AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-49 in Arkansas  (Read 697699 times)

Gordon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 186
  • Last Login: June 24, 2019, 08:31:01 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #350 on: April 30, 2013, 10:19:23 PM »

Back in Jan. 31 the Highway commissioners voted to accept  the staff's members to enter into negotiations with Garver LLC in North Little Rock to serve as the program manager for the 1/2 cent sales tax program. Also to use Stephen's Inc. in Little Rock to serve as the Financial advisor and bond Company for this project. Today I noticed that the Jobs # for the !/2 cent sale tax have changed to have CA in front of the Jobs. For instance now for the Bella Vista Bypass they are now CA 0903,CAo904,CA0905 to complete the 2 lanes of the project. The other 2 lanes still the standard AHTD job #'s. I saw an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazzette what CA would stand for but can't remember. Looks like there will be a new Tab on the web site for the jobs that are going to be done.
Logged

Gordon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 186
  • Last Login: June 24, 2019, 08:31:01 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #351 on: May 05, 2013, 10:29:28 PM »

I see where M0DOT has moved up there STIP for the Bella Vista Bypass to Start in the Fall of 2014. Job # 7PO601 has construction money to start there part. So Arkansas has made them feel they will work on the 2 lanes early in the 1/2 cent sales tax construction.
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 8514
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: June 24, 2019, 09:17:42 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #352 on: May 06, 2013, 10:56:40 AM »

I'll be passing through Pineville, MO next weekend, so I'll look to see if MoDOT is doing anything on 49.
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 350
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: June 21, 2019, 01:45:00 AM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #353 on: May 14, 2013, 12:01:30 AM »

As if we didn't have enough reasons for the I-49 Bella Vista bypass to be built, Crowder College of Neosho is building a significant second campus in Jane, MO, right off U.S. 71 (posts near bottom of the page).  Northwest Arkansas Community College in Bentonville creates enough traffic...if the new Crowder campus even has 1/4 of the traffic this will further add to bottlenecks at the stop light intersection of Larry Neff Road and U.S. 71.

(Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock...and the clock keeps going on the BVB construction.)
Logged

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 350
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: June 21, 2019, 01:45:00 AM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #354 on: May 22, 2013, 09:35:50 AM »

Paving has started on both the east and west Hiwasse exits of future I-49.  Asphalt. *sigh*  :-/ X-(
Logged

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1138
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: June 23, 2019, 02:32:54 AM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #355 on: May 22, 2013, 09:21:49 PM »

Paving has started on both the east and west Hiwasse exits of future I-49.  Asphalt. *sigh*  :-/ X-(

They might be just laying down the base and then will be putting the rebar and concrete on top of that afterward.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3420
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: June 14, 2019, 03:05:17 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #356 on: May 23, 2013, 05:00:52 PM »

Move Arkansas Forward has a Proposed Constitutional Fact Sheet #1 that lists by region the four-lane highway projects that would be supported by the half-cent sales tax to be voted on in November (pages 6-7/88 of pdf; pages 4-5 of document):
Quote
Four-Lane Projects of Regional Significance
Northwest Arkansas
• Completion of the initial two lanes of the ultimate four lanes of the Bella Vista bypass
This article reports that Issue No.1 was approved by the voters
(quote from Arkansas thread)

This article, primarily about the possibility of tolling I-40 (and previously discussed in the 6 Laning I-40 thread), reports that, even though Arkansas voters approved the one-half cent sales tax to fund the initial two lanes of the BVB, AHTD is currently investigating the tolling potential of the BVB:

Quote
Are you only looking at this section of Interstate 40?  No, the Department is currently investigating tolling potential in two other corridors (Northbelt Freeway, in conjunction with Metroplan, and the Bella Vista Bypass).

Tolls on top of a sales tax increase; interesting.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2013, 05:15:00 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 8514
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: June 24, 2019, 09:17:42 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #357 on: May 23, 2013, 05:40:05 PM »


Tolls on top of a sales tax increase; interesting.

I don't remember the original source, but I had heard that Bella Vista Bypass could NOT be tolled since it used Federal Money (ARRA funds).
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1138
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: June 23, 2019, 02:32:54 AM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #358 on: May 25, 2013, 05:01:27 AM »

As far as I know, tolls in Arkansas have never existed except for a couple of long-discontinued ferries. Don't know of any newly-built roads in the state that can support a toll. Maybe the North Belt as long as that area grows.
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6044
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 02:55:20 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #359 on: May 26, 2013, 02:35:43 PM »

As far as I know, tolls in Arkansas have never existed except for a couple of long-discontinued ferries. Don't know of any newly-built roads in the state that can support a toll. Maybe the North Belt as long as that area grows.

There have been toll bridges in Arkansas.

Adding tolls to I-40 east of North Little Rock would only make a miserable drive that much worse.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 350
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: June 21, 2019, 01:45:00 AM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #360 on: May 31, 2013, 11:42:15 AM »

Very, very bad news out of Scott County, Arkansas just south of Fort Smith and Greenwood.

U.S. 71 at Y City (near the junction of the highway that goes to Hot Springs) and Parks was completely flooded by yesterday's storms with homes washed away.  The Scott County sheriff was apparently killed alongside possibly others.

https://www.facebook.com/4029news?fref=ts

This is a minor point compared to it, but an interstate cannot get to this area fast enough if said road will have bridges and safeguards against this.  (Fortunately U.S. 59 is an alternate, but it's ASTOUNDING how much beautiful no-man's-land is there for miles without a gas station. EDIT: Highway 59 at Page (paralleling Rich Mountain near the AR/OK line) is down to one lane.)
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 11:44:19 AM by O Tamandua »
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 8514
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: June 24, 2019, 09:17:42 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #361 on: May 31, 2013, 11:57:49 AM »

Very, very bad news out of Scott County, Arkansas just south of Fort Smith and Greenwood.

U.S. 71 at Y City (near the junction of the highway that goes to Hot Springs) and Parks was completely flooded by yesterday's storms with homes washed away.  The Scott County sheriff was apparently killed alongside possibly others.

That would be US 270 East. 

I never considered that area flood prone, except around the Ouachita River at Acorn.  Most of that area is National Forest, so there's not a lot of commercial build-up.  There's a Shell/EZ Mart just to the north, but no other other active stations until Mena, approx 20 miles south.
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1138
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: June 23, 2019, 02:32:54 AM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #362 on: June 01, 2013, 03:15:26 AM »

A little-known fact is the Ouachita Mountains catch all the moisture flowing north from the Gulf, so they get more rain than anywhere else in the contiguous U.S. west of the Mississippi (with the exception of coastal Louisiana). Some places average more than 60 inches a year.

The Appalachians in Georgia/Tennessee/North Carolina suffer the same deal. They're higher, so they get dumped on more.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13807
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: June 24, 2019, 09:15:22 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #363 on: June 01, 2013, 05:25:10 AM »

heh heh Ouachita
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 350
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: June 21, 2019, 01:45:00 AM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #364 on: June 01, 2013, 09:27:21 AM »

Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 8514
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: June 24, 2019, 09:17:42 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #365 on: June 01, 2013, 09:48:28 AM »

This article says the there was a 24 foot flash flood that hit the Fourche la Favre river on Thursday and "temporarily swamped" the Highway 71 bridge.  I guess that's one thing the engineers of future I-49 will have to, er, seriously consider.

Wow.

One would think that is obvious, but given Arkansas it might not be.

Fortunately, the bridge appears to be undamaged.
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2056
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: June 24, 2019, 10:41:22 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #366 on: June 03, 2013, 08:51:40 AM »

This article says the there was a 24 foot flash flood that hit the Fourche la Favre river on Thursday and "temporarily swamped" the Highway 71 bridge.  I guess that's one thing the engineers of future I-49 will have to, er, seriously consider.

Wow.

One would think that is obvious, but given Arkansas it might not be.

Fortunately, the bridge appears to be undamaged.

I hope they are putting the elevations of these bridges to withstand a 100-year flood event. I thinkhope that is standard practice.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3420
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: June 14, 2019, 03:05:17 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #367 on: June 07, 2013, 02:35:23 PM »

I thought there was to be a decision made for Arkansas regarding redesignating Interstate 540 north from I-40 as I-49. Did not see that covered in the notes document.
Was it postponed for a future meeting?
I received an early August email from AHTD to that effect.  I was surprised that it was not included in the notes document. I will follow up with AHTD.
(above quote from AASHTO Committee on Route Numbering (Nov. 2012) Actions thread)
I recently received a response from AHTD and, surprisingly, the reason lies with the presence of US 49

I recently indirectly asked FHWA about the I-49/US 49 situation, and (I have asked for clarification about where "I-49" was written into law) I was surprised to find out that FHWA's position appears to be that Congressional action mandates the use of "I-49" in the I-49 corridor.

First, my question:

Quote
I was just looking at the Interstates FAQ page and read the answer to the question of why there is no Interstate 50.  I can think of several exceptions to this rule, including an I-74/US 74 overlap in North Carolina and a future interchange between I-69 and US 69 in Texas.  What factors does FHWA consider in granting an exception to the rule?  In particular, I am thinking about the possibility of I-49 and US 49 in Arkansas.  It seems like an exception to the rule would make a lot of sense in the Arkansas scenario.

The FHWA answer (with my emphasis):

Quote
Thank you for your inquiry on FHWA’s Interstate numbering policies.  FHWA generally bases our review of proposed Interstate numbering requests on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) numbering policies in their Transportation Policy Book.  Most Interstate numbering requests are consistent with these policies, but these policies are neither law nor regulation.  We are not required to adhere to them in exercising our authority over Interstate numbering. 
You mentioned several exceptions to the policy, “that a State should not have an Interstate route and US route with the same number”.  In each case, Congress chose the number ( I-74, I-69 and I-49 ) and wrote it into law. These statutory numbering designations supersede the authority of FHWA, which is required to implement Federal law, and also AASHTO, a voluntary association with no enforcement authority.  If a State requests a designation using the congressionally set number, FHWA is required by law to approve that request even if it is inconsistent with AASHTO’s numbering policies used for the remainder of the System.  In fact, if a State requested a number that differs from the number in the statute, FHWA would turn it down.
Because the Interstate and U.S. numbering plans are mirror images of each other, the central States could be faced with requesting an Interstate number that coincides with a US route designation.  In those rare cases, FHWA and AASHTO have been committed to working with the requesting States to ensure the numbering adequately meets their needs and the integrity of the Interstate System.  Through this process, both organizations are able to work with States on developing an Interstate System that is representative of the States’ and country’s needs.
One additional point is that few motorists are aware of AASHTO’s Interstate numbering plan or that the numbers follow a pattern.  In general, motorists are not confused when numbering inconsistencies occur as they navigate around the country not by the numbering plan but by maps, directions, GPS, the guide signs on the highways, or other means.  Thank you for your inquiry and continued interest in the Interstate System.

The first question in my mind (assuming no error in FHWA's answer) is where is the "I-49" designation written into law? At first glance, in looking at the FHWA Statutory Listing of Corridor Descriptions page, High Priority Corridor 72 is described as follows:

Quote
72.The North-South corridor, along Interstate Route 49 North, from Kansas City, Missouri, to Shreveport, Louisiana.

If this is indeed a Congressional mandate, then FHWA (and AASHTO) would be powerless to deny an AHTD I-49 numbering request (FHWA approval would still be needed as to whether a certain section meets current interstate-grade standards).



I just thought of a reason why this has come up, and it isn't an AASHTO problem, but an Arkansas problem. I think internally Arkansas only refers to the route number and makes no distinction between whether it is a Interstate, US, or State Route. With that said, I don't see why they can't just put up I-49 signs but still refer to it internally as 549 until they can come up with a different system internally for referring to state routes.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think there are any state and US routes in Arkansas that have the same number.

I suspect Cody may be right and that this is purely an internal AHTD thing.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 07:37:28 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: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #368 on: June 07, 2013, 02:44:40 PM »

in this case, 49 is not a bad number - especially since US-49 is on the other side of the state, and thus the potential for confusion is fairly minimal.  (see also: I-24/US-24 in Illinois.  I believe AASHO hand-waved that one as "far enough apart; it's fine".)

that said: there goes Congress meddling in things it does not understand.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3420
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: June 14, 2019, 03:05:17 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #369 on: June 07, 2013, 05:31:56 PM »

... at the FHWA Statutory Listing of Corridor Descriptions page, High Priority Corridor 72 is described as follows:
Quote
72.The North-South corridor, along Interstate Route 49 North, from Kansas City, Missouri, to Shreveport, Louisiana.
in this case, 49 is not a bad number

Do you not have a lurking fear that Congress has designated "I-49N" shields for Arkansas?  :bigass:



that said: there goes Congress meddling in things it does not understand.

Agreed.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3420
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: June 14, 2019, 03:05:17 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #370 on: June 11, 2013, 11:14:14 AM »

I emailed AHTD and asked if MAP-21 might encourage them to reapply to AASHTO for I-49 designations. The response:
Quote
We are completing an application to have I-540 (I-40 to Missouri State Line ) redesignated as I-49 and plan to submit to AASHTO for consideration at the fall meeting.
I thought there was to be a decision made for Arkansas regarding redesignating Interstate 540 north from I-40 as I-49. Did not see that covered in the notes document.
Was it postponed for a future meeting?
I received an early August email from AHTD to that effect.  I was surprised that it was not included in the notes document. I will follow up with AHTD.
(above quote from AASHTO Committee on Route Numbering (Nov. 2012) Actions thread)
I recently received a response from AHTD and, surprisingly, the reason lies with the presence of US 49
I recently indirectly asked FHWA about the I-49/US 49 situation, and (I have asked for clarification about where "I-49" was written into law) I was surprised to find out that FHWA's position appears to be that Congressional action mandates the use of "I-49" in the I-49 corridor .... If this is indeed a Congressional mandate, then FHWA (and AASHTO) would be powerless to deny an AHTD I-49 numbering request (FHWA approval would still be needed as to whether a certain section meets current interstate-grade standards).

After having I-49 North and I-49 South designation applications denied in 2007, and the 2012 decision to not submit designation applications because of the apparent US 49 problem, it now appears that AHTD will try again at the October, 2013 AASHTO meeting. I emailed AHTD and asked them if they had considered that the language designating High Priority Corridor 72 would make FHWA and AASHTO powerless to deny an I-49 numbering request (assuming respective segments are interstate-grade). The reply:

Quote
Our planning division tells me that they are submitting again this fall and that they are using the same justification that you mention.

I do not know if they will try for both I-540 north of Alma and AR 549 in SW Arkansas; I will wait to be surprised.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2013, 02:15:35 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4819
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: June 24, 2019, 11:38:30 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #371 on: June 11, 2013, 11:39:05 AM »

I emailed AHTD and asked if MAP-21 might encourage them to reapply to AASHTO for I-49 designations. The response:
Quote
We are completing an application to have I-540 (I-40 to Missouri State Line ) redesignated as I-49 and plan to submit to AASHTO for consideration at the fall meeting.
I thought there was to be a decision made for Arkansas regarding redesignating Interstate 540 north from I-40 as I-49. Did not see that covered in the notes document.
Was it postponed for a future meeting?
I received an early August email from AHTD to that effect.  I was surprised that it was not included in the notes document. I will follow up with AHTD.
(above quote from AASHTO Committee on Route Numbering (Nov. 2012) Actions thread)
I recently received a response from AHTD and, surprisingly, the reason lies with the presence of US 49
I recently indirectly asked FHWA about the I-49/US 49 situation, and (I have asked for clarification about where "I-49" was written into law) I was surprised to find out that FHWA's position appears to be that Congressional action mandates the use of "I-49" in the I-49 corridor .... If this is indeed a Congressional mandate, then FHWA (and AASHTO) would be powerless to deny an AHTD I-49 numbering request (FHWA approval would still be needed as to whether a certain section meets current interstate-grade standards).

After having I-49 North and I-49 South designation applications denied in 2007, and the 2012 decision to not submit designation applications because of the apparent US 49 problem, it now appears that AHTD will try again at the October, 2013 AASHTO meeting. I emailed AHTD and asked them if they had considered that the language designating High Priority Corridor 72 would make FHWA and AASHTO powerless to deny an I-49 numbering request (assuming respective segments are interstate-grade). The reply:

Quote
Our planning division tells me that they are submitting again this fall and that they are using the same justification that you mention.

I do not know if they will try for both I-540 north of Alma and AR 549 in SW Arkansas; I will wait to be surprised.
There's still the chance that they will be denied again, as the part in the middle still needs to be constructed; hopefully we'll see at least AR 549 converted into I-49 once the Shreveport link is completed.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2056
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: June 24, 2019, 10:41:22 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #372 on: June 11, 2013, 11:42:03 AM »

With I-49 in MO being signed, I don't see now why I-540 couldn't be signed as I-49 now. It connects to I-40, and, even if it didn't, with the new rules on designating new interstates (like with I-69 in the Brownsville area), I don't see a problem with it being designated as I-49 anyway.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 350
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: June 21, 2019, 01:45:00 AM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #373 on: June 11, 2013, 02:06:13 PM »

I emailed AHTD and asked if MAP-21 might encourage them to reapply to AASHTO for I-49 designations. The response:
Quote
We are completing an application to have I-540 (I-40 to Missouri State Line ) redesignated as I-49 and plan to submit to AASHTO for consideration at the fall meeting.
I thought there was to be a decision made for Arkansas regarding redesignating Interstate 540 north from I-40 as I-49. Did not see that covered in the notes document.
Was it postponed for a future meeting?
I received an early August email from AHTD to that effect.  I was surprised that it was not included in the notes document. I will follow up with AHTD.
(above quote from AASHTO Committee on Route Numbering (Nov. 2012) Actions thread)
I recently received a response from AHTD and, surprisingly, the reason lies with the presence of US 49
I recently indirectly asked FHWA about the I-49/US 49 situation, and (I have asked for clarification about where "I-49" was written into law) I was surprised to find out that FHWA's position appears to be that Congressional action mandates the use of "I-49" in the I-49 corridor .... If this is indeed a Congressional mandate, then FHWA (and AASHTO) would be powerless to deny an AHTD I-49 numbering request (FHWA approval would still be needed as to whether a certain section meets current interstate-grade standards).

After having I-49 North and I-49 South designation applications denied in 2007, and the 2012 decision to not submit designation applications because of the apparent US 49 problem, it now appears that AHTD will try again at the October, 2013 AASHTO meeting. I emailed AHTD and asked them if they had considered that the language designating High Priority Corridor 72 would make FHWA and AASHTO powerless to deny an I-49 numbering request (assuming respective segments are interstate-grade). The reply:

Quote
Our planning division tells me that they are submitting again this fall and that they are using the same justification that you mention.

I do not know if they will try for both I-540 north of Alma and AR 549 in SW Arkansas; I will wait to be surprised.
There's still the chance that they will be denied again, as the part in the middle still needs to be constructed; hopefully we'll see at least AR 549 converted into I-49 once the Shreveport link is completed.

Henry, with that logic (not bad logic at that) I-540 has just as much of a shot given that A) I-49 now is actually as far south as the official Northwest Arkansas metropolitan statistical area (south of Pineville, MO in McDonald County) and; B) like with Texarkana, there are only a few more miles left to be built to link the "orphan" section with the current I-49 and those connecting miles are in the process of being built out, albeit with not as much ground plowed yet on the north side.
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4819
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: June 24, 2019, 11:38:30 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #374 on: June 12, 2013, 11:12:40 AM »

I emailed AHTD and asked if MAP-21 might encourage them to reapply to AASHTO for I-49 designations. The response:
Quote
We are completing an application to have I-540 (I-40 to Missouri State Line ) redesignated as I-49 and plan to submit to AASHTO for consideration at the fall meeting.
I thought there was to be a decision made for Arkansas regarding redesignating Interstate 540 north from I-40 as I-49. Did not see that covered in the notes document.
Was it postponed for a future meeting?
I received an early August email from AHTD to that effect.  I was surprised that it was not included in the notes document. I will follow up with AHTD.
(above quote from AASHTO Committee on Route Numbering (Nov. 2012) Actions thread)
I recently received a response from AHTD and, surprisingly, the reason lies with the presence of US 49
I recently indirectly asked FHWA about the I-49/US 49 situation, and (I have asked for clarification about where "I-49" was written into law) I was surprised to find out that FHWA's position appears to be that Congressional action mandates the use of "I-49" in the I-49 corridor .... If this is indeed a Congressional mandate, then FHWA (and AASHTO) would be powerless to deny an AHTD I-49 numbering request (FHWA approval would still be needed as to whether a certain section meets current interstate-grade standards).

After having I-49 North and I-49 South designation applications denied in 2007, and the 2012 decision to not submit designation applications because of the apparent US 49 problem, it now appears that AHTD will try again at the October, 2013 AASHTO meeting. I emailed AHTD and asked them if they had considered that the language designating High Priority Corridor 72 would make FHWA and AASHTO powerless to deny an I-49 numbering request (assuming respective segments are interstate-grade). The reply:

Quote
Our planning division tells me that they are submitting again this fall and that they are using the same justification that you mention.

I do not know if they will try for both I-540 north of Alma and AR 549 in SW Arkansas; I will wait to be surprised.
There's still the chance that they will be denied again, as the part in the middle still needs to be constructed; hopefully we'll see at least AR 549 converted into I-49 once the Shreveport link is completed.

Henry, with that logic (not bad logic at that) I-540 has just as much of a shot given that A) I-49 now is actually as far south as the official Northwest Arkansas metropolitan statistical area (south of Pineville, MO in McDonald County) and; B) like with Texarkana, there are only a few more miles left to be built to link the "orphan" section with the current I-49 and those connecting miles are in the process of being built out, albeit with not as much ground plowed yet on the north side.
Which is precisely why I would expect I-540 to be dually signed with Future I-49 shields until the Bella Vista gap is fully closed.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

 


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.