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

MikieTimT

Quote from: Life in Paradise on April 04, 2020, 12:44:33 PM
Looking  at the map of the country, the I-49 gap in Arkansas is visible, and to go around it on a trip New Orleans/Kansas City is either veer over to Little Rock or go through Oklahoma (where you would have a toll road closest).  If they would work out the toll road prohibition, it would be feasible to charge significantly more than $2.00 for the stretch from Texarkana to Fort Smith.  It wouldn't pay for the road over 40 years, but it might make it workable to add with the funds available.

The $2 is just for the 20 miles from Alma to AR-22.  Mainly the Arkansas River bridge and floodplain crossing.


sparker

With an average $2.50 toll ($2 fast-pass/$3 pay-by-plate), you won't come close to paying for the bridge or a couple of decades of maintenance on the structure.  What could be paid is the interest on bonds floated for the bridge's construction and at least the first decade of maintenance.  If such an arrangement is doable in AR, it may be worth considering. 

bwana39

Quote from: sparker on April 04, 2020, 03:41:19 PM
  If such an arrangement is doable in AR, it may be worth considering.

It isn't....
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Life in Paradise

Quote from: bwana39 on April 06, 2020, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 04, 2020, 03:41:19 PM
  If such an arrangement is doable in AR, it may be worth considering.

It isn't....
It may not be now, but who knows what could happen in 10 years.  I've seen laws in Indiana go away that I thought might never disappear.

MikieTimT

Quote from: Life in Paradise on April 07, 2020, 12:27:09 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on April 06, 2020, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 04, 2020, 03:41:19 PM
  If such an arrangement is doable in AR, it may be worth considering.

It isn't....
It may not be now, but who knows what could happen in 10 years.  I've seen laws in Indiana go away that I thought might never disappear.

I don't see Arkansas suddenly becoming better than 49th or 50th in everything other than teen pregnancy in 10 years.  But, hopefully I'm wrong.  We live in a crazy world right now.

sparker

Quote from: MikieTimT on April 07, 2020, 12:55:49 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on April 07, 2020, 12:27:09 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on April 06, 2020, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 04, 2020, 03:41:19 PM
  If such an arrangement is doable in AR, it may be worth considering.

It isn't....
It may not be now, but who knows what could happen in 10 years.  I've seen laws in Indiana go away that I thought might never disappear.

I don't see Arkansas suddenly becoming better than 49th or 50th in everything other than teen pregnancy in 10 years.  But, hopefully I'm wrong.  We live in a crazy world right now.

And after all the public-sector economic impact of COVID-19 has been assessed, many jurisdictions are going to have to get considerably more creative regarding financing, including such things as floating bonds for projects -- even if the historical means was simply "pay-as-you-go", which might, at least in the near term, be an unworkable methodology.   Even the most conservative/staid of states will be affected -- and unless their politicos simply wish to sink back into the dark ages (or are even accepting of such), with the political fallout ensuing from that -- "alternate methods" will be explored. 


bjrush

Arkansas doesn't really do creative financing. It's more like periods of severe retrenchment when revenue stops
Woo Pig Sooie

MikieTimT

#2558
Had to go to western Bella Vista Friday for a job and had to take the Bella Vista Bypass (AR-549) for what is likely the last time for the next year as they are closing the off-ramp from northbound I-49 to AR-549 to reconfigure it.  Looks like they are pretty much done with the blasting, so took some quick pics on my way through northbound.




US71

Quote from: MikieTimT on April 27, 2020, 01:56:09 PM
Had to go to western Bella Vista Friday for a job and had to take the Bella Vista Bypass (AR-549) for what is likely the last time for the next year as they are closing the off-ramp from northbound I-49 to AR-549 to reconfigure it.  Looks like they are pretty much done with the blasting, so took some quick pics on my way through northbound.


Demo-Zette had a post last Thursday.



Quote
Monday, April 27: The northbound I-49 exit ramp to the existing roundabout (Exit 93) will be closed.

QuoteFriday, May 1 and Saturday, May 2: Northbound I-49 mainlane traffic will be shifted onto temporary pavement prior to Exit 93 to continue northbound on US 71
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

MikieTimT

Quote from: US71 on April 27, 2020, 02:10:25 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on April 27, 2020, 01:56:09 PM
Had to go to western Bella Vista Friday for a job and had to take the Bella Vista Bypass (AR-549) for what is likely the last time for the next year as they are closing the off-ramp from northbound I-49 to AR-549 to reconfigure it.  Looks like they are pretty much done with the blasting, so took some quick pics on my way through northbound.


Demo-Zette had a post last Thursday.



Quote
Monday, April 27: The northbound I-49 exit ramp to the existing roundabout (Exit 93) will be closed.

QuoteFriday, May 1 and Saturday, May 2: Northbound I-49 mainlane traffic will be shifted onto temporary pavement prior to Exit 93 to continue northbound on US 71

I saw that. However, there isn't going to be access to/from I-49/US-71 to AR-549 for a year as the exit loop is permanently closing and alternate lanes fixing to open are going to US-71 only.  Access to AR-549 is going to come from the old US-71B/Walton Blvd.  That will certainly reduce traffic on AR-549 for the next year.

https://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-119-01.pdf

sparker

Quote from: MikieTimT on April 27, 2020, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: US71 on April 27, 2020, 02:10:25 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on April 27, 2020, 01:56:09 PM
Had to go to western Bella Vista Friday for a job and had to take the Bella Vista Bypass (AR-549) for what is likely the last time for the next year as they are closing the off-ramp from northbound I-49 to AR-549 to reconfigure it.  Looks like they are pretty much done with the blasting, so took some quick pics on my way through northbound.


Demo-Zette had a post last Thursday.



Quote
Monday, April 27: The northbound I-49 exit ramp to the existing roundabout (Exit 93) will be closed.

QuoteFriday, May 1 and Saturday, May 2: Northbound I-49 mainlane traffic will be shifted onto temporary pavement prior to Exit 93 to continue northbound on US 71

I saw that. However, there isn't going to be access to/from I-49/US-71 to AR-549 for a year as the exit loop is permanently closing and alternate lanes fixing to open are going to US-71 only.  Access to AR-549 is going to come from the old US-71B/Walton Blvd.  That will certainly reduce traffic on AR-549 for the next year.

https://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-119-01.pdf

Which, since they're in the process of finishing construction on it, is probably a good thing.  Those locals who need to use it during construction will find their way to it in any case. 

bwana39

There is a huge discussion on the I-369 thread about the proposed I-49 sections between I-40 and Texarkana.

The I-49 spur onto Ft. Chaffee was built to insure Chaffee and its' many acres of redevelopment (industrial park) land weren't bypassed due to the expense of the Arkansas River Bridge. It may have even been all or partially paid for using BRACC or BRACC related funds. This forum tends to dismiss the effect of Military bases on Highway projects. Funds travel both ways. Military and BRACC funds for the local communities get used for upgrades to infrastructure and State / Local funds get spent to help retain military facilities.  To a lesser extent we do the same for major employers / potential employers. Generally for private employers, it tends to be tax abatements and surface street level improvements.

Eventually the bridge will get built.  Sooner or Later.  With this said, I-540 and US71 are not that terrible a route as it is.

While the stretch from Fort Smith to Fayetteville got built in a fairly direct manner. UA is in Fayetteville. Tyson is in Springdale, Wal*Mart is in Bentonville. Connecting those elements with I-40, Little Rock and points beyond was politically and economically expedient.

As to the stretch from Ft Smith to Mena,  It goes through a rural MOUNTAINOUS route.  The route chosen to minimize the grade is a bit circumnavigous (it is basically the same route chose for US71 nearly a century ago.).  The oft discussed OKLAHOMA routing (that has never been significantly considered beyond theory) is of similar length at what has been said to be a lesser grade / elevation.

The local communities south of Ft Smith are not really in any hurry to bring in economic change. There is at best mixed local support.  This is going to be a slow EXPENSIVE process. My thinking is 2050 at the earliest absent some enhanced federal funding scheme.

If Arkansas could build 1 big bridge (I-49 Arkansas River or I-69 Mississippi River) and 1 stretch of road across predominately flat terrain (I-69) it would all work out.  The problem is the urgency is on I-49 and I-69 is caught behind it on the priorities list.

I still am not a fan of the proposed routing for I-69 in Arkansas and to a lesser extent Louisiana too.

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

Bobby5280

Quote from: bwana39While the stretch from Fort Smith to Fayetteville got built in a fairly direct manner. UA is in Fayetteville. Tyson is in Springdale, Wal*Mart is in Bentonville. Connecting those elements with I-40, Little Rock and points beyond was politically and economically expedient.

Wasn't the freeway that is now I-49 in Northwest Arkansas originally built 30 or more years ago? For the longest time it was a Northern extension of I-540. IIRC, that segment of freeway was getting completed back when the original I-49 segment in Louisiana between Lafayette and Shreveport was being built. The 1980's and earlier was an era where freeway building was considerably easier and far less costly.

I don't have any serious problems with the proposed routing of I-49 between Texarkana and Fort Smith, other than the tiny segment that clips a corner of Texas. IMHO, they should have keep the entire route within Arkansas to prevent potential bureaucratic & political headaches. I don't see TX DOT being in any rush to prioritize that segment of I-49 and a Red River bridge crossing to go with it. Not when they have so many other fish to fry in terms of highway projects. But it is what it is. The arguments about the routing farther North are moot. The road has to go around mountains for any alternative. None of really any better than the currently proposed route. No one is going to spend billions of dollars on tunnels to make the route more straight. 30 years ago tunnels might have been possible. Not now. We price ourselves out of those possibilities.

I think any ideas of routing I-49 through the Eastern edge of Oklahoma are silly. Just like that little segment of I-49 going over the Red River is a low priority for Texas, an I-49 segment on the far East edge would be a very low priority for Oklahoma to fund. The US-69 and US-75 corridors in Eastern OK are in far greater need of improvement. I-49 in the same area would be another expensive mouth to feed.

Once the Bentonville Bypass is complete the Alma to Barling segment and its expensive bridge over the Arkansas River has to move to the front of the line for I-49 projects. Elsewhere the various towns along the proposed corridor need to be doing all they can to preserve future ROW and even start building their local bypasses, even if they just start out in Super 2 configuration.

US71

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 15, 2020, 03:58:04 PM

Wasn't the freeway that is now I-49 in Northwest Arkansas originally built 30 or more years ago? For the longest time it was a Northern extension of I-540. IIRC, that segment of freeway was getting completed back when the original I-49 segment in Louisiana between Lafayette and Shreveport was being built. The 1980's and earlier was an era where freeway building was considerably easier and far less costly.

The Fayetteville 71 bypass was built circa 1970 as a two lane mostly at-grade loop. It was upgraded in the late 70's to a 4 lane expressway.  The 71 Freeway from Fayetteville to Bentonville was built piecemeal starting around 1980.

I'll have to look when AR 245 at Texarkana was created. Around 2000, it was going to be I-130 which was going to be a temp designation until I-49 was finished, but that never happened. It became AR 549 circa 2005.

Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

sparker

Quote from: bwana39 on May 15, 2020, 12:52:04 PM
There is a huge discussion on the I-369 thread about the proposed I-49 sections between I-40 and Texarkana.

The I-49 spur onto Ft. Chaffee was built to insure Chaffee and its' many acres of redevelopment (industrial park) land weren't bypassed due to the expense of the Arkansas River Bridge. It may have even been all or partially paid for using BRACC or BRACC related funds. This forum tends to dismiss the effect of Military bases on Highway projects. Funds travel both ways. Military and BRACC funds for the local communities get used for upgrades to infrastructure and State / Local funds get spent to help retain military facilities.  To a lesser extent we do the same for major employers / potential employers. Generally for private employers, it tends to be tax abatements and surface street level improvements.

Eventually the bridge will get built.  Sooner or Later.  With this said, I-540 and US71 are not that terrible a route as it is.

While the stretch from Fort Smith to Fayetteville got built in a fairly direct manner. UA is in Fayetteville. Tyson is in Springdale, Wal*Mart is in Bentonville. Connecting those elements with I-40, Little Rock and points beyond was politically and economically expedient.

As to the stretch from Ft Smith to Mena,  It goes through a rural MOUNTAINOUS route.  The route chosen to minimize the grade is a bit circumnavigous (it is basically the same route chose for US71 nearly a century ago.).  The oft discussed OKLAHOMA routing (that has never been significantly considered beyond theory) is of similar length at what has been said to be a lesser grade / elevation.

The local communities south of Ft Smith are not really in any hurry to bring in economic change. There is at best mixed local support.  This is going to be a slow EXPENSIVE process. My thinking is 2050 at the earliest absent some enhanced federal funding scheme.

If Arkansas could build 1 big bridge (I-49 Arkansas River or I-69 Mississippi River) and 1 stretch of road across predominately flat terrain (I-69) it would all work out.  The problem is the urgency is on I-49 and I-69 is caught behind it on the priorities list.

I still am not a fan of the proposed routing for I-69 in Arkansas and to a lesser extent Louisiana too.



Any discussion of a partial OK routing for I-49 was dropped 20+ years ago; it was only brought up for historical reference rather than a currently viable alternative.  From what I've managed to gather, when actual construction commences on Texarkana-Ft. Smith, it'll in all probability initially assume the form of bypasses of the major towns along the route (De Queen, Mena, Waldron) -- likely full Interstate-grade -- but if fiscal matters turn dismal, a series of 2-lane facilities similar to the nascent Monticello I-69/US 278 bypass wouldn't be out of the question -- to secure ROW if little else.   

Gordon

In 2020, ArDOT has 9.7 million for preliminary Engineering and  after the toll study that the environmental was done so they were going ahead and doing a 2 lane from I 40 to Hwy.22 in Barling. That is in the proposal for 1/2 cent tax being extended. The Bridge was not mentioned but they have some Idea how it will be built. Maybe if they get the engineering done and if the Federal gov. does a infrastructure bill it will get built.

sprjus4

Quote from: Gordon on May 15, 2020, 07:43:29 PM
In 2020, ArDOT has 9.7 million for preliminary Engineering and  after the toll study that the environmental was done so they were going ahead and doing a 2 lane from I 40 to Hwy.22 in Barling. That is in the proposal for 1/2 cent tax being extended. The Bridge was not mentioned but they have some Idea how it will be built. Maybe if they get the engineering done and if the Federal gov. does a infrastructure bill it will get built.
Hopefully this decade, the government does some sort of large infrastructure bill that can finally complete the hundreds of miles of future interstate highways that have yet to be built. I-11, I-42, I-49, I-57 extension, I-69, I-73, I-87, I-530 extension, etc. along with thousands of miles of needed 6 lane widenings on many rural 4 lane interstate highways that cannot handle current traffic volumes, I-81, I-95, I-85, I-10, I-64, I-75, are just a few examples that come to mind, there's of course plenty more that need it.

Unfortunately, any large scale bill will likely include toll financing, but if it could somehow be done without large scale tolling being implemented on every corridor, such as a nationwide gas tax increase to the needed amount, I would be in favor of that if paying extra means major progress nationwide.

Gordon

I just hope infrastructure bill will be for needed Interstate projects and not pet projects like a lot of government bills that pass.

bwana39

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 15, 2020, 03:58:04 PM
Quote from: bwana39While the stretch from Fort Smith to Fayetteville got built in a fairly direct manner. UA is in Fayetteville. Tyson is in Springdale, Wal*Mart is in Bentonville. Connecting those elements with I-40, Little Rock and points beyond was politically and economically expedient.


I don't have any serious problems with the proposed routing of I-49 between Texarkana and Fort Smith, other than the tiny segment that clips a corner of Texas. IMHO, they should have keep the entire route within Arkansas to prevent potential bureaucratic & political headaches. I don't see TX DOT being in any rush to prioritize that segment of I-49 and a Red River bridge crossing to go with it. Not when they have so many other fish to fry in terms of highway projects. But it is what it is. The arguments about the routing farther North are moot. The road has to go around mountains for any alternative. None of really any better than the currently proposed route. No one is going to spend billions of dollars on tunnels to make the route more straight. 30 years ago tunnels might have been possible. Not now. We price ourselves out of those possibilities.

I think any ideas of routing I-49 through the Eastern edge of Oklahoma are silly. Just like that little segment of I-49 going over the Red River is a low priority for Texas, an I-49 segment on the far East edge would be a very low priority for Oklahoma to fund. The US-69 and US-75 corridors in Eastern OK are in far greater need of improvement. I-49 in the same area would be another expensive mouth to feed.



I think you gravely underestimate the local comttment in Texarkana and Bowie County to 1-49 and I-369. Texarkana sees a major intersection out North of Leary with TWO interstates intersecting; not just one running through the River bottoms then crossing the river. You have to look at the existing bridges on US-59/71 across the Red River.  The Southbound bridge leaves Little River County Arkansas and lands in Bowie county TX. Texas paid for the cash portion of the local funds for the  construction costs Arkansas paid in "IN-kind funding".   The Northbound bridge leaves Miller County AR and lands in Little River County AR. Partially Paid by TXDOT.  Arkansas WANTS this rural stretch through Bowie County so Texas will help pay for the bridges and not have significant access for in-town businesses. As soon as digging gets started in Little River County it will also in Bowie County.

While I suggested an Eastern Oklahoma route had been discussed. I also noted that it (..."has never been significantly considered beyond theory)"   I see nothing short of JFK standing on that rock out side Big Cedar again making it happen. (Big Cedar is actually further south than US59). Yes, Oklahoma has bigger fish to fry. US 69 or US75 clearly are higher priorities for OKLAHOMA. This said, The US59 Corridor is a world away from US-69.  Any reference to this route going into Oklahoma is PURELY based on building on a blank slate with no political realities. It might be a better route purely from a road building perspective, but it does go into OKLAHOMA and OKLAHOMA doesn't want it and would choose to spend their money elsewhere. So I am done kicking the dead horse.

As to the chosen route: I pointed out it loops way east to minimize the mountain problems.  Arkansas made the same decision for US-71 nearly 100 years ago. Absent tunnelling, it is what it is. There really doesn't seem to be a better Arkansas route. The same mountains are there that were centuries ago.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sprjus4

Couldn't Oklahoma build such a conceptual section as one of their many toll Turnpikes?

ibthebigd

I wish Congress would do an Infrastructure bill based on the 538 electoral college so 1 Billion per electoral vote and pay with a gas tax increase.

SM-G950U


sprjus4

They want to spend trillions of dollars on a lot of things, yet infrastructure seems nowhere to be found.

sparker

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 16, 2020, 07:46:47 AM
Couldn't Oklahoma build such a conceptual section as one of their many toll Turnpikes?

Not likely; any I-49 corridor alternative that loops through OK still begins and ends in AR -- and to date all OK turnpikes have at least, trajectory-wise, aimed at the population/commercial center (the I-44 corridor) of the state.  One that hugs the eastern state line and would provide financial benefits to only a small portion of OK residents while providing outsized benefits to both out-of-state/commercial drivers -- and begins and ends in adjoining AR -- would garner virtually no political support from OK political circles -- the reason the idea was discarded well before the turn of the century.  AR is the only state that actually wants to pursue this corridor -- but just doesn't have the fiscal wherewithal to develop it as a singular project -- which means any actual development will probably be eked out over the next few decades. 

sprjus4

Quote from: sparker on May 16, 2020, 12:32:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 16, 2020, 07:46:47 AM
Couldn't Oklahoma build such a conceptual section as one of their many toll Turnpikes?

Not likely; any I-49 corridor alternative that loops through OK still begins and ends in AR -- and to date all OK turnpikes have at least, trajectory-wise, aimed at the population/commercial center (the I-44 corridor) of the state.  One that hugs the eastern state line and would provide financial benefits to only a small portion of OK residents while providing outsized benefits to both out-of-state/commercial drivers -- and begins and ends in adjoining AR -- would garner virtually no political support from OK political circles -- the reason the idea was discarded well before the turn of the century.  AR is the only state that actually wants to pursue this corridor -- but just doesn't have the fiscal wherewithal to develop it as a singular project -- which means any actual development will probably be eked out over the next few decades.
It would provide access from the eastern part of the state towards the I-40 and Muskogee Turnpike corridors towards Tulsa and Oklahoma City.

Almost a similar concept to the Indian Nation Turnpike but further east. Yes, it would tie into Arkansas on either end, but connections could also be built to I-40 West on the northern end as well.

I suppose if that Indian Nation Turnpike did not exist, there would be more desire.

Obviously, the corridor would ideally be fully in Arkansas. This is merely a conceptual idea.



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.