Interstate 49 Texas (5 miles)

[bwana39]

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.

[MikieTimT]

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.

[US71]

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

[The Ghostbuster]

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?

[MikieTimT]

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
ARDOT Presentation pushing for additional funding (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.

[bwana39]

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

[dariusb]

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
ARDOT Presentation pushing for additional funding (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.

[sprjus4]

^

Maybe if the federal government provided 90% funding.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

[bwana39]

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.

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