News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

AR: Future I-555

Started by Tomahawkin, February 11, 2009, 11:46:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Grzrd

Quote from: AHTD on January 29, 2014, 10:55:34 AM
Arkansas Code Annotated 27-35-210
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/ACA_27-35-210.pdf
Quote from: NE2 on January 15, 2014, 06:18:58 PM
Have you considered asking the legislature to allow farm equipment on Interstates where posted?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2014, 08:00:47 PM
we can name it the Dan Moraseski Freeway.
Quote from: bjrush on February 10, 2015, 06:46:05 PM
A $50M frontage road for farmer bob and farmer jon seems like misplaced priorities

AHTD and the Arkansas Legislature must fear history's harsh judgment if they put into effect the proposed Moraseski Compromise, even though its provision granting farmer bob and farmer jon admission to the interstate system as drivers of farm equipment appears benign.


codyg1985

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 10, 2015, 10:09:16 PM
One thing I'm wondering is why it costs so insanely much to build a freaking road anymore. What's it up to per mile to build an Interstate highway? $20 million? $50 million? $100 million?

I think in this case the reason it is so expensive is because bridges will need to be built across the irrigation canals/St. Francis River basin..
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

bjrush

Cheap gas is actually helping projects get cheaper at the moment for short-term projects
Woo Pig Sooie

AHTD

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 10, 2015, 10:09:16 PM
One thing I'm wondering is why it costs so insanely much to build a freaking road anymore. What's it up to per mile to build an Interstate highway? $20 million? $50 million? $100 million?

The rate of cost inflation is just ridiculous. The nation is already having to let big parts of its infrastructure fall into ruin. How far can this go? Are we going to let it get to the point where it costs a million dollars to put a 20' long concrete driveway in front of a $75,000 home?

A long time ago I would have thought future technological advances would have made it easier, cheaper and more efficient to build major civil engineering projects. Obviously that isn't happening. I laugh at some of the things I see in science fictions movies (oh that giant thing would only cost a trillion times a trillion dollars if it could even be built). Maybe we're going in the other direction -like Mad Max or something. Maybe in the future we'll have nothing but dirt roads since that's all we'll be able to afford to build and maintain.


On average it costs around $5 million or $6 million per mile for a four-lane divided highway.

Travel and construction information available at www.idrivearkansas.com

Grzrd

#79
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2012, 08:08:58 PM
Quote from: US71 on August 27, 2012, 06:51:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 11:28:43 AM
By now the legislature could have passed a law allowing farm equipment (and bikes/peds) on this piece of I-555.
Is that not a Federal standard?
No ...
Quote from: AHTD on January 29, 2014, 10:55:34 AM
Arkansas Code Annotated 27-35-210
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/ACA_27-35-210.pdf
Quote from: NE2 on January 15, 2014, 06:18:58 PM
Have you considered asking the legislature to allow farm equipment on Interstates where posted?

This April 2, 2015 article reports that an Arkansas U.S. Congressman wants to insert language in the next highway reauthorization that would allow farm equipment on I-555 during daylight hours (even though, as NE2 has pointed out, there is no current federal prohibition, and, as forum member AHTD has confirmed, the prohibition is contained in an Arkansas statute):

Quote
After a decade of stalled efforts, U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Jonesboro, believes he's come up with a new approach to speed the designation of U.S. 63 in Poinsett County as Interstate 555.
The roadblock has centered on a three-mile stretch of U.S. 63 that local farmers rely on to cross the St. Francis Floodway. At an Interstate, the farmers would no longer be able to drive their heavy equipment on the road – forcing them to take a detour that could add as much as 90 miles to the drive.
To solve the problem, state highway officials have suggested that an access road be constructed to parallel I-555, but that would cost as much as $50 million. Instead, Crawford plans to seek a legislative fix that would exempt the farm equipment from the federal restriction – at least during daylight hours.
"If we are successful in securing this language in the upcoming highway reauthorization bill, we could save up to $50 million while not materially affecting the manner in which traffic crosses the floodway today,"  Crawford said. "This would be a huge win-win for all of northeast Arkansas, and I am committed to making the best case possible for this with the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee."
Congress is hoping to approve a new highway bill before the current law expires May 31.
Crawford, who is a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has been working with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department on finding a way forward with I-555. Rather than build the access road at a cost of $50 million, Crawford's proposal – if approved – would allow non-conforming agriculture equipment to use the road during daylight hours. The change would improve road safety because the farm vehicles are allowed on U.S. 63 day or night.
Alec Farmer, a member of the Arkansas Highway Commission, said he appreciated Crawford's effort.
"I appreciate Congressman Crawford's interest in ensuring highway dollars are spent wisely while also making certain that an important economic development tool – Interstate 555 – for northeast Arkansas is realized as quickly as possible,"  he said.

Why doesn't agency AHTD simply coordinate with local officials to amend the state statute and/or tell Crawford that there is no federal prohibition that needs to be rectified?

codyg1985

Slow moving farm equipment plus traffic going at least 70 mph? Not a good combination.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

NE2

Quote from: codyg1985 on May 26, 2015, 03:50:02 PM
Slow moving farm equipment plus traffic going at least 70 mph? Not a good combination.
It happens all the time in Texas. On Interstates and two-lane roads.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

AHTD

Quote from: Grzrd on May 26, 2015, 03:22:31 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2012, 08:08:58 PM
Quote from: US71 on August 27, 2012, 06:51:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 11:28:43 AM
By now the legislature could have passed a law allowing farm equipment (and bikes/peds) on this piece of I-555.
Is that not a Federal standard?
No ...
Quote from: AHTD on January 29, 2014, 10:55:34 AM
Arkansas Code Annotated 27-35-210
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/ACA_27-35-210.pdf
Quote from: NE2 on January 15, 2014, 06:18:58 PM
Have you considered asking the legislature to allow farm equipment on Interstates where posted?

This April 2, 2015 article reports that an Arkansas U.S. Congressman wants to insert language in the next highway reauthorization that would allow farm equipment on I-555 during daylight hours (even though, as NE2 has pointed out, there is no current federal prohibition, and, as forum member AHTD has confirmed, the prohibition is contained in an Arkansas statute):

Quote
After a decade of stalled efforts, U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Jonesboro, believes he's come up with a new approach to speed the designation of U.S. 63 in Poinsett County as Interstate 555.
The roadblock has centered on a three-mile stretch of U.S. 63 that local farmers rely on to cross the St. Francis Floodway. At an Interstate, the farmers would no longer be able to drive their heavy equipment on the road – forcing them to take a detour that could add as much as 90 miles to the drive.
To solve the problem, state highway officials have suggested that an access road be constructed to parallel I-555, but that would cost as much as $50 million. Instead, Crawford plans to seek a legislative fix that would exempt the farm equipment from the federal restriction – at least during daylight hours.
"If we are successful in securing this language in the upcoming highway reauthorization bill, we could save up to $50 million while not materially affecting the manner in which traffic crosses the floodway today,"  Crawford said. "This would be a huge win-win for all of northeast Arkansas, and I am committed to making the best case possible for this with the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee."
Congress is hoping to approve a new highway bill before the current law expires May 31.
Crawford, who is a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has been working with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department on finding a way forward with I-555. Rather than build the access road at a cost of $50 million, Crawford's proposal – if approved – would allow non-conforming agriculture equipment to use the road during daylight hours. The change would improve road safety because the farm vehicles are allowed on U.S. 63 day or night.
Alec Farmer, a member of the Arkansas Highway Commission, said he appreciated Crawford's effort.
"I appreciate Congressman Crawford's interest in ensuring highway dollars are spent wisely while also making certain that an important economic development tool – Interstate 555 – for northeast Arkansas is realized as quickly as possible,"  he said.

Why doesn't agency AHTD simply coordinate with local officials to amend the state statute and/or tell Crawford that there is no federal prohibition that needs to be rectified?


http://governor.arkansas.gov/press-releases/detail/governor-asa-hutchinson-makes-official-call-for-special-legislative-session

Read the bullets CAREFULLY....
Travel and construction information available at www.idrivearkansas.com

Grzrd

Quote from: AHTD on May 26, 2015, 04:22:28 PM
http://governor.arkansas.gov/press-releases/detail/governor-asa-hutchinson-makes-official-call-for-special-legislative-session
Read the bullets CAREFULLY....

Thanks, AHTD!:

Quote
Governor Asa Hutchinson has made the official call to legislators for a special session of the 90th General Assembly that will convene Tuesday, May 26, 2015. Along with the official call, the Governor has announced all items on the special session agenda below ....
-To ensure that state law aligns with potential changes in federal law regarding farm-equipment traffic on a new section of interstate highway.

Finally! It is interesting that the special session began today.

Rover_0

Quote from: AHTD on May 26, 2015, 04:22:28 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 26, 2015, 03:22:31 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2012, 08:08:58 PM
Quote from: US71 on August 27, 2012, 06:51:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 11:28:43 AM
By now the legislature could have passed a law allowing farm equipment (and bikes/peds) on this piece of I-555.
Is that not a Federal standard?
No ...
Quote from: AHTD on January 29, 2014, 10:55:34 AM
Arkansas Code Annotated 27-35-210
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/ACA_27-35-210.pdf
Quote from: NE2 on January 15, 2014, 06:18:58 PM
Have you considered asking the legislature to allow farm equipment on Interstates where posted?

This April 2, 2015 article reports that an Arkansas U.S. Congressman wants to insert language in the next highway reauthorization that would allow farm equipment on I-555 during daylight hours (even though, as NE2 has pointed out, there is no current federal prohibition, and, as forum member AHTD has confirmed, the prohibition is contained in an Arkansas statute):

Quote
After a decade of stalled efforts, U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Jonesboro, believes he's come up with a new approach to speed the designation of U.S. 63 in Poinsett County as Interstate 555.
The roadblock has centered on a three-mile stretch of U.S. 63 that local farmers rely on to cross the St. Francis Floodway. At an Interstate, the farmers would no longer be able to drive their heavy equipment on the road – forcing them to take a detour that could add as much as 90 miles to the drive.
To solve the problem, state highway officials have suggested that an access road be constructed to parallel I-555, but that would cost as much as $50 million. Instead, Crawford plans to seek a legislative fix that would exempt the farm equipment from the federal restriction – at least during daylight hours.
"If we are successful in securing this language in the upcoming highway reauthorization bill, we could save up to $50 million while not materially affecting the manner in which traffic crosses the floodway today,"  Crawford said. "This would be a huge win-win for all of northeast Arkansas, and I am committed to making the best case possible for this with the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee."
Congress is hoping to approve a new highway bill before the current law expires May 31.
Crawford, who is a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has been working with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department on finding a way forward with I-555. Rather than build the access road at a cost of $50 million, Crawford's proposal – if approved – would allow non-conforming agriculture equipment to use the road during daylight hours. The change would improve road safety because the farm vehicles are allowed on U.S. 63 day or night.
Alec Farmer, a member of the Arkansas Highway Commission, said he appreciated Crawford's effort.
"I appreciate Congressman Crawford's interest in ensuring highway dollars are spent wisely while also making certain that an important economic development tool – Interstate 555 – for northeast Arkansas is realized as quickly as possible,"  he said.

Why doesn't agency AHTD simply coordinate with local officials to amend the state statute and/or tell Crawford that there is no federal prohibition that needs to be rectified?


http://governor.arkansas.gov/press-releases/detail/governor-asa-hutchinson-makes-official-call-for-special-legislative-session

Read the bullets CAREFULLY....

So that language sounds like I-555 has already been approved?
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

Anthony_JK

Quote from: bjrush on February 10, 2015, 06:46:05 PM
I don't see this as a huge scandal. They built the road and 99% of the time it is an interstate to the traveling public. A $50M frontage road for farmer bob and farmer jon seems like misplaced priorities, not the other way around

Triage, my friends. I know people on here like official designations but with a super tight budget, $50M just to say a road is an interstate isn't exactly the biggest need in the state

It always seems to be "misplaced" until the day you find out your family has been wiped out by an accident involving farm equipment moving at 35 mph on a road designed for 65. Just find the money, build the frontage road, and call it an Interstate....or downgrade US 63 back to a divided highway and kill I-555 forever.

Wayward Memphian

A little sidenote, my father farmed land on each side of the floodway, once upon a time, in the floodway.

The only way to get to the land we farmed at Weona, would be to go down Ark 75 and west toward  torward Bay Village and up to Ark 14. That's a hell of a drive on a cotton picker back in the day.

The obvious solution to me would be allow the heavy machinery but to have lead and chase vehicles with flashing warning lights. It's really not something that takes place all the time.

The Ghostbuster

When will Interstate 555 ever be officially designated? It seems the process is taking forever.

lordsutch

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 28, 2015, 11:12:15 AMThe obvious solution to me would be allow the heavy machinery but to have lead and chase vehicles with flashing warning lights. It's really not something that takes place all the time.

Indeed, drivers in rural areas are used to seeing manufactured homes being transported on interstates with outsize load protocols; the same solution would seem to apply here as long as it's an infrequent issue.

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on September 21, 2012, 05:10:39 PM
I contacted the Federal Highway Administration:
Quote
We discussed this issue with our operations and truck size and weight staff members.   FHWA is not aware of any federal law that deals with whether farm machinery to be driven on an interstate highway.  It would be worthwhile for you to touch base with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials that represent the State Department of Transportation.  They may be able to tell you about state laws.
Thanks
Ed
Edward Strocko
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Freight Management and Operations
Quote from: AHTD on May 26, 2015, 04:22:28 PM
http://governor.arkansas.gov/press-releases/detail/governor-asa-hutchinson-makes-official-call-for-special-legislative-session

This article reports that two bills allowing farm equipment on I-555 sailed through the Arkansas legislature, but that the bills are contingent on a yet-to-be introduced bill to amend unspecified federal legislation providing that, "agricultural vehicles cannot travel on interstate highways":

Quote
Lawmakers approved two similar bills dealing with agricultural vehicle traffic on U.S. 63 in Northeast Arkansas.
The bills — House Bill 1005, sponsored by Rep. Brandt Smith, R-Jonesboro, and Senate Bill 3, sponsored by Sen. John Cooper, R-Jonesboro — would make sure state law matches up with federal law on the issue. The issue involves the changing of U.S. 63 to Interstate 555 from Lake David to Jonesboro. The four-lane highway's change to an interstate has been a key issue with residents in Northeast Arkansas. Cooper said the change would have a "big impact"  for people in the region.
The change is also contingent on work being done as part of the federal highway bill. Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Jonesboro, has said he plans to introduce an amendment to the bill to seek a waiver that would allow certain agricultural traffic to travel on the St. Francis Floodway Bridge near Payneway.
Under federal law, agricultural vehicles cannot travel on interstate highways.
There has been a plan to build an access road bridge across the floodway. However, it could cost as much as $50 million to build, officials have said.

It will be interesting to see from which federal legislation Rep. Crawford will seek a waiver.  If there is none, then he is making this process a lot more difficult than it needs to be.

Grzrd

AHTD's May 29 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission includes a slide that provides a good visual of the section of US 63/ Future I-555 on which farm vehicles would be allowed (p. 30/41 of pdf):


Grzrd

#91
Quote from: Grzrd on January 29, 2014, 11:06:01 AM
Language from the EA demostrates that, although the Sunken Lands section is interstate-grade, it is not fully controlled access (page 11/293 of pdf; page 5 of document):
http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2012/100682/US%2063%20EA%20-%20Final%20signed%20with%20Appendices%20(022112)_reduced.pdf
Quote
Future Highway Conditions
....
To date, all upgrades to interstate standards have been completed on Highway 63 from Jonesboro to I-55. In order to be added to the Interstate System, Future I-555  must have access control implemented across the Sunken Lands. When access control is implemented the current access to the Sunken Lands and adjacent private lands from Highway 63 will be removed.
Quote from: Grzrd on April 22, 2015, 06:59:16 PM
It may not be too late for them to keep the at-grades in Kenedy County. This article reports on a recent trip to Washington by Texas representatives urging federal officials to continue and accelerate the ongoing development of Interstate 69.  Included in their wish list is "greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area":
Quote
More than 20 representatives of Texas communities and two members of the Texas Transportation Commission are on Capitol Hill this week urging federal officials to continue and accelerate the ongoing development of Interstate 69. ,,,.
Priorities for Texas include providing greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area
(immediate above quote from I-69 in TX thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on May 30, 2015, 07:54:06 PM
This article reports that two bills allowing farm equipment on I-555 sailed through the Arkansas legislature, but that the bills are contingent on a yet-to-be introduced bill to amend unspecified federal legislation providing that, "agricultural vehicles cannot travel on interstate highways"....
It will be interesting to see from which federal legislation Rep. Crawford will seek a waiver.

Pure speculation on my part, but I'm beginning to think that the linked article mischaracterized the relevant federal requirements holding up the I-555 designation and that Rep. Crawford may instead seek a Congressional waiver from the fully controlled access interstate requirements for the Sunken Lands and/or the adjacent private lands segment of Future I-555 (and trump any potential FHWA objections). In other words, the Arkansas state amendment would allow farm equipment to travel on this section of interstate, and the federal amendment would allow the farm equipment to have at-grade access to this section of interstate.

If this is indeed the case, then I wonder if Texas will seek a similar Congressional waiver from fully controlled access for the relevant section of I-69E in Kenedy County.

Something to look for in the next long-term reauthorization.

bugo

They just need to build the frontage road and be done with it. AHTD doesn't seem to mind building roads in the flat part of Arkansas. What about building the new road a couple of miles north of I-555? It looks like it would be more useful than a frontage road would be.

Sykotyk

Quote from: bugo on June 13, 2015, 05:18:26 PM
They just need to build the frontage road and be done with it. AHTD doesn't seem to mind building roads in the flat part of Arkansas. What about building the new road a couple of miles north of I-555? It looks like it would be more useful than a frontage road would be.

But, $50 million for a few farm vehicles is a bit overkill. Allowing or not allowing farm vehicles on I-555 doesn't make a bit of difference when they're already allowed on US63 and are basically at the same standards that I-555 will be at.

There's exemptions for crossroads in Texas, I-40 in NC, etc. Shoulders way too small through cities, I-70 in southwest PA, etc. A few miles allowing properly marked and conspicuous  on a small stretch of rural freeway is not unreasonable.

Erect proper signage along that stretch advising those of it (just like bicycles on interstates out west where there's no alternative), drop the speed limit slowing. Require farm vehicles to be properly lit with flashing yellow lights to utilize the roadway, marked with 'slow moving vehicle' signs similar to 'wide load/oversize load' on trucks. And here's one: require anyone wanting to use a farm vehicle on that road register it and to confirm it can utilize the shoulder or require a rear escort to help notify travelers of it.

It can be done, and it can be done much cheaper than $50 million. But, if you want to make a fuss, go argue for I-10, I-20, and I-40 in Texas to have interchanges built at all those ranch access roads.

Anthony_JK

Well...a similar situation exists on US 90 through Wax Lake Outlet, where farm equipment regularly use the US 90 bridge there to move their farm equipment through the intersections between Ricohoc and Calumet. Obviously, converting US 90 into I-49 South will seriously disrupt that situation, so the solution was to build a standalone frontage road on the north side of US 90 ROW between the Ricohoc intersection/future interchange and Calumet that would cross Wax Lake Outlet. The overpass at Ricohoc would be elevated enough to allow farm equipment to pass under the US 90/I-49 mainline.


I'm guessing that if Louisiana can do that, so can Arkansas. Allowing breaches of controlled access merely for a few farm vehicles is not good; you might as well have kept US 63 an uncontrolled expressway, then.

NE2

There's no 'breach of controlled access' if farm vehicles use the same ramps as everyone else.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

US71

Quote from: NE2 on June 14, 2015, 11:00:18 AM
There's no 'breach of controlled access' if farm vehicles use the same ramps as everyone else.
IIRC, most Interstates have a minimum speed so that could be problematic. Otherwise, you might see Amish buggies on controlled access roads.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Anthony_JK

Quote from: NE2 on June 14, 2015, 11:00:18 AM
There's no 'breach of controlled access' if farm vehicles use the same ramps as everyone else.

True, but I believe the intent of the Congressman's action (and some here) is to allow at-grades on that section of US 63/Future I-555 to accommodate the farm vehicles/equipment. That's a major breach.

NE2

Quote from: US71 on June 14, 2015, 05:42:20 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 14, 2015, 11:00:18 AM
There's no 'breach of controlled access' if farm vehicles use the same ramps as everyone else.
IIRC, most Interstates have a minimum speed so that could be problematic. Otherwise, you might see Amish buggies on controlled access roads.
What does this have to do with control of access from adjacent properties?
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

US71

Quote from: NE2 on June 14, 2015, 10:42:36 PM
Quote from: US71 on June 14, 2015, 05:42:20 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 14, 2015, 11:00:18 AM
There's no 'breach of controlled access' if farm vehicles use the same ramps as everyone else.
IIRC, most Interstates have a minimum speed so that could be problematic. Otherwise, you might see Amish buggies on controlled access roads.
What does this have to do with control of access from adjacent properties?

I'm talking about minimum speeds on the interstate (usually 40-ish mph). That law would need to have an exemption too if tractors started using 555
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast



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.