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

bugo

They're putting thousands of drivers at risk of being maimed or killed for the benefit of a few farmers. Let them drive the 2 hours out of the way until the frontage road is built.


SteveG1988

Quote from: bugo on June 15, 2015, 04:22:52 AM
They're putting thousands of drivers at risk of being maimed or killed for the benefit of a few farmers. Let them drive the 2 hours out of the way until the frontage road is built.

Not really. Has there been any accidents from the status quo?

This road has been at the same standard for years, has it not?

Traffic already flows like an interstate on it.
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

lordsutch

Make 'em run in escorted convoys like oversized loads. Safety problem solved.

Sykotyk

Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 15, 2015, 11:02:05 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 15, 2015, 04:22:52 AM
They're putting thousands of drivers at risk of being maimed or killed for the benefit of a few farmers. Let them drive the 2 hours out of the way until the frontage road is built.

Not really. Has there been any accidents from the status quo?

This road has been at the same standard for years, has it not?

Traffic already flows like an interstate on it.

This is the funniest thing about this argument. This road already handles this at near interstate speeds every day and not a problem. But a blue shield instead of a white shield, and suddenly we can expect fiery death and dismemberment from people ramming the back end of farm vehicles.

Alex

The 2013 VPD for US 63 along that stretch is 14,000. Having recently traveled across the Upper Midwest, I observed a tractor traveling northbound while I was heading south on an Interstate highway. This was not a mower either. So the precedent has been broken already.

Factoring in mowers, I witnessed another occurrence of a tractor on a mainline, as one was roving southbound in the right lane. With flashing yellow beacons and reflective markings, this should not be that big of a deal with traffic counts in the low range. Make the legal exemption and sign it until a more permanent solution can be built (especially if traffic counts increase significantly).

Grzrd

#105
Quote from: Grzrd on December 19, 2014, 05:43:58 PM
This MDOT Press Release announces that the recent omnibus bill signed by President Obama includes a provision that the allowable weight limits on U.S. 78 will not change when it is converted to I-22.  Also of interest is that the bill covers U.S. 78/ Future I-22 from mile marker 0 to mile marker 113, which means that would allow an I-22 designation all of the way to the Tennessee state line
(above quote from Interstate 22 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"

The above-linked article mischaracterized the nature of the unspecified federal legislation.  Arkansas Congressman Rick Crawford has posted on his website that he successfully introduced an amendment to the House transportation bill that, much like the above-mentioned Interstate 22 legislation, exempts agricultural equipment from federal interstate bridge weight limitations along the three-mile stretch of U.S. 63:

Quote
Representative Rick Crawford released the following statement:

"The short extensions which the House passed earlier this year don't give Arkansans the type of long-term security they need in a transportation bill, so I'm very pleased that the House has finally passed a long-term bill, especially one that includes an exemption for the floodway section of US 63. For years, Arkansas has sought interstate status for U.S. 63, but has been unable to bear the $30-$50 million expense needed to build an access road for agricultural vehicles across the St. Francis floodway.  My amendment will allow for the interstate designation to move forward while at the same time allowing for traditional use of the floodway bridge ..."  ....

The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) has worked in the past with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to designate U.S. 63 as Future I-555. An interstate designation would be a great boon to Jonesboro and all of northeast Arkansas. However, if U.S. 63 were designated as interstate, agricultural vehicles like cotton modules, dump trucks, and logging trucks would not be allowed to use certain bridges that they have used for years. Once the highway gains interstate status, the federal bridge formula for Interstates would apply, and many agricultural vehicles are non-compliant with those rules. For example, agricultural vehicles that currently drive a few short minutes across the St. Francis Floodway bridge by Marked Tree would be forced to take a 90 mile detour around the sunken lands.
A separate access road spanning the floodway has been the leading solution for several years, although the cost of building a separate road for agricultural vehicles is estimated to be $30 million to $50 million -- for road only 3 miles long. Instead, Representative Crawford has proposed an exemption for agricultural vehicles along the 3 mile stretch, which would save tens of millions of dollars while at the same time allowing the interstate designation to move forward. Representative Crawford has worked to include the exemption language in the Highway Bill reauthorization.

This article reports that there will likely be one more short-term extension to the Highway Trust Fund before a long-term reauthorization is passed in December.  Maybe we will see I-555 shields early in the New Year.*

edit

*
assuming FHWA provides a further administrative exemption from the fully controlled access requirement for interstates applicable to the Sunken Lands section.  It ain't over 'til it's over.

TravelingBethelite

Relevant, spotted a lil' over a month ago, but it's nothing new (my photo):

"Imprisoned by the freedom of the road!" - Ronnie Milsap
See my photos at: http://bit.ly/1Qi81ws

Now I decide where I go...

2018 Ford Fusion SE - proud new owner!

Anthony_JK

I say it again: just fund and build the damn frontage road and call it a year. If we allow Interstate freeway standards to be compromised here, we might as well start dropping Interstate shields on US 90 in Louisiana and every at-grade expressway with intermittent interchanges along with at-grade intersections.

US71

Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 17, 2015, 04:02:08 AM
I say it again: just fund and build the damn frontage road and call it a year. If we allow Interstate freeway standards to be compromised here, we might as well start dropping Interstate shields on US 90 in Louisiana and every at-grade expressway with intermittent interchanges along with at-grade intersections.
How do you propose paying for it?
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Anthony_JK

The same way Interstate grade upgrades have been paid for for years: 90/10 fed/state funding.


If Louisiana can pay for a frontage road bridge across Wax Lake Outlet to get farm equipment off US 90 as part of the I-49 South upgrade, I fail to see how Arkansas (or the Feds) can't afford a frontage road for the same purpose. At-grades do not belong on an Interstate-grade highway. Slow-moving farm equipment do not belong on a 70-mph freeway. If they give this exemption, they might as well take down the I-155 shields, for it's NOT an Interstate highway.

froggie

QuoteThe same way Interstate grade upgrades have been paid for for years: 90/10 fed/state funding.

Given the way Federal funding categories have shifted in recent years (for example, no more Interstate Maintenance funds...instead, Interstate projects must pull from NHS funding or a state's regular Surface Transportation Program allocation), plus the high unlikelihood of Congress passing a transportation bill with increased funding, this will be a very hard sell.

It should also be noted that only construction and maintenance of the original system was eligible for the 90/10 split.  This sort of upgrade would fall under an 80/20 split instead.

In short, Arkansas would have to pull the funding from somewhere else...likely another project.

Wayward Memphian

If US 63 isn't going to continue past Jonesboro as an interstate highway, leave it the way it is. I'm a local and locals deal with farm equipment all the time, even on the narrow state highways. No one around Truman and Mt. Tree is sweating it. I remember commuting to ASU on all two lane past Payneway.

If getting it officially signed an Interstate,  have the Fedreal delegation propose an exception and use a flashing light message board to state that you may encounter farm equipment and/or have escorts lime wide and oversize loads. This isn't hard and we certainly don't need to pull funong elsewhere for what will be little used frontage roads over a flood basin

The Ghostbuster

How long does it take to build a frontage road? Is Arkansas's DOT that strapped for cash that they can't find the money to build a measly pair of frontage roads so US 63 can become Interstate 555? I know there are projects that take priority over this one, but I think the frontage roads should have been built by now.

wtd67

This is not farmland were talking about, it is a flood plain.  The roadway is approx 3 - 4 miles long and is elevated about 15 - 20 feet above the flood plain (lots of dirt), plus the five bridges that would need to be built on each side of the existing highway.  Lot of money for a few farmers and their equipment that would use it.

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: wtd67 on November 19, 2015, 10:15:21 PM
This is not farmland were talking about, it is a flood plain.  The roadway is approx 3 - 4 miles long and is elevated about 15 - 20 feet above the flood plain (lots of dirt), plus the five bridges that would need to be built on each side of the existing highway.  Lot of money for a few farmers and their equipment that would use it.

Exactly, and it does flood big time from time to time.  The road is level with the tops of the east and west levees

Road Hog

Access roads can be built to follow the topography at ground level. If it's flooding, nobody's farming anyway. No need for the added expense of fill.

rte66man

Quote from: Road Hog on November 23, 2015, 06:43:02 PM
Access roads can be built to follow the topography at ground level. If it's flooding, nobody's farming anyway. No need for the added expense of fill.

You're missing the point.  They don't farm IN the flood plain per se, it's the only feasible way for them to CROSS the flood plain.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Wayward Memphian

#117
Quote from: Road Hog on November 23, 2015, 06:43:02 PM
Access roads can be built to follow the topography at ground level. If it's flooding, nobody's farming anyway. No need for the added expense of fill.

It's the bridges at any any grade that dives up the costs. If you build them at the lower levelx you ate asking for wash outs particularly what is essentially St. Francis River on the western edge that can be very swift water when high. They would need to go at least half as high as the current road bed. I can't for the life of me remember an accident due to farm equipment over that stretch of road. This is coming from a person whose family has farmed land within the levees and we don't need access roads to get inside the levee and we had land on both sides and we did have to cross over via 63. We still have land that borders the east levee just south of US 63. For the person that suggested a different route, that ain't ever going to happen even with cheap diesel. Far too long a route down Ark 75 and crossing over at Coldwater and over Birdeye and up to Weona.

capt.ron

Considering that several interstates still have at-grade crossings (I-40 in TX/NM comes to mind), I say just put up the tractor crossing sign on the road and be done with it. There used to be one on the 67-167 freeway north of Sherwood, prior to the landfill and 440 interchange and out of all of the years I have traveled that freeway, I never have seen a tractor cross. Maybe they could put a flashing wig-wag light on the sign when a tractor approaches so motorists could take caution (hopefully! ;) )

US71

Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 18, 2015, 12:36:36 PM
The same way Interstate grade upgrades have been paid for for years: 90/10 fed/state funding.

I-49 is being built in Louisiana with STATE funds, and probably "creative accounting".
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Rothman

Quote from: US71 on November 25, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 18, 2015, 12:36:36 PM
The same way Interstate grade upgrades have been paid for for years: 90/10 fed/state funding.

I-49 is being built in Louisiana with STATE funds, and probably "creative accounting".


That seems really odd to me, unless Louisiana did the same thing New York did:  Put out a bond issue and use the bond money on a few major projects while putting federal on the whole variety of smaller projects.  Other than that scenario, I can't think of why state funds would be more advantageous than NHP.

Makes me wonder if the first instance funding for what will be federal funds in the end is being mistaken for pure state funding.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Anthony_JK

#121
Quote from: US71 on November 25, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 18, 2015, 12:36:36 PM
The same way Interstate grade upgrades have been paid for for years: 90/10 fed/state funding.

I-49 is being built in Louisiana with STATE funds, and probably "creative accounting".


No, Federal funds are being used to fund the upgrades of US 90; the state matching funds as of now are coming mostly out of bonds made from the so-called "unclaimed funds" account that was originally used for dispensing funds that were due to citizens but not claimed after a certain time. All of the projects associated with I-49 South are designated as Federal "Demo" projects, receiving "demo" funds.

The state is hoping that legislative action this year that freed up more transportation spending money to be used solely for transportation starting in 2020 will free up even more dollars for projects like I-49 South. Again, resolving a long-term federal transportation bill would do a lot of good.


Given what Wayward Memphian said about the topography of US 63 at that point (similar to what US 190 is like over the West Atchafalaya Spillway segment between Port Barre and Krotz Springs), I'm willing to compromise my opposition to breaking control of access there. An at-grade crossover as well as some escort for farm equipment would be acceptable for me, as long as it is clearly marked for farm equipment and not to be used for general through traffic. Kind of like the emergency median crossovers used on I-10 at the Atchafalaya Basin elevated section.

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 25, 2015, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 25, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 18, 2015, 12:36:36 PM
The same way Interstate grade upgrades have been paid for for years: 90/10 fed/state funding.

I-49 is being built in Louisiana with STATE funds, and probably "creative accounting".


No, Federal funds are being used to fund the upgrades of US 90; the state matching funds as of now are coming mostly out of bonds made from the so-called "unclaimed funds" account that was originally used for dispensing funds that were due to citizens but not claimed after a certain time. All of the projects associated with I-49 South are designated as Federal "Demo" projects, receiving "demo" funds.

The state is hoping that legislative action this year that freed up more transportation spending money to be used solely for transportation starting in 2020 will free up even more dollars for projects like I-49 South. Again, resolving a long-term federal transportation bill would do a lot of good.


Given what Wayward Memphian said about the topography of US 63 at that point (similar to what US 190 is like over the West Atchafalaya Spillway segment between Port Barre and Krotz Springs), I'm willing to compromise my opposition to breaking control of access there. An at-grade crossover as well as some escort for farm equipment would be acceptable for me, as long as it is clearly marked for farm equipment and not to be used for general through traffic. Kind of like the emergency median crossovers used on I-10 at the Atchafalaya Basin elevated section.

No farm equipment needs to cross over the road from one side to other, it's strictly to get from the east side of the levees to the west side and vice versa.  There's exits immediately on each side.  The farm land that bordered road way went to the AG&F in the mid 90s and planted in hardwood and serves as a WM and waterfowl rest area. There's one public hunting access point on the south side from the raised four lane road.

bjrush

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2015, 04:28:02 PM
How long does it take to build a frontage road? Is Arkansas's DOT that strapped for cash that they can't find the money to build a measly pair of frontage roads so US 63 can become Interstate 555? I know there are projects that take priority over this one, but I think the frontage roads should have been built by now.

More like they have so many other more pressing issues than a road that works just fine as is but a technicality that only people on this website even consider
Woo Pig Sooie

lordsutch

Right. The point is to be able to get some combines and other heavy farm equipment from one interchange to another across a bridge a few times a year without a lengthy detour. We're not talking about running tractors across the road on a daily basis or entering/exiting between interchanges. Here's the area we're talking about.

A frontage road and separate bridge for it is simply not worth the investment.



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.