I-49 in Arkansas

[robbones]

Anyone know why they are replacing all of the guardrails north of Mountainburg

HTC Desire 610

[Grzrd]

This article reports on U.S. Representative Steve Womack's recent visit to Van Buren, during which he recalled the glory days of John Paul Hammerschmidt and opined that earmarks (this time subject to a line item veto) should return to Congress for big projects such as a "slackwater harbor" in the Van Buren area and, apparently, the I-49 Arkansas River bridge ("that bridge" - he may have been referring to Alaska's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere", but the comment also seems applicable to the I-49 bridge)

This article clarifies Rep. Womack's remarks about "that bridge" by reporting that he told the RITA meeting that the I-49 bridge "will be built":

Congressman Steve Womack ....
also told the RITA board the Interstate 49 bridge over the Arkansas River in Crawford County will be built.
"The question will be is it going to cost X number of dollars today or multiple X number of dollars down the road,"  he said.
One of the four goals for 2016 adopted Wednesday by the RITA board is to continue to stress the importance of the section of I-49 at Alma to Fort Chaffee Crossing and the river bridge.
Other goals are to continue the support of a regional intermodal port, additional financial assistance for RITA funding and the support of all modes of transportation.
RITA was formed in 2009 by the cities of Fort Smith and Van Buren and the counties of Crawford and Sebastian to plan and provide for and to develop initiatives and projects important to this region's economic development future and particularly improvements that support the movement of the region's goods and freight.
RITA is governed by a 12-member board.

It's interesting how this article does not mention Rep. Womack's thoughts about bringing back earmarks.

[US71]

This article reports on U.S. Representative Steve Womack's recent visit to Van Buren, during which he recalled the glory days of John Paul Hammerschmidt and opined that earmarks (this time subject to a line item veto) should return to Congress for big projects such as a "slackwater harbor" in the Van Buren area and, apparently, the I-49 Arkansas River bridge ("that bridge" - he may have been referring to Alaska's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere", but the comment also seems applicable to the I-49 bridge)

This article clarifies Rep. Womack's remarks about "that bridge" by reporting that he told the RITA meeting that the I-49 bridge "will be built":

Congressman Steve Womack ....
also told the RITA board the Interstate 49 bridge over the Arkansas River in Crawford County will be built.
"The question will be is it going to cost X number of dollars today or multiple X number of dollars down the road,"  he said.
One of the four goals for 2016 adopted Wednesday by the RITA board is to continue to stress the importance of the section of I-49 at Alma to Fort Chaffee Crossing and the river bridge.
Other goals are to continue the support of a regional intermodal port, additional financial assistance for RITA funding and the support of all modes of transportation.
RITA was formed in 2009 by the cities of Fort Smith and Van Buren and the counties of Crawford and Sebastian to plan and provide for and to develop initiatives and projects important to this region's economic development future and particularly improvements that support the movement of the region's goods and freight.
RITA is governed by a 12-member board.

It's interesting how this article does not mention Rep. Womack's thoughts about bringing back earmarks.

Based upon my observations, Mr Womack and Dr Boozeman would approve anything that helps their corporate masters, but not necessarily the general public.

[US71]

Ah, so AHTD only needs a mere $1.68B annually. That's only 35% of our ENTIRE STATE's BUDGET!!

And Governor Hutchinson seems to want to "borrow" from other state service budgets to pay for it.

[O Tamandua]

This article reports on U.S. Representative Steve Womack's recent visit to Van Buren, during which he recalled the glory days of John Paul Hammerschmidt and opined that earmarks (this time subject to a line item veto) should return to Congress for big projects such as a "slackwater harbor" in the Van Buren area and, apparently, the I-49 Arkansas River bridge ("that bridge" - he may have been referring to Alaska's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere", but the comment also seems applicable to the I-49 bridge)

This article clarifies Rep. Womack's remarks about "that bridge" by reporting that he told the RITA meeting that the I-49 bridge "will be built":

Congressman Steve Womack ....
also told the RITA board the Interstate 49 bridge over the Arkansas River in Crawford County will be built.
"The question will be is it going to cost X number of dollars today or multiple X number of dollars down the road,"  he said.
One of the four goals for 2016 adopted Wednesday by the RITA board is to continue to stress the importance of the section of I-49 at Alma to Fort Chaffee Crossing and the river bridge.
Other goals are to continue the support of a regional intermodal port, additional financial assistance for RITA funding and the support of all modes of transportation.
RITA was formed in 2009 by the cities of Fort Smith and Van Buren and the counties of Crawford and Sebastian to plan and provide for and to develop initiatives and projects important to this region's economic development future and particularly improvements that support the movement of the region's goods and freight.
RITA is governed by a 12-member board.

It's interesting how this article does not mention Rep. Womack's thoughts about bringing back earmarks.

Based upon my observations, Mr Womack and Dr Boozeman would approve anything that helps their corporate masters, but not necessarily the general public.

?

A completed I-49 (and in the short term, "that bridge" being finished along with the BV bypass) could be a HUGE benefit to the general public...

[US71]

This article reports on U.S. Representative Steve Womack's recent visit to Van Buren, during which he recalled the glory days of John Paul Hammerschmidt and opined that earmarks (this time subject to a line item veto) should return to Congress for big projects such as a "slackwater harbor" in the Van Buren area and, apparently, the I-49 Arkansas River bridge ("that bridge" - he may have been referring to Alaska's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere", but the comment also seems applicable to the I-49 bridge)

This article clarifies Rep. Womack's remarks about "that bridge" by reporting that he told the RITA meeting that the I-49 bridge "will be built":

Congressman Steve Womack ....
also told the RITA board the Interstate 49 bridge over the Arkansas River in Crawford County will be built.
"The question will be is it going to cost X number of dollars today or multiple X number of dollars down the road,"  he said.
One of the four goals for 2016 adopted Wednesday by the RITA board is to continue to stress the importance of the section of I-49 at Alma to Fort Chaffee Crossing and the river bridge.
Other goals are to continue the support of a regional intermodal port, additional financial assistance for RITA funding and the support of all modes of transportation.
RITA was formed in 2009 by the cities of Fort Smith and Van Buren and the counties of Crawford and Sebastian to plan and provide for and to develop initiatives and projects important to this region's economic development future and particularly improvements that support the movement of the region's goods and freight.
RITA is governed by a 12-member board.

It's interesting how this article does not mention Rep. Womack's thoughts about bringing back earmarks.

Based upon my observations, Mr Womack and Dr Boozeman would approve anything that helps their corporate masters, but not necessarily the general public.

?

A completed I-49 (and in the short term, "that bridge" being finished along with the BV bypass) could be a HUGE benefit to the general public...

Womack and Boozeman oppose veterans benefits, but have no problem voting for tax breaks for their corporate owners. I don't see the bridge getting done without greasing a few palms.

[Grzrd]

This article reports that the Bella Vista Bypass would be southwest Missouri's top priority if Missouri voters approve the transportation sales tax and that Arkansas Highway Commissioner Dick Trammel is strongly hinting that Arkansas would then be able to come up with the extra $50 million to complete the Arkansas section of the BVB as a four-lane facility:

Dick Trammel, Arkansas Highway commissioner, said if Missouri voters approve the tax and the project north of the state line becomes a reality, it could speed up construction of all four lanes on this side of the line. Arkansas needs an estimated $50 million more to finish the bypass as a four-lane divided highway.
"If they get it, maybe we can get our other two lanes," Trammel said.

In this article about the ribbon cutting, Commissioner Trammel is quoted as expressing optimism that Missouri will find a way to complete its section and that he hopes to have the extra $50 million needed to make the BVB a four-lane facility by about the time the initial two lanes are completed:

A few sprinkles from an overcast sky Friday morning didn't faze officials opening the newest section of the Bella Vista Bypass, which will be Interstate 49.
Dick Trammel, Arkansas highway commissioner, and other local dignitaries gathered below the newest Arkansas 74 overpass, just west of Hiwasse, and cut a blue ribbon using a huge pair of scissors. A couple of trucks blew their horns in salute as they passed above. Most of the cars in sight belonged to those attending the event ....
Trammel said voters' approval of a sales tax for highway improvements in 2012 paved the way for where the highway project is now, and he and others are working to find the money to finish the two additional lanes. Trammel said he'd like to have that money in hand by about the time the two lane part of the project is finished.
Trammel said Missouri officials are looking at ways to raise money for highways and he's confident Missouri will find a way to build it's 7-mile section from the state line to I-49 just south of Pineville.

This article reports that MoDOT has received some unexpected good news about its funding situation that will allow it to lift a moratorium on adding new projects to its five-year plan .... If new projects can be added to the five-year plan, then I wonder if the Bella Vista Bypass can be moved up a few years in the plan (from the current projected 2020 Award Date ...).

(bottom quote from I-49 Coming to Missouri thread)

This article reports that the extra $50 million needed to convert the Bella Vista Bypass ("BVB") in Arkansas from two lanes to four lanes is identified in an initial version of the Arkansas 2016-2020 draft STIP, as well as another $50 million for the completion of the widening of NWA's Interstate 49 to six lanes in both directions :

State highway officials have identified money in an initial draft version of a new five-year transportation plan to finish work on three major Northwest Arkansas traffic corridors and start work on a fourth, Arkansas Highway Commission Chairman Dick Trammel told regional planners Wednesday.
The statewide Transportation Improvement Plan includes completing the widening of Interstate 49 to six lanes in both directions; finishing four lanes of the Bella Vista Bypass to the Missouri state line ....
The 2016 to 2020 plan identifies some $50 million for the Bella Vista Bypass, $50 million for I-49 ....
Trammel said timing on finishing the Bella Vista Bypass to the state line will be dependent on how quickly Missouri moves to finish its section. But, Trammel said, "It's in the plans."
While the plan has not been finalized, it does signal the direction the highway department wants to go, Trammel said. Several public input sessions are expected before the plan is formally adopted ....

Maybe Arkansas and Missouri will be able to complete the BVB sooner rather than later ....

It's not too late to lobby for other I-49 projects (Mena bypass, preliminary engineering on the Arkansas River bridge ...) to be included in the STIP ......................

[mvak36]

Is the I-49 widening from Bella Vista to Fayetteville? Or are they gonna be widening all the way to I-40?

[Wayward Memphian]

Is the I-49 widening from Bella Vista to Fayetteville? Or are they gonna be widening all the way to I-40?

Just to Fayetteville.This Morning wrecks on both sides, complete cluster.

[galador]

It's not too late to lobby for other I-49 projects (Mena bypass, preliminary engineering on the Arkansas River bridge ...) to be included in the STIP ......................

It looks like (part of) your wish came true, http://swtimes.com/news/i-49-bridge-engineering-makes-state-draft-plan :

A request to fund over $27 million in preliminary engineering for a future Interstate 49 bridge over the Arkansas River from Alma to Barling is included in the draft 2016-2020 State Transportation Improvement Plan.

...

According to the latest project listing, a sort of wish list for highway projects, the preliminary engineering cost for the I-49 bridge is estimated at $27.4. The bridge construction has a preliminary estimation of about $128.5 million. With other costs, including right-of-way utility costs at $25.5 million, the bridge project is expected to be over $235.4 million.

[Grzrd]

AHTD's July 13, 2015 presentation to the Fort Smith Regional Chamber of Commerce

This article quotes the chairman of the Arkansas Senate's Revenue and Tax committee that now is the time for "state officials [AHTD?]" to get the engineering and environmental groundwork in place for the Arkansas River bridge ....
Here is a good visual of the Arkansas River bridge section from AHTD's above-linked presentation to the Fort Smith Chamber of Commerce (p. 10/31 of pdf):

http://swtimes.com/news/i-49-bridge-engineering-makes-state-draft-plan :

A request to fund over $27 million in preliminary engineering for a future Interstate 49 bridge over the Arkansas River from Alma to Barling is included in the draft 2016-2020 State Transportation Improvement Plan.
...
According to the latest project listing, a sort of wish list for highway projects, the preliminary engineering cost for the I-49 bridge is estimated at $27.4. The bridge construction has a preliminary estimation of about $128.5 million. With other costs, including right-of-way utility costs at $25.5 million, the bridge project is expected to be over $235.4 million.

The article linked by galador also reports that the 13.81 miles of road necessary to connect the bridge to AR 22 and I-40 is estimated to cost another $235.4 million:

Relocation of U.S. 71 at Arkansas 22 northbound is part of the bridge project and also estimated to run about $182.5 million for 13.81 miles of road. With engineering and right-of-way utility costs that is expected to be another $235.4 million total, according to the project listing.

I'm trying to figure out how the estimated $470.8 million construction estimate ($235.4 million + $235.4 million) squares with AHTD's $350 million construction estimate in the above-quoted slide from the July 13, 2015 presentation. Reporting error?

[jbnv]

How does it cost $27 million to engineer a bridge? Not actually build it but study the area and design it?

[Rothman]

How does it cost $27 million to engineer a bridge? Not actually build it but study the area and design it?

Pretty routine up here for it to cost that much for large, complex bridges.

[Scott5114]

There is quite a lot of math involved and the people who know how to do it won't work cheap.

[jbnv]

There is quite a lot of math involved and the people who know how to do it won't work cheap.

Pretty routine up here for it to cost that much for large, complex bridges.

Assuming a salary of $100,000 for a civil engineer with several years of experience, that's 270 man-years of work. I know that bridges don't architect themselves, but that just seems like a very large number for one bridge over a few miles.

[Road Hog]

A story I found that could impact construction of an I-49 bridge north of Texarkana (and of course, every Red River bridge south of Denison Dam.)

http://heralddemocrat.com/news/local/red-river-valley-association-sets-sights-ports-texoma

[Revive 755]

How does it cost $27 million to engineer a bridge? Not actually build it but study the area and design it?

As others have mentioned, you have the costs for the engineers who stamp the plans.  But you also have the techs who do the CADD work, soil borings (which probably cost a lot if one is needed in the river), maybe rock cores, utility coordination, permitting (Army Corps, various state permits, Coast Guard for certain waterways), and coordination with all the other government agencies.

[MaxConcrete]

A story I found that could impact construction of an I-49 bridge north of Texarkana (and of course, every Red River bridge south of Denison Dam.)

http://heralddemocrat.com/news/local/red-river-valley-association-sets-sights-ports-texoma

From article

Currently the project itself is estimated at $1 billion, and Brontoli said it could end up costing more, once supplies and equipment are taken into account and all the studies are performed

A navigation project is going to cost much, much more than $1 billion. Probabably more like $5-10 billion.

The article didn't mention how many locks are needed, but every one is expensive. Major civil engineering projects are expensive. For example, the planned Lower Bois D'arc reservoir in the watershed costs around $1 billion. For another example, a spillway project in California costs $900 million.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20151107-disappearing-texas-new-reservoir-could-wash-away-fannin-county-farming-way-of-life.ece
http://www.enr.com/articles/38722-cofferdam-leak-not-expected-to-delay-folsom-dam-project

All bridges need to be raised and meet navigation standards with a span around 300 feet. As a practical matter, many bridges will need to be entirely rebuilt. I count ten bridges between Shreveport and Denison, and I'm thinking a minimum of $50 million per bridge and possibly up to $100 million each. So that's at least $500 million.

A lot of excavation will be needed to straighten the channel, and that's expensive. There will be plenty of land acquisition as dams flood adjacent property.

This idea sounds similar to the plans to make the Trinity River navigable, which were canceled in the 1970s due to cost and environmental impact.
http://dfwfreeways.com/images/book/ChDallasFreeways/06_dallas_freeways-336.jpg
http://dfwfreeways.com/images/book/ChDallasFreeways/06_dallas_freeways-337.jpg

So I'm not expecting this project to proceed much beyond discussion and a preliminary study.
 
 

[SquonkHunter]

God, not another canal proposal for North Texas.    When will people ever get it thru their heads that in order to have functional canals with locks, you need WATER to fill it. Anyone who ever lived in the area for very long would realize that maybe one year in ten you would have sufficient rainfall at the head of the basin to keep such a canal operating. The rest of the time it would be a constant struggle to keep enough water upstream to operate the canal and during prolonged droughts there would be NO water coming into the system. Dallas finally got over their obsession with a Trinity River canal in the 1970s after wasting 60 years on it. Work with what you have and quit wasting resources on something that will never be economically viabable. Air, roads and rail. That is what built North Texas and that is what they should concentrate on. I was born and raised there and saw it all for over 40 years.

[bjrush]

How does it cost $27 million to engineer a bridge? Not actually build it but study the area and design it?

Rule of thumb is 10% of construction cost for engineering. If it is $235M construction cost, $27M seems fair.

For a project of this magnitude, you are talking about several senior engineers working on the project for long time, several junior engineers dedicated to it for years, survey, geotech, environmental, Indiana bat surveys, USACE permit, ADEQ SWPPP, wetlands, coordination with FHWA, tons of other permits, redesign (probably several times), utility relocatiton, utility coordination, hundreds of meetings with AHTD, and property acquisition. Then you have to design the bridge, so you need dedicated bridge people on that. And all the other bridges that cross all the other drainages throughout the area.

Plus you have to pay the engineering company to keep the lights on, print things, admin staff, CAD licenses, travel time, survey vans, survey equipment, PK nails, management's bonuses, etc.

[txstateends]

But, if such a waterway plan were viable, and greenlighted, wouldn't that be more reason to move quicker on the unbuilt parts of I-49?
(plus, give proponents more reason to back a northward extension of the I-45 designation?)

[Gordon]

I think the 27 million  must be including the 13.81 miles of road between I 40 and Hwy 22 at Barling also. I can understand that but not a bridge only. Excuses of utility's, environmental, permits and other does not make sense for a bridge only.

[Grzrd]

Discussion about flood plain and Arkansas River Bridge in Sept. 9 Times Record Online (http://www.swtimes.com/news/article_6553403c-bc23-11df-8998-001cc4c002e0.html):

Alma Mayor John Ballentine believes the Alma portion is likely to be the last leg of the still-unfunded highway completed because of the costly bridge that must span the Arkansas River.
Ballentine reckons the structure will cost $400 million, but that number is a shape-shifter, changing based on who is speaking and what the cost includes.
Ken O'Donnell, until recently the director of the Bi-State Metropolitan Planning Organization, said the stated cost is a bit lower – $280 million to $320 million. That's starting with the $100 million for the bridge span itself, then adding approaches, ramps and the other things needed to make it accessible.
Because the route approaching the bridge travels through the Kibler bottoms, a flood plain, it might require building a berm or putting the roadway on supports as it extends to the bridge.
O'Donnell said costs for the highway on-grade are computed on a linear foot basis. If the roadway is elevated, the cost must be computed on a square-foot basis. The cost of a multilane interstate bridge spanning the Arkansas River "jumps off the page at you,"  he said.

How does it cost $27 million to engineer a bridge? Not actually build it but study the area and design it?

As others have mentioned, you have the costs for the engineers who stamp the plans.  But you also have the techs who do the CADD work, soil borings (which probably cost a lot if one is needed in the river), maybe rock cores, utility coordination, permitting (Army Corps, various state permits, Coast Guard for certain waterways), and coordination with all the other government agencies.

I'll add my guess that the Kibler bottoms present a layer of complexity that may have driven up the preliminary engineering cost; as a non-engineer, I assume that potential approach spans and/or berms are engineered at the same time as the bridge span itself.

As a rough point of comparison, compare the estimated cost of the Arkansas and Mississippi approach spans to the I-69 Mississippi River bridge to the estimated cost of the bridge span itself; I assume considerable engineering effort went into the development of the two approach spans:

[Bobby5280]

Why does the I-49 bridge over the Arkansas River have to cost a quarter billion dollars? The bridge doesn't have to run 200 feet above the river like bridges over ship channels. Are they proposing some kind of gradiose, flamboyant design? I don't get it. There is at least four other highway bridges in the Fort Smith area and none of those bridges look like they're worth $250 million.

This isn't a gigantic river crossing. The river is about a quarter mile across at the proposed bridge location. The river may have barge traffic, but barges don't need radically high bridge clearance levels.

The Dallas High Five stack interchange in North Dallas cost about $250 million. That was a huge project with a bunch of pretty long overpasses. I-49 across the Arkansas River can be just one or two bridges, depending on the configuration.

If an ordinary highway crossing over a river is going to cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars then this nation is quickly getting to or going way past the point where it can build any big construction projects. It's as if we really want to price ourselves back to using dirt roads again.

[MaxConcrete]

Why does the I-49 bridge over the Arkansas River have to cost a quarter billion dollars?
The Dallas High Five stack interchange in North Dallas cost about $250 million.

$250 million seems reasonable for this kind of crossing. Vertical clearance will need to be in the 52 to 75 foot range (I don't know what the standard is for that waterway, Intracoastal waterway at Galveston is around 75 feet), and the main span is usually around 350 feet.

The High Five contract was awarded around 2000. There has been a lot of inflation since then and today it would cost much more. The Galveston Causeway rebuild with a 350-foot main span with 75 foot clearance was awarded in 2003 and cost $136 million. It would also cost much more today.
http://aspirebridge.com/magazine/2009Summer/i-45_galveston_sum09.pdf

Bridge crossings with ocean clearance (minimum 175 feet) will generally cost around $1 billion. The planned Houston Ship Channel bridge with 8 lanes is right at $1 billion, and the Corpus Christi bridge is around $900 million (don't quote me on that number).

I'm frequently surprised at the high cost of relatively simple highway projects in Texas, and there has surely been inflation even in low-cost areas such as Arkansas. I'm thinking that highway project costs have increased everywhere, and we just have to get used to it.