AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The next forum trivia night will take place on OCTOBER 30, 2019 at 8:15 PM Eastern.

Author Topic: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)  (Read 290109 times)

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1912
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:43:58 AM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #325 on: August 01, 2013, 10:49:25 AM »

Anyone visiting the area between Bentonville and Fayetteville for the first time would be surprised at just how urban that region has become. There just isn't any one particular large city anchoring it all together in a traditional city & suburbs sense. Yet a visitor can drive along I-540 through places like Rogers and Springdale and see restaurants and retailers they would find only in other large cities; I'm talking 500,000+ population and over cities.

The region has grown enough that planners really need to start identifying future superhighway corridors to improve traffic movement in the area before every possible loop route from I-540/49 gets boxed in with development. For instance, I think the route between Tulsa & Springdale needs to be Interstate quality (mostly along US-412) the whole way, not just the Cherokee Turnpike leg of it. But as each year passes it will become ever more difficult to build such a thing. The development along the border in Siloam Springs would be difficult/expensive to bypass due to the terrain. Businesses in Tontitown along US-412 are close to the road. Any future freeway connection through there would have to be on a new alignment to the south of US-412.

Rogers, Lowell, Springdale, Johnson & Fayetteville already need an East loop off I-540. Looking at what's on the East edge of those cities in Google Earth makes me think building such a loop would be a very difficult proposition, both in terms of price and politics. However, the widening that is in the works for I-540 isn't going to be enough for this area for very long.

College football is another matter. There's no question the SEC is dominant in football, but that's mainly Alabama & LSU doing a lot of the domination.
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1094
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: September 02, 2019, 05:12:17 PM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #326 on: August 01, 2013, 01:54:34 PM »

But the Rogers/Fayetteville/Bentonville metro has turned into a very important destination along the Interstate highway system, enough so that I would expect increasing pressure for Arkansas to get I-49 completed even if that means cutting out Texas' part of the proposed route.

Here's a wild one:

Northwest Arkansas (Rogers/Fayetteville/Bentonville), with three Fortune 500 companies (and their adherents) has more Fortune 500 companies than 22 states or the District of Columbia.

With two Fortune 100 company headquarters, Northwest Arkansas alone has more in that category than Arizona (Phoenix), Colorado (Denver), Florida (Miami/Fort Lauderdale, Tampa/St. Pete, Orlando, Jacksonville), Indiana (Indianapolis) or Missouri (St. Louis, Kansas City).

And that's before you factor in "S.E.C., Inc." which right now is the most highly-decorated college athletic conference (with the SEC West including member Arkansas having the last 5 of the last 6 BCS champions and 3 of the last 4 Heisman winners).

This metro area is a boom town and has been for some time.

Last I checked the area already has I-540 running through it.  US 71 provides multiple lanes and I-49 is almost built out in MO.  First the US highway sign isn't good enough so they put up the spur interstate, I-540.  Now that isn't good enough.  Folks knew the limitations of the highway system when they moved in.  Why should other property owners' have their property divided up for the sake of these newcomers?
Logged

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 364
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 11:39:07 PM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #327 on: August 01, 2013, 02:15:42 PM »

But the Rogers/Fayetteville/Bentonville metro has turned into a very important destination along the Interstate highway system, enough so that I would expect increasing pressure for Arkansas to get I-49 completed even if that means cutting out Texas' part of the proposed route.

Here's a wild one:

Northwest Arkansas (Rogers/Fayetteville/Bentonville), with three Fortune 500 companies (and their adherents) has more Fortune 500 companies than 22 states or the District of Columbia.

With two Fortune 100 company headquarters, Northwest Arkansas alone has more in that category than Arizona (Phoenix), Colorado (Denver), Florida (Miami/Fort Lauderdale, Tampa/St. Pete, Orlando, Jacksonville), Indiana (Indianapolis) or Missouri (St. Louis, Kansas City).

And that's before you factor in "S.E.C., Inc." which right now is the most highly-decorated college athletic conference (with the SEC West including member Arkansas having the last 5 of the last 6 BCS champions and 3 of the last 4 Heisman winners).

This metro area is a boom town and has been for some time.

Last I checked the area already has I-540 running through it.  US 71 provides multiple lanes and I-49 is almost built out in MO.  First the US highway sign isn't good enough so they put up the spur interstate, I-540.  Now that isn't good enough.  Folks knew the limitations of the highway system when they moved in.  Why should other property owners' have their property divided up for the sake of these newcomers?

I'm guessing the other boomtowns Las Vegas and Orlando had people asking the same question.

But it may be because right now it's estimated that Northwest Arkansas/Fort Smith has a combined metro population, right now, of 784,000 people, which would be bigger than:

Des Moines/Ames (area has two thru interstates)
Wichita/Hutchinson (area has two thru interstates counting the turnpikes)
Chattanooga/Cleveland(TN) (area has three thru interstates)
Mobile/Daphne (area has two interstates, one thru)
Huntsville/Florence (area has one thru interstate)
Springfield/Branson (area has one thru interstate)
Shreveport/Texarkana (area will have 4-5 interstates, 2-3 thru ones depending upon how you count them)
Jackson/Vicksburg (area has two thru interstates)

In addition, in 30 years Northwest Arkansas alone is predicted (without Fort Smith) to have 1,000,000 people.  (Right now, Fort Smith has just under 300,000 in its metro.  If I-49 is linked some studies indicate it will grow to around 400,000+.)

So, indeed, I think it makes sense to finish at least the Bella Vista Bypass (though as always I am sorry some property owners will be impinged upon...always happens but it is a pain for some, boon for others).  And a whale of a lot of sense to finish I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana.  Now, whether common sense will be exercised or not...
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1912
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:43:58 AM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #328 on: August 01, 2013, 03:41:32 PM »

If the population of NW AR keeps growing at a fast pace they'll be forced to build additional superhighways. Traffic is already pretty bad in some areas there. They certainly don't want to have situations like those the cities of Austin and Phoenix faced (and are still dealing with in spite of new freeways finally being built in recent years).

I certainly like the approach used in many areas of Texas: identify a possible future freeway corridor. Secure the right of way and build a divided street with a median wide enough to hold a freeway that would/could be built 10-20 years or so in the future. In Wichita Falls it was relatively easy for them to build Kell Freeway as funds came available. The divided surface street had the right of way reserved for the freeway since at least since the 1970's.

I'm disappointed that kind of approach hasn't been used here in Oklahoma. In Oklahoma City, the Kilpatrick Turnpike would probably be a complete loop around OKC and Norman if ODOT and other powers that be had at least some foresight to secure that entire corridor while it was still pretty much undeveloped. Today Mustang, OK has grown over where OK-4 could have attached into the Kilpatrick Turnpike. All the development around Riverwind Casino south of Norman is covering up any possible upgrade of OK-9 into I-35. In the long term that loop highway may have to be completed, but if so it will cost a whole lot more than it would have thanks to lack of long term planning.
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8291
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:08 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #329 on: August 04, 2013, 02:51:48 PM »

If the population of NW AR keeps growing at a fast pace they'll be forced to build additional superhighways. Traffic is already pretty bad in some areas there. They certainly don't want to have situations like those the cities of Austin and Phoenix faced (and are still dealing with in spite of new freeways finally being built in recent years).

I certainly like the approach used in many areas of Texas: identify a possible future freeway corridor. Secure the right of way and build a divided street with a median wide enough to hold a freeway that would/could be built 10-20 years or so in the future. In Wichita Falls it was relatively easy for them to build Kell Freeway as funds came available. The divided surface street had the right of way reserved for the freeway since at least since the 1970's.

I'm disappointed that kind of approach hasn't been used here in Oklahoma. In Oklahoma City, the Kilpatrick Turnpike would probably be a complete loop around OKC and Norman if ODOT and other powers that be had at least some foresight to secure that entire corridor while it was still pretty much undeveloped. Today Mustang, OK has grown over where OK-4 could have attached into the Kilpatrick Turnpike. All the development around Riverwind Casino south of Norman is covering up any possible upgrade of OK-9 into I-35. In the long term that loop highway may have to be completed, but if so it will cost a whole lot more than it would have thanks to lack of long term planning.

If it was really desired they could extend the OK-9 expressway in Cleveland County along the river for a bit and have a second bridge crossing, then tie into the current expressway west of Santa Fe Avenue (NW 24th Street in Goldsby). It would be expensive though.

Unfortunately I don't think any sort of planning here would have been possible, or at the very least really hard to pull off, since northern McClain County is a bit of mess when it comes to jurisdictions. Despite everything in that cluster having a Norman mailing address, the north side of the highway (Love's, the bank, Mason's) is all in Newcastle and the south side (Riverwind, McDonalds, Shell, the medical clinic) is in Goldsby. I don't think Goldsby even has a planning department, as it's a town of about 1,500. Meanwhile, Riverwind sits on Indian trust land, so it would have been impossible to convince the Chickasaws not to build anything on that since they don't really have a whole lot of places they can operate a casino (it is possible to get new trust land but there's a whole process to that making it more complicated than just buying a parcel of land).
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6416
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 01:04:45 AM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #330 on: August 04, 2013, 08:15:07 PM »

I happened to look through one of the Arkansas official state maps US 71 was handing out at the Wichita road meet last month, and realized that freeway I-540/US 71 (soon to be I-49) is entirely within the corporate limits of one city or another all the way from Exit 60 (Fayetteville) to Exit 93 (south end of projected Bella Vista Bypass)--a distance of about 33 miles.  It also looks to be more solidly urbanized than some of the city pairs Bobby5280 cites, such as Wichita/Hutchinson and Des Moines/Ames.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 364
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 11:39:07 PM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #331 on: August 04, 2013, 09:41:10 PM »

I happened to look through one of the Arkansas official state maps US 71 was handing out at the Wichita road meet last month, and realized that freeway I-540/US 71 (soon to be I-49) is entirely within the corporate limits of one city or another all the way from Exit 60 (Fayetteville) to Exit 93 (south end of projected Bella Vista Bypass)--a distance of about 33 miles.  It also looks to be more solidly urbanized than some of the city pairs Bobby5280 cites, such as Wichita/Hutchinson and Des Moines/Ames.

This is unofficial, but going on US Census Bureau figures and growth rates for the nine counties (4 in Northwest Arkansas metro, 5 in Fort Smith metro) it looks like the population may be up to around 815,000 between the two for this year if the growth rates hold, which they certainly seem to be doing in Benton County.  And that's before this Interstate between Fort Smith and Winnipeg/Duluth is completed, completely opening FSM/NWA to the northern half of the U.S. via Interstate highways.

BTW, Bella Vista is a planned community, and the corporation which developed it, last I'm aware, bought for future development (at least a decade or two ago) the entire bloc of undeveloped land on the west side of Bella Vista's corporate limits, squarely where future I-49 will run north to south (after it curves northward west of the former Hiwasse community).  That's also where Bella Vista, currently at 25,000 plus people, will have its first paved road connection, not just Interstate, from the west.  Good planning on their part.
Logged

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 364
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 11:39:07 PM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #332 on: August 05, 2013, 02:41:36 PM »

I happened to look through one of the Arkansas official state maps US 71 was handing out at the Wichita road meet last month, and realized that freeway I-540/US 71 (soon to be I-49) is entirely within the corporate limits of one city or another all the way from Exit 60 (Fayetteville) to Exit 93 (south end of projected Bella Vista Bypass)--a distance of about 33 miles.  It also looks to be more solidly urbanized than some of the city pairs Bobby5280 cites, such as Wichita/Hutchinson and Des Moines/Ames.



Note the dotted interstate line immediately south and west of Bella Vista, which has more than 25,000.  I don't know how many miles it extends to the state line but I'm guessing we're looking at between 5-8 miles.  There are a lot of people in the cul-de-sacs of this area (and from development I'm seeing there may be significantly more coming) so we may be looking at 40 miles of more-or-less urbanized area from the state line to West Fork (south of Fayetteville) on future I-49 in northwest Arkansas.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1349
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 09:39:59 PM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #333 on: August 05, 2013, 08:27:00 PM »

The problem is Texas doesn't appear to want their section of I-49. At least that's how the situation appears to me. The I-69 corridor and various projects in Texas' biggest cities seem to be a far greater priority.

For Arkansas I-49 would have to be one of its top priorities, and logically a bigger priority than I-69. Arkansas is seeing its best growth in the Northwestern part of the state along the I-49 corridor. I think a completed I-49 corridor would do more for the state than some of the other big projects they've been pursuing.

Arkansas has been extending the US-67 freeway from Little Rock toward Walnut Ridge, but not pushing the freeway corridor through to Southern Illinois (where it might be an extension of I-30 or I-57). They're slowly extending I-530 South from Pine Bluff to a spot where I-69 might be built, maybe a decade or two from now -especially when that bridge over the Mississippi River is figured into the situation.

The I-49 corridor is far closer to completion than I-69. And that's even counting the difficulty going on with I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans. The segment between Fort Smith and Texarkana won't be easy or cheap to build due to the mountainous terrain along parts of the route. But the Rogers/Fayetteville/Bentonville metro has turned into a very important destination along the Interstate highway system, enough so that I would expect increasing pressure for Arkansas to get I-49 completed even if that means cutting out Texas' part of the proposed route.

First off, I can't see TX not wanting at least a piece of I-49, if only to connect the proposed western loop to the Tex Americas Center development.

Second..there is simply no way to adequately construct a western loop using the existing US 59/TX 151 freeway due to extensive development, so any western loop connecting the I-x69 extension from Carthage to Texarkana with I-49 will have to go though some portion of Texas anyway. Plus, the way that Arkansas has AR 549/Future I-49 extending beyond the US 59/71 ROW to the west would preclude any northern alignment E of that roadway.

I-69 will be the main priority for TX for the forseeable future, but that doesn't mean that they aren't considering the possibility of a connection with a future I-49 to Kansas City.

Now, if Shreveport gets wise and completes the I-49 Inner City Connector, then it gets a bit interesting, because an alternative routing northward (I-69 Carthage to Stonewall, I-49 through Shreveport) could surplant the need for an I-x69 spur to Texarkana. But, that would really tick off Marshall and Tyler and probably Texarkana, because that would put them out of the loop.

I believe they ultimately get it together and find a way to make the connection work, and the Western Loop gets built with I-49 getting some Texas mileage. Just my nickel.
Logged

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2065
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: December 05, 2019, 09:00:19 AM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #334 on: August 06, 2013, 07:06:33 AM »

I wonder how the exit numbers will work with I-49 dipping into Texas. I assume it may do like I-24 in GA and the numbers will just carry over?
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 383
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 06:03:09 PM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #335 on: August 06, 2013, 10:53:07 AM »

I wonder how the exit numbers will work with I-49 dipping into Texas. I assume it may do like I-24 in GA and the numbers will just carry over?

I wondered that too. But I assumed the same I-24 situation.
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1094
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: September 02, 2019, 05:12:17 PM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #336 on: August 09, 2013, 01:07:30 PM »

I happened to look through one of the Arkansas official state maps US 71 was handing out at the Wichita road meet last month, and realized that freeway I-540/US 71 (soon to be I-49) is entirely within the corporate limits of one city or another all the way from Exit 60 (Fayetteville) to Exit 93 (south end of projected Bella Vista Bypass)--a distance of about 33 miles.  It also looks to be more solidly urbanized than some of the city pairs Bobby5280 cites, such as Wichita/Hutchinson and Des Moines/Ames.



Note the dotted interstate line immediately south and west of Bella Vista, which has more than 25,000.  I don't know how many miles it extends to the state line but I'm guessing we're looking at between 5-8 miles.  There are a lot of people in the cul-de-sacs of this area (and from development I'm seeing there may be significantly more coming) so we may be looking at 40 miles of more-or-less urbanized area from the state line to West Fork (south of Fayetteville) on future I-49 in northwest Arkansas.
What is the signifigance of the yellow US 71 shield on that map?
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6083
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 01:55:59 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #337 on: August 09, 2013, 04:21:41 PM »

What is the significance of the yellow US 71 shield on that map?

Yellow shields = scenic highway.  Blue shields = scenic byway (I have no clue what the difference is.)  White shields = plain old highway.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12865
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:33 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #338 on: August 09, 2013, 07:20:32 PM »

What is the significance of the yellow US 71 shield on that map?

Yellow shields = scenic highway.  Blue shields = scenic byway (I have no clue what the difference is.)  White shields = plain old highway.
Yellow = keep driving fast
Blue = pull over for RVs

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1094
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: September 02, 2019, 05:12:17 PM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #339 on: August 13, 2013, 02:09:46 PM »

I would be ticked off if I bought one of those homes off of a quiet cul-de-sac only to have I-49 bisect it.  The road noise alone is enough to be ticked off about.

 :banghead:
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8870
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:32 AM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #340 on: August 13, 2013, 08:12:11 PM »

What is the significance of the yellow US 71 shield on that map?

Yellow shields = scenic highway.  Blue shields = scenic byway (I have no clue what the difference is.)  White shields = plain old highway.

Scenic Byway is an "official" designation, such as Boston Mountains Scenic Loop or the Pig Trail
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8291
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:08 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #341 on: August 16, 2013, 05:15:35 AM »

I would be ticked off if I bought one of those homes off of a quiet cul-de-sac only to have I-49 bisect it.  The road noise alone is enough to be ticked off about.

 :banghead:

The Bella Vista bypass has been planned for at least a decade. Anyone should do a lot of research before dropping $100,000 on...anything, really.
Logged

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10497
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 42
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 08:12:20 AM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #342 on: August 16, 2013, 09:45:50 AM »

I would be ticked off if I bought one of those homes off of a quiet cul-de-sac only to have I-49 bisect it.  The road noise alone is enough to be ticked off about.

 :banghead:

The Bella Vista bypass has been planned for at least a decade. Anyone should do a lot of research before dropping $100,000 on...anything, really.

Never stopped the idiots near the proposed (since the 1960s) IL-53 extension in Lake County, Illinois.  Why should it stop these folks?
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

Free HK.  F the PRC.

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1094
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: September 02, 2019, 05:12:17 PM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #343 on: August 16, 2013, 11:53:16 AM »

Do you not recall Eric Estrada advertising this area back in the nineties?  He said they were quiet peaceful tracts just minutes away from convenience.
Logged

lamsalfl

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 342
  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Orleans
  • Last Login: July 02, 2019, 09:34:24 PM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #344 on: August 31, 2013, 12:35:42 AM »

I-369 now appears on Google Maps.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #345 on: September 09, 2013, 04:18:28 PM »

I gave AHTD another shot and they emailed me the Executive Summary of the Texarkana to DeQueen US 71 and Texarkana Northern Loop FEIS
The Interstate 49 Coalition will host a conference at 10 a.m. Thursday at the new Arkansas Highway District 4 headquarters in Barling, Ark.
The conference will discuss updates of the I-49 project in Missouri, Louisiana and Arkansas.
(above quote from I-49 at Fort Smith's Chaffee Crossing thread)

AHTD has posted its August 29 presentation to the Interstate 49 Coalition, and it appears that AHTD considers the entire Texarkana Loop, in addition to mainline I-49 going through Arkansas, to be part of the overall I-49 Corridor. It also appears to exclude the current US 59/I-369 from the overall I-49 Corridor because it shows the West and Northern Loops as both being proposed instead of showing the completed US 59/I-369 (page 8/13 of pdf):



Similarly, AHTD appears to include AR 151 as being part of the overall I-49 Corridor (page 9/13 of pdf):





There are NO signs along I-30 for 245 (now posted as Four States Fair Blvd), nor along AR 296. Also no signs north of I-30 in either direction, nor SB along 549 south of I-30.

The above "Texarkana Area" map also shows a remnant of AR 245 south of AR 296. Unsigned 245?
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 09:32:20 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 38
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #346 on: September 09, 2013, 04:25:39 PM »

I can barely tell because the map is tiny... will there be a Texas I-49?
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8870
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:32 AM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #347 on: September 09, 2013, 04:34:04 PM »

I can barely tell because the map is tiny... will there be a Texas I-49?

Yes, but it won't be very long, just sort of a "hook" from Texarkana back into Arkansas.
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #348 on: September 09, 2013, 04:42:51 PM »

I gave AHTD another shot and they emailed me the Executive Summary of the Texarkana to DeQueen US 71 and Texarkana Northern Loop FEIS
I can barely tell because the map is tiny... will there be a Texas I-49?
Yes, but it won't be very long, just sort of a "hook" from Texarkana back into Arkansas.

Here's the Selected Alternative "hook" identified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (page 4/24 of pdf):

Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8870
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:32 AM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)
« Reply #349 on: September 09, 2013, 09:23:32 PM »


The above "Texarkana Area" map also shows a remnant of AR 245 south of AR 296. Unsigned 245?

Possible, I suppose. One would probably have to ask AHTD.
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.