I'm wondering if anyone has info from Txdot that they will build that segment though Texarkana. There isn't much I'm getting. I think I encountered something about a toll road somewhere BTW
They won't build it through Texarkana; it's all north of the city limits.
Quote from: NE2 on November 27, 2014, 05:19:17 PM
They won't build it through Texarkana; it's all north of the city limits.
I knew that. I didn't mean that
If it is built as a toll road (which it won't be) US 59-71 will be used to shunpike it. It will get little to no traffic.
Quote from: NE2 on November 27, 2014, 05:19:17 PM
They won't build it through Texarkana; it's all north of the city limits.
For now...until it's annexed.
I had no knowledge of I-49 actually entering Texas, but now that I look over the Texarkana area again, I guess that might happen, seeing that sharp turn to the left towards the state line north of Texarkana. But like NE2 said, it wouldnt actually be in Texarkana, but a little ways north of it. As for Texarkana city limits, I-49 is passing through the Arkansas part of it. I dont think I got what was mentioned about some possible toll road, but if it were to just be for I-49's short 5 miles in Texas, that would be completely useless.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on November 28, 2014, 01:16:19 AM
I had no knowledge of I-49 actually entering Texas, but now that I look over the Texarkana area again, I guess that might happen, seeing that sharp turn to the left towards the state line north of Texarkana. But like NE2 said, it wouldn't actually be in Texarkana, but a little ways north of it. As for Texarkana city limits, I-49 is passing through the Arkansas part of it. I dont think I got what was mentioned about some possible toll road, but if it were to just be for I-49's short 5 miles in Texas, that would be completely useless.
I know this. It was wile I was looking though the texas plans. I don't know where I found it. But according to the plan, there was going to be a second loop around Texarkana that is a toll road and that would be one of the exits of I-49
I found something. I will dig deeper http://www.ktbs.com/story/22374799/texarkana-could-get-toll-road
Quote from: Guysdrive780 on November 28, 2014, 09:24:13 AM
I found something. I will dig deeper http://www.ktbs.com/story/22374799/texarkana-could-get-toll-road
The OP in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4646.msg101672#msg101672) mentions how the new terrain section of the I-69 Corridor from the Sulphur River to I-30 (presumably near the TexAmericas Center) was included in a 2011 bill for approval as a toll road. However, that approval was contingent on construction beginning in 2015. Neighborhood opposition has stalled the environmental process of selecting the new terrain I-69 Corridor; 2015 construction will not happen.
I never read the bill and I am not sure if the Northern Loop from I-30 in Texas to the TX/AR state line was also approved for tolls. However, the current FEIS for the Northern Loop will have to be redone if the new terrain section of the I-69 Corridor (new location for I-369?) is approved and/or built.
This post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg293262;topicseen#msg293262) from AHTD includes a link for the routing of the 5.36 miles of I-49 through Texas. Here is a snip from the map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-49_Exits_1.pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLO4KMG6.jpg&hash=80354e711bfee8e815a48c4027f39c67949ddd17)
I assume Exit 44 would be the Northern Loop exit; I cannot imagine Texas tolling either the approximate 2 miles of I-49 from the Northern Loop/ I-49 interchange to US 71/59 at the state line or the entire 5.36 miles of I-49 in Texas.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 28, 2014, 10:34:58 AM
I cannot imagine Texas tolling either the approximate 2 miles of I-49 from the Northern Loop/ I-49 interchange to US 71/59 at the state line
See also: I-80 Illinois.
I heard that the part of the northern loop from I-49 in Texas to I-30 will be named I-249 and from I-30 southward it will become I-369. Does anyone know if that's true or not?
Quote from: dariusb on November 30, 2014, 11:52:59 PM
I heard that the part of the northern loop from I-49 in Texas to I-30 will be named I-249 and from I-30 southward it will become I-369. Does anyone know if that's true or not?
I heard it might become a toll road
Quote from: NE2 on November 28, 2014, 11:06:18 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 28, 2014, 10:34:58 AM
I cannot imagine Texas tolling either the approximate 2 miles of I-49 from the Northern Loop/ I-49 interchange to US 71/59 at the state line
See also: I-80 Illinois.
That was a preexisting toll road that I-80 connected to (The Tri-State was built 1958, I-80 was connected in 1966). This would be a new toll road as a connector between two non-toll segments in another state.
Quote from: Brandon on December 01, 2014, 02:15:59 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 28, 2014, 11:06:18 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 28, 2014, 10:34:58 AM
I cannot imagine Texas tolling either the approximate 2 miles of I-49 from the Northern Loop/ I-49 interchange to US 71/59 at the state line
See also: I-80 Illinois.
That was a preexisting toll road that I-80 connected to (The Tri-State was built 1958, I-80 was connected in 1966). This would be a new toll road as a connector between two non-toll segments in another state.
This would also connect the state line to the toll continuation as the outer Texarkana loop. And it very well could exist before I-49 is built to the north.
Quote from: Guysdrive780 on November 28, 2014, 09:24:13 AM
I found something. I will dig deeper http://www.ktbs.com/story/22374799/texarkana-could-get-toll-road
Quote from: Guysdrive780 on December 01, 2014, 08:04:41 AM
Quote from: dariusb on November 30, 2014, 11:52:59 PM
I heard that the part of the northern loop from I-49 in Texas to I-30 will be named I-249 and from I-30 southward it will become I-369. Does anyone know if that's true or not?
I heard it might become a toll road
Judging by this internet post (http://eyeonwilliamson.org/?p=1244), your information probably relates to the Texas Transportation Commission's June, 2007 authorization of a feasibility study (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2007/minutes/jun14_special.pdf) for a Texarkana toll road:
Quote
Local Texas Department of Transportation officials say a feasibility study would be conducted before moving forward with the potential Texarkana-area toll road project. The Texas Transportation Commission recently gave its approval to 80 possible toll roads in Texas. And a corridor around one side of Texarkana was tapped as a candidate project.
[...]
Marcus Sandifer, TxDOT's Atlanta District spokesman, said the loop around one side of Texarkana could get drivers, especially through-traffic, around Texarkana's high traffic areas and back to rural areas. The whole idea is to get the traffic out of the commercialized areas and neighborhoods where there's the heavier traffic. The north part of the route was already determined by the Texas Department of Transportation, the Arkansas Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is made up of both cities, counties and local governments, Sandifer said.
[...]
Sandifer said part of what the feasibility study will consider is whether users would save enough time and avoid enough traffic to use this toll road section. He said what's been approved by the Texas Transportation Commission so far is simply looking at a toll road and studying it. If it's not feasible, it' not going to pay for itself, he said.
I have no idea whether the feasibility study was ever conducted.
Quote from: NE2 on December 01, 2014, 02:21:39 PM
This would also connect the state line to the toll continuation as the outer Texarkana loop. And it very well could exist before I-49 is built to the north.
Quote from: Grzrd on December 01, 2014, 03:04:55 PM
the Texas Transportation Commission's June, 2007 authorization of a feasibility study (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2007/minutes/jun14_special.pdf) for a Texarkana toll road
The link to the Texas Transportation Commission's Minute Order does not include the Exhibit A list of 80 proposed toll road projects; however, TxDOT has emailed me a pdf of Exhibit A and it indeed directly references IH 49. Here is a snip from Exhibit A:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FttGhArU.png&hash=55532b4cebfd97bc338e66687353cbd63356f8b4)
Any thoughts on why US 71 was included?
I wonder will this section be built as a toll or will plans change yet again?
Quote from: dariusb on December 05, 2014, 02:46:27 AM
I wonder will this section be built as a toll or will plans change yet again?
To me, it wouldn't make a lot of sense considering the rest of the road is "free"
It would save a bunch of miles and as much as we want Texarkana to be a small town, the freeways are as congested as in the cities.
Here was something I wandered into... The minute order for US-71 in Texas. This is still on the books.
Minute Order 100814, 04/28/1992; Des Ltr 03-1992, 09/14/1992
From the Texas/Arkansas S/L north of Texarkana, southward and concurrent with US 59 to IH 30; and then continuing southward on State Line Road to its junction with US 67/US 82, a distance of approximately 8.4 miles; and also on new location from the Texas/Arkansas S/L, northwest of Texarkana, southeastward to the intersection of IH 30/US 59; then southward and concurrent with US 59 to SH 93/SL 151; then southward, eastward and concurrent with SL 151 to State Line Road, a total distance of approximately 24.6 miles. (Bowie County) (New Description) Section on new location added from the Texas/Arkansas State Line, northwest of Texarkana, southeastward to State Line Rd in south Texarkana. Upon completion of the new location of US 71, the present designation of US 71 north of Texarkana, from the Texas/Arkansas State Line southward to IH 30 will be cancelled and retained as US 59; the present designation of US 71, from IH 30 southward to its junction with US 67/US 82 will be cancelled and redesignated in conjunction and cooperation with the State of Arkansas; the present designation of SL 151, from US 59.eastward to State Line Road will be cancelled and retained as US 71.
This basically would be from the proposed crossing of I-49 on the Red River to the existing I-369. There really isn't a path across Texarkana to get there absent tearing down half of Pleasant Grove. I really figure this was an oversight, but...... It is still there.
I expect at SOME point, the route that the proposed toll road was supposed to take will be built more or less, but that will come AFTER the freeway is finished from near Sulphur River to Loop 151 / the current I-369.
They must build the Toll Road first.
I doubt if any toll road gets built around the West side of Texarkana up to I-49 on the North side of town. Multiple factors are working against it. First of all the current political climate in Texas is very sour on toll roads. Plans are getting more and more solid for I-369 follow US-59 into the South side of Texarkana and merge with the existing loop. That takes the alternative routing of I-369 farther West up through the TexAmericas Center off the table.
Then there is the question of how much traffic sites like the TexAmericas Center will generate for the I-49 corridor. Obviously some will go South on US-59/Future I-369 (not I-49, that was a typo) down to the Houston area and beyond. But it's hard to justify building a "direct" route South out of the TexAmericas Center to meet up with I-49. Wright Patman Lake and wetlands North of it is a big obstacle. That would force a diagonal route that wouldn't save much over taking I-30 to the Texarakana loop and hooking up with I-369 there.
The I-49 corridor going North out of Texarkana won't be very attractive to commercial drivers from points like the TexAmericas Center until much of the freeway is completed. That's going to take a long time.
If the powers that be in Texarkana want a western bypass connecting to I-49, I think they need to start out in modest fashion. Establish a Super 2 route and reserve as much freeway-wide ROW as possible along the way. As more of I-49 in Arkansas is completed then more of this Western partial loop for Texarkana can be upgraded.
It is mentioned elsewhere.
TxDOT already owns the ROW for I-49 to cross over from Arkansas.
They will not do anything until ArDOT gets funding for I-49 extension.
Until Arkansas actually does something, there really isn't much to talk about.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 20, 2021, 11:12:16 PM
Obviously some will go South on I-49 down to the Houston area and beyond.
This one just stumps me. The only Texarkana to Houston traffic that goes through Shreveport (I-49) is that that are tied to the fuel contracts at the truck stops in Greenwood. That is becoming less a factor as there is both Pilot-Flying J (multiple) and Love's in / around Texarkana. While there is more freeway mileage, the overall is 15 to 20 miles more (some of it on US79 in Louisiana -2 LANES) and pretty much a wash on time. I have said his before (from almost daily experience) half or more of the trucks on I-49 between Shreveport and the state line is Frac sand haulers originating in near Garland City Ar. Few if any trucks actually originating south of Carthage is diverting through Shreveport.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 20, 2021, 11:12:16 PM
I doubt if any toll road gets built around the West side of Texarkana up to I-49 on the North side of town. .
I tend to agree. but at the same time, the proposed route for I-49 would itself make up most of the "northern loop" This all said, the Arkansas construction north from the Red River to create the demand for the Texas construction on I-49 is probably over a decade away.
I absolutely agree that bringing I-369 along Lake Drive is what the powers that be want and absent some uncommon outside influence, it is going to happen. That said, in casual conversation, they want both the Lake Drive route and the western spur. They want the Lake drive route more and they want it first. The bottom line is commercial real estate concerns will drive where this road goes. TexAmericas center is a quasi-governmental organization with a single source marketing contract. It is the bane of the commercial real estate agents. They would want the road to go toward the commercial real estate that is ready for sale through brokers who work within MLS and other local and regional trade groups. Talk all you will about job creation, economic development is solely about two things: Sale of commercial real estate and construction. If jobs get created, it is mostly irrelevant (unintentional) and makes the developers look good. Job development MAY help make a project more palatable to the members of the community who will be negatively impacted but at the same time not really any part of the reason why a project is proposed.
It is the reason why small towns fight loops (the commercial property along the disused route falls in value while a new routing would likely be through agricultural property and purchased at agricultural prices without the aid of real estate agents.) It has no value to the local power brokers if it doesn't increase value and / or marketability of currently held commercial real estate.
Road construction is seldom done by local contractors so it also has no value locally.
Quote from: edwaleni on April 21, 2021, 10:41:41 AM
It is mentioned elsewhere.
TxDOT already owns the ROW for I-49 to cross over from Arkansas.
They will not do anything until ArDOT gets funding for I-49 extension.
Until Arkansas actually does something, there really isn't much to talk about.
EXACTLY. All / any of this is probably a decade or more away.
Quote from: bwana39This one just stumps me. The only Texarkana to Houston traffic that goes through Shreveport (I-49) is that that are tied to the fuel contracts at the truck stops in Greenwood.
That was actually a typo. I meant to type
US-59/Future I-369. It looks like TX DOT has every intention of fully building out I-369 to Texarkana. I think it has more momentum than I-49 between Fort Smith and the Red River.
Quote from: bwana39I absolutely agree that bringing I-369 along Lake Drive is what the powers that be want and absent some uncommon outside influence, it is going to happen. That said, in casual conversation, they want both the Lake Drive route and the western spur. They want the Lake drive route more and they want it first. The bottom line is commercial real estate concerns will drive where this road goes.
Commercial real estate developers and certain property owners prefer a brand new super highway to be built closer to their lands. But the problem is the closer you build a super highway near development the more properties you have to buy and demolish in the process.
I think it's a long shot any kind of bypass goes around the West side of Texarkana to connect into the short segment of I-49 in Texas. If real estate developers within Texarkana want to control where any sort of west bypass gets located they could start by laying down a 2-lane street and buying up (and clearing) freeway-wide swaths of land next to that street. Or they could go farther and have the city or county build a divided 4-lane street with a huge median in the middle of it. In any of those scenarios the best case I see is a connector from I-49 near the Red River going Southwest to some point along I-20 between Texarkana and the TexAmericas Center.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 21, 2021, 02:17:48 PM
Commercial real estate developers and certain property owners prefer a brand new super highway to be built closer to their lands. But the problem is the closer you build a super highway near development the more properties you have to buy and demolish in the process.
I think it's a long shot any kind of bypass goes around the West side of Texarkana to connect into the short segment of I-49 in Texas. If real estate developers within Texarkana want to control where any sort of west bypass gets located they could start by laying down a 2-lane street and buying up (and clearing) freeway-wide swaths of land next to that street. Or they could go farther and have the city or county build a divided 4-lane street with a huge median in the middle of it. In any of those scenarios the best case I see is a connector from I-49 near the Red River going Southwest to some point along I-30 between Texarkana and the TexAmericas Center.
I tend to agree it will never get built unless it is a toll road. A tollway MIGHT eventually get built akin to how loop 49 around Tyler has been built. Even then it would either be after the time that I-49 was completed from US-71 to Ashdown (AR-32) or farther. Local support for this would be minimal in the power circles until Texarkana was actually built out close to Hooks. The one exception would be to spite Arkansas. In Texarkana, MOST of the animus seems to come from Arkansas against Texas.
I know that I-30 is currently being widened to 6 lanes. That's at least one thing they've gotten right because with all of the additional traffic due to TexAmericas , I-369 and I-49 traffic counts are about to skyrocket!
Quote from: bwana39I tend to agree it will never get built unless it is a toll road.
I never suggested a toll road would be a feasible solution for a bypass around the NW side of Texarakana from I-20 up to I-49. Unless the tolls are dirt cheap it probably wouldn't generate the traffic numbers needed to make it self sufficient. The toll rates on existing express lanes and toll roads in Texas can get fairly high.
My thinking is since that highway segment going around the NW side of Texarkana is relatively short it's not worth building at all unless it can be built/upgraded into a conventional freeway.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 29, 2021, 03:10:05 PM
Quote from: bwana39I tend to agree it will never get built unless it is a toll road.
I never suggested a toll road would be a feasible solution for a bypass around the NW side of Texarakana from I-20 up to I-49. Unless the tolls are dirt cheap it probably wouldn't generate the traffic numbers needed to make it self sufficient. The toll rates on existing express lanes and toll roads in Texas can get fairly high.
My thinking is since that highway segment going around the NW side of Texarkana is relatively short it's not worth building at all unless it can be built/upgraded into a conventional freeway.
The I-30 EB to I-49NB would save around 15 miles period (Using state line) or 20 miles for freeway only. I agree it needs to be controlled access or at least have the facility to expand it to 4-lane controlled access. As to tolls; it is kind of like a toll ramp. Everyone said they would never work, strangely they get used in DFW all of the time. The part from the lake to interstate 30 is a little more problematic.
Either way the interest will not come about until the interstate is complete from at least Texarkana to DeQueen or maybe even all the way from Texarkana to Joplin. There will be no planning for the eventuality AND it will come to a head when there is a steady line of trucks on FM2253 and FM559.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 28, 2014, 10:34:58 AM
Quote from: Guysdrive780 on November 28, 2014, 09:24:13 AM
I found something. I will dig deeper http://www.ktbs.com/story/22374799/texarkana-could-get-toll-road
The OP in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4646.msg101672#msg101672) mentions how the new terrain section of the I-69 Corridor from the Sulphur River to I-30 (presumably near the TexAmericas Center) was included in a 2011 bill for approval as a toll road. However, that approval was contingent on construction beginning in 2015. Neighborhood opposition has stalled the environmental process of selecting the new terrain I-69 Corridor; 2015 construction will not happen.
I never read the bill and I am not sure if the Northern Loop from I-30 in Texas to the TX/AR state line was also approved for tolls. However, the current FEIS for the Northern Loop will have to be redone if the new terrain section of the I-69 Corridor (new location for I-369?) is approved and/or built.
This post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg293262;topicseen#msg293262) from AHTD includes a link for the routing of the 5.36 miles of I-49 through Texas. Here is a snip from the map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-49_Exits_1.pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLO4KMG6.jpg&hash=80354e711bfee8e815a48c4027f39c67949ddd17)
I assume Exit 44 would be the Northern Loop exit; I cannot imagine Texas tolling either the approximate 2 miles of I-49 from the Northern Loop/ I-49 interchange to US 71/59 at the state line or the entire 5.36 miles of I-49 in Texas.
Exit 44 would probably be the Summerhill Road extension.
As to the map, everything I have heard about the crossing here, seems to indicate a crossing further to the west. Does anyone actually know where the ROW is?
Quote from: Grzrd on November 28, 2014, 10:34:58 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLO4KMG6.jpg&hash=80354e711bfee8e815a48c4027f39c67949ddd17)
Just out of idle curiosity, why are they planning on going through Texas? It seems like it would be easier to just go north from Louisiana into Arkansas, and leave Texas out of the equation.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 30, 2021, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 28, 2014, 10:34:58 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLO4KMG6.jpg&hash=80354e711bfee8e815a48c4027f39c67949ddd17)
Just out of idle curiosity, why are they planning on going through Texas? It seems like it would be easier to just go north from Louisiana into Arkansas, and leave Texas out of the equation.
That one is easy..... Texas will help (perhaps even completely) pay for the bridges over the Red River. The two bridges on US-71 one starts in Texas and ends in Arkansas. Texas paid for nearly all The local portion except the ROW (which Arkansas technically owns due to the stupid border treaty between the United States and the Republic of Texas). The other one starts in Arkansas and ends in Arkansas. Texas paid for half of it
The original plan was for I-49 to follow a much different route. The revised US-71 route below was going to be the eventual I-49 route. Orr Chevrolet sits in the middle of that ROW now.
Bottom line is Arkansas decided to build I-49 all on the Arkansas side. Sometimes the two Texarkanas function as one city. Some time they act like acrimoniously divorced spouses. There was a period from around 2005 to about 2015 that it was outwardly hostile. It is some better now, but just some.
I left out one thing. Little River County never changed their plans for how it was to run there. They had put capital improvements in place in and around Ashdown for I-49 to run west of town. Because of how the river runs, and how the Domtar Paper Mill sits it has to cross significantly west of the current junction; meaning from Texas.
Quote from: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 03:33:05 PM
It would save a bunch of miles and as much as we want Texarkana to be a small town, the freeways are as congested as in the cities.
Here was something I wandered into... The minute order for US-71 in Texas. This is still on the books.
Minute Order 100814, 04/28/1992; Des Ltr 03-1992, 09/14/1992
From the Texas/Arkansas S/L north of Texarkana, southward and concurrent with US 59 to IH 30; and then continuing southward on State Line Road to its junction with US 67/US 82, a distance of approximately 8.4 miles; and also on new location from the Texas/Arkansas S/L, northwest of Texarkana, southeastward to the intersection of IH 30/US 59; then southward and concurrent with US 59 to SH 93/SL 151; then southward, eastward and concurrent with SL 151 to State Line Road, a total distance of approximately 24.6 miles. (Bowie County) (New Description) Section on new location added from the Texas/Arkansas State Line, northwest of Texarkana, southeastward to State Line Rd in south Texarkana. Upon completion of the new location of US 71, the present designation of US 71 north of Texarkana, from the Texas/Arkansas State Line southward to IH 30 will be cancelled and retained as US 59; the present designation of US 71, from IH 30 southward to its junction with US 67/US 82 will be cancelled and redesignated in conjunction and cooperation with the State of Arkansas; the present designation of SL 151, from US 59.eastward to State Line Road will be cancelled and retained as US 71.
This basically would be from the proposed crossing of I-49 on the Red River to the existing I-369. There really isn't a path across Texarkana to get there absent tearing down half of Pleasant Grove. I really figure this was an oversight, but...... It is still there.
I expect at SOME point, the route that the proposed toll road was supposed to take will be built more or less, but that will come AFTER the freeway is finished from near Sulphur River to Loop 151 / the current I-369.
I wonder when this section of I-49 will start construction? Probably decades away since I-69/369 is the priority in Texas right now.
Quote from: dariusb on May 02, 2021, 01:27:50 PM
I wonder when this section of I-49 will start construction? Probably decades away since I-69/369 is the priority in Texas right now.
Maybe if Arkansas does something, but it's not a priority for them right now, unless some corporate entity sets up shop in the area,
Quote from: dariusb on May 02, 2021, 01:27:50 PM
I wonder when this section of I-49 will start construction? Probably decades away since I-69/369 is the priority in Texas right now.
For Texas to build their part, Arkansas has to be on the ground building the portion from DeQueen to the Red River. The proposed path from the Red River to DeQueen runs cross country after it leaves the west side of Ashdown. There are zero convenient places to go back to US-71 and very few that make it worthwhile to go to AR-41. This means that the whole approximate 40 mile part including crossing the Little River will need to be opened at the same time the Texas part is and vice versa.
Quote from: US71 on May 02, 2021, 01:34:34 PM
Maybe if Arkansas does something, but it's not a priority for them right now, unless some corporate entity sets up shop in the area,
US71 hits the nail on the head.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 04, 2021, 11:04:36 AM
Quote from: dariusb on May 02, 2021, 01:27:50 PM
I wonder when this section of I-49 will start construction? Probably decades away since I-69/369 is the priority in Texas right now.
For Texas to build their part, Arkansas has to be on the ground building the portion from DeQueen to the Red River. The proposed path from the Red River to DeQueen runs cross country after it leaves the west side of Ashdown. There are zero convenient places to go back to US-71 and very few that make it worthwhile to go to AR-41. This means that the whole approximate 40 mile part including crossing the Little River will need to be opened at the same time the Texas part is and vice versa.
Quote from: US71 on May 02, 2021, 01:34:34 PM
Maybe if Arkansas does something, but it's not a priority for them right now, unless some corporate entity sets up shop in the area,
US71 hits the nail on the head.
I'm thinking the portion of I-49 that will be incorporated into the northern loop around Texarkana might get finished sooner rather than later, as I-369 is extended north of I-30. I suspect they would build some ramp stubs where I-49 will eventually leave the north loop and continue north toward the Red River.
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 04, 2021, 03:16:03 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 04, 2021, 11:04:36 AM
Quote from: dariusb on May 02, 2021, 01:27:50 PM
I wonder when this section of I-49 will start construction? Probably decades away since I-69/369 is the priority in Texas right now.
For Texas to build their part, Arkansas has to be on the ground building the portion from DeQueen to the Red River. The proposed path from the Red River to DeQueen runs cross country after it leaves the west side of Ashdown. There are zero convenient places to go back to US-71 and very few that make it worthwhile to go to AR-41. This means that the whole approximate 40 mile part including crossing the Little River will need to be opened at the same time the Texas part is and vice versa.
Quote from: US71 on May 02, 2021, 01:34:34 PM
Maybe if Arkansas does something, but it's not a priority for them right now, unless some corporate entity sets up shop in the area,
US71 hits the nail on the head.
I'm thinking the portion of I-49 that will be incorporated into the northern loop around Texarkana might get finished sooner rather than later, as I-369 is extended north of I-30. I suspect they would build some ramp stubs where I-49 will eventually leave the north loop and continue north toward the Red River.
I-369 CANNOT be extended directly to the north of I-30.
The original plan was for I-49 (at the time called "New US-71" ) was to go from the current south loop at I-49 or the current (old) US-71 around the southwest side. What is now I-369 would have been I-49. From the current I-30 / I-369 intersection, it was planned for I-49 to proceed pretty much directly north to the eventual Red River crossing. Then Arkansas took it upon themselves to build I-49 around the entire east side of Texarkana. The originally planned ROW north of I-30 has been built out in a manner making it mostly, if not completely impossible to build anything significant through there.
Any western connector would need to be out around Leary (Loosely following the path of FM 2253 or something west to that. For it to be a good fit with I-369, it would need to go all the way down to the current US-59 / FM2148 intersection.
As to EB I-30 to NB -I-49 a connector to out there would be a help. Not sure how much traffic would actually go from Dallas to NWA or Joplin and vice versa.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 06, 2021, 02:56:14 PM
As to EB I-30 to NB -I-49 a connector to out there would be a help. Not sure how much traffic would actually go from Dallas to NWA or Joplin and vice versa.
US-75 / US-69 to I-40 or I-44 is a much more direct route than via Texarkana, even when I-49 is complete.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 06, 2021, 07:59:08 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 06, 2021, 02:56:14 PM
As to EB I-30 to NB -I-49 a connector to out there would be a help. Not sure how much traffic would actually go from Dallas to NWA or Joplin and vice versa.
US-75 / US-69 to I-40 or I-44 is a much more direct route than via Texarkana, even when I-49 is complete.
Agreed. Pretty much the main usefulness of I-49 north from Texarkana is as an extension of US-59/ I-369
Quote from: sprjus4US-75 / US-69 to I-40 or I-44 is a much more direct route than via Texarkana, even when I-49 is complete.
Driving from Joplin to Dallas the combos of I-44/I-35 and I-44/US-69 are both shorter routes than a completed I-49 and I-30 combo. There is significantly less mileage savings driving from NW Arkansas down to Dallas. Drivers have to take US-412 West to reach US-69 or I-44.
Both I-44 and US-69 have notable disadvantages. I-44 is tolled thru most parts of Oklahoma. 3 urban segments and a short stretch near the Red River are the only exceptions. The tolls are a relative bargain compared to other toll roads in the nation; however, toll rates do go up quite a bit for larger commercial vehicles and big rig trucks. Most of US-69 from Big Cabin down to the Red River is not limited access. Certain zones are known for being speed traps.
Once I-49 is completed I would expect a great of traffic from NWA headed to Dallas to use I-49 and I-30. There won't be any tolls along that way and speed traps will be down to a minimum.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 06, 2021, 11:23:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 06, 2021, 07:59:08 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 06, 2021, 02:56:14 PM
As to EB I-30 to NB -I-49 a connector to out there would be a help. Not sure how much traffic would actually go from Dallas to NWA or Joplin and vice versa.
US-75 / US-69 to I-40 or I-44 is a much more direct route than via Texarkana, even when I-49 is complete.
Agreed. Pretty much the main usefulness of I-49 north from Texarkana is as an extension of US-59/ I-369
And I-49 itself from southern Louisiana / New Orleans / Baton Rouge / Lafayette / Shreveport. Two major north south corridors converge into one at Texarkana.
I'd expect increased traffic overall given vehicles from these points to the current I-49 north of I-40 use other four lane routes instead of the 100+ mile 2 lane trek north of Texarkana.
Quote from: US71 on May 02, 2021, 01:34:34 PM
Quote from: dariusb on May 02, 2021, 01:27:50 PM
I wonder when this section of I-49 will start construction? Probably decades away since I-69/369 is the priority in Texas right now.
Maybe if Arkansas does something, but it's not a priority for them right now, unless some corporate entity sets up shop in the area,
Agreed. If Amazon or Walmart wanted a new distribution hub north of Texarkana, or even north of the Red River, the road would be built lickety split.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 06, 2021, 11:28:14 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 06, 2021, 11:23:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 06, 2021, 07:59:08 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 06, 2021, 02:56:14 PM
As to EB I-30 to NB -I-49 a connector to out there would be a help. Not sure how much traffic would actually go from Dallas to NWA or Joplin and vice versa.
US-75 / US-69 to I-40 or I-44 is a much more direct route than via Texarkana, even when I-49 is complete.
Agreed. Pretty much the main usefulness of I-49 north from Texarkana is as an extension of US-59/ I-369
And I-49 itself from southern Louisiana / New Orleans / Baton Rouge / Lafayette / Shreveport. Two major north south corridors converge into one at Texarkana.
I'd expect increased traffic overall given vehicles from these points to the current I-49 north of I-40 use other four lane routes instead of the 100+ mile 2 lane trek north of Texarkana.
Lafayette and MAYBE Baton Rouge: I really don't see I-49 ever netting traffic from East of Baton Rouge when I-49 is completed. I-55 and US-63 is a closer and better route to Kansas City much less Saint Louis.
Mapping this, It makes extending freeway from Pine Bluff to east of Monroe to Natchez then Baton Rouge make a whole lot of sense. Really more sense than I-69 across NW Louisiana and Arkansas.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 07, 2021, 12:17:51 PM
Lafayette and MAYBE Baton Rouge: I really don't see I-49 ever netting traffic from East of Baton Rouge when I-49 is completed. I-55 and US-63 is a closer and better route to Kansas City much less Saint Louis.
St. Louis definitely - I-55 is straight shot from New Orleans to St. Louis.
Kansas City... ehh. Google Maps offers various routes from New Orleans that contain hundreds of arterial mileage with one all freeway alternative - I-55 to I-70 - which is 60 more miles though only like 10 minutes longer than the others - for a long distance trip, probably the current preferred route.
Once I-49 is complete through that large expanse in Arkansas between Fort Smith and Texarkana, it will only be about 30 miles longer than those current arterial / interstate combinations. Considering all interstate highway throughout, 75 mph for most of that distance, it will easily be faster than those other routes.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 06, 2021, 11:23:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 06, 2021, 07:59:08 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 06, 2021, 02:56:14 PM
As to EB I-30 to NB -I-49 a connector to out there would be a help. Not sure how much traffic would actually go from Dallas to NWA or Joplin and vice versa.
US-75 / US-69 to I-40 or I-44 is a much more direct route than via Texarkana, even when I-49 is complete.
Agreed. Pretty much the main usefulness of I-49 north from Texarkana is as an extension of US-59/ I-369
Oklahoma would not be happy, but shunpikers would be, as I-30 and I-49 would provide a toll-free alternative to the I-44 turnpike between Oklahoma City and Joplin.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2021, 02:03:01 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 07, 2021, 12:17:51 PM
Lafayette and MAYBE Baton Rouge: I really don't see I-49 ever netting traffic from East of Baton Rouge when I-49 is completed. I-55 and US-63 is a closer and better route to Kansas City much less Saint Louis.
St. Louis definitely - I-55 is straight shot from New Orleans to St. Louis.
Kansas City... ehh. Google Maps offers various routes from New Orleans that contain hundreds of arterial mileage with one all freeway alternative - I-55 to I-70 - which is 60 more miles though only like 10 minutes longer than the others - for a long distance trip, probably the current preferred route.
Once I-49 is complete through that large expanse in Arkansas between Fort Smith and Texarkana, it will only be about 30 miles longer than those current arterial / interstate combinations. Considering all interstate highway throughout, 75 mph for most of that distance, it will easily be faster than those other routes.
Baton Rouge trashes it all out. When you map it to Shreveport, the average is only 65 mph. (Still under 70 mph if you follow I-10 all the way to Lafayette and add around 25 miles.) The part from Mena to Fort Smith will also be markedly slower because of the mountains. If I-49 winds up shorter than US-71 and you can average 66+ MPH there might be a gain. Best case the mileage is equal to the I-55 / US63 route and in spite of the 75 MPH north of Alexandria probably to Mena, the speeds from NOLA to Opelousas and Mena to Fort Smith pretty much offset the all-freeway aspect and for Trucks, the grade north of Mena will be not insignificant. (This make a good case for following US-270 / US-59 and OK-12 from Mena to Fort Smith... It isn't going to happen and the canyon that US-270 / 59 follows MAY be too narrow. It is still a better route. Just one Oklahoma has no interest in. )
US63 is being upgraded and it is possible that I-555 may be extended additionally along that path, leaves it as a better route.
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 07, 2021, 02:55:09 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 06, 2021, 11:23:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 06, 2021, 07:59:08 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 06, 2021, 02:56:14 PM
As to EB I-30 to NB -I-49 a connector to out there would be a help. Not sure how much traffic would actually go from Dallas to NWA or Joplin and vice versa.
US-75 / US-69 to I-40 or I-44 is a much more direct route than via Texarkana, even when I-49 is complete.
Agreed. Pretty much the main usefulness of I-49 north from Texarkana is as an extension of US-59/ I-369
Oklahoma would not be happy, but shunpikers would be, as I-30 and I-49 would provide a toll-free alternative to the I-44 turnpike between Oklahoma City and Joplin.
The Oklahoma turnpikes cost $9.50. You're likely to spend more in gas going via Texarkana than you'd pay in tolls (even more so if you take US-75 between Dallas and Tulsa, cutting the toll down to $4.75).
Maybe I'm wrong but something tells me that the section of I-49 between Ft. Smith and Texarkana will be tolled. Seems like most of the interstates/freeways are doing that these days.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2021, 02:03:01 PM
Kansas City... ehh. Google Maps offers various routes from New Orleans that contain hundreds of arterial mileage with one all freeway alternative - I-55 to I-70 - which is 60 more miles though only like 10 minutes longer than the others - for a long distance trip, probably the current preferred route.
I haven't looked at the various alternative options, but I would try very hard to avoid I-70 across Missouri. That 10 minutes could easily grow to a half hour or more. Then there's the unpredictable stretches of I-270 and I-55 between Festus-Crystal City and Pevely.
Quote from: dariusb on May 07, 2021, 11:28:36 PM
Maybe I'm wrong but something tells me that the section of I-49 between Ft. Smith and Texarkana will be tolled. Seems like most of the interstates/freeways are doing that these days.
Right now, Arkansas has a constitutional amendment against tolls. So the likelihood of that is slim to none.
Most of the new freeways in Texas indeed are tolled. Arkansas is not Texas!
Quote from: bwana39 on May 08, 2021, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: dariusb on May 07, 2021, 11:28:36 PM
Maybe I'm wrong but something tells me that the section of I-49 between Ft. Smith and Texarkana will be tolled. Seems like most of the interstates/freeways are doing that these days.
Right now, Arkansas has a constitutional amendment against tolls. So the likelihood of that is slim to none.
Most of the new freeways in Texas indeed are tolled. Arkansas is not Texas!
True, but Arkansas also doesn't have blinders on. They see the money NTTA is raising, and a gas tax hike is an abomination before Saint Grover.
A toll is a fee and not a tax. Bada boom, bada bing. Get your toll tags ready, Arkies. Not this year because they're too busy owning the libs.
Quote from: Road Hog on May 08, 2021, 05:04:01 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 08, 2021, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: dariusb on May 07, 2021, 11:28:36 PM
Maybe I'm wrong but something tells me that the section of I-49 between Ft. Smith and Texarkana will be tolled. Seems like most of the interstates/freeways are doing that these days.
Right now, Arkansas has a constitutional amendment against tolls. So the likelihood of that is slim to none.
Most of the new freeways in Texas indeed are tolled. Arkansas is not Texas!
True, but Arkansas also doesn't have blinders on. They see the money NTTA is raising, and a gas tax hike is an abomination before Saint Grover.
A toll is a fee and not a tax. Bada boom, bada bing. Get your toll tags ready, Arkies. Not this year because they're too busy owning the libs.
WTF? Arkansas would have to rewrite highway law to build a toll road (which they tried to do in Bella Vista, but failed).
Quote from: US71 on May 09, 2021, 09:15:30 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on May 08, 2021, 05:04:01 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 08, 2021, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: dariusb on May 07, 2021, 11:28:36 PM
Maybe I'm wrong but something tells me that the section of I-49 between Ft. Smith and Texarkana will be tolled. Seems like most of the interstates/freeways are doing that these days.
Right now, Arkansas has a constitutional amendment against tolls. So the likelihood of that is slim to none.
Most of the new freeways in Texas indeed are tolled. Arkansas is not Texas!
True, but Arkansas also doesn't have blinders on. They see the money NTTA is raising, and a gas tax hike is an abomination before Saint Grover.
A toll is a fee and not a tax. Bada boom, bada bing. Get your toll tags ready, Arkies. Not this year because they're too busy owning the libs.
WTF? Arkansas would have to rewrite highway law to build a toll road (which they tried to do in Bella Vista, but failed).
For a long distance toll road segment like Texarkana to Fort Smith, they might do so. An "Arkansas Turnpike" or something like that would be built.
Quote from: Road Hog on May 08, 2021, 05:04:01 PM
A toll is a fee and not a tax. Bada boom, bada bing. Get your toll tags ready, Arkies. Not this year because they're too busy owning the libs.
I doubt that tolls would be sufficient to pay for the cost of construction between Texarkana and Fort Smith. In fact, don't think tolls would pay for half the cost, probably not even 25% of the cost.
Is there a cost estimate for that section? I'm thinking a minimum of $3 billion, and probably more considering the rough terrain. Has there been a toll feasibility study?
And I don't think you can compare Arkansas to the NTTA. North Texas has 7.7 million people and a job base with a high percentage of high paying jobs. Arkansas has 3 million people with mostly lower-paying jobs, except for Northwest Arkansas and the higher-paying jobs in that area.
Also consider that the Harris County Toll Road Authority has a total bond principal liability of $2.04 billion and has a total obligation of $3.162 billion including interest out to 2050. In 2019 they had $854 million in revenue, although 2020 will be much lower of course. I would expect an I-49 as a toll road to incur at least $3 billion in debt but have only a few tens of millions a year in revenue. It's just not going to work.
In 2017, it was estimated that completing I-49 to Texarkana would cost $2 Billion. I am sure it is more than that now.
https://www.4029tv.com/article/ask-kelly-when-will-i-49-between-fort-smith-and-texarkana-be-complete/8775346#
Quote from: US71 on May 09, 2021, 09:15:30 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on May 08, 2021, 05:04:01 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 08, 2021, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: dariusb on May 07, 2021, 11:28:36 PM
Maybe I'm wrong but something tells me that the section of I-49 between Ft. Smith and Texarkana will be tolled. Seems like most of the interstates/freeways are doing that these days.
Right now, Arkansas has a constitutional amendment against tolls. So the likelihood of that is slim to none.
Most of the new freeways in Texas indeed are tolled. Arkansas is not Texas!
True, but Arkansas also doesn't have blinders on. They see the money NTTA is raising, and a gas tax hike is an abomination before Saint Grover.
A toll is a fee and not a tax. Bada boom, bada bing. Get your toll tags ready, Arkies. Not this year because they're too busy owning the libs.
WTF? Arkansas would have to rewrite highway law to build a toll road (which they tried to do in Bella Vista, but failed).
That's what I'm saying. The law will change – not this year (it's too late in the legislature) but very soon.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 09, 2021, 10:48:16 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on May 08, 2021, 05:04:01 PM
A toll is a fee and not a tax. Bada boom, bada bing. Get your toll tags ready, Arkies. Not this year because they're too busy owning the libs.
I doubt that tolls would be sufficient to pay for the cost of construction between Texarkana and Fort Smith. In fact, don't think tolls would pay for half the cost, probably not even 25% of the cost.
Is there a cost estimate for that section? I'm thinking a minimum of $3 billion, and probably more considering the rough terrain. Has there been a toll feasibility study?
And I don't think you can compare Arkansas to the NTTA. North Texas has 7.7 million people and a job base with a high percentage of high paying jobs. Arkansas has 3 million people with mostly lower-paying jobs, except for Northwest Arkansas and the higher-paying jobs in that area.
Also consider that the Harris County Toll Road Authority has a total bond principal liability of $2.04 billion and has a total obligation of $3.162 billion including interest out to 2050. In 2019 they had $854 million in revenue, although 2020 will be much lower of course. I would expect an I-49 as a toll road to incur at least $3 billion in debt but have only a few tens of millions a year in revenue. It's just not going to work.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that a toll will pay the whole freight for I-49, but it could be the carrot that gets it started. Tens of millions a year becomes hundreds of millions over a decade and multiple hundreds of millions over 2 decades. If they keep it Oklahoma-level low, I could go for it.
Quote from: Road Hog on May 10, 2021, 01:14:20 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 09, 2021, 10:48:16 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on May 08, 2021, 05:04:01 PM
A toll is a fee and not a tax. Bada boom, bada bing. Get your toll tags ready, Arkies. Not this year because they're too busy owning the libs.
I doubt that tolls would be sufficient to pay for the cost of construction between Texarkana and Fort Smith. In fact, don't think tolls would pay for half the cost, probably not even 25% of the cost.
Is there a cost estimate for that section? I'm thinking a minimum of $3 billion, and probably more considering the rough terrain. Has there been a toll feasibility study?
And I don't think you can compare Arkansas to the NTTA. North Texas has 7.7 million people and a job base with a high percentage of high paying jobs. Arkansas has 3 million people with mostly lower-paying jobs, except for Northwest Arkansas and the higher-paying jobs in that area.
Also consider that the Harris County Toll Road Authority has a total bond principal liability of $2.04 billion and has a total obligation of $3.162 billion including interest out to 2050. In 2019 they had $854 million in revenue, although 2020 will be much lower of course. I would expect an I-49 as a toll road to incur at least $3 billion in debt but have only a few tens of millions a year in revenue. It's just not going to work.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that a toll will pay the whole freight for I-49, but it could be the carrot that gets it started. Tens of millions a year becomes hundreds of millions over a decade and multiple hundreds of millions over 2 decades. If they keep it Oklahoma-level low, I could go for it.
Point in fact, ArDOT considered tolling a new bridge for I-49 across the Arkansas River near Fort Smith, and their study determined that tolls would cover less than half of the projected construction cost. Tolls make sense if they're placed on routes that carry enough traffic to generate the revenue needed to cover both construction and upkeep. I don't think I-49 will generate the traffic necessary to make tolling alone a viable funding option, but tolls in combination with other funding sources may work to pay for I-49.
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 10, 2021, 09:36:26 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on May 10, 2021, 01:14:20 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 09, 2021, 10:48:16 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on May 08, 2021, 05:04:01 PM
A toll is a fee and not a tax. Bada boom, bada bing. Get your toll tags ready, Arkies. Not this year because they're too busy owning the libs.
I doubt that tolls would be sufficient to pay for the cost of construction between Texarkana and Fort Smith. In fact, don't think tolls would pay for half the cost, probably not even 25% of the cost.
Is there a cost estimate for that section? I'm thinking a minimum of $3 billion, and probably more considering the rough terrain. Has there been a toll feasibility study?
And I don't think you can compare Arkansas to the NTTA. North Texas has 7.7 million people and a job base with a high percentage of high paying jobs. Arkansas has 3 million people with mostly lower-paying jobs, except for Northwest Arkansas and the higher-paying jobs in that area.
Also consider that the Harris County Toll Road Authority has a total bond principal liability of $2.04 billion and has a total obligation of $3.162 billion including interest out to 2050. In 2019 they had $854 million in revenue, although 2020 will be much lower of course. I would expect an I-49 as a toll road to incur at least $3 billion in debt but have only a few tens of millions a year in revenue. It's just not going to work.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that a toll will pay the whole freight for I-49, but it could be the carrot that gets it started. Tens of millions a year becomes hundreds of millions over a decade and multiple hundreds of millions over 2 decades. If they keep it Oklahoma-level low, I could go for it.
Point in fact, ArDOT considered tolling a new bridge for I-49 across the Arkansas River near Fort Smith, and their study determined that tolls would cover less than half of the projected construction cost. Tolls make sense if they're placed on routes that carry enough traffic to generate the revenue needed to cover both construction and upkeep. I don't think I-49 will generate the traffic necessary to make tolling alone a viable funding option, but tolls in combination with other funding sources may work to pay for I-49.
Tolls only make sense when they'd make more money than it costs to setup the infrastructure to administer them. Simply not going to happen in this state unless there's the ability to amortize that administrative overhead across several routes, not just one that's already Corridor #1 according to Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. I'd be shocked if there isn't some funding that comes about with upcoming infrastructure bills from the feds. Tolls are DOA here, we just tax ourselves with fractional cents in sales tax for road funding increases.
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 10, 2021, 03:29:18 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 10, 2021, 09:36:26 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on May 10, 2021, 01:14:20 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 09, 2021, 10:48:16 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on May 08, 2021, 05:04:01 PM
A toll is a fee and not a tax. Bada boom, bada bing. Get your toll tags ready, Arkies. Not this year because they're too busy owning the libs.
I doubt that tolls would be sufficient to pay for the cost of construction between Texarkana and Fort Smith. In fact, don't think tolls would pay for half the cost, probably not even 25% of the cost.
Is there a cost estimate for that section? I'm thinking a minimum of $3 billion, and probably more considering the rough terrain. Has there been a toll feasibility study?
And I don't think you can compare Arkansas to the NTTA. North Texas has 7.7 million people and a job base with a high percentage of high paying jobs. Arkansas has 3 million people with mostly lower-paying jobs, except for Northwest Arkansas and the higher-paying jobs in that area.
Also consider that the Harris County Toll Road Authority has a total bond principal liability of $2.04 billion and has a total obligation of $3.162 billion including interest out to 2050. In 2019 they had $854 million in revenue, although 2020 will be much lower of course. I would expect an I-49 as a toll road to incur at least $3 billion in debt but have only a few tens of millions a year in revenue. It's just not going to work.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that a toll will pay the whole freight for I-49, but it could be the carrot that gets it started. Tens of millions a year becomes hundreds of millions over a decade and multiple hundreds of millions over 2 decades. If they keep it Oklahoma-level low, I could go for it.
Point in fact, ArDOT considered tolling a new bridge for I-49 across the Arkansas River near Fort Smith, and their study determined that tolls would cover less than half of the projected construction cost. Tolls make sense if they're placed on routes that carry enough traffic to generate the revenue needed to cover both construction and upkeep. I don't think I-49 will generate the traffic necessary to make tolling alone a viable funding option, but tolls in combination with other funding sources may work to pay for I-49.
Tolls only make sense when they'd make more money than it costs to setup the infrastructure to administer them. Simply not going to happen in this state unless there's the ability to amortize that administrative overhead across several routes, not just one that's already Corridor #1 according to Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. I'd be shocked if there isn't some funding that comes about with upcoming infrastructure bills from the feds. Tolls are DOA here, we just tax ourselves with fractional cents in sales tax for road funding increases.
Tolls are a tricky thing for states like Arkansas and Mississippi. First is the traffic volume high enough to actually support the bonds the tolls would need to pay off? If the tolls cannot 100% pay for the road before it requires major maintenance, it is not a good fit. Secondly, those 80 -20 and 90-10 federal monies generally cannot be used for building and maintaining tollways. The idea of paying for 100% using tolls or 20% using existing taxes is not nearly as simple as it seems. Texas has lots of tolls because the urban areas where the tollways are have high utilization.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 10, 2021, 04:53:35 PM
Tolls are a tricky thing for states like Arkansas and Mississippi. First is the traffic volume high enough to actually support the bonds the tolls would need to pay off? If the tolls cannot 100% pay for the road before it requires major maintenance, it is not a good fit. Secondly, those 80 -20 and 90-10 federal monies generally cannot be used for building and maintaining tollways. The idea of paying for 100% using tolls or 20% using existing taxes is not nearly as simple as it seems. Texas has lots of tolls because the urban areas where the tollways are have high utilization.
Arkansas used to have toll bridges but that was back in the 1940''s or 50's (?). XNA (Northwest Arkansas National Airport) proposed a private toll road to connect to the 412 Bypass, but has since decided to let ARDOT build access (no tolls)
I doubt we'll be seeing any toll roads in Arkansas. Both Interstates 49 and 69 in Arkansas will likely be built little-by-little, piece-by-piece, segment-by-segment, over the next several decades.
I have a question, has there ever been a highway that started out as a toll road and later became free after the money that was spent on construction was recouped?
Quote from: dariusb on May 11, 2021, 11:06:27 AM
I have a question, has there ever been a highway that started out as a toll road and later became free after the money that was spent on construction was recouped?
Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (I-95 and the northern part of I-85) between Richmond and Petersburg
Norfolk-Virginia Beach Expressway (I-264, former VA-44) between I-64 in Norfolk and Virginia Beach Oceanfront
The Downtown and Midtown Tunnels in Norfolk-Portsmouth were tolled, removed in the 90s, then became tolled again in 2014.
Quote from: dariusb on May 11, 2021, 11:06:27 AM
I have a question, has there ever been a highway that started out as a toll road and later became free after the money that was spent on construction was recouped?
Dallas Fort Worth Turnpike in Dallas I-30 between the two cities.
And all of the Kentucky Parkways. And I-95 in Connecticut; that used to be tolled between the NY state line and like Bridgeport or something.
Quote from: dariusb on May 11, 2021, 11:06:27 AM
I have a question, has there ever been a highway that started out as a toll road and later became free after the money that was spent on construction was recouped?
And then there's the "good intentions" that never were fulfilled.
https://abc7chicago.com/archive/8327185/
I think the last toll facility in IL to have tolls removed was the Bauer Bridge in Machesney Park, not quite 10 years ago.
https://www.rrstar.com/article/20120515/NEWS/305159907
^ The Dulles Toll Road is this. Tolls extended to who knows when to finance the construction of the Silver Line extension.
The Chesapeake Expressway (VA-168) was supposed to be stripped of its tolls by 2032 or sooner, and the facility has already collected more revenue than it cost to construct. However, toll rates just recently increased (up to $9 on peak weekends for 6 miles of freeway to bypass a rural 2 lane road! - people don't seem to mind paying it though as the road is quite busy during those times) and tolling will continue through at least 2051 to help repay bonds on the more recently constructed Dominion Blvd (US-17) Veterans Bridge which is also tolled.
Quote from: dariusb on May 11, 2021, 11:06:27 AM
I have a question, has there ever been a highway that started out as a toll road and later became free after the money that was spent on construction was recouped?
The Denver-Boulder Turnpike was toll from 1952 to 1967 when it was made free (and US 36 extended over it after it became free). With the mid-2010s reconstruction, there's now a high-occupancy/toll lane the entire length of the corridor, making it a toll road that became a free road that is now a hybrid.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 11, 2021, 02:48:44 PM
And all of the Kentucky Parkways. And I-95 in Connecticut; that used to be tolled between the NY state line and like Bridgeport or something.
The Connecticut Turnpike was tolled from the NY line at Greenwich to the RI line east of Killingly, although it was easy for motorists familiar with the local roads to bypass the toll plazas since the Turnpike was never a "closed" ticket system and didn't use ramp tolls to ensure everyone who entered and exited the Turnpike paid the toll. As a result, the only sections on the Connecticut Turnpike that were truly tolled were between the interchanges immediately before and and after each of the eight mainline toll plazas. Tolls were removed in 1985 after the Turnpike's construction bonds were paid off.
Then there's the Camino Colombia Toll Road in Texas, which had its tolls removed even though "the money that was spent on construction" was never recouped.
Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2021, 12:39:39 PM
Then there's the Camino Colombia Toll Road in Texas, which had its tolls removed even though "the money that was spent on construction" was never recouped.
Wasn't that because the private company that built the Camino Colombia went belly-up, and TxDOT had to take it over afterward?
Quote from: dariusb on May 11, 2021, 11:06:27 AM
I have a question, has there ever been a highway that started out as a toll road and later became free after the money that was spent on construction was recouped?
The US 278 Cross Island Parkway on Hilton Head Island will join this club at 11:59 PM on June 30th. (https://hiltonheadislandsc.gov/government/news/newsdetails.cfm?NewsID=1685)
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 12, 2021, 01:09:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2021, 12:39:39 PM
Then there's the Camino Colombia Toll Road in Texas, which had its tolls removed even though "the money that was spent on construction" was never recouped.
Wasn't that because the private company that built the Camino Colombia went belly-up, and TxDOT had to take it over afterward?
Yes. But the tolls weren't removed until 13½ years
after TxDOT took it over.
Quote from: dariusb on May 11, 2021, 11:06:27 AM
I have a question, has there ever been a highway that started out as a toll road and later became free after the money that was spent on construction was recouped?
GA 400 in Atlanta is one of those.
Quote from: US71 on May 10, 2021, 06:00:06 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 10, 2021, 04:53:35 PM
Tolls are a tricky thing for states like Arkansas and Mississippi. First is the traffic volume high enough to actually support the bonds the tolls would need to pay off? If the tolls cannot 100% pay for the road before it requires major maintenance, it is not a good fit. Secondly, those 80 -20 and 90-10 federal monies generally cannot be used for building and maintaining tollways. The idea of paying for 100% using tolls or 20% using existing taxes is not nearly as simple as it seems. Texas has lots of tolls because the urban areas where the tollways are have high utilization.
Arkansas used to have toll bridges but that was back in the 1940''s or 50's (?). XNA (Northwest Arkansas National Airport) proposed a private toll road to connect to the 412 Bypass, but has since decided to let ARDOT build access (no tolls)
Arkansas had several private toll ferries into the 1990s, the Peel Ferry among them. I guess the constitutional dodge was they were allowed to operate as long as there wasn't a free bridge alternative. Duh.
Although a 2017 adjustment to the law implies state-owned toll bridges, which peaked my interest a little:
https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2017/title-27/subtitle-6/chapter-87/subchapter-4/section-27-87-403/
Quote from: Road Hog on May 15, 2021, 08:56:27 PM
Quote from: US71 on May 10, 2021, 06:00:06 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 10, 2021, 04:53:35 PM
Tolls are a tricky thing for states like Arkansas and Mississippi. First is the traffic volume high enough to actually support the bonds the tolls would need to pay off? If the tolls cannot 100% pay for the road before it requires major maintenance, it is not a good fit. Secondly, those 80 -20 and 90-10 federal monies generally cannot be used for building and maintaining tollways. The idea of paying for 100% using tolls or 20% using existing taxes is not nearly as simple as it seems. Texas has lots of tolls because the urban areas where the tollways are have high utilization.
Arkansas used to have toll bridges but that was back in the 1940''s or 50's (?). XNA (Northwest Arkansas National Airport) proposed a private toll road to connect to the 412 Bypass, but has since decided to let ARDOT build access (no tolls)
Arkansas had several private toll ferries into the 1990s, the Peel Ferry among them. I guess the constitutional dodge was they were allowed to operate as long as there wasn't a free bridge alternative. Duh.
Although a 2017 adjustment to the law implies state-owned toll bridges, which peaked my interest a little:
https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2017/title-27/subtitle-6/chapter-87/subchapter-4/section-27-87-403/
But that could have just been a code revision that resulted in renumbering the paragraphs. Really old irrelevant laws remain on the books long after their lifetime. There are still laws in major US cities that reference horses as a major transportation mode. Just because it hasn't been taken off the statutes doesn't mean another statute doesn't render it moot.
Quote from: Road Hog on May 15, 2021, 08:56:27 PM
Quote from: US71 on May 10, 2021, 06:00:06 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 10, 2021, 04:53:35 PM
Tolls are a tricky thing for states like Arkansas and Mississippi. First is the traffic volume high enough to actually support the bonds the tolls would need to pay off? If the tolls cannot 100% pay for the road before it requires major maintenance, it is not a good fit. Secondly, those 80 -20 and 90-10 federal monies generally cannot be used for building and maintaining tollways. The idea of paying for 100% using tolls or 20% using existing taxes is not nearly as simple as it seems. Texas has lots of tolls because the urban areas where the tollways are have high utilization.
Arkansas used to have toll bridges but that was back in the 1940''s or 50's (?). XNA (Northwest Arkansas National Airport) proposed a private toll road to connect to the 412 Bypass, but has since decided to let ARDOT build access (no tolls)
Arkansas had several private toll ferries into the 1990s, the Peel Ferry among them. I guess the constitutional dodge was they were allowed to operate as long as there wasn't a free bridge alternative. Duh.
Although a 2017 adjustment to the law implies state-owned toll bridges, which peaked my interest a little:
https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2017/title-27/subtitle-6/chapter-87/subchapter-4/section-27-87-403/
Peel Ferry is not a private ferry, nor is there a toll charged. Been using it for drives through the Ozarks for well over a decade. It's owned and operated by ARDOT.
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 17, 2021, 10:52:55 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on May 15, 2021, 08:56:27 PM
Quote from: US71 on May 10, 2021, 06:00:06 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 10, 2021, 04:53:35 PM
Tolls are a tricky thing for states like Arkansas and Mississippi. First is the traffic volume high enough to actually support the bonds the tolls would need to pay off? If the tolls cannot 100% pay for the road before it requires major maintenance, it is not a good fit. Secondly, those 80 -20 and 90-10 federal monies generally cannot be used for building and maintaining tollways. The idea of paying for 100% using tolls or 20% using existing taxes is not nearly as simple as it seems. Texas has lots of tolls because the urban areas where the tollways are have high utilization.
Arkansas used to have toll bridges but that was back in the 1940''s or 50's (?). XNA (Northwest Arkansas National Airport) proposed a private toll road to connect to the 412 Bypass, but has since decided to let ARDOT build access (no tolls)
Arkansas had several private toll ferries into the 1990s, the Peel Ferry among them. I guess the constitutional dodge was they were allowed to operate as long as there wasn't a free bridge alternative. Duh.
Although a 2017 adjustment to the law implies state-owned toll bridges, which peaked my interest a little:
https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2017/title-27/subtitle-6/chapter-87/subchapter-4/section-27-87-403/
Peel Ferry is not a private ferry, nor is there a toll charged. Been using it for drives through the Ozarks for well over a decade. It's owned and operated by ARDOT.
Neither were the 62 & 101 Ferries. Both were operated by AHTD/ARDOT
Is there a timeline on when the Interstate 49 alignment might be built? Also, this may have already been covered, but why does Interstate 49 have to dip into Texas? Is the reason that it won't follow US 71 straight north from Texarkana to Ashdown is because it would have infringed on the Millwood State Park?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2021, 01:51:43 PM
Is there a timeline on when the Interstate 49 alignment might be built? Also, this may have already been covered, but why does Interstate 49 have to dip into Texas? Is the reason that it won't follow US 71 straight north from Texarkana to Ashdown is because it would have infringed on the Millwood State Park?
There were 2 Super-2 projects in the maps for the extension of the half cent sales tax (2nd Connecting Arkansas Program) related to the I-49 corridor, which were the only things Arkansas had on the radar for the next 10 years. One was the section from Alma to Barling (I-40 to AR-22) crossing the Arkansas River valley, and the other was from Greenwood to Y-City. Anything else over the next 10 years is likely to be a bypass of Mena, but not much else south of there at this point.
Map of possible 2nd Connecting Arkansas Program (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26242.msg2474879#msg2474879)
ARDOT Presentation pushing for additional funding (https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20190829-RM-Monticello-Econ-Final.pdf) (Page 4 of this presentation is prescient regarding the I-40 Hernando DeSoto Bridge!)
As far as why it passes into Texas, the cynic in me thinks it's likely so that we go in halvsies with Texas on a Red River bridge. I swear this state has more border crossings on all sides at rivers than nearly any other for its population.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2021, 01:51:43 PM
Is there a timeline on when the Interstate 49 alignment might be built? Also, this may have already been covered, but why does Interstate 49 have to dip into Texas? Is the reason that it won't follow US 71 straight north from Texarkana to Ashdown is because it would have infringed on the Millwood State Park?
No, it is a combination of three things. (1)The originally planned routing of I-49 around Texarkana (which did not come to pass and is virtually impossible 20 years later.) (2) Having Texas paying a large share of the Red River bridge costs, and (3) the routing from Ashdown to DeQueen.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14100.msg2609535;topicseen#msg2609535
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 17, 2021, 02:32:12 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2021, 01:51:43 PM
Is there a timeline on when the Interstate 49 alignment might be built? Also, this may have already been covered, but why does Interstate 49 have to dip into Texas? Is the reason that it won't follow US 71 straight north from Texarkana to Ashdown is because it would have infringed on the Millwood State Park?
There were 2 Super-2 projects in the maps for the extension of the half cent sales tax (2nd Connecting Arkansas Program) related to the I-49 corridor, which were the only things Arkansas had on the radar for the next 10 years. One was the section from Alma to Barling (I-40 to AR-22) crossing the Arkansas River valley, and the other was from Greenwood to Y-City. Anything else over the next 10 years is likely to be a bypass of Mena, but not much else south of there at this point.
Map of possible 2nd Connecting Arkansas Program (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26242.msg2474879#msg2474879)
ARDOT Presentation pushing for additional funding (https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20190829-RM-Monticello-Econ-Final.pdf) (Page 4 of this presentation is prescient regarding the I-40 Hernando DeSoto Bridge!)
As far as why it passes into Texas, the cynic in me thinks it's likely so that we go in halvsies with Texas on a Red River bridge. I swear this state has more border crossings on all sides at rivers than nearly any other for its population.
I've even heard people say that Texas just wanted to claim another interstate no matter how short the distance. That doesn't sound right to me.
^
Maybe if the federal government provided 90% funding.
Quote from: dariusbI've even heard people say that Texas just wanted to claim another interstate no matter how short the distance. That doesn't sound right to me.
It doesn't sound right and just doesn't make any logical sense at all. If the Texas government was really interested in having more Interstate routes as a bragging item,
no matter how short the length, then there would be a whole lot of super highways throughout Texas signed as Interstate routes rather than as
mere state highways.
I-69 and I-14 are new Interstate routes in Texas, but I would argue they're exceptions to a larger trend of Texas choosing not to sign freeways and toll roads as Interstates.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2021, 01:23:49 PM
Quote from: dariusbI've even heard people say that Texas just wanted to claim another interstate no matter how short the distance. That doesn't sound right to me.
It doesn't sound right and just doesn't make any logical sense at all. If the Texas government was really interested in having more Interstate routes as a bragging item, no matter how short the length, then there would be a whole lot of super highways throughout Texas signed as Interstate routes rather than as mere state highways.
I-69 and I-14 are new Interstate routes in Texas, but I would argue they're exceptions to a larger trend of Texas choosing not to sign freeways and toll roads as Interstates.
Twenty plus years ago the crossing was decided. It was kept there in spite of the loop part being on the east side as opposed to the west that had been seemingly decided to be decades ago.
Halfsies? Texas would wish. I have said this before. The US-59/71 bridges at index the first one was from Texas to Arkansas. Arkansas provided ROW. Texas had all the other in-kind expense. The second bridge started in Arkansas and ended in Arkansas. Texas paid half or more of the in-kind money. I imagine it will fall on Texas for a majority of the in-kind money for the crossing and half of the federal dollars (the earlier federal dollars were targeted.)
While it does cross into Texas, There is little value or prestige in it. As to I-14 it is purely about Fort Hood. I-69 was congressionally mandated even down to the inane numbering of E, W, & C