Arkansas

[US71]

I went to Springfield, MO today (From Rogers, AR)... I took US 62/AR 37 in Arkansas, to MO 37 and US 60.

I came back the same way, but the way back included a rainstorm. 

I know US 62 is going to be expanded from Gateway to the end of the 5 laner in Avoca... I didn't need highway signage to know when I entered Arkansas.  The pavement markings were my mark.  Faded and almost non-existent.
 
That drive from the MO border to my home was white-knuckled.

I saw attempts of reflectors on the road... It's like AHTD wanted to install them and then just gave up (I've seen this on US 62/Hudson Road in Rogers, after they did the overlay... There's reflectors on one side of the road for a while, then just nothing).

Any signs of the Garfield Bypass yet?

[M86]

I went to Springfield, MO today (From Rogers, AR)... I took US 62/AR 37 in Arkansas, to MO 37 and US 60.

I came back the same way, but the way back included a rainstorm. 

I know US 62 is going to be expanded from Gateway to the end of the 5 laner in Avoca... I didn't need highway signage to know when I entered Arkansas.  The pavement markings were my mark.  Faded and almost non-existent.
 
That drive from the MO border to my home was white-knuckled.

I saw attempts of reflectors on the road... It's like AHTD wanted to install them and then just gave up (I've seen this on US 62/Hudson Road in Rogers, after they did the overlay... There's reflectors on one side of the road for a while, then just nothing).

Any signs of the Garfield Bypass yet?

Not quite to Garfield, but I saw the dirt work for the bypass that goes to the south of the Pea Ridge National Military Park... Maybe that same bypass is for Garfield?  It's close to me, I can check it out later.

All I know is that US 62 from Rogers to Eureka Springs needs some TLC... aka shoulders and guard rails... I shouldn't have to have a panic attack going to my beloved Eureka Springs! 

[US71]

I went to Springfield, MO today (From Rogers, AR)... I took US 62/AR 37 in Arkansas, to MO 37 and US 60.

I came back the same way, but the way back included a rainstorm. 

I know US 62 is going to be expanded from Gateway to the end of the 5 laner in Avoca... I didn't need highway signage to know when I entered Arkansas.  The pavement markings were my mark.  Faded and almost non-existent.
 
That drive from the MO border to my home was white-knuckled.

I saw attempts of reflectors on the road... It's like AHTD wanted to install them and then just gave up (I've seen this on US 62/Hudson Road in Rogers, after they did the overlay... There's reflectors on one side of the road for a while, then just nothing).

Any signs of the Garfield Bypass yet?

Not quite to Garfield, but I saw the dirt work for the bypass that goes to the south of the Pea Ridge National Military Park... Maybe that same bypass is for Garfield?  It's close to me, I can check it out later.

All I know is that US 62 from Rogers to Eureka Springs needs some TLC... aka shoulders and guard rails... I shouldn't have to have a panic attack going to my beloved Eureka Springs! 

Don't look down? 

Over the years, a few improvements have been made, but I'm guessing the terrain makes it difficult in places. I hate getting behind tourist buses west of ES as they try to navigate the curves and hills.

[M86]

I went to Springfield, MO today (From Rogers, AR)... I took US 62/AR 37 in Arkansas, to MO 37 and US 60.

I came back the same way, but the way back included a rainstorm. 

I know US 62 is going to be expanded from Gateway to the end of the 5 laner in Avoca... I didn't need highway signage to know when I entered Arkansas.  The pavement markings were my mark.  Faded and almost non-existent.
 
That drive from the MO border to my home was white-knuckled.

I saw attempts of reflectors on the road... It's like AHTD wanted to install them and then just gave up (I've seen this on US 62/Hudson Road in Rogers, after they did the overlay... There's reflectors on one side of the road for a while, then just nothing).

Any signs of the Garfield Bypass yet?

Not quite to Garfield, but I saw the dirt work for the bypass that goes to the south of the Pea Ridge National Military Park... Maybe that same bypass is for Garfield?  It's close to me, I can check it out later.

All I know is that US 62 from Rogers to Eureka Springs needs some TLC... aka shoulders and guard rails... I shouldn't have to have a panic attack going to my beloved Eureka Springs! 

Don't look down? 

Over the years, a few improvements have been made, but I'm guessing the terrain makes it difficult in places. I hate getting behind tourist buses west of ES as they try to navigate the curves and hills.

I'm usually in the passenger seat... I'll drive it, but I'll go too slow for the "locals" traveling along 62.  US 62 needs guard rails, on the route to Eureka Springs.  There's no excuse to not install them.

[capt.ron]

Greetings to all
I have a question for AHTD:
I'm still trying to figure out where they will put the extra 2 lanes for US 67 through Jacksonville due to the fact that there is barely any room. For those of you that may not know this route, the freeway is separated by a concrete divider from Exit 11 to south of the city. Plus, the shoulders are [very] narrow within the city. The frontage roads are also very close to the highway, not to mention the VERY short on / off ramps (reminds me of the ramps on I-5 in LA county, CA). They would have to replace an overpass (10B) in order to shoehorn in the extra 2 lanes. Now, north of Jacksonville, there is definitely room for the widening.
I'm just curious on how the Jacksonville portion will be handled.

Also, I have read on this thread that there will be a new flyover from SB US 67 to I-40. I still remember the old ramps that exited from the left lane of US 67 to I-40; the "not so old" flyover was constructed and opened in the late 1990's / 2000 which exited from the right lane (no. 3 lane) of SB 67 to I-40 east. Where will this new flyover be constructed?

[bjrush]

Good progress being made on Don Tyson Parkway

Image from April 11, 2014



AHTD, will all future Arkansas Interstate overpasses include this state outline on the retaining wall? I see one on the flyover in Fayetteville too. Please say yes!!!

[AHTD]

Greetings to all
I have a question for AHTD:
I'm still trying to figure out where they will put the extra 2 lanes for US 67 through Jacksonville due to the fact that there is barely any room. For those of you that may not know this route, the freeway is separated by a concrete divider from Exit 11 to south of the city. Plus, the shoulders are [very] narrow within the city. The frontage roads are also very close to the highway, not to mention the VERY short on / off ramps (reminds me of the ramps on I-5 in LA county, CA). They would have to replace an overpass (10B) in order to shoehorn in the extra 2 lanes. Now, north of Jacksonville, there is definitely room for the widening.
I'm just curious on how the Jacksonville portion will be handled.

Also, I have read on this thread that there will be a new flyover from SB US 67 to I-40. I still remember the old ramps that exited from the left lane of US 67 to I-40; the "not so old" flyover was constructed and opened in the late 1990's / 2000 which exited from the right lane (no. 3 lane) of SB 67 to I-40 east. Where will this new flyover be constructed?

Let's just say the widening of U.S. 67/167 through Jacksonville requires a lot of right of way acquisition. And that not only includes the third lane (we are widening to the outside here because there is already a barrier wall), but frontage roads too. We will start by replacing the Redmond Road and Main Street overpasses and the stretch of road between them. Hoping to let  a contract for that later this year. Sectional replacement (repair) of the route between Main Street and Highway 5 in Cabot will be let in June. This will hopefully tide us over until the other projects along the route are let.

As for the U.S. 67/167 southbound to I-40, while design has not begun, the thought is the flyover will be above the I-40 eastbound flyover. It will come down where the I-40 westbound lanes currently sit. This will allow SB 67/167 traffic to flow without interruption to Interstate 30. The I-40 thru lanes will be shifted to the north.

[Wayward Memphian]

Greetings to all
I have a question for AHTD:
I'm still trying to figure out where they will put the extra 2 lanes for US 67 through Jacksonville due to the fact that there is barely any room. For those of you that may not know this route, the freeway is separated by a concrete divider from Exit 11 to south of the city. Plus, the shoulders are [very] narrow within the city. The frontage roads are also very close to the highway, not to mention the VERY short on / off ramps (reminds me of the ramps on I-5 in LA county, CA). They would have to replace an overpass (10B) in order to shoehorn in the extra 2 lanes. Now, north of Jacksonville, there is definitely room for the widening.
I'm just curious on how the Jacksonville portion will be handled.

Also, I have read on this thread that there will be a new flyover from SB US 67 to I-40. I still remember the old ramps that exited from the left lane of US 67 to I-40; the "not so old" flyover was constructed and opened in the late 1990's / 2000 which exited from the right lane (no. 3 lane) of SB 67 to I-40 east. Where will this new flyover be constructed?

Let's just say the widening of U.S. 67/167 through Jacksonville requires a lot of right of way acquisition. And that not only includes the third lane (we are widening to the outside here because there is already a barrier wall), but frontage roads too. We will start by replacing the Redmond Road and Main Street overpasses and the stretch of road between them. Hoping to let  a contract for that later this year. Sectional replacement (repair) of the route between Main Street and Highway 5 in Cabot will be let in June. This will hopefully tide us over until the other projects along the route are let.

As for the U.S. 67/167 southbound to I-40, while design has not begun, the thought is the flyover will be above the I-40 eastbound flyover. It will come down where the I-40 westbound lanes currently sit. This will allow SB 67/167 traffic to flow without interruption to Interstate 30. The I-40 thru lanes will be shifted to the north.

I got a question about the 67/167 interchange with I-40. I've been driving that stretch of road going back and forth from Fayetteville to Memphis since 90. What were y'all smoking when you designed that? The fact that east bound traffic on I-40 has to cross over the right to keep going east and the traffic from I-30 seeking to go north on 67 has to cross over on the same stretch of road is insane. It's one giant game of chicken. I have never understood why the exit wasn't on the right hand side and then cross over the east bound I-40 traffic.  I guess it's the same logic that gave us the mess the Fayetteville flyover is finally helping with or the bottleneck on I-540 at the Ark 112 exit heading south.  Is there anything to address the cluster that is that interchange after you are done with fixing the decades of idiocy that was the 430/630 interchange.

[AHTD]

Yes, this interchange and these movements will be addressed as part of the project to widen the I-30 corridor through downtown Little Rock.

[johndoe]

Check out the pedestrians in the central island of the roundabout!  Me thinks an engineer didnt draw this.

[RBBrittain]

Yes, this interchange and these movements will be addressed as part of the project to widen the I-30 corridor through downtown Little Rock.

So there's an "unweave the weave" plan in the works for the 30/40/67 interchanges?  How's that gonna affect (a) the Pentecostal church, (b) the one-time Bass Pro Shops site (good thing they chose SWLR instead ), or (c) the Lakewood/North Hills interchange in between them?  (And remember to fill in the dip in North Hills at the south end of that interchange, which floods in nearly every hard rain.  Apparently NLR forgot to tell you they raised it thru Dark Hollow above the old U.S. 67W roadbed decades ago.)

Could this possibly be why, even though I-30 in LR/NLR alone takes up a huge percentage of CAP (20% IIRC -- I wonder if voters would have approved CAP if they knew how much of it was dedicated to Central & NW AR), you merely plan to widen, NOT replace, the I-30 Arkansas River bridge?  All the barge collisions there in recent years are because that bridge has a pier dead center in the navigation channel -- AFAIK the only one in the entire McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.  That CANNOT be fixed by merely widening the bridge.  That bridge needs to be REPLACED, *not* just widened!!!

[Wayward Memphian]

Check out the pedestrians in the central island of the roundabout!  Me thinks an engineer didnt draw this.

That's a bike/trial roundabout and the State has shot down this concept in recent weeks.

[M86]

Yes, this interchange and these movements will be addressed as part of the project to widen the I-30 corridor through downtown Little Rock.

So there's an "unweave the weave" plan in the works for the 30/40/67 interchanges?  How's that gonna affect (a) the Pentecostal church, (b) the one-time Bass Pro Shops site (good thing they chose SWLR instead ), or (c) the Lakewood/North Hills interchange in between them?  (And remember to fill in the dip in North Hills at the south end of that interchange, which floods in nearly every hard rain.  Apparently NLR forgot to tell you they raised it thru Dark Hollow above the old U.S. 67W roadbed decades ago.)

Could this possibly be why, even though I-30 in LR/NLR alone takes up a huge percentage of CAP (20% IIRC -- I wonder if voters would have approved CAP if they knew how much of it was dedicated to Central & NW AR), you merely plan to widen, NOT replace, the I-30 Arkansas River bridge?  All the barge collisions there in recent years are because that bridge has a pier dead center in the navigation channel -- AFAIK the only one in the entire McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.  That CANNOT be fixed by merely widening the bridge.  That bridge needs to be REPLACED, *not* just widened!!!

The CAP Program is "Connecting Arkansas Program".  So, anything within Little Rock is eliminated... or it should be.  Little Rock has a very high Interstate/Controlled-Access miles per capita.  You have enough.  Traffic issues with Little Rock are city issues, from what I've researched.

[bugo]

Could this possibly be why, even though I-30 in LR/NLR alone takes up a huge percentage of CAP (20% IIRC -- I wonder if voters would have approved CAP if they knew how much of it was dedicated to Central & NW AR), you merely plan to widen, NOT replace, the I-30 Arkansas River bridge?  All the barge collisions there in recent years are because that bridge has a pier dead center in the navigation channel -- AFAIK the only one in the entire McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.  That CANNOT be fixed by merely widening the bridge.  That bridge needs to be REPLACED, *not* just widened!!!

The I-30/US 65-67-(maybe) 70-167 Arkansas River bridge should be replaced by a signature span.  A suspension bridge would be nice but that ain't happening.  A cable stayed bridge would be nice if it were more like the Sunshine Skyway or the Dames Point Bridge or the Talmadge Bridge and less like the new Paseo Bridge in Kansas City.  Personally, I would prefer a cantilevered truss, but there's no way in hell they're going to build that.  With the loss of the interesting Broadway Bridge (US 70 or 70B, depending on who you believe)  the only interesting Arkansas River bridges in Little Rock are rail bridges.  None of the road bridges will be the least bit interesting.

[bugo]

Yes, this interchange and these movements will be addressed as part of the project to widen the I-30 corridor through downtown Little Rock.

So there's an "unweave the weave" plan in the works for the 30/40/67 interchanges?  How's that gonna affect (a) the Pentecostal church, (b) the one-time Bass Pro Shops site (good thing they chose SWLR instead ), or (c) the Lakewood/North Hills interchange in between them?  (And remember to fill in the dip in North Hills at the south end of that interchange, which floods in nearly every hard rain.  Apparently NLR forgot to tell you they raised it thru Dark Hollow above the old U.S. 67W roadbed decades ago.)

Could this possibly be why, even though I-30 in LR/NLR alone takes up a huge percentage of CAP (20% IIRC -- I wonder if voters would have approved CAP if they knew how much of it was dedicated to Central & NW AR), you merely plan to widen, NOT replace, the I-30 Arkansas River bridge?  All the barge collisions there in recent years are because that bridge has a pier dead center in the navigation channel -- AFAIK the only one in the entire McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.  That CANNOT be fixed by merely widening the bridge.  That bridge needs to be REPLACED, *not* just widened!!!

The CAP Program is "Connecting Arkansas Program".  So, anything within Little Rock is eliminated... or it should be.  Little Rock has a very high Interstate/Controlled-Access miles per capita.  You have enough.  Traffic issues with Little Rock are city issues, from what I've researched.

Have you been on I-630 during rush hour?  Many traffic issues in LR are state highway issues.

[AHTD]

Check out the pedestrians in the central island of the roundabout!  Me thinks an engineer didnt draw this.

That's a bike/trial roundabout and the State has shot down this concept in recent weeks.

Actually it was last summer that our engineers modeled this plan brought forth by the city of Fayetteville. The drawing is simply a concept drawing. Little to no engineering involved in it. Not only did we determine it wouldn't work, there isn't enough right of way available if it did. And guess who would be required to come up with that additional (cost prohibitive) ROW? Not the state.

[AHTD]

Could this possibly be why, even though I-30 in LR/NLR alone takes up a huge percentage of CAP (20% IIRC -- I wonder if voters would have approved CAP if they knew how much of it was dedicated to Central & NW AR), you merely plan to widen, NOT replace, the I-30 Arkansas River bridge?  All the barge collisions there in recent years are because that bridge has a pier dead center in the navigation channel -- AFAIK the only one in the entire McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.  That CANNOT be fixed by merely widening the bridge.  That bridge needs to be REPLACED, *not* just widened!!!

The I-30/US 65-67-(maybe) 70-167 Arkansas River bridge should be replaced by a signature span.  A suspension bridge would be nice but that ain't happening.  A cable stayed bridge would be nice if it were more like the Sunshine Skyway or the Dames Point Bridge or the Talmadge Bridge and less like the new Paseo Bridge in Kansas City.  Personally, I would prefer a cantilevered truss, but there's no way in hell they're going to build that.  With the loss of the interesting Broadway Bridge (US 70 or 70B, depending on who you believe)  the only interesting Arkansas River bridges in Little Rock are rail bridges.  None of the road bridges will be the least bit interesting.

Everything involving the I-30 corridor between the south terminal and the U.S. 67/167 interchange is still on the table. We do know it will be the first design-build project for us to undertake. There will be two design contracts let. The first will be for the environmental phase. The second will be for design. The winning firm involved in the environmental phase will not be eligible to compete for the design phase.

As of now, this will be among the last of the half-cent sales tax projects. 2018 perhaps?

[RBBrittain]

Yes, this interchange and these movements will be addressed as part of the project to widen the I-30 corridor through downtown Little Rock.

So there's an "unweave the weave" plan in the works for the 30/40/67 interchanges?  How's that gonna affect (a) the Pentecostal church, (b) the one-time Bass Pro Shops site (good thing they chose SWLR instead ), or (c) the Lakewood/North Hills interchange in between them?  (And remember to fill in the dip in North Hills at the south end of that interchange, which floods in nearly every hard rain.  Apparently NLR forgot to tell you they raised it thru Dark Hollow above the old U.S. 67W roadbed decades ago.)

Could this possibly be why, even though I-30 in LR/NLR alone takes up a huge percentage of CAP (20% IIRC -- I wonder if voters would have approved CAP if they knew how much of it was dedicated to Central & NW AR), you merely plan to widen, NOT replace, the I-30 Arkansas River bridge?  All the barge collisions there in recent years are because that bridge has a pier dead center in the navigation channel -- AFAIK the only one in the entire McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.  That CANNOT be fixed by merely widening the bridge.  That bridge needs to be REPLACED, *not* just widened!!!

The CAP Program is "Connecting Arkansas Program".  So, anything within Little Rock is eliminated... or it should be.  Little Rock has a very high Interstate/Controlled-Access miles per capita.  You have enough.  Traffic issues with Little Rock are city issues, from what I've researched.

Have you been on I-630 during rush hour?  Many traffic issues in LR are state highway issues.

+1; in fact CAP also includes widening I-630 between Baptist Health & University (a sort of follow-on to Big Rock -- otherwise I-630 EB will become a huge traffic jam between Big Rock & Baptist, where IIRC 8 lanes will quickly merge into 3 until this is widened). I agree that CAP should have included more projects in other parts of Arkansas, but still that doesn't mean LR (or the rest of Central Arkansas) shoulda been left out entirely.

[RBBrittain]

Could this possibly be why, even though I-30 in LR/NLR alone takes up a huge percentage of CAP (20% IIRC -- I wonder if voters would have approved CAP if they knew how much of it was dedicated to Central & NW AR), you merely plan to widen, NOT replace, the I-30 Arkansas River bridge?  All the barge collisions there in recent years are because that bridge has a pier dead center in the navigation channel -- AFAIK the only one in the entire McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.  That CANNOT be fixed by merely widening the bridge.  That bridge needs to be REPLACED, *not* just widened!!!

The I-30/US 65-67-(maybe) 70-167 Arkansas River bridge should be replaced by a signature span.  A suspension bridge would be nice but that ain't happening.  A cable stayed bridge would be nice if it were more like the Sunshine Skyway or the Dames Point Bridge or the Talmadge Bridge and less like the new Paseo Bridge in Kansas City.  Personally, I would prefer a cantilevered truss, but there's no way in hell they're going to build that.  With the loss of the interesting Broadway Bridge (US 70 or 70B, depending on who you believe)  the only interesting Arkansas River bridges in Little Rock are rail bridges.  None of the road bridges will be the least bit interesting.

So you don't think the new Broadway Bridge truss will be interesting?  Maybe not quite as interesting as the old one, but still more interesting than your garden-variety plate-girder structure.  A signature span on I-30 would be nice, but not if it means they don't replace the overpasses inside the North Terminal Interchange (IIRC even more structurally deficient than the old Broadway Bridge).  Maybe the design-build folks can replace the NTI overpasses but leave the I-40 "weave" in place for now so they can replace the I-30 bridge.

[US71]

Could this possibly be why, even though I-30 in LR/NLR alone takes up a huge percentage of CAP (20% IIRC -- I wonder if voters would have approved CAP if they knew how much of it was dedicated to Central & NW AR), you merely plan to widen, NOT replace, the I-30 Arkansas River bridge?  All the barge collisions there in recent years are because that bridge has a pier dead center in the navigation channel -- AFAIK the only one in the entire McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.  That CANNOT be fixed by merely widening the bridge.  That bridge needs to be REPLACED, *not* just widened!!!

The I-30/US 65-67-(maybe) 70-167 Arkansas River bridge should be replaced by a signature span.  A suspension bridge would be nice but that ain't happening.  A cable stayed bridge would be nice if it were more like the Sunshine Skyway or the Dames Point Bridge or the Talmadge Bridge and less like the new Paseo Bridge in Kansas City.  Personally, I would prefer a cantilevered truss, but there's no way in hell they're going to build that.  With the loss of the interesting Broadway Bridge (US 70 or 70B, depending on who you believe)  the only interesting Arkansas River bridges in Little Rock are rail bridges.  None of the road bridges will be the least bit interesting.

So you don't think the new Broadway Bridge truss will be interesting?  Maybe not quite as interesting as the old one, but still more interesting than your garden-variety plate-girder structure.  A signature span on I-30 would be nice, but not if it means they don't replace the overpasses inside the North Terminal Interchange (IIRC even more structurally deficient than the old Broadway Bridge).  Maybe the design-build folks can replace the NTI overpasses but leave the I-40 "weave" in place for now so they can replace the I-30 bridge.

Arkansas never has much money, so almost everything is done the least costly way possible. If it means a UCEB (Ugly Concrete Eyesore Bridge), then so be it. All the roads have problems, but it will take a huge increase in the gas tax or money falling out of the sky to fix everything, but with the current anti-tax/anti-government sentiment, I don't see either happening anytime soon.

[dariusb]

Interesting article/vid concerning road construction in Arkansas. http://www.ktbs.com/story/25323447/highway-projects-underway-in-arkansas

[bjrush]

We all like to give AHTD a hard time on here for not signing concurrencies, but I saw this one in Arkadelphia the other day!

This is a thing of beauty AHTD!

[bugo]

We all like to give AHTD a hard time on here for not signing concurrencies, but I saw this one in Arkadelphia the other day!

This is a thing of beauty AHTD!

This is how all highways in Arkansas should be signed.  It's not cluttered, it's not confusing, and it conveys all of the highways run along this stretch of road.  And they are lovely signs to boot.  AHTD, you got this one right, why did you fail so badly when it came to I-49's signage?

[bugo]

This was posted soon after I-540 was extended to Bentonville.  It conveys all the information a traveler would ever need.  As it stands, it is impossible to follow the border to border US 62 in Arkansas by going by signage alone.  Is this sign assembly really too cluttered?  Is it hard to read?  No.  And don't say "but Dothan!" because there were only 3 highways signed through here.

[US71]

This was posted soon after I-540 was extended to Bentonville.  It conveys all the information a traveler would ever need.  As it stands, it is impossible to follow the border to border US 62 in Arkansas by going by signage alone.  Is this sign assembly really too cluttered?  Is it hard to read?  No.  And don't say "but Dothan!" because there were only 3 highways signed through here.

Did you save a copy of that old Gridlock Guru column where you asked about this?