Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[US71]

AR needs to stop dragging their feet and take advantage of the situation ASAP!

What situation is that? Is there special federal funding to take advantage of?

Our governor wants to increase highway spending, but seems to be using "not Obamacare" as a bargaining chip. Still, we'd need a hefty sum of money to complete things.

[Bobby5280]

"Not Obamacare" is an intelligence-insulting fake bargaining chip. That only assumes everyone has an IQ of only 45. Gotta love trailer trash, reality TV style politics.

The unfinished I-49 can be approached in a number of difference ways. I think the Belle Vista Bypass will be finished within the next several years if not sooner. Missouri's state government is really embarrassing itself with all the foot dragging on this project. I don't even understand the justification for such a thing. Both Arkansas and Missouri are Republican controlled states. Can't they agree on finishing a highway project, or do they consider all super-highway projects Socialism? I don't know. Maybe I need help understanding this very stupid situation.

The Alma to Barling gap with I-49 is a pretty expensive problem to solve. It's a judgment call on whether to build up funding for this project or try to build other far less expensive I-49 projects farther South.

Arkansas can try to push I-49 Northward from Texarkana, up to Ashdown and farther North to towns like DeQueen, Mena and Waldron located along the future I-49 corridor. One complication with this is the current rule (is it really a rule?) that any signed Interstate segment must be connected to the rest of the Interstate highway system. For Arkansas this is a pretty bad problem. You have the Arkansas River crossing at Fort Smith as one expensive problem. Then there's the tiny Texas segment of I-49 by Texarkana and who knows when Texas will ever get around to building that? It would actually be more productive if the Interstate bypasses or through-fares of DeQueen, Mena and Waldron could be built and signed as I-49 with the existing US-71 corridor bearing "To I-49" trail blazers in the interim. In the early days of the Interstate Highway System this was the reality. There were many disconnected segments of both major and minor Interstate highways. When I was just a little kid I could recall unfinished gaps of I-10 in Texas or other unfinished Interstates in other areas. But they all got signed as Interstates. It was more politically expedient for the final route number to be installed when possible. Now the standards are far more difficult. But the same need still exists.

I think I-49 will get finished a LOT faster if any completed segments in Southern Arkansas are allowed to be signed as I-49 even if those segments don't connect to the rest of the Interstate System.

[J N Winkler]

One complication with this is the current rule (is it really a rule?) that any signed Interstate segment must be connected to the rest of the Interstate highway system.

Wasn't that rule dropped several years ago with the intent to allow Interstate signing for completed freeway segments that already met Interstate standards?

[Bobby5280]

They obviously made a big exception with I-2, I-69E and I-69C in South Texas. But other completed parts of I-69C and I-69E in South Texas, such as the completed 4.5 mile segment of I-69C in Falfurrias, are unsigned. As far as I know those segments won't get signed as Interstates until they are connected with either the main South Texas segments or connected to the North with the rest of the Interstate system.

There are plans in Arkansas to build bypasses around Mena, Waldron and DeQueen in the not too distant future. It may be an even longer time before those bypasses are connected with the I-49 main route. My thinking is if those bypasses get signed as segments of I-49 they will pose as a much more obvious reminder to anyone that the route is not yet finished.

[Grzrd]

One complication with this is the current rule (is it really a rule?) that any signed Interstate segment must be connected to the rest of the Interstate highway system.

Wasn't that rule dropped several years ago with the intent to allow Interstate signing for completed freeway segments that already met Interstate standards

Going by previous discussion of this topic during the period of time when MAP-21 was enacted, I believe the conclusion was that FHWA has the discretion to determine whether a disconnected segment of a non-I-69/non-I-11 interstate would be a "logical addition" to the interstate system (even if it were not "connected" to the interstate system). Since that discussion, I-22 signage has been approved for both Alabama and Mississippi, even though neither the I-65 connection nor the I-269 connection has been completed. With ongoing, albeit slow, construction progress on the I-22/ I-65 interchange, a near-term connection to the interstate system is assured to the point that the current I-22 could be considered a "logical addition".

My guess is that FHWA would not deem a disconnected segment of I-49 between Chaffee Crossing and Texarkana as a "logical addition" to the interstate system until the Arkansas River Bridge and/or the Red River Bridge is under construction and FHWA could be certain of a connection to the interstate system in a reasonable period of time.  Just my guess.

AR needs to stop dragging their feet and take advantage of the situation ASAP!

What situation is that? Is there special federal funding to take advantage of?

I don't know if Henry was referring to this funding opportunity, but AHTD has a FASTLANE Grants page on its website describing a new federal funding opportunity.  AHTD submitted an I-49 Grant Application* on April 14 that would accelerate progress on six currently scheduled projects for improvements to I-49/ "old" I-540 in NWA.

* Is AHTD's inclusion of a non-neutered "Arkansas" shield on the front page of the application tantamount to taunting?

[mvak36]

What is the likelihood that all 3 of their grants are approved? I'm just curious because I'm guessing that other states have also applied for these grants too. It'd be nice if they can get all 3.

Also, when do these grants get released?

[apjung]

The section at the LA/AR border is finally on Google Street View but currently only Northbound.
https://goo.gl/maps/ebu5zMapCbE2

[uozzim]

MoDOT has $20 Million in the draft STIP (released today) for 2019-2020 construction to fill the gap:

http://www.modot.org/plansandprojects/construction_program/STIP2017-2021/documents/Sec0406SouthwestRural.pdf (link corrected)

[codyg1985]

MoDOT has $20 Million in the draft STIP (released today) for 2019-2020 construction to fill the gap:

http://www.modot.org/plansandprojects/construction_program/STIP2017-2021/documents/Sec0407Southeast.pdf

That's for SE Missouri.

[mvak36]

MoDOT has $20 Million in the draft STIP (released today) for 2019-2020 construction to fill the gap:

http://www.modot.org/plansandprojects/construction_program/STIP2017-2021/documents/Sec0407Southeast.pdf

That's for SE Missouri.

Here is SW Missouri's: http://www.modot.org/plansandprojects/construction_program/STIP2017-2021/documents/Sec0406SouthwestRural.pdf

[bjrush]

For those not in the area, they have recently closed down the inner lanes near the Lowell exit to construct the US 412 bypass overpasses

It's frustrating to see all this pavement grinding to obliterate lane markers, temporary stripes put down, those obliterated, etc. Makes our roads look terrible

[Grzrd]

Google Street View has posted July 2015 imagery of SB I-49 at AR 151:

Alas, the exit sign for I-49 to exit onto itself can still be seen in the distance.

(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) thread)

Looking rearward at the same signage from NB I-49 leaving the interchange in January 2016 Google Street View imagery still shows no exit number tab on the "TO US 59" BGS and that the standalone exit sign remains:



However, January 2016 Google Street View imagery from NB I-49 approaching the same interchange shows that exit number tabs have been installed on these two BGSes:



Assuming that AHTD has since completed the signage installation on the other BGS and throughout Miller County, we can now turn our focus to the I-49/ former I-540 upgrade, the Bella Vista Bypass, the Arkansas River bridge, the section from Chaffee Crossing to the Red River bridge..........

Here is the proposed logging of the entire I-49 corridor in Arkansas (and Texas).
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-49-Proposed-Mileage.pdf
Proposed exit numbering from the Louisiana State Line (through Texas) and to the Polk County, Arkansas line:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-49_Exits_1.pdf
Proposed exit numbering from the Polk County line to the Ft. Chaffee area:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-49_Exits_2.pdf
Proposed exit numbering from the Ft. Chaffee area to the Missouri State Line:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-49_Exits_3.pdf
Please understand this is all PROPOSED and is subject to a tweak every now and then.

(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) thread)

............... as well as the 5.36 miles in Texas.

Here is a snip from the logging that shows the mileage in Texas:



Here is a snip showing the proposed Texas exits:

[The Ghostbuster]

Now if they would just renumber the exits on old 540.

[US71]

Now if they would just renumber the exits on old 540.

Probably when they get more of 49 built (though 549 at Ft Smith has I-49 exit numbers)

[I-39]

What is the hold up on building I-49 north from Texarkana to Ashdown and further north (other than funding)?

And exactly why is I-49 being routed through Texas anyway?

[dfwmapper]

What is the hold up on building I-49 north from Texarkana to Ashdown and further north (other than funding)?

Other than funding? Also funding.

And exactly why is I-49 being routed through Texas anyway?

I believe it's due to problems with the floodplain and river crossing on the Arkansas side. Much more logical crossing on the Texas side.

[Bobby5280]

It wouldn't surprise me if Texas held off building its short portion of I-49 until all of I-69 and I-369 in Texas was completed. I hope they don't do that since it might take 20 or more years, but I kind of expect TX DOT to take that approach.

[bjrush]

What is the hold up on building I-49 north from Texarkana to Ashdown and further north (other than funding)?

They build bypasses around the cities first, then connect the bypasses

[jbnv]

It wouldn't surprise me if Texas held off building its short portion of I-49 until all of I-69 and I-369 in Texas was completed. I hope they don't do that since it might take 20 or more years, but I kind of expect TX DOT to take that approach.

Texas is building what they think will benefit them the most. From my offhand view, I don't see much direct benefit to Texas of the I-49 corridor through western Arkansas. On the other hand, they clearly want at least one (and the more the better) connections to the Mississippi River, the Midwest and the Northeast.

[Bobby5280]

One benefit Texas would get with a completed I-49 and Texas' portion I-69 is a direct link between the growing cities in NW Arkansas and port cities like Houston, Corpus Christi and Brownsville. I think commercial traffic will increase on both I-49 and I-69 in this region. The Panama Canal expansion opens later this Summer and could put quite a bit more traffic into Gulf Coast port cities.

[jbnv]

What would Texas get from NW Arkansas and Kansas City that they would not otherwise get from the I-69 corridor?

[Bobby5280]

I-69 doesn't go through Northwest Arkansas or Kansas City. I-49 has to connect into the I-69 system (I-369) to complete such a link.

[jbnv]

What would Texas get from NW Arkansas and Kansas City that they would not otherwise get from the I-69 corridor?

[codyg1985]

Maybe Arkansas would be willing to pay for I-49 through Texas? Or pay for some of it?

[US71]

Maybe Arkansas would be willing to pay for I-49 through Texas? Or pay for some of it?

With what? Chickens?