News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

AR: Future I-555

Started by Tomahawkin, February 11, 2009, 11:46:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on January 10, 2012, 02:17:25 PM
I had recent Q & A exchange with AHTD (apparently no progress on farm equipment access issue):
Q: Are there any plans to sign I-555 and/or upgrade along the Future I-555 corridor in the near future?
A: This has been on hold until an issue with farm equipment access from one side of the Interstate to the other is resolved. Right now, they can legally use the Highway, but they would not be allowed on an interstate.

AHTD is holding a Location Public Hearing - Future I-555 Access Road Study (Highway 63) on April 19.  AHTD has not posted any of the meeting materials yet.


Grzrd

#26
Quote from: Grzrd on April 13, 2012, 12:54:07 PM
AHTD is holding a Location Public Hearing - Future I-555 Access Road Study (Highway 63) on April 19.  AHTD has not posted any of the meeting materials yet.

AHTD has posted the Environmental Assessment.  Corridor A/A1 (page 34 of the document; page 40/293 of pdf), which basically parallels Future I-555, is the Preferred Alternative (a map showing the route of A/A1 is on page 7 of the document; page 13/293 of the pdf).

EDIT

Here's the Information Packet and Comment Form.  Comments need to be received by the engineering firm by May 17 in order to be considered.

Grzrd

#27
Quote from: Grzrd on April 16, 2012, 06:15:54 PM
AHTD has posted the Environmental Assessment.

I emailed AHTD and asked what else needs to happen before a Finding of No Significant Impact can be issued.  Basically, a Design Public Hearing will need to be held:

Quote
We will not be able to obtain a FONSI for the entire I-555 frontage road project until a Design Public Hearing has been held for the entire project.  We may be able to clear a portion of the project so it can go forward, but the final decision has not been made.

I suppose things are proceeding in a steady fashion ...

bjrush

I asked about what would happen to US 63 once I-555 was opened. Here is the response

QuoteI am told that it is likely that the portion of Highway 63 designation from Highway 91 to I-55 will be dropped.  Currently, Highway 63 runs north to south while I-555 will likely be from south to north. We utilize log miles for inventory, designation, and location and they typically run south to north and west to  east which would contradict one another on this route.  Ultimately, the decision has not been finalized.

and later

QuoteAs far as I know, there are currently gaps in Hwy 63, so it could be that the 63 designation is simply dropped entirely.

When it reaches  I-55 now, I am not aware that AHTD has dual designation along I-55 or I-40 to Hazen.  Google Maps shows it this way and perhaps Rand McNally and other atlas' may do the same, but to my knowledge, the route is not signed with the 63 designation.
Woo Pig Sooie

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on June 12, 2012, 11:08:22 PM
I emailed AHTD and asked what else needs to happen before a Finding of No Significant Impact can be issued.  Basically, a Design Public Hearing will need to be held:
Quote
We will not be able to obtain a FONSI for the entire I-555 frontage road project until a Design Public Hearing has been held for the entire project.  We may be able to clear a portion of the project so it can go forward, but the final decision has not been made.

This August 9 article reports that funding for the estimated $25 million frontage road project is not in the four-year plan, which will delay conversion to I-555:

Quote
The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department said Thursday that funding for a service road along U.S. 63 in northeast Arkansas isn't in the agency's four-year construction plan, which will delay converting the name of the highway to Interstate 555.
The road between Crittenden County and Jonesboro has been converted to a four-lane divided highway with controlled access. But changing it over to an interstate would prevent farm equipment from being driven on the 40-mile stretch.
Highway department spokesman Randy Ort said the sticking point is building service roads between Payneway and Marked Tree. That project would cost about $25 million, and the agency has only $3 million on hand for the work.
Ort said the money has to be obligated by Sept. 30, the end of the federal fiscal year.

There is a division among northeast Arkansas officials about how to approach the project. Ort said the department wants to use the money to build a short segment of the road that would be a usable segment. But some want the agency to use the money to complete the design of the full service road project.
"Right now, we're up in the air," Ort said ....

Here is a brief TV video report on the delay in putting up the shields.

NE2

By now the legislature could have passed a law allowing farm equipment (and bikes/peds) on this piece of I-555.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Scott5114

Quote
We will not be able to obtain a FONSI

eeeeeeeey....
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Grzrd

Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 11:28:43 AM
By now the legislature could have passed a law allowing farm equipment (and bikes/peds) on this piece of I-555.

I have a strong hunch that AHTD is pursuing a less complete Plan B: get permission from FHWA for immediate I-555 signage on both sides of the approximate 4.7 mile stretch that needs the frontage road project.  Since that stretch already has the Future I-555 designation, it may not be out of the question to see I-555 signage sometime around the New Year.

US71

Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 11:28:43 AM
By now the legislature could have passed a law allowing farm equipment (and bikes/peds) on this piece of I-555.

Is that not a Federal standard?
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

agentsteel53

Quote from: US71 on August 27, 2012, 06:51:09 PM

Is that not a Federal standard?

it is a standard, but exemptions are made when there is no reasonable alternate.

I know I-5 just north of San Diego has a few places where bikes get on at one exit and get off at the next.  I believe the stretch between exits 37 and 39 is one such example: the only crossings of San Elijo Lagoon are I-5, and old US-101, a couple miles to the west.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

NE2

Quote from: US71 on August 27, 2012, 06:51:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 11:28:43 AM
By now the legislature could have passed a law allowing farm equipment (and bikes/peds) on this piece of I-555.

Is that not a Federal standard?

No. Some states (e.g. Wyoming) have no restrictions at all on who may use an Interstate. Others restrict them only in urban areas where there are many alternatives. The farthest east bikes are allowed on an Interstate is probably I-79 over the Ohio near Pittsburgh.

This is all covered by state laws. The only related provision in federal law is that when federal funding is used to close a road to bikes and such, an alternate route must be provided. "The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists."

In a state that bans specifically bikes from Interstates (not freeways in general) by law, I suppose building a freeway and then adding Interstate shields as a separate project is a loophole, as long as no federal funds are used to post the shields. (Is adding a route to the Interstate system a 'regulatory action'?)

I can't find any law in Arkansas banning bikes from Interstates (but motorized bikes are banned, so the federal law still seems to hold).
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

agentsteel53

then I had it backwards. 

in any case, I believe CA bans bikes from freeways in most contexts.

on the I-5 example I gave, there is an "all bikes must exit" graphical sign at the end of the bikes-permitted segment. 
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

NE2

You can see how a number of western states handle it here: http://www.itoworld.com/map/151#fullscreen (OSM data)
For example, Wyoming allows bikes everywhere, Washington everywhere outside major metro areas, and Nevada requires exiting at all the mid-sized towns along I-80.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Grzrd

Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2012, 08:08:58 PM
Quote from: US71 on August 27, 2012, 06:51:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 11:28:43 AM
By now the legislature could have passed a law allowing farm equipment (and bikes/peds) on this piece of I-555.
Is that not a Federal standard?
No. Some states (e.g. Wyoming) have no restrictions at all on who may use an Interstate. Others restrict them only in urban areas where there are many alternatives. The farthest east bikes are allowed on an Interstate is probably I-79 over the Ohio near Pittsburgh.
This is all covered by state laws. The only related provision in federal law is that when federal funding is used to close a road to bikes and such, an alternate route must be provided. "The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists."

This September 16 article (pay) indicates that, in addition to the federal provision regarding nonmotorized traffic and light motorcycles, there is another federal provison that expressly prohibits certain farm equipment from being operated on an interstate highway:

Quote
Federal law bans farm vehicles, such as cotton-module trucks, from interstate travel because of their size, the number of axles and the spacing between the axles, said Randy Ort, a spokesman for the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department.

It looks like AHTD will have to build the frontage road for an interstate designation along the entire route.

Quote from: Grzrd on August 16, 2012, 10:36:33 AM
This August 9 article reports that funding for the estimated $25 million frontage road project is not in the four-year plan, which will delay conversion to I-555:
Quote
Highway department spokesman Randy Ort said the sticking point is building service roads between Payneway and Marked Tree. That project would cost about $25 million, and the agency has only $3 million on hand for the work.
Ort said the money has to be obligated by Sept. 30, the end of the federal fiscal year.
There is a division among northeast Arkansas officials about how to approach the project. Ort said the department wants to use the money to build a short segment of the road that would be a usable segment. But some want the agency to use the money to complete the design of the full service road project.

The September 16 article indicates that the Highway Commission did indeed overrule AHTD and opted to complete the design of the full service road project:

Quote
But the region balked at state highway officials' decision to shift a leftover earmark of about $3 million to construction of a frontage road along U.S. 63 in Marked Tree. That would allow farm vehicles to avoid having to negotiate downtown Marked Tree.
Instead, the commission voted Tuesday to spend that money on engineering and design for the longer twolane frontage road between Payneway and Marked Tree, which local officials say helps keep the bigger project moving forward.

The September 16 article makes no mention of the possibility of signing part of I-555.  However, judging from the September 16 article, I believe partial signage would be welcomed:

Quote
"That interstate designation will put northeast Arkansas on the map,"  said Ed Way, a Liberty Bank executive who is the outgoing chairman of the Jonesboro Regional Chamber of Commerce. "The first thing any [company considering locating to the region] asks is, "˜Are you located on an interstate?' or "˜How far are you from an interstate?'"
Other local leaders said they persuaded companies to locate in the region, in part, on the promise that I-555 would be a reality in the not-so-distant future.
"It is an unfulfilled commitment we feel like we have worked very hard on for 15 years,"  Mike Cameron, a local contractor, told the commission.
Big companies in the area include Nestle USA and Quad/Graphics Inc., each employing about 700 people; Frito-Lay Inc. and Hytrol Conveyor Co., both of which boast more than 500 employees; and other companies, like Riceland Foods, that employ 300 or so people each.
"Existing industries have been depending on that promise,"  Cameron said of the interstate designation.

Grzrd

Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2012, 11:28:43 AM
By now the legislature could have passed a law allowing farm equipment (and bikes/peds) on this piece of I-555.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 17, 2012, 11:30:51 AM
Quote
Federal law bans farm vehicles, such as cotton-module trucks, from interstate travel because of their size, the number of axles and the spacing between the axles, said Randy Ort, a spokesman for the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department.

In terms of a roadgeek question, who would you bet on having the correct answer: NE2 or AHTD?  With that notion in mind, I contacted the Federal Highway Administration:

Quote
We discussed this issue with our operations and truck size and weight staff members.   FHWA is not aware of any federal law that deals with whether farm machinery to be driven on an interstate highway.  It would be worthwhile for you to touch base with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials that represent the State Department of Transportation.  They may be able to tell you about state laws.
Thanks
Ed
Edward Strocko
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Freight Management and Operations

I wonder what Randy Ort was referring to?

US71

Quote
We discussed this issue with our operations and truck size and weight staff members.   FHWA is not aware of any federal law that deals with whether farm machinery to be driven on an interstate highway.  It would be worthwhile for you to touch base with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials that represent the State Department of Transportation.  They may be able to tell you about state laws.


Must be a state by state thing. I seem to recall signs specifying vehicles that are not allowed.  Usually starts out saying PROHIBITED then lists unauthorized vehicles (like motor driven cycles)
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

hbelkins

Kentucky has the same restrictions on its parkways as it does its interstates.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

US71

Quote from: hbelkins on September 22, 2012, 10:51:10 PM
Kentucky has the same restrictions on its parkways as it does its interstates.

I know Illinois does, but I've never thought of photographing a sign.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Revive 755

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2012, 08:25:02 PM
then I had it backwards. 

in any case, I believe CA bans bikes from freeways in most contexts.

Though there was a "Share the Road" sign on SB I-5 near one of the Lake Shasta bridges last June.

Quote from: US71 on September 22, 2012, 11:15:34 PM
I know Illinois does, but I've never thought of photographing a sign.

Partial view of one sign:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=dupo,+il&hl=en&ll=38.505561,-90.204964&spn=0.028512,0.066047&sll=40.158802,-89.415147&sspn=0.003481,0.008256&hnear=Dupo,+St+Clair,+Illinois&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=38.505602,-90.205053&panoid=KGJzY6DA9oJIzHxcMhkjJA&cbp=12,337.6,,0,2.51

US71

Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Grzrd

I recently had an email Q & A with AHTD regarding the frontage road and the possibility of immediate interstate signage on other parts of the roadway:

The frontage road:

Quote
Q: I recently looked at the July 15 PowerPoint presentation presented to the Jonesboro Chamber of Commerce:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/071513_SEB_JonesboroChamber.pdf
On page 26/41 of the pdf, the slide indicates that the Future I-555 frontage road from Payneway to Marked Tree would only produce 23 cents of benefits for every dollar of expenditure.  Does that mean that the frontage road is now in the deep freeze?

A: The project is not in the deep freeze. As you probably remember, we publicized our plans to use the remaining money to build a useable portion of the frontage road in Marked Tree, but that plan was met with some resistance from groups in NE Arkansas. So we changed our plans and have used those funds to hire a consultant to design the needed frontage road. We still do not have a date for construction at this time, but having the design plans ready will be a big step towards the ultimate goal.

We have many needs in Arkansas, far more than we have money to pay for them. The cost/benefit information that was presented in Jonesboro was not an attempt to send a message that we're not going to build the frontage road. The Director was trying to make the point that we must make some difficult decisions, and that we face those decisions in every corner of the state. Nobody thinks we are addressing their needs quickly enough. And we can't disagree with them. Cost/benefits ratios are one tool we can use to help determine where to best spend our limited funds. The frontage road was not in the 2013-2016 improvement program, but it may be considered for inclusion in the 2016-2019 program.

The possibility of immediate interstate signage on other parts of the roadway:

Quote
Q: Related to the above, is there any chance that the remainder of Future I-555 could be signed as I-555 ... I assume AHTD could represent to FHWA that the frontage road will be built within the next 25 years.

A: As for your information about signing part of the roadway now with the Interstate shield, no one on our staff was familiar with that change.

It looks like it will continue to be a slow slog ..........

Grzrd

Quote from: AHTD on January 09, 2014, 12:29:39 AM
we are happy to be a part of this forum and welcome questions and comments about the Arkansas highway system.
(above quote from Arkansas thread)

AHTD, do you have any updates as to when I-555 shields may go up?

AHTD

Quote from: Grzrd on January 15, 2014, 05:09:13 PM
Quote from: AHTD on January 09, 2014, 12:29:39 AM
we are happy to be a part of this forum and welcome questions and comments about the Arkansas highway system.
(above quote from Arkansas thread)

AHTD, do you have any updates as to when I-555 shields may go up?

It's accurate information and if memory serves, the whole frontage road issue is about farm equipment needing access. Once this route is designated an Interstate, farm equipment will not be allowed on the road. So to facilitate continued farm equipment access, this frontage road is necessary.

This happened when I-530 was designated. All of a sudden the farm equipment was banned from a route that had been used for years.
Travel and construction information available at www.idrivearkansas.com

NE2

Quote from: AHTD on January 15, 2014, 06:11:22 PM
It's accurate information and if memory serves, the whole frontage road issue is about farm equipment needing access. Once this route is designated an Interstate, farm equipment will not be allowed on the road. So to facilitate continued farm equipment access, this frontage road is necessary.

This happened when I-530 was designated. All of a sudden the farm equipment was banned from a route that had been used for years.
Have you considered asking the legislature to allow farm equipment on Interstates where posted? As far as I know, there is no federal law banning it.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

bugo

I-555 probably won't be commissioned in my lifetime.

The more serious question (which I'm sure AHTD hasn't even thought of) is will US 63 be rerouted between Jonesboro and Hazen?  It could follow either AR 1 or US 49 (former AR 39).



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.