waldron. 

But the Arkansas River bridge is a whole 'nuther thing -- a high-level structure over a navigable waterway with significant floodplain crossing on either side!  If anything calls for a SIU-type independent approach, Alma-Barling does!  I'm guessing tolls are still somewhere on the discussion table; it's probably a matter of deciding just how much the market will bear vs. how long it'll take to make a dent in the initial bridge cost.  But the saving grace of all of AR's share of I-49 is that the competing routes are I-44/35, which adds considerable miles to a commercial trip, or US 69 -- and I'd simply refer you to that thread to flesh out what's happening (or, more succinctly, not happening) there.  If built -- and if TX comes close to completing the I-69/369 continuum at roughly the same time, I-49 will invariably be the N-S corridor of choice for regional travel.  A few bucks in tolls won't deter commercial traffic, especially with ORT (although some subsidized structure will likely be politically necessary for locals).  But the upshot is that the bridge project needs to be "broken out" into a separately addressed issue -- possibly with a dedicated funding/development/operating authority within the AR administrative structure.  If I were ADOT, I'd start serious planning and ROW inquiries for whatever the initial non-bridge projects along I-49 will be -- it'll get the locals' interest up and potentially clamoring for funds for "their" segment(s) -- making them the proverbial "squeaky wheel".  It's worked before; and worth at least a shot!

bwana39

Tolls are not in the offerings for Arkansas.  Simply, if it needs to be tolled, it just will not be built.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.



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.