I-49 in Arkansas

[Road Hog]

Bring on the bridge, as I said. But something iconic like a cable-stayed bridge would be ideal.

A cable-stayed bridge is not needed in that location. The bridge only needs to be high enough to give clearance to barges. Project illustrations show a more conventional design.

I know, but maybe add a fake non-supporting span as an aesthetic feature? They're doing it with old pony trusses.

[LilianaUwU]

why did this devolve into a conversation about the beaver cult

Because the general consensus is to just let the forum slowly go to pot.

It's been going downhill ever since May 29, 2020 at 3:16:50pm.

Now I'm curious which post specifically appeared then.

Around Page 107. It appears to have been deleted.

Dang.  I missed it.  I thought UwU was just being arbitrary.

I'm not. It's the creation date of my account.

[Rothman]

why did this devolve into a conversation about the beaver cult

Because the general consensus is to just let the forum slowly go to pot.

It's been going downhill ever since May 29, 2020 at 3:16:50pm.

Now I'm curious which post specifically appeared then.

Around Page 107. It appears to have been deleted.

Dang.  I missed it.  I thought UwU was just being arbitrary.

I'm not. It's the creation date of my account.

Well played.

[vdeane]

why did this devolve into a conversation about the beaver cult

Because the general consensus is to just let the forum slowly go to pot.

It's been going downhill ever since May 29, 2020 at 3:16:50pm.

Now I'm curious which post specifically appeared then.

Around Page 107. It appears to have been deleted.

Since the quoted comment was in response to a comment about the entire forum, I wasn't figuring a post in this thread specifically, just one on the forum in general.  But as we've seen, it's actually not a specific post at all.

[Bobby5280]

A cable-stayed bridge is not needed in that location. The bridge only needs to be high enough to give clearance to barges. Project illustrations show a more conventional design.

I know, but maybe add a fake non-supporting span as an aesthetic feature? They're doing it with old pony trusses.

It's one thing to recycle pony trusses from an existing 2-lane bridge and tack them onto a more conventional 2-lane replacement bridge. ODOT did that recently with the US-281 Bridgeport Pony Bridge (aka William Murray Bridge). The remodeled bridge re-opened just a few months ago.

A completely new Interstate bridge is another thing. The kind of bridge proposed for I-49 in Fort Smith (or Barling actually) is much wider. I think old style pony trusses would look very odd attached to a bridge like that. The proportions wouldn't look right unless the trusses were huge (and more expensive). If they added some sort of visually aesthetic features I'd rather they be something more modern.

But the bigger problem is budget. The more money AR DOT has to spend on that Arkansas River bridge means less money for other parts of I-49. They're going to have to re-build the interchange at I-40 into a 4-level directional stack. That ain't cheap. The grading work in the hills and mountains farther South won't be cheap either.

[MikieTimT]

Sorry to burst bubbles here, but it's going to be a standard concrete girder bridge with 4 lanes and a Jersey barrier down the middle according to the preliminary plans.  Think I-540 between Ft. Smith and Van Buren, but with a chain link fence on top of the outside barriers for a portion.  At least they are investing in lighting the bridge and the intersections if you read through the above plans, which is very unARDOTlike, although the I-540 Arkansas River bridge is also lit, as well as interchanges on I-540 once you get to the river southward.

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't care what configuration the AR 22/255-to-Interstate 40 segment of Interstate 49/AR 549 is constructed. My main gripe has always been the retaining of the Interstate 540 (1999-2014) exit numbers between Interstate 40 and the Arkansas/Missouri border. I will not rest until those exits are renumbered to Interstate 49 mileage-based exit numbers.

[bugo]

Super-2 from Ft. Smith to Y-City

Where did you hear they were building a 2 lane highway to "Y" City?

[bwana39]

The mile markers are still kind of up in tha air, The routes especially between the Red River and DeQueen are still up in the air. Likely so at  least from Mena to Y-City if not farther.

The thing about Red River to Dequeen is river crossings. The Little river at US 71 runs between two canals. It is likely to be 3-4 miles of bridges to build it there. Crossing west of Patterson Sholes  is a much less challenging crossing of the river and going directly from the Richmond Crossing as planned to Dequeen could take as much as 15 miles off the current US-71 route.

[Rick Powell]

Super-2 from Ft. Smith to Y-City

Where did you hear they were building a 2 lane highway to "Y" City?

Depends on how much work ARDOT could get done for $270M for the 47 miles between Greenwood and Y City. That's less than $6M/mile. I'd say by the time they built it, they'd do well to get in a Super 2.
https://talkbusiness.net/2022/10/officials-break-ground-on-the-next-section-of-i-49/

[The Ghostbuster]

It will probably be well into the 2030s before any other segment of Interstate 49 is constructed, after the AR 22/255-to-Interstate 40 segment is completed.

[MikieTimT]

Super-2 from Ft. Smith to Y-City

Where did you hear they were building a 2 lane highway to "Y" City?

It will probably be well into the 2030s before any other segment of Interstate 49 is constructed, after the AR 22/255-to-Interstate 40 segment is completed.

Not only are they starting this decade, it's in the 2025-2028 Draft STIP for preliminary engineering in 2028 for the 12.47 miles between Greenwood and AR-378 near the Elm Park rest area on US-71 I grew up next door to.

Job 04X537 - Hwy. 378 – Greenwood (Future I-49) P.E.

[Bobby5280]

I think it's almost a foregone conclusion I-49 going South of Fort Smith will start out in Super 2 configuration. Look at all the previous examples. The Belle Vista bypass started out in Super 2 phases with the second pair of lanes added later. AR-530 South of Pine Bluff is a Super 2 with at-grade intersections; it has enough ROW to add a second roadway. The Monticello bypass (future I-69) is a Super 2.

[MikieTimT]

Finally, after Exit 62 has started moving dirt, the interchange that's the worst on I-49 in Arkansas gets its turn.  There's no telling how much of my life has been spent stopped trying to get on or off Exit 72, but US-412 in Springdale is getting some additional turn lanes both on and off I-49 and the ramps widened.

Highway 412 Improvements Springdale Washington County  Job 040894  Public Involvement Meeting

[MikieTimT]

A super realistic render of the new I-49 Arkansas River bridge:

https://talkbusiness.net/2024/10/work-to-begin-on-i-49-arkansas-river-bridge/

[edwaleni]

Super-2 from Ft. Smith to Y-City

Where did you hear they were building a 2 lane highway to "Y" City?

Depends on how much work ARDOT could get done for $270M for the 47 miles between Greenwood and Y City. That's less than $6M/mile. I'd say by the time they built it, they'd do well to get in a Super 2.
https://talkbusiness.net/2022/10/officials-break-ground-on-the-next-section-of-i-49/

From the article Rick references....

With funding from voter-approved Issue 1, ARDOT has dedicated $270 million for the I-40/I-49 interchange at Alma to Highway 22 and another $270 million for the south part of the interstate from Greenwood to Y City. The Y City connection would take I-49 to the Highway 270 route east to Hot Springs. The 13.7 mile section from Alma to Barling will cost around $710 million, according to ARDOT Spokesman Dave Parker. According to Tudor, the segment will be open to traffic "by the end of the decade."

He is saying "it would take I-49 to US-270".  I wonder if he was misquoted or misunderstood what he was trying to say about the money.

[roadman65]

How about from Texarkana to Ashdown? I would figure that would be a good start too.

[MikieTimT]

How about from Texarkana to Ashdown? I would figure that would be a good start too.

That'll take Texas doing their few miles and jointly bridging the Red River with Arkansas.  Not going to happen before the Arkansas River crossing, which is one of 2 major bridges on Arkansas' plate this decade along with the I-55 Mississippi River bridge jointly with Tennessee being the other one.  Only so much state funding available for this stuff.  At least the Red River isn't navigable this far upriver, so it won't be a huge project.  More akin to the I-57 Black River bridge in NEA, also not happening this decade.

[The Ghostbuster]

When more of future Interstate 49 is constructed, it won't utilize the existing US 71 bypass of Waldron, will it? It doesn't look like the bypass can be upgraded without significant right-of-way impacts.

[MikieTimT]

When more of future Interstate 49 is constructed, it won't utilize the existing US 71 bypass of Waldron, will it? It doesn't look like the bypass can be upgraded without significant right-of-way impacts.

According to the 1997 FEIS, all of the alignments including the "selected" alignment bypass the bypass to the west, so access will be retained as the current US-71 alignment is retained.  Now, since this FEIS is 27 years old at this point, and will likely be 37+ years old when they actually get around to the likely Super-2 construction of AR-549 through there, it's almost guaranteed that NEPA will have to be restarted with the 1997 FEIS results considered.  Not that this is a high growth area, so there aren't likely to be new considerations, but they'll have to go back through the process again.

[Bobby5280]

The best they could do with that existing "bypass" in Waldron is add another pair of lanes -that is if they want to avoid wiping out any existing businesses. On the other hand many of the businesses next to the road near the area of the US-71/AR-80 intersection are chain stores & restaurants that could easily re-built on new frontage.

Still, it may be easier to just build a new terrain bypass.

[Henry]

FWIW, I think the only I-49/US 71 concurrency to exist between Ft. Smith and Texarkana would also be where the latter highway has a concurrency with US 270 between Mena and Y City. So a triplex would occur there once the new freeway gets built (with AR 549 preceding the Interstate, of course).

[edwaleni]

The best they could do with that existing "bypass" in Waldron is add another pair of lanes -that is if they want to avoid wiping out any existing businesses. On the other hand many of the businesses next to the road near the area of the US-71/AR-80 intersection are chain stores & restaurants that could easily re-built on new frontage.

Still, it may be easier to just build a new terrain bypass.

Looks like they may own enough ROW on the Waldron bypass to create an on/off frontage roads.

[roadman65]

The best they could do with that existing "bypass" in Waldron is add another pair of lanes -that is if they want to avoid wiping out any existing businesses. On the other hand many of the businesses next to the road near the area of the US-71/AR-80 intersection are chain stores & restaurants that could easily re-built on new frontage.

Still, it may be easier to just build a new terrain bypass.

Looks like they may own enough ROW on the Waldron bypass to create an on/off frontage roads.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/uj8dbP5f8rykPzs89
Just barely.

[Rothman]

The best they could do with that existing "bypass" in Waldron is add another pair of lanes -that is if they want to avoid wiping out any existing businesses. On the other hand many of the businesses next to the road near the area of the US-71/AR-80 intersection are chain stores & restaurants that could easily re-built on new frontage.

Still, it may be easier to just build a new terrain bypass.

Looks like they may own enough ROW on the Waldron bypass to create an on/off frontage roads.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/uj8dbP5f8rykPzs89
Just barely.

As someone who knows the strength of the HB line on plans and have seen firsthand engineers fall flat on their faces when their assumptions were totally wrong, the idea of using Google Maps to judge ROW ownership by sight is pretty funny.