I-49 in Arkansas

[triplemultiplex]

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

Good God what a silly idea!  The Corps of Engineers already pisses away billions of dollars keeping waterways commercially navigable that are virtually unused.
Like the Missouri upstream from Omaha or the Arkansas River beyond Little Rock.  It's a struggle to keep the Red River

And these dredging and channelizing activities are ecologically detrimental.  Low gradient rivers have a tendency to meander widely in their valleys over time an build a series of sediment bars and deep holes.  This variety of depth and current proves the best habitat for fish and other wildlife.

When a river is not of sufficient volume to float barges over these normal depth gradients, they must be dredged at great expense, ruining the habitat only to have the river fill them in again in just a few seasons starting the whole process over again.  If we as a society are going to put that kind of time and money into keeping that river navigable, there had better be enough shipping traffic to justify the expense.  The value of the cargo shipped should blow away the cost of dredging.  That standard is not met in too many places.

The last thing this country needs is for the Corps to waste billions fucking up another river.  Here's hoping this proposal dies a quick death.

[Bobby5280]

$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.

I don't know the standards for barge traffic, but other bridges in the Fort Smith area and elsewhere along the Arkansas River in that region don't appear to be that high.

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.

The problem is this insane cost inflation is unsustainable. That is a mathematical fact.

Road building costs are probably now at least 4 to 6 times higher than they were the last time the federal gasoline tax was raised. Compare this to the $4.25 minimum wage in the early 1990s to the minimum wage now: $7.25. Most Americans have not seen their incomes rise at anywhere near as fast as the profane inflation levels of health care costs, college tuitition costs and infrastructure costs.

Companies who build roads and think this kind of trend of out of control costs can continue are completely out of touch with reality. If the trend continues our system for building and maintaining infrastructure will collapse. It's certainly going to happen since several other sectors who compete for taxpayer money have their own perverse inflation bubbles that need to be exploded. American citizens have only so much income and taxes they can give for all this stuff.

I find it pretty alarming this country is losing its ability to build big things. The outrageous costs are one thing. Then there's all the legal entanglements that drain away years or even decades for just a single highway project to get built. One would think with all the technological advancement that has taken place in the past 30 years some of that would translate into road projects getting built faster, more efficiently and even with (gasp) some cost savings through gains in efficiency. From my perspective that sure doesn't look like it is happening.

[US71]

From my perspective, roads are being built higher in cost, but cheaper in quality. Plus there seems to be a lot of waste & repetition (2 people digging ditches, 4 people "supervising").  Parts of I-40 that were resurfaced in the last year or two seem to already be developing problems.

Arkansas' governor wants to fix the roads using budget surpluses and "borrowing" from other services (education). At the same time, he wants to give large tax breaks to corporations. If that doesn't work, he may raise taxes (the state is already trying to pinch small business into coughing up more money)

[yakra]

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

Sagadahoc Bridge, in Maine:
Total length    2,972 feet (906 m)
Width    69 feet (21 m)
Height    75 feet (23 m)
Longest span    420 feet (128 m)
Clearance below    75 feet (23 m)
Cost    $46.6 million

[noelbotevera]

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

Sagadahoc Bridge, in Maine:
Total length    2,972 feet (906 m)
Width    69 feet (21 m)
Height    75 feet (23 m)
Longest span    420 feet (128 m)
Clearance below    75 feet (23 m)
Cost    $46.6 million

Does it have any aesthetic detailing? If not, then it's in the wrong place here if the bridge plans to have that kind of detailing.

[codyg1985]

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

Sagadahoc Bridge, in Maine:
Total length    2,972 feet (906 m)
Width    69 feet (21 m)
Height    75 feet (23 m)
Longest span    420 feet (128 m)
Clearance below    75 feet (23 m)
Cost    $46.6 million

That was opened in 2000. Plus, isn't that a two-lane bridge?

[yakra]

Four-lane.

[noelbotevera]

Four-lane.

Is it a freeway?


Besides, they might decide to add some aesthetics to the bridge. Either plant 100 flowers or plant a million of them, if the price tag is that high.

[yakra]

Four-lane.

Is it a freeway?

No, undivided, single carriageway.

But still though, double the price tag and it's still a long way off from the Galveston Causeway example from 2003 posted upthread. THAT much of a price difference is what I'm trying to wrap my head around.

[rte66man]

Four-lane.

Is it a freeway?

No, undivided, single carriageway.

But still though, double the price tag and it's still a long way off from the Galveston Causeway example from 2003 posted upthread. THAT much of a price difference is what I'm trying to wrap my head around.

It depends on the definition of "bridge".  How much of the approach is included?  Is it in a floodplain?  What kind of land (commercial, agricultural) is involved for the approaches? 

Here is the Maine bridge:
https://goo.gl/maps/yQGWLfXQzQS2

And here is the site of the proposed I49 bridge:
https://goo.gl/maps/frwtxSJPc372

I suspect there weren't any approached included in the cost while the I49 bridge is going to need a LOT of approach work to get across the flood plain to the north of the river.

[yakra]

Aa, sou!

[US71]

The area is prone to flooding and floods often.

[Road Hog]

Four-lane.

Is it a freeway?

No, undivided, single carriageway.

But still though, double the price tag and it's still a long way off from the Galveston Causeway example from 2003 posted upthread. THAT much of a price difference is what I'm trying to wrap my head around.

It depends on the definition of "bridge".  How much of the approach is included?  Is it in a floodplain?  What kind of land (commercial, agricultural) is involved for the approaches? 

Here is the Maine bridge:
https://goo.gl/maps/yQGWLfXQzQS2

And here is the site of the proposed I49 bridge:
https://goo.gl/maps/frwtxSJPc372

I suspect there weren't any approached included in the cost while the I49 bridge is going to need a LOT of approach work to get across the flood plain to the north of the river.

Yes, the flood plain is very clear with all the oxbow formations you can see with aerial view, although those certainly predate the lock and dam system. Still, looks like about a two-mile elevated northern approach.

[apjung]

Is there a way to cut the cost of building the Arkansas River bridge by incorporating the Hwy 59 bridge as the Southbound span and build a parallel 2 lane Northbound span?

[codyg1985]

Since AR 59 crosses a dam, I wonder if there is some sort of concern with routing an interstate highway over a dam? Or maybe it isn't legal?

The homes in the area may also make ROW acquisition more expensive.

Not a bad thought, though.

[bjrush]

AHTD builds all interstate bridges to 500 yr flood elevations also. Something  to consider

[abqtraveler]

AHTD builds all interstate bridges to 500 yr flood elevations also. Something  to consider

That would end up being quite a long bridge over the Arkansas River in the area of Fort Smith.

[Wayward Memphian]

AHTD builds all interstate bridges to 500 yr flood elevations also. Something  to consider

That would end up being quite a long bridge over the Arkansas River in the area of Fort Smith.

It'll be elevated roadway till the actual river crossing

[rte66man]

AHTD builds all interstate bridges to 500 yr flood elevations also. Something  to consider

That would end up being quite a long bridge over the Arkansas River in the area of Fort Smith.

It'll be elevated roadway till the actual river crossing

I would hope not.  That would create a "dam" that would funnel all the runoff down to the bridge.  I would hope they would use I40 in West Memphis as a model.  Plenty of places for flood waters to pass through without undermining the roadway.

[abqtraveler]

AHTD builds all interstate bridges to 500 yr flood elevations also. Something  to consider

That would end up being quite a long bridge over the Arkansas River in the area of Fort Smith.

It'll be elevated roadway till the actual river crossing

I would hope not.  That would create a "dam" that would funnel all the runoff down to the bridge.  I would hope they would use I40 in West Memphis as a model.  Plenty of places for flood waters to pass through without undermining the roadway.

So why again did Arkansas decide to build a new alignment and new bridge for I-49 around Fort Smith rather than following US-71 and then tying into I-540 on the south side of Fort Smith?  That would seem like a more logical (and less costly solution) than building a new terrain route and bridge.

[Grzrd]

So why again did Arkansas decide to build a new alignment and new bridge for I-49 around Fort Smith rather than following US-71 and then tying into I-540 on the south side of Fort Smith?  That would seem like a more logical (and less costly solution) than building a new terrain route and bridge.

The official conclusion was that doing so would have been impracticable:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2079077#msg2079077

This post contains a bit more information about the I-540 option:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2079426;topicseen#msg2079426

[US71]

AHTD builds all interstate bridges to 500 yr flood elevations also. Something  to consider

That would end up being quite a long bridge over the Arkansas River in the area of Fort Smith.

Have you seen the bridges on I-49 north of Alma?

(moving along...)

Don't forget I-540 was planned to extend to Fayetteville nearly 50 years ago, BEFORE anyone thought of I-49. A combination of money and environmental impact kept from being built at the time.

I-540 is also proposed to eventually be rerouted to I-49, brancing off somewhere near Exit 10 (Old Greenwood Rd)

[Wayward Memphian]

AHTD builds all interstate bridges to 500 yr flood elevations also. Something  to consider

That would end up being quite a long bridge over the Arkansas River in the area of Fort Smith.

It'll be elevated roadway till the actual river crossing

I would hope not.  That would create a "dam" that would funnel all the runoff down to the bridge.  I would hope they would use I40 in West Memphis as a model.  Plenty of places for flood waters to pass through without undermining the roadway.

It would have some viaducts, it's much like the approaches to the two bridges at Memphis.

[Grzrd]

the Governor's Working Group on Highway Funding Short-Term Recommendation also acknowledges mid-term target, long-term target, and ultimate needs funding goals for highways. The timetable for Ultimate Needs is "ten years in the future" and includes the completion of I-49 as one of the needs (pp. 4-5/15 of pdf; pp. 3-4 of document)

This article, primarily about a Pennsylvania company buying an old Mitsubishi warehouse in Fort Smith, includes an interesting comment from Gov. Hutchinson.  In regard to I-49, instead of commenting on the need to build the I-49 Arkansas River bridge on the northern side of Fort Smith, he commented on the need to finish I-49 south of Fort Smith:

The push to complete Interstate 49 through Fort Smith was also mentioned by the governor who described Fort Smith as "perfectly located"  for business.
"It points to the need for a new highway program in the state, and Fort Smith is ground zero for that, needing to complete I-49 going south that will help us in the transportation network,"  Hutchinson said. "With the new federal highway bill, it gives us an opportunity to increase funding from Arkansas. We've presented a highway plan that will allow new investments in highway structure without raising taxes, and we need everyone's support for that because it will bring even more jobs to the river valley."

Gov. Hutchinson's comment surprised me because current plans for the Chaffee Crossing to Red River section of I-49 seem to have that work at least a decade away.  That said, might we see work on the Mena bypass in a few years?



I sometimes forget that AHTD is currently making significant expenditures on I-49 by uppgrading the "old I-540" through NWA. This slide from a February 19 presentation to the Rogers Chamber of Commerce provides a good summary of past, present, and scheduled work on I-49 in Benton and Washington counties (p. 4/31 of pdf):



Not glamorous progress, but progress nonetheless.

[Wayward Memphian]

the Governor's Working Group on Highway Funding Short-Term Recommendation also acknowledges mid-term target, long-term target, and ultimate needs funding goals for highways. The timetable for Ultimate Needs is "ten years in the future" and includes the completion of I-49 as one of the needs (pp. 4-5/15 of pdf; pp. 3-4 of document)

This article, primarily about a Pennsylvania company buying an old Mitsubishi warehouse in Fort Smith, includes an interesting comment from Gov. Hutchinson.  In regard to I-49, instead of commenting on the need to build the I-49 Arkansas River bridge on the northern side of Fort Smith, he commented on the need to finish I-49 south of Fort Smith:

The push to complete Interstate 49 through Fort Smith was also mentioned by the governor who described Fort Smith as "perfectly located"  for business.
"It points to the need for a new highway program in the state, and Fort Smith is ground zero for that, needing to complete I-49 going south that will help us in the transportation network,"  Hutchinson said. "With the new federal highway bill, it gives us an opportunity to increase funding from Arkansas. We've presented a highway plan that will allow new investments in highway structure without raising taxes, and we need everyone's support for that because it will bring even more jobs to the river valley."

Gov. Hutchinson's comment surprised me because current plans for the Chaffee Crossing to Red River section of I-49 seem to have that work at least a decade away.  That said, might we see work on the Mena bypass in a few years?



I sometimes forget that AHTD is currently making significant expenditures on I-49 by uppgrading the "old I-540" through NWA. This slide from a February 19 presentation to the Rogers Chamber of Commerce provides a good summary of past, present, and scheduled work on I-49 in Benton and Washington counties (p. 4/31 of pdf):



Not glamorous progress, but progress nonetheless.

Fayetteville/NWA got bumped up to #3 on the US News and World Report 2016 Best Places to Live List. The boom isn't slowing down, but I-49 needs done to Texarkana ASAP.