I-49 in Arkansas

[Bobby5280]

I've been on I-49 in various stages of its development from the early 1980's into the 1990's. The first bits of I-49 were built going North of Lafayette and I-10 up to US-190. Then various segments on Northward were finished.

Regardless of the overall lack of services along I-49 between Shreveport and Opelousas it's still a far faster alternative than US-71 or LA-1. I've taken that trip on those roads and it's a pain. And I-49 isn't all that badly devoid of fuel stations along the way. The situation is certainly better than it used to be in the early 1990's. Web sites like Gas Buddy make it easy to chart out road trip stops. There are worse stretches of Interstates and other highway types that go longer distances between fuel stations.

[bwana39]

I've been on I-49 in various stages of its development from the early 1980's into the 1990's. The first bits of I-49 were built going North of Lafayette and I-10 up to US-190. Then various segments on Northward were finished.

Regardless of the overall lack of services along I-49 between Shreveport and Opelousas it's still a far faster alternative than US-71 or LA-1. I've taken that trip on those roads and it's a pain. And I-49 isn't all that badly devoid of fuel stations along the way. The situation is certainly better than it used to be in the early 1990's. Web sites like Gas Buddy make it easy to chart out road trip stops. There are worse stretches of Interstates and other highway types that go longer distances between fuel stations.

I agree with you. There are worse. The point of this line of discussion started with a comment to this.

McDonald is extremely rural for the most part. It may turn out like NW Louisiana where businesses abandoned US 71 and moved to I-49.

There are sufficient services along I-49 for travel. On the most part though, there has been no wholesale relocation of businesses and services to I-49 or the I-49 corridor. 

[US71]

Minor Update

SB US 71 traffic will begin using a new ramp to NB AR 549 starting Monday,

[MikieTimT]

Minor Update

SB US 71 traffic will begin using a new ramp to NB AR 549 starting Monday,

Still just for the southbound traffic.  Sure wish ARDOT would fill the gaping pothole at Peach Orchard Rd. where everyone northbound does a U-turn to get onto the bypass.  All the dumptrucks pulling the U-turn there have dug out the seam between the lanes into a lovely teeth clenching hole, even at the 2MPH you're doing there.

[razorback0308]

Minor Update

SB US 71 traffic will begin using a new ramp to NB AR 549 starting Monday,

I was looking at this as I drove south on 549 this afternoon. Does this mean the NB traffic will start using the NB lanes? Otherwise, how does the traffic get to the southbound lanes? The center wall is basically complete.

I live off the first exit on 549, and the NB lanes were striped almost all the way to that first exit. It seems feasible that could be completed by Wednesday.

[MikieTimT]

Minor Update

SB US 71 traffic will begin using a new ramp to NB AR 549 starting Monday,

I was looking at this as I drove south on 549 this afternoon. Does this mean the NB traffic will start using the NB lanes? Otherwise, how does the traffic get to the southbound lanes? The center wall is basically complete.

I live off the first exit on 549, and the NB lanes were striped almost all the way to that first exit. It seems feasible that could be completed by Wednesday.

No change on northbound traffic.  Still have to do a U-turn at Peach Orchard Rd. and go back south as the only access onto AR-549 is still a right-turn-only off US-71B.  They appear to have only changed the intersection onto the entrance ramp for the southbound traffic onto AR-549 at this point.

[Razorback19]

According to this article about road improvements in the Fort Smith area, I-49 between Barling and Alma has been "programmed"

https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/jul/18/state-says-most-fort-smith-highways-to-be-improved/

I-49 on the map
An extension of Interstate 49 between Barling and Alma has also been listed as "programmed"  in the state's plans. Arkansas officials in recent years have pushed for the completion of I-49, which would run from New Orleans to Kansas City, Mo., once complete.

[US71]

According to this article about road improvements in the Fort Smith area, I-49 between Barling and Alma has been "programmed"

https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/jul/18/state-says-most-fort-smith-highways-to-be-improved/

I-49 on the map
An extension of Interstate 49 between Barling and Alma has also been listed as "programmed"  in the state's plans. Arkansas officials in recent years have pushed for the completion of I-49, which would run from New Orleans to Kansas City, Mo., once complete.

But they still don't have money for the bridges over the Arkansas River.

[Razorback19]

Just enough to put it on the road map 

[razorback0308]

Minor Update

SB US 71 traffic will begin using a new ramp to NB AR 549 starting Monday,

I was looking at this as I drove south on 549 this afternoon. Does this mean the NB traffic will start using the NB lanes? Otherwise, how does the traffic get to the southbound lanes? The center wall is basically complete.

I live off the first exit on 549, and the NB lanes were striped almost all the way to that first exit. It seems feasible that could be completed by Wednesday.

No change on northbound traffic.  Still have to do a U-turn at Peach Orchard Rd. and go back south as the only access onto AR-549 is still a right-turn-only off US-71B.  They appear to have only changed the intersection onto the entrance ramp for the southbound traffic onto AR-549 at this point.

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear in my earlier post. I was referring to once drivers are on northbound 549. Currently they are traveling north in one of the SB lanes. Will that change later this week? Will we now have 2 lanes each direction on 549?

[MikieTimT]

Minor Update

SB US 71 traffic will begin using a new ramp to NB AR 549 starting Monday,

I was looking at this as I drove south on 549 this afternoon. Does this mean the NB traffic will start using the NB lanes? Otherwise, how does the traffic get to the southbound lanes? The center wall is basically complete.

I live off the first exit on 549, and the NB lanes were striped almost all the way to that first exit. It seems feasible that could be completed by Wednesday.

No change on northbound traffic.  Still have to do a U-turn at Peach Orchard Rd. and go back south as the only access onto AR-549 is still a right-turn-only off US-71B.  They appear to have only changed the intersection onto the entrance ramp for the southbound traffic onto AR-549 at this point.

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear in my earlier post. I was referring to once drivers are on northbound 549. Currently they are traveling north in one of the SB lanes. Will that change later this week? Will we now have 2 lanes each direction on 549?

They would have to construct a crossover north of the intersection area for that to be possible.  I haven't heard of any such plans.  I was last up there a couple of weeks ago and they still hadn't finished the cable barrier or done any of the striping, but had done the BGS's.

[Bobby5280]

But they still don't have money for the bridges over the Arkansas River.

I'm wondering if there are any specific provisions in the hard infrastructure bill currently being debated in the US Congress. There's not a chance in hell the larger soft "infrastructure" bill will pass. Stuff like roads and bridges can attract a good amount of bipartisan support.

I would think the I-49 project in the Fort Smith area would kind of be a spotlight project since it has been in the planning stages for so many years. That's the biggest stumbling block for getting I-49 completed between Fort Smith and Texarkana. The rest of that (aside from Texas' Red River crossing) can be pieced together over time.

[I-39]

According to this article about road improvements in the Fort Smith area, I-49 between Barling and Alma has been "programmed"

https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/jul/18/state-says-most-fort-smith-highways-to-be-improved/

I-49 on the map
An extension of Interstate 49 between Barling and Alma has also been listed as "programmed"  in the state's plans. Arkansas officials in recent years have pushed for the completion of I-49, which would run from New Orleans to Kansas City, Mo., once complete.

But they still don't have money for the bridges over the Arkansas River.

What's the current $$ estimate for completing the entire segment between Alma and Barling, including the bridge?

[Bobby5280]

I think it was in the $600 million range. Pretty crazy.

[sparker]

According to this article about road improvements in the Fort Smith area, I-49 between Barling and Alma has been "programmed"

https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/jul/18/state-says-most-fort-smith-highways-to-be-improved/

I-49 on the map
An extension of Interstate 49 between Barling and Alma has also been listed as "programmed"  in the state's plans. Arkansas officials in recent years have pushed for the completion of I-49, which would run from New Orleans to Kansas City, Mo., once complete.

But they still don't have money for the bridges over the Arkansas River.

What's the current $$ estimate for completing the entire segment between Alma and Barling, including the bridge?

I think it was in the $600 million range. Pretty crazy.

Maybe I'm just used to CA-level outlays, but $600M to complete (a) the navigable-waterway bridge (b) the rest of the I-40/49 interchange (c) the approach roads, including any bridge breaches needed for the floodplain doesn't seem completely out of line.  Now -- since there's a lot on ADOT's plate (I-57, the LR upgrades, and the rest of I-49), it may take a few funding cycles before that kind of money is amassed -- but unless there's dedicated funding for corridor completion in the current or future federal infrastructure bills  (insert snark here), the whole shooting match has at least a 25-year horizon, with the bridge itself possibly ahead of that by 10 years.

[edwaleni]

This just landed in my lap:

https://www.swtimes.com/story/news/2021/07/20/interstate-49-extension-arkansas-moves-into-next-phase-development/7996592002/

ARDOT announces I-49 extension to move into next phase of development

The Arkansas Department of Transportation is moving on to the next phase of project development for the construction of Interstate 49 from Highway 22 in Sebastian County to Interstate 40 in Crawford County.

The work to be done is about 13.6 miles long with an estimated price tag of $787 million, including a new bridge over the Arkansas River that may cost between $300 million and $400 million, according to Arkansas Department of Transportation District 4 Engineer Chad Adams.

Work during the next phase of the I-49 extension includes getting agency approvals for the re-evaluation of the 1997 Final Environment Impact Statement, preparing required agency construction permits, and developing final design and construction plans for a non-tolled facility from Highway 22 to I-40.

When completed, I-49 will connect Kansas City, Missouri, to southern Louisiana, passing through the Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers metropolitan area, Fort Smith, and Texarkana. The possibility of tolling the four-lane I-49 extension from Alma to Fort Smith was deemed "not viable"  in April 2019. It was concluded that the gross revenue from the toll would be about $243 million over 40 years, which would not cover the cost of construction.

The 2020 approval by Arkansans of Issue 1 to provide more road funding will help pay for the I-49 extension.

"Issue 1 will create $270 million to go to that project,"  said Keith Gibson, member of the Arkansas State Highway Commission. "That $270 million right now is designated to build two lanes of the interstate from Alma to Highway 22 and two lanes of the bridge that will go over the river."

Whether construction costs will be higher or lower than the $270 million is unknown until some engineering is done and final numbers are shared, Gibson said.

Issue 1 was passed into law with 55% of the Arkansas vote in November and indefinitely continues the 0.5% sales and use tax for state roadways once the current statewide tax sunsets on June 30, 2023. The tax currently generates an estimated $293.7 million.

The section was originally part of a larger corridor environmental study known as the "U.S. 71 Relocation."  The study extended from Highway 70 in DeQueen to I-40 near Alma, encompassing about 125 miles.

Construction may be done in phases due to funding constraints. A phased construction approach may be used where two of the ultimate four lanes may be constructed in the first phase. The final determination of this phased construction approach will be determined during this next phase of project development.

The project has been in the works for a long time, but there is not a set date for the start of construction yet, said Gard Wayt, executive director for the I-49 Coalition.

"It's been under consideration and in the semi-planning stage," Wayt said. "Now it's actually ready for the official planning part of it, so it's high on the list right now."

Wayt's estimate is that construction will start in the next year and that the project will take a couple of years to complete, he said.

Finishing the stretch of I-49 in the Fort Smith area has been a high priority for the I-49 Coalition, and business leaders in the area. The connection has been called "the missing link." Wayt has pointed out how the connection will allow a more seamless flow of goods from all over the world all the way through the middle of the United States.

The connection "creates a transportation grid for moving goods and people and food and energy to and from anywhere from mid-America to anywhere in the world," Gayt added.

[O Tamandua]

...and piggybacking above:

Channel 40/29 Rogers/Fort Smith this morning: "Bella Vista Bypass nearing completion" (VIDEO)

https://www.4029tv.com/article/bella-vista-bypass-nearing-completion/37070316?fbclid=IwAR3V-fABAn3P7vt7Dq8mHnNxvwsYvfAMCnR4IPUp00QEKXgoqzwV0nnljkE#

[Scott5114]

But they still don't have money for the bridges over the Arkansas River.

I'm wondering if there are any specific provisions in the hard infrastructure bill currently being debated in the US Congress. There's not a chance in hell the larger soft "infrastructure" bill will pass. Stuff like roads and bridges can attract a good amount of bipartisan support.

I would think the I-49 project in the Fort Smith area would kind of be a spotlight project since it has been in the planning stages for so many years. That's the biggest stumbling block for getting I-49 completed between Fort Smith and Texarkana. The rest of that (aside from Texas' Red River crossing) can be pieced together over time.

My understanding is that the bill hasn't even been written yet. They're still hashing out the broad categories the bill is going to cover, how it is going to be paid for, etc. Once there's some semblance of agreement on that, that's when they're going to actually put it in writing.

I actually think there's a better chance that the larger "soft" bill is the one that passes. That's the one the administration wants; the whole reason for the "hard" bill's existence is because, under usual circumstances, passing a bill in the Senate requires 60 votes, and there's only 50 Democrats. So the hard bill is an attempt to try to get 10 Republicans to sign on. However, what should attract a good amount of bipartisan support, in this case, isn't. As the negotiations have continued, Senate Republicans have continued to oppose the bill despite changes the Democrats have made to their proposal, mostly because of disagreements on how to fund the bill. Most recently, the Republicans have rejected the idea of paying for the bill by increasing IRS enforcement of existing tax laws; the Democrats had advanced that possibility as something they felt both sides would be able to agree on (the thinking being, why would the other side willingly go on record as defending tax cheats?).

If the Democrats are unable to get to 60 votes, they do have a backup plan, which is the budget reconciliation process. This process can only be used twice a year, and it must affect the budget in some way, but in exchange requires only 50 votes + Kamala Harris to pass. If the Republicans overplay their hand dragging their feet too much, the Democrats are liable to get fed up and send the "soft" bill through reconciliation, cutting the Republicans out of the process entirely. They're less likely to send the "hard" bill down this route because the only reason for that bill existing in the first place was to avoid burning one of the two reconciliation slots if they didn't need to (and to do a public "well, we tried" gesture for the three remaining people in the country that actually care about bipartisanship).

Another possibility is simply lowering the vote threshold from 60 to 50 for everything, a move which itself only takes 50 votes. There are two Democratic senators that oppose that move, so it's not happening...for now, anyway. Again, if the Republicans overplay their hand, this "nuclear option" might be a possibility that goes back on the table, and if that happens, it's not going to the hard bill that passes.

[Bobby5280]

Well, I think the "hard" infrastructure bill is more practical. The Democrats could force the larger "soft" bill through reconciliation, but I think if they do so they will pay serious political consequences in doing so. I think they won a simple majority in Congress on the backs of moderate voters. Moderates like roads and bridges. The stuff in the "soft" bill has little to do with that and seems like a giant gift to progressives. The "soft" bill could turn off a lot of moderates and cost the Democrats big time in the mid term elections. I'm no fan of the GOP either, btw. I find some of the stunts they're pulling regarding our elections to be very offensive. They're on a slippery slope toward authoritarianism.

Maybe I'm just used to CA-level outlays, but $600M to complete (a) the navigable-waterway bridge (b) the rest of the I-40/49 interchange (c) the approach roads, including any bridge breaches needed for the floodplain doesn't seem completely out of line.

The bridges in question aren't going to be high rise in nature. Clearance for barge traffic is considerably lower than ship traffic. The bridges aren't going to be "fancy" at all in terms of design. They'll look like any standard concrete highway bridges spanning rivers and creeks. No suspension cable towers or overhead truss work.

[MikieTimT]

Well, I think the "hard" infrastructure bill is more practical. The Democrats could force the larger "soft" bill through reconciliation, but I think if they do so they will pay serious political consequences in doing so. I think they won a simple majority in Congress on the backs of moderate voters. Moderates like roads and bridges. The stuff in the "soft" bill has little to do with that and seems like a giant gift to progressives. The "soft" bill could turn off a lot of moderates and cost the Democrats big time in the mid term elections. I'm no fan of the GOP either, btw. I find some of the stunts they're pulling regarding our elections to be very offensive. They're on a slippery slope toward authoritarianism.

Maybe I'm just used to CA-level outlays, but $600M to complete (a) the navigable-waterway bridge (b) the rest of the I-40/49 interchange (c) the approach roads, including any bridge breaches needed for the floodplain doesn't seem completely out of line.

The bridges in question aren't going to be high rise in nature. Clearance for barge traffic is considerably lower than ship traffic. The bridges aren't going to be "fancy" at all in terms of design. They'll look like any standard concrete highway bridges spanning rivers and creeks. No suspension cable towers or overhead truss work.

I'm sure a large part of the price escalation can be chocked up to the inflation we've undergone in the past year.  However, I'm sure the Arkansas River Flood of 2019 changed some calculations on 100 year flood events, which likely bumped up the elevation of both the roadbed through the floodplain and the approaches to the bridges.  So, in the short term, we're likely to get an "AR-59 Bypass" with 2 lanes until funding comes around for the other carriageway, which is the Arkansas way for new terrain development these days.

[Scott5114]

Well, I think the "hard" infrastructure bill is more practical. The Democrats could force the larger "soft" bill through reconciliation, but I think if they do so they will pay serious political consequences in doing so. I think they won a simple majority in Congress on the backs of moderate voters. Moderates like roads and bridges. The stuff in the "soft" bill has little to do with that and seems like a giant gift to progressives. The "soft" bill could turn off a lot of moderates and cost the Democrats big time in the mid term elections. I'm no fan of the GOP either, btw. I find some of the stunts they're pulling regarding our elections to be very offensive. They're on a slippery slope toward authoritarianism.

Well, the thing that politicians have learned (the Republicans figured it out first, and the Democrats only just recently) is that moderates and centrists, on a pure strategic level, aren't worth the time to appeal to. Come election time, the true fence sitters tend to fall into that "both sides are the same so I'm gonna take my ball and go home" mentality and don't vote, and the moderates that lean to one side or another tend to hold their nose and vote for their side regardless of what they've done. (As an example, in 2020, only one state–Maine–voted for a Senator of a different party than they voted for President.) So winning an election becomes more of a turnout game than a persuasion one. Get more people that already agree with you to actually commit to voting, because that is faster, easier, cheaper, and more effective than spending that time and money trying to persuade a moderate from the other side to jump the fence.

In that sort of environment, it makes more sense from a strategic point of view for the Democrats to cater to progressives, since they're more likely to actually come out and support the party at election time than moderates are. If a move you make excites two progressives for every moderate/centrist you piss off, it's a winning strategy.

You can find the same phenomenon in both parties, of course. It wins elections. Is pursuing that strategy the best for the country? Well, now, that's a totally different question...And one that probably lies beyond the forum rules for discussing politics.

But what that means for the infrastructure bill is that the Democrats are inclined to get it done any way possible, and if that means giving the progressives a big gift while pissing off the centrists, that's what they'll do.

[kphoger]

Is pursuing that strategy the best for the country?

Nope.

And that might not go beyond the scope of this forum, because it's hard for me to imagine anyone actually arguing with "Nope".

[sparker]

Well, I think the "hard" infrastructure bill is more practical. The Democrats could force the larger "soft" bill through reconciliation, but I think if they do so they will pay serious political consequences in doing so. I think they won a simple majority in Congress on the backs of moderate voters. Moderates like roads and bridges. The stuff in the "soft" bill has little to do with that and seems like a giant gift to progressives. The "soft" bill could turn off a lot of moderates and cost the Democrats big time in the mid term elections. I'm no fan of the GOP either, btw. I find some of the stunts they're pulling regarding our elections to be very offensive. They're on a slippery slope toward authoritarianism.

Maybe I'm just used to CA-level outlays, but $600M to complete (a) the navigable-waterway bridge (b) the rest of the I-40/49 interchange (c) the approach roads, including any bridge breaches needed for the floodplain doesn't seem completely out of line.

The bridges in question aren't going to be high rise in nature. Clearance for barge traffic is considerably lower than ship traffic. The bridges aren't going to be "fancy" at all in terms of design. They'll look like any standard concrete highway bridges spanning rivers and creeks. No suspension cable towers or overhead truss work.

I'm sure a large part of the price escalation can be chocked up to the inflation we've undergone in the past year.  However, I'm sure the Arkansas River Flood of 2019 changed some calculations on 100 year flood events, which likely bumped up the elevation of both the roadbed through the floodplain and the approaches to the bridges.  So, in the short term, we're likely to get an "AR-59 Bypass" with 2 lanes until funding comes around for the other carriageway, which is the Arkansas way for new terrain development these days.

Signage-wise, an initial 2-lane segment is more likely than not to simply be signed, as all interim I-49 facililties have been done to date, as AR 549 -- as a continuation of that signed segment SE of Fort Smith.  Of course, there will be "Future I-49" green signs along the route as well just to remind folks of the ultimate goal of the project. 

[roadman65]

Whoopie another Super Two.

[sparker]

Whoopie another Super Two.

.........but infinitely better than a Super Zero!