https://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-006.pdf (https://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-006.pdf)
Regional open houses for projects possible with different funding levels. I'm personally for extending the 1/2 cent sales tax, but not perpetually as will be voted on. Taxes have a way of never dying once implemented perpetually, and I think it's good stewardship of public resources to have to re-justify every 10 years or so like this last sunsetting tax.
The language in the PDF seems pretty clear that the 1/2¢ sales tax will provide an additional $205 million annually to ARDOT. They estimate $43 million each to cities and counties. Is that $43 million spread out, divided among cities and counties or does each county and big city get $43 million per year to use on highway projects? The latter would seem pretty big.
I'm not a big fan of sales tax initiatives. From one town to the next various 1/4¢, 1/2¢ and 1¢ measures can add up quickly and pass a price/pain threshold. That threshold can make or break a consumer's choice whether the buy a product locally or find some place online selling the same product without the sales taxes. And sometimes the added sales taxes for a given product will be high enough that it convinces the consumer not to buy the product at all. Many consumers want the product they desire right now. I think they're willing to pay a small amount in sales taxes in return for the luxury of being able to acquire it immediately as opposed to waiting a couple or more days for the merchandise to arrive in the mail.
Any city or town is really going to be pushing its luck with consumers if sales tax levels reach the 9¢-10¢ per $1 level. What complicates matters is that as one initiative expires there always seems to be other initiatives that move in and keep a high sales tax level at that level. There is an argument that if a given town allows a bunch of these measures to sunset it would create a price advantage that draws more consumers and business to the area.
Sales tax initiatives are also regressive in that the pain of those taxes is more acutely felt by people in lower income groups and with less disposable income. People in the top income brackets feel more financial pain from property taxes and income taxes.
That issue aside, AR DOT has a lot on its plate. It has taken what seems like forever for projects like the I-49 Belle Vista Bypass or US-67 freeway to Walnut Ridge to get built. The I-49 segment between Fort Smith and Texarkana and I-69 in Southern Arkansas are both major projects that will consume billions of dollars. Then there's all the existing roads and bridges that have to be maintained. The 1/2¢ sales tax measure will provide a good funding boost for those projects. It seems like a "hold your nose and vote yes" proposition.
Given that it's Arkansas we're talking about, I'm sure it's $43M split across the counties in the state, and $43M split across the cities in the state. We just don't have the economy that surrounding states have, but we're trying to put the infrastructure in place to make it better to conduct business here. I just got done touring several areas of the state this past week and a half for IT equipment replacement projects for some restaurants and law firm branches around the state, and I'm seeing fiber deployments by the electric cooperatives rolling out right now to alleviate some of the backwards Internet connectivity in the rural parts where DSL is still king. If the private sector won't do it, then the people who live here will band together and do it anyway. Gives me great hope in the future of this place, but there'll be some pain in the process of getting there. And as far as regressive taxes go, this one isn't really that regressive since it splits up the burden across most everyone in the state as well as those who pass through and stop over for a bit. People of all income levels have to consume something in this state, and the rich don't really cause any more wear on the roads than poor people do. Rich or poor, most drive large pickups or SUVs in this state as they are the most durable and useful form of vehicle given that this is still predominantly a rural state. They all do about the same damage as any other, unless we're talking about chicken trucks, retail delivery trucks, logging trucks, or just the overall truck freight passing through the state. Diesel road taxes are higher to compensate for that, though.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 12, 2020, 11:37:26 AM
I'm not a big fan of sales tax initiatives. From one town to the next various 1/4¢, 1/2¢ and 1¢ measures can add up quickly and pass a price/pain threshold. That threshold can make or break a consumer's choice whether the buy a product locally or find some place online selling the same product without the sales taxes. And sometimes the added sales taxes for a given product will be high enough that it convinces the consumer not to buy the product at all. Many consumers want the product they desire right now. I think they're willing to pay a small amount in sales taxes in return for the luxury of being able to acquire it immediately as opposed to waiting a couple or more days for the merchandise to arrive in the mail.
Any city or town is really going to be pushing its luck with consumers if sales tax levels reach the 9¢-10¢ per $1 level. What complicates matters is that as one initiative expires there always seems to be other initiatives that move in and keep a high sales tax level at that level. There is an argument that if a given town allows a bunch of these measures to sunset it would create a price advantage that draws more consumers and business to the area.
Sales tax is still due for online purchases.
Also, most cities, especially any of size like in NWA, are already at 9-10% total sales tax.
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 12, 2020, 09:30:56 AM
https://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-006.pdf (https://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-006.pdf)
Regional open houses for projects possible with different funding levels. I'm personally for extending the 1/2 cent sales tax, but not perpetually as will be voted on. Taxes have a way of never dying once implemented perpetually, and I think it's good stewardship of public resources to have to re-justify every 10 years or so like this last sunsetting tax.
Maybe Arkansas should quit giving tax breaks to the wealthy. Their taxes seem to go down every time they go UP for everyone else.
Quote from: US71 on January 14, 2020, 01:02:48 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 12, 2020, 09:30:56 AM
https://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-006.pdf (https://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-006.pdf)
Regional open houses for projects possible with different funding levels. I'm personally for extending the 1/2 cent sales tax, but not perpetually as will be voted on. Taxes have a way of never dying once implemented perpetually, and I think it's good stewardship of public resources to have to re-justify every 10 years or so like this last sunsetting tax.
Maybe Arkansas should quit giving tax breaks to the wealthy. Their taxes seem to go down every time they go UP for everyone else.
Sam Pittman, new Arkansas football coach, $3 million annually
Eric Musselman, new Arkansas basketball coach, $2.5 million annually + incentives
Get back to me when the state lowers your taxes to support cheaper sports programs.
Quote from: edwaleni on January 14, 2020, 07:51:48 PM
Quote from: US71 on January 14, 2020, 01:02:48 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 12, 2020, 09:30:56 AM
https://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-006.pdf (https://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-006.pdf)
Regional open houses for projects possible with different funding levels. I'm personally for extending the 1/2 cent sales tax, but not perpetually as will be voted on. Taxes have a way of never dying once implemented perpetually, and I think it's good stewardship of public resources to have to re-justify every 10 years or so like this last sunsetting tax.
Maybe Arkansas should quit giving tax breaks to the wealthy. Their taxes seem to go down every time they go UP for everyone else.
Sam Pittman, new Arkansas football coach, $3 million annually
Eric Musselman, new Arkansas basketball coach, $2.5 million annually + incentives
Get back to me when the state lowers your taxes to support cheaper sports programs.
Theoretically, most of that comes from the Booster Club member who get big tax breaks to donate to athletics.
I found the site where they have the presentations from the meetings and other interesting stuff: http://ardot.gov/renew. I found this site thanks to this article recapping the public meeting from Monticello (https://www.mymonticellonews.net/news/ar-dot-holds-first-regional-public-meeting-monticello).
Of interest to me was what the second round of the Connecting Arkansas Program would be if this tax passes: http://ardot.gov/renew/Statewide/Map3_CAP_2.pdf
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/12408_29_01_20_5_30_10.jpeg)
Quote from: mvak36 on January 29, 2020, 05:34:03 PM
I found the site where they have the presentations from the meetings and other interesting stuff: http://ardot.gov/renew. I found this site thanks to this article recapping the public meeting from Monticello (https://www.mymonticellonews.net/news/ar-dot-holds-first-regional-public-meeting-monticello).
Of interest to me was what the second round of the Connecting Arkansas Program would be if this tax passes: http://ardot.gov/renew/Statewide/Map3_CAP_2.pdf
Trouble with this tax is, there isn't a timeframe for implementing the projects, and this tax won't have a sunset like the previous one did. Pretty much $1 billion is spent in central Arkansas and along I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis. That's pretty much as much as the rest of the other projects combined across the state. The southeastern part of the state is limited to US-82 and bits of I-69. The western part of the state gets some super-2 AR-549 in the Future I-49 corridor. The northestern corner gets a very ambiguous I-57 bone thrown their way. Little Rock has got to be the most well-connected and road project hungry metropolitan area of its population size anywhere in the nation. With all of the traffic that is actually transiting the state that passes through there, you'd think they'd find a better way to fund those projects than a sales tax.
The XNA connector humorously has a state shield with TBD in it. Every roadgeek in Arkansas knows that it will almost assuredly be AR-980.
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 29, 2020, 06:28:46 PM
Trouble with this tax is, there isn't a timeframe for implementing the projects, and this tax won't have a sunset like the previous one did. Pretty much $1 billion is spent in central Arkansas and along I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis. That's pretty much as much as the rest of the other projects combined across the state. The southeastern part of the state is limited to US-82 and bits of I-69. The western part of the state gets some super-2 AR-549 in the Future I-49 corridor. The northestern corner gets a very ambiguous I-57 bone thrown their way. Little Rock has got to be the most well-connected and road project hungry metropolitan area of its population size anywhere in the nation. With all of the traffic that is actually transiting the state that passes through there, you'd think they'd find a better way to fund those projects than a sales tax.
The XNA connector humorously has a state shield with TBD in it. Every roadgeek in Arkansas knows that it will almost assuredly be AR-980.
Yeah I guess I didn't think about how long the timeframe was for all the projects they have on that map. Looking at the presentation from the Harrison meeting (page 12 of the pdf (http://ardot.gov/renew/PowerPoints/20200128%20SEB%20-%20Harrison%20PM%20Slides.pdf)), it looks like it will be 10 years.
I havent added it up but the Little Rock area got a lot of the money from the previous 10 year sales tax. I think they can pass a sales tax for that area and build all the damn roads they want. Look at south west part of the state got nothing but city and county money the first time and the same on this proposal. From Texarkana to 270 Hwy. is nothing marked up again.
Quote from: Gordon on January 29, 2020, 06:57:01 PM
I havent added it up but the Little Rock area got a lot of the money from the previous 10 year sales tax. I think they can pass a sales tax for that area and build all the damn roads they want. Look at south west part of the state got nothing but city and county money the first time and the same on this proposal. From Texarkana to 270 Hwy. is nothing marked up again.
Little Rock always gets a large share of tax money, as does the Northwest corner. Everyone else is basically told "take a number".
Quote from: mvak36 on January 29, 2020, 05:34:03 PM
I found the site where they have the presentations from the meetings and other interesting stuff: http://ardot.gov/renew. I found this site thanks to this article recapping the public meeting from Monticello (https://www.mymonticellonews.net/news/ar-dot-holds-first-regional-public-meeting-monticello).
US138? US35??
Quote from: US71 on January 29, 2020, 08:38:40 PM
Quote from: Gordon on January 29, 2020, 06:57:01 PM
I havent added it up but the Little Rock area got a lot of the money from the previous 10 year sales tax. I think they can pass a sales tax for that area and build all the damn roads they want. Look at south west part of the state got nothing but city and county money the first time and the same on this proposal. From Texarkana to 270 Hwy. is nothing marked up again.
Little Rock always gets a large share of tax money, as does the Northwest corner. Everyone else is basically told "take a number".
JMO (with an educated guess) but add "I-30 between Texarkana and Little Rock" to the above if Texas I-69/I-369 gets finished (well) before Arkansas I-49 does. I'm all for seeing it built, but the thought of adding Houston/Mexico traffic to the existing Texas traffic running that route without I-49 north to relieve it makes me shudder.
I don't expect the XNA connector to be signed as Airport 980. I predict that it will get a regular state highway number.
I'd pretty much expect I-57 to be in the exact same situation as I-49 around Bella Vista: Get MO to build the missing pieces as soon as it reaches the state line. Then again, I-57 would have a larger gap to fill, as Sikeston is further away from the line than Pineville, is it not?
Bumping this thread since it's close to election time.
Question for the forum members in Arkansas. How is this ballot measure looking? Does it have a good chance of passing?
I haven't been able to find many articles for or against this measure so I was curious.
Quote from: mvak36 on October 19, 2020, 06:23:33 PM
Bumping this thread since it's close to election time.
Question for the forum members in Arkansas. How is this ballot measure looking? Does it have a good chance of passing?
I haven't been able to find many articles for or against this measure so I was curious.
According to news sources, the tax will likely pass. ARDOT is pushing it hard.
Quote from: US71 on October 19, 2020, 06:30:16 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on October 19, 2020, 06:23:33 PM
Bumping this thread since it's close to election time.
Question for the forum members in Arkansas. How is this ballot measure looking? Does it have a good chance of passing?
I haven't been able to find many articles for or against this measure so I was curious.
According to news sources, the tax will likely pass. ARDOT is pushing it hard.
Cool. It will be interesting to see what the next round of projects will be (if it passes).
Quote from: mvak36 on October 19, 2020, 06:34:36 PM
Quote from: US71 on October 19, 2020, 06:30:16 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on October 19, 2020, 06:23:33 PM
Bumping this thread since it's close to election time.
Question for the forum members in Arkansas. How is this ballot measure looking? Does it have a good chance of passing?
I haven't been able to find many articles for or against this measure so I was curious.
According to news sources, the tax will likely pass. ARDOT is pushing it hard.
Cool. It will be interesting to see what the next round of projects will be (if it passes).
One is likely widening I-30 through Little Rock, another is a proposed highway connecting AR 612 with AR 264 near Cave Springs. Beyond that, I've not heard.
Quote from: US71 on October 19, 2020, 10:21:17 PM
One is likely widening I-30 through Little Rock, another is a proposed highway connecting AR 612 with AR 264 near Cave Springs. Beyond that, I've not heard.
Isn't the I-30 project (https://www.connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/9/i-30-pulaski-county/) already being done under the first CAP program? I suppose part of it will be still under construction in 2023, so that would make sense.
Quote from: mvak36 on October 19, 2020, 11:44:15 PM
Quote from: US71 on October 19, 2020, 10:21:17 PM
One is likely widening I-30 through Little Rock, another is a proposed highway connecting AR 612 with AR 264 near Cave Springs. Beyond that, I've not heard.
Isn't the I-30 project (https://www.connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/9/i-30-pulaski-county/) already being done under the first CAP program? I suppose part of it will be still under construction in 2023, so that would make sense.
I'm just guessing. I've not seen much info on what they want to do with the money (besides waste it)
Quote from: US71 on October 20, 2020, 08:41:04 AM
Quote from: mvak36 on October 19, 2020, 11:44:15 PM
Quote from: US71 on October 19, 2020, 10:21:17 PM
One is likely widening I-30 through Little Rock, another is a proposed highway connecting AR 612 with AR 264 near Cave Springs. Beyond that, I've not heard.
Isn't the I-30 project (https://www.connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/9/i-30-pulaski-county/) already being done under the first CAP program? I suppose part of it will be still under construction in 2023, so that would make sense.
I'm just guessing. I've not seen much info on what they want to do with the money (besides waste it)
:-D
That's par for the course. I figured they will just pick projects from the ones listed in here: http://ardot.gov/renew/Statewide/Map3_CAP_2.pdf
I suppose they could just pick all of them since this 1/2 cent tax will be permanent if it passes (but it will take 20 years to build it all).
Quote from: mvak36 on October 20, 2020, 08:47:53 AM
Quote from: US71 on October 20, 2020, 08:41:04 AM
Quote from: mvak36 on October 19, 2020, 11:44:15 PM
Quote from: US71 on October 19, 2020, 10:21:17 PM
One is likely widening I-30 through Little Rock, another is a proposed highway connecting AR 612 with AR 264 near Cave Springs. Beyond that, I've not heard.
Isn't the I-30 project (https://www.connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/9/i-30-pulaski-county/) already being done under the first CAP program? I suppose part of it will be still under construction in 2023, so that would make sense.
I'm just guessing. I've not seen much info on what they want to do with the money (besides waste it)
:-D
That's par for the course. I figured they will just pick projects from the ones listed in here: http://ardot.gov/renew/Statewide/Map3_CAP_2.pdf
I suppose they could just pick all of them since this 1/2 cent tax will be permanent if it passes (but it will take 20 years to build it all).
Knowing ARDOT, they will suddenly find other projects they want to fund, while existing roads get progressively worse. From my perspective, they'll be spedning money like a drunken sailor.
Does this mean toll lanes on IH49 And IH 30 in the Little Rock area. Even a 50 cent toll would go a long way into solving traffic issues.
Quote from: Tomahawkin on October 20, 2020, 11:06:54 AM
Does this mean toll lanes on IH49 And IH 30 in the Little Rock area. Even a 50 cent toll would go a long way into solving traffic issues.
Not unless they change highway law (tolls are currently not allowed on public roads)
That may not happen for another 25 years! Oy!
Quote from: Tomahawkin on October 20, 2020, 03:03:49 PM
That may not happen for another 25 years! Oy!
They'll just have to raise sales taxes again.....
Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?
Quote from: 3467 on October 20, 2020, 06:23:10 PM
Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?
Probably "Future 49" or "Future 69"
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8252/29520663240_6c434e6221_z_d.jpg)
Permanent 1/2 cent sales tax for roads, has passed in Arkansas by 55 to 45 percent margin.
Yes, its about time! That sales tax increase was 20 years overdue
Quote from: Tomahawkin on November 04, 2020, 01:03:56 PM
Yes, its about time! That sales tax increase was 20 years overdue
It wasn't set to expire for a couple more years, though (before they made it permananet)
This is kinda off topic, but I gotta say ARDOT's website is bad. Like, really bad. It might be the worst state DOT website in the country. Project info is buried or nonexistent, the layout is all over the place, and the website in general looks like something from 2005. At least idrivearkansas.com is decent.
Quote from: US71 on November 04, 2020, 01:12:08 PM
Quote from: Tomahawkin on November 04, 2020, 01:03:56 PM
Yes, its about time! That sales tax increase was 20 years overdue
It wasn't set to expire for a couple more years, though (before they made it permananet)
Now we get to see how good of stewards they will be with our money now that they don't have to periodically justify their project speed/costs.
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 04, 2020, 05:04:54 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 04, 2020, 01:12:08 PM
Quote from: Tomahawkin on November 04, 2020, 01:03:56 PM
Yes, its about time! That sales tax increase was 20 years overdue
It wasn't set to expire for a couple more years, though (before they made it permananet)
Now we get to see how good of stewards they will be with our money now that they don't have to periodically justify their project speed/costs.
That was one of my concerns. I fear there will be too many "pet" projects while necessary work gets shoved to the back burner
Quote from: STLmapboy on November 04, 2020, 02:08:33 PM
This is kinda off topic, but I gotta say ARDOT's website is bad. Like, really bad. It might be the worst state DOT website in the country. Project info is buried or nonexistent, the layout is all over the place, and the website in general looks like something from 2005. At least idrivearkansas.com is decent.
Taking a quick look at the wayback machine, they haven't had a major UI update in over a decade, and the previous version makes this one look good.
Quote from: Tomahawkin on November 04, 2020, 01:03:56 PM
Yes, its about time! That sales tax increase was 20 years overdue
Now there will be money for ArDOT to move forward on building more sections of I-49 and I-69.
Quote from: 3467 on October 20, 2020, 06:23:10 PM
Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?
The 2-lane sections of Future I-49 would probably be signed as AR-549, like what's being done now. For future I-69 sections that get built, I have no idea how ArDOT would designate those, but they won't be signed as interstates until they're fully built out to interstate standards and they connect to another interstate route.
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 04, 2020, 07:38:51 PM
Quote from: 3467 on October 20, 2020, 06:23:10 PM
Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?
The 2-lane sections of Future I-49 would probably be signed as AR-549, like what's being done now. For future I-69 sections that get built, I have no idea how ArDOT would designate those, but they won't be signed as interstates until they're fully built out to interstate standards and they connect to another interstate route.
I'd bet that they'll be AR-569. That's what the Future I's inevitably end up as.
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 04, 2020, 05:56:56 PM
Quote from: Tomahawkin on November 04, 2020, 01:03:56 PM
Yes, its about time! That sales tax increase was 20 years overdue
Now there will be money for ArDOT to move forward on building more sections of I-49 and I-69.
and US 412/ AR 612 and the 612/264 connector and possibly widening AR 112
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 05, 2020, 04:04:11 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 04, 2020, 07:38:51 PM
Quote from: 3467 on October 20, 2020, 06:23:10 PM
Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?
The 2-lane sections of Future I-49 would probably be signed as AR-549, like what's being done now. For future I-69 sections that get built, I have no idea how ArDOT would designate those, but they won't be signed as interstates until they're fully built out to interstate standards and they connect to another interstate route.
I would think ArDOT would sign the section from Monticello to McGehee as US-278 or US-278 Bypass until the rest of I-69 gets built, which would be a continuation of the US-278 Bypass designation currently found on the Monticello Bypass. If they decide to sign it as US-278, then the current 278 route would have to be designated something else or transferred to the respective counties and maintained as a county road.
I'd bet that they'll be AR-569. That's what the Future I's inevitably end up as.
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 05, 2020, 07:24:12 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 05, 2020, 04:04:11 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 04, 2020, 07:38:51 PM
Quote from: 3467 on October 20, 2020, 06:23:10 PM
Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?
The 2-lane sections of Future I-49 would probably be signed as AR-549, like what's being done now. For future I-69 sections that get built, I have no idea how ArDOT would designate those, but they won't be signed as interstates until they're fully built out to interstate standards and they connect to another interstate route.
I would think ArDOT would sign the section from Monticello to McGehee as US-278 or US-278 Bypass until the rest of I-69 gets built, which would be a continuation of the US-278 Bypass designation currently found on the Monticello Bypass. If they decide to sign it as US-278, then the current 278 route would have to be designated something else or transferred to the respective counties and maintained as a county road.
I'd bet that they'll be AR-569. That's what the Future I's inevitably end up as.
That particular stretch will likely be labelled as US-278 Bypass or, more likely, US-278 with the current one getting renumbered to Business US-278 like US-62 around Prairie Grove was redesignated. Any additional future Super-2 segments would likely be AR-569.
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 05, 2020, 08:49:55 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 05, 2020, 07:24:12 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 05, 2020, 04:04:11 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 04, 2020, 07:38:51 PM
Quote from: 3467 on October 20, 2020, 06:23:10 PM
Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?
The 2-lane sections of Future I-49 would probably be signed as AR-549, like what's being done now. For future I-69 sections that get built, I have no idea how ArDOT would designate those, but they won't be signed as interstates until they're fully built out to interstate standards and they connect to another interstate route.
I would think ArDOT would sign the section from Monticello to McGehee as US-278 or US-278 Bypass until the rest of I-69 gets built, which would be a continuation of the US-278 Bypass designation currently found on the Monticello Bypass. If they decide to sign it as US-278, then the current 278 route would have to be designated something else or transferred to the respective counties and maintained as a county road.
I'd bet that they'll be AR-569. That's what the Future I's inevitably end up as.
That particular stretch will likely be labelled as US-278 Bypass or, more likely, US-278 with the current one getting renumbered to Business US-278 like US-62 around Prairie Grove was redesignated. Any additional future Super-2 segments would likely be AR-569.
There's a Fakebook page for Future I-69, but I've not been monitoring it
Quote from: US71 on November 05, 2020, 09:19:04 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 05, 2020, 08:49:55 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 05, 2020, 07:24:12 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 05, 2020, 04:04:11 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 04, 2020, 07:38:51 PM
Quote from: 3467 on October 20, 2020, 06:23:10 PM
Will they get to sign 49 and 69 even though they are going to be 2 lanes for a while?
The 2-lane sections of Future I-49 would probably be signed as AR-549, like what's being done now. For future I-69 sections that get built, I have no idea how ArDOT would designate those, but they won't be signed as interstates until they're fully built out to interstate standards and they connect to another interstate route.
I would think ArDOT would sign the section from Monticello to McGehee as US-278 or US-278 Bypass until the rest of I-69 gets built, which would be a continuation of the US-278 Bypass designation currently found on the Monticello Bypass. If they decide to sign it as US-278, then the current 278 route would have to be designated something else or transferred to the respective counties and maintained as a county road.
I'd bet that they'll be AR-569. That's what the Future I's inevitably end up as.
That particular stretch will likely be labelled as US-278 Bypass or, more likely, US-278 with the current one getting renumbered to Business US-278 like US-62 around Prairie Grove was redesignated. Any additional future Super-2 segments would likely be AR-569.
There's a Fakebook page for Future I-69, but I've not been monitoring it
Probably because there hasn't been enough change in the status quo to warrant anyone actually maintaining such a page, other than this one lonely bypass.