ARDOT scheduling public education meetings for funding options

[US71]

Does this mean toll lanes on IH49 And IH 30 in the Little Rock area. Even a 50 cent toll would go a long way into solving traffic issues.

Not unless they change highway law (tolls are currently not allowed on public roads)

[Tomahawkin]

That may not happen for another 25 years! Oy!

[US71]

That may not happen for another 25 years! Oy!

They'll just have to raise sales taxes again.....

[3467]

Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?

[US71]

Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?

Probably "Future 49" or "Future 69"

[US71]

Permanent 1/2 cent sales tax for roads, has passed in Arkansas by 55 to 45 percent margin.

[Tomahawkin]

Yes, its about time! That sales tax increase was 20 years overdue

[US71]

Yes, its about time! That sales tax increase was 20 years overdue

It wasn't set to expire for a couple more years, though (before they made it permananet)

[STLmapboy]

This is kinda off topic, but I gotta say ARDOT's website is bad. Like, really bad. It might be the worst state DOT website in the country. Project info is buried or nonexistent, the layout is all over the place, and the website in general looks like something from 2005. At least idrivearkansas.com is decent.

[MikieTimT]

Yes, its about time! That sales tax increase was 20 years overdue

It wasn't set to expire for a couple more years, though (before they made it permananet)

Now we get to see how good of stewards they will be with our money now that they don't have to periodically justify their project speed/costs.

[US71]

Yes, its about time! That sales tax increase was 20 years overdue

It wasn't set to expire for a couple more years, though (before they made it permananet)

Now we get to see how good of stewards they will be with our money now that they don't have to periodically justify their project speed/costs.

That was one of my concerns. I fear there will be too many "pet" projects while necessary work gets shoved to the back burner

[ozarkman417]

This is kinda off topic, but I gotta say ARDOT's website is bad. Like, really bad. It might be the worst state DOT website in the country. Project info is buried or nonexistent, the layout is all over the place, and the website in general looks like something from 2005. At least idrivearkansas.com is decent.

Taking a quick look at the wayback machine, they haven't had a major UI update in over a decade, and the previous version makes this one look good.

[abqtraveler]

Yes, its about time! That sales tax increase was 20 years overdue

Now there will be money for ArDOT to move forward on building more sections of I-49 and I-69.

[abqtraveler]

Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?

The 2-lane sections of Future I-49 would probably be signed as AR-549, like what's being done now. For future I-69 sections that get built, I have no idea how ArDOT would designate those, but they won't be signed as interstates until they're fully built out to interstate standards and they connect to another interstate route.

[MikieTimT]

Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?

The 2-lane sections of Future I-49 would probably be signed as AR-549, like what's being done now. For future I-69 sections that get built, I have no idea how ArDOT would designate those, but they won't be signed as interstates until they're fully built out to interstate standards and they connect to another interstate route.

I'd bet that they'll be AR-569.  That's what the Future I's inevitably end up as.

[US71]

Yes, its about time! That sales tax increase was 20 years overdue

Now there will be money for ArDOT to move forward on building more sections of I-49 and I-69.

and US 412/ AR 612 and the 612/264 connector and possibly widening AR 112

[abqtraveler]

Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?

The 2-lane sections of Future I-49 would probably be signed as AR-549, like what's being done now. For future I-69 sections that get built, I have no idea how ArDOT would designate those, but they won't be signed as interstates until they're fully built out to interstate standards and they connect to another interstate route.

I would think ArDOT would sign the section from Monticello to McGehee as US-278 or US-278 Bypass until the rest of I-69 gets built, which would be a continuation of the US-278 Bypass designation currently found on the Monticello Bypass. If they decide to sign it as US-278, then the current 278 route would have to be designated something else or transferred to the respective counties and maintained as a county road.

I'd bet that they'll be AR-569.  That's what the Future I's inevitably end up as.

[MikieTimT]

Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?

The 2-lane sections of Future I-49 would probably be signed as AR-549, like what's being done now. For future I-69 sections that get built, I have no idea how ArDOT would designate those, but they won't be signed as interstates until they're fully built out to interstate standards and they connect to another interstate route.

I would think ArDOT would sign the section from Monticello to McGehee as US-278 or US-278 Bypass until the rest of I-69 gets built, which would be a continuation of the US-278 Bypass designation currently found on the Monticello Bypass. If they decide to sign it as US-278, then the current 278 route would have to be designated something else or transferred to the respective counties and maintained as a county road.

I'd bet that they'll be AR-569.  That's what the Future I's inevitably end up as.

That particular stretch will likely be labelled as US-278 Bypass or, more likely, US-278 with the current one getting renumbered to Business US-278 like US-62 around Prairie Grove was redesignated.  Any additional future Super-2 segments would likely be AR-569.

[US71]

Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?

The 2-lane sections of Future I-49 would probably be signed as AR-549, like what's being done now. For future I-69 sections that get built, I have no idea how ArDOT would designate those, but they won't be signed as interstates until they're fully built out to interstate standards and they connect to another interstate route.

I would think ArDOT would sign the section from Monticello to McGehee as US-278 or US-278 Bypass until the rest of I-69 gets built, which would be a continuation of the US-278 Bypass designation currently found on the Monticello Bypass. If they decide to sign it as US-278, then the current 278 route would have to be designated something else or transferred to the respective counties and maintained as a county road.

I'd bet that they'll be AR-569.  That's what the Future I's inevitably end up as.

That particular stretch will likely be labelled as US-278 Bypass or, more likely, US-278 with the current one getting renumbered to Business US-278 like US-62 around Prairie Grove was redesignated.  Any additional future Super-2 segments would likely be AR-569.

There's a Fakebook page for Future I-69, but I've not been monitoring it

[MikieTimT]

Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?

The 2-lane sections of Future I-49 would probably be signed as AR-549, like what's being done now. For future I-69 sections that get built, I have no idea how ArDOT would designate those, but they won't be signed as interstates until they're fully built out to interstate standards and they connect to another interstate route.

I would think ArDOT would sign the section from Monticello to McGehee as US-278 or US-278 Bypass until the rest of I-69 gets built, which would be a continuation of the US-278 Bypass designation currently found on the Monticello Bypass. If they decide to sign it as US-278, then the current 278 route would have to be designated something else or transferred to the respective counties and maintained as a county road.

I'd bet that they'll be AR-569.  That's what the Future I's inevitably end up as.

That particular stretch will likely be labelled as US-278 Bypass or, more likely, US-278 with the current one getting renumbered to Business US-278 like US-62 around Prairie Grove was redesignated.  Any additional future Super-2 segments would likely be AR-569.

There's a Fakebook page for Future I-69, but I've not been monitoring it

Probably because there hasn't been enough change in the status quo to warrant anyone actually maintaining such a page, other than this one lonely bypass.