I-49 in Arkansas

[edwaleni]

Hope is already served by Interstate 30. Rerouting Interstate 49 way out there would be ludicrous.

THere seemed to be some crazy idea that the reason it was not getting built across the Red River yet somehow had something to do with Texas and the cost of the bridges. If history has any precedent, Arkansas will pay for little (or nothing) of the cost for the bridges themselves anyway.

Due to the shifting of the Red River over the intervening years, Arkansas has less river to cross on their side of the state line.  But it was my understanding that Texas has precedence for Red River bridging and TxDOT would be the lead agency if/when they decide to build them.

It's not so much the shifting of the river as much as the position of the river when the boundary was set in 1836-1845 and which state has statutory control of it.

I agree and think we said the same thing. The river has moved, but the state line hasnt.

The area where the bridge was to cross, the river has shifted further south, putting more of the "water crossing" part of the bridge in Texas and less in Arkansas.

[bwana39]

Hope is already served by Interstate 30. Rerouting Interstate 49 way out there would be ludicrous.

THere seemed to be some crazy idea that the reason it was not getting built across the Red River yet somehow had something to do with Texas and the cost of the bridges. If history has any precedent, Arkansas will pay for little (or nothing) of the cost for the bridges themselves anyway.

Due to the shifting of the Red River over the intervening years, Arkansas has less river to cross on their side of the state line.  But it was my understanding that Texas has precedence for Red River bridging and TxDOT would be the lead agency if/when they decide to build them.

It's not so much the shifting of the river as much as the position of the river when the boundary was set in 1836-1845 and which state has statutory control of it.

NO. You have the idea, but the where had little to do with the river itself.

Per current statute, the state line is at the vegetation line (or High Water Mark) on the Texas side as of the date Arkansas joined the U.S. (first). Texas has very limited access to the river; only at places where the river has tracked back into what was Texas pre 1836. You have to have an Arkansas Hunting or Fishing license to hunt or fish in the river or the river bank on the Arkansas side of the vegetation line. There is no exception for the property owners on the Texas side.

The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Game Wardens patrol the river and the sand bars like Trump era border patrol on the Rio Grande. Texas Non-Arkansas residents cannot have an ATV on the sand bars without an Arkansas Hunting or Fishing Licence even without any tackle or weapons.

Now to the Highway. When the US-71 bridges were built at index, Arkansas paid little. On the first bridge, which begins in Texas and ends in Arkansas .Arkansas provided in-kind items for their portion of the bridge. They furnished the Right-or-way. Texas actually paid their portion of the 20% (at that point, the Fed Funds were earmarked for a given project.) . The later, second, bridge begins and ends in Arkansas. TxDOT paid their portion of both the state share and the fed share. Ironically. it took several years for Arkansas to connect the second bridge on the north side of the Red River. I guess that must have been about Texas dragging their feet ?

TxDOT tends to be the lead agency on all of the bridges across the Red River. I think that is primarily because they have a larger engineering staff. Yes, I feel comfortable that TxDOT will be the lead agency, but I figure it will be a decade or more from now when ArDOT decides to be in a bttw rush to start and finish.

[silverback1065]

I don't check this thread much so apologies if this has been said, but is I-49 no longer going to swing into texas for a few miles then back into arkansas in the texarkana area?

[bwana39]

Yes, it is still planned to have a looping about 10-mile stretch in Texas beginning adjacent to US-71  northeast  of Texarkana and ending at a crossing of the Red River near the community of Richmond AR.

The point where it will cross the Red River has remained unchanged for over 30 years. The path from south of Texarkana AR to the river changed a little over ten years ago.

[silverback1065]

I'm surprised Texas hasn't already done their portion, they're moving super fast with 69 and 2, haven't seen any progress on 49. They could finish that in 1 quick project.

[bwana39]

The road that is now AR-151 is part of the reason why TxDOT is in no hurry. The original plan was to build " New US-71" from about the current junction of US-71 and I-49 around the west (Texas) side of town. Texas built the portion from I-30 to US-59 (Lake Drive) quickly. Then the portion to south State Line. Arkansas proceeded to build  AR-245 (the I-130 project) out. There was a gap between US-71 and the Texas state line for nearly ten years.

Unless you have a signed contract from the Arkansas HIGHWAY COMMISSION coordination and planning doesn't mean squat and even then that is generally still subject to their wims.  They can and do not hold the decisions of the previous commissioners as law or even agreement.

Arkansas is run as the Republic of Arkansas.

[dariusb]

I do agree that the small part in TX will be the last section ever to be built, especially when their plate is full with projects like I-69, I-2, I-14 and I-27.

From another discussion, the Texas dip is more of ploy by Arkansas for Texas to partially fund the bridge on the Red River. From Texas' perspective, there's no incentive for them to view I-49 with any urgency.

If the bridge is a hang-up, why not overlap I-49 with I-30 to about Fulton or Hope?

I was curious what the terrain was like between Wickes and Mansfield? Would a tunnel be justified in that area?

The "TEXAS DIP" is a construct of Mike Huckabee. While it was / is assumed the bridge would be partially (mostly) paid for by Texas, it has virtually zero to do with the routing from US-71 south of Texarkana to Richmond AR. 

The originally planned route was from basically where I-49 meets AR-151 to US-59 (Lake Drive) to I-30 the proceed north through Pleasant Grove (the community and school district north of I-30 in Texarkana TX) and cross the Red River where it is currently planned. There was no plan at the time for freeway on the Arkansas (East) Side particularly north of I-30 (Arkansas Boulevard actually).

The relationship between Texarkana Arkansas and its Texas counterpart has ALWAYS been contentious. As a rule, Texarkana Texas has been a benevolent neighbor. Texarkana Arkansas has been a jealous cousin. The folks on the Texas side are not Texas zealots.  The folks in SW Arkansas (particularly Miller County) are HOGS exclusively.* See below

Mike Huckabee spent several years as the Senior Pastor of the largest church in Texarkana Arkansas. He was serving there when he initially ran for Lieutenant Governor.  When he got to be governor, he set out to right several of the perceived slights that Texarkana TX had served Texarkana Arkansas. They built the Loop (then labeled as AR-245) from US-71 on the southeast side of Texarkana AR to Arkansas Boulevard and replaced the bridges over I-30 just north of the Four-States-Fairgrounds. Texas had previously built the loop from the state line on the south side to I-30. Arkansas soon completed it so there was freeway southward from Arkansas Boulevard on the east side of Texarkana to the Texas state line and on around northward  to I-30 in Texas. The ROW north of I-30 was intact until well after the I-49 east loop was built by Arkansas

Arkansas decided unilaterally to build the freeway on around to the Texas state line on the north side. Texas has evidently purchased ROW on around to the proposed crossing. Until Arkansas makes headway to build the freeway from the Red River Crossing to the north side of Ashdown, it is kind of moot.  Arkansas tends to construct pieces so that it doesn't make sense not to build the rest. Arkansas tends to work rather quickly in both planning and beginning construction after they make a decision. Texas is not so fast.  Any suggestion that Texas is dragging or even has dragged their feet in the past on this project are inaccurate. Texas has been guilty of waiting for Arkansas to make decisions so they can coordinate work. Arkansas has and continues to be difficult to coordinate anything with and they  decide on projects then run and Texas is indeed left trying to catch up to figure out where and how to run.

*On to the Arkansas loyalty, people rarely move from Texas to Texarkana Arkansas. The perception is the schools are inferior. the infrastructure is poorer, and there are greater levels of sales taxes.  There are no hospitals on the Arkansas side and until the past decade not many doctors' offices. There are a core of folks in Texarkana Arkansas who are absolute life-long Arkansans and have contempt for Texarkana Texas and Texas in General.

You're so right about the Texas side dragging their feet. Things would've been different if the Texas side stuck to the original plan of building the loop through Pleasant Grove but they waited too long and all kinds of businesses and homes were built and now it's too late. If they keep pussy footing around when Texas decides to finally build their portion of I-49 they may have to change the route again especially if more development occurs in that area.

[Rick Powell]

You're so right about the Texas side dragging their feet. Things would've been different if the Texas side stuck to the original plan of building the loop through Pleasant Grove but they waited too long and all kinds of businesses and homes were built and now it's too late. If they keep pussy footing around when Texas decides to finally build their portion of I-49 they may have to change the route again especially if more development occurs in that area.

TXDOT does have some tools to preserve future right-of-way if the need arises. They can also rely on local land use and zoning regulations to help keep a future right of way clear. The important thing is to have a plan in place and be ready to be use the protection tools when proposed development conflicts with the corridor. See the link for a document about corridor preservation in Texas.

https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5606-P1.pdf

[edwaleni]

I'm surprised Texas hasn't already done their portion, they're moving super fast with 69 and 2, haven't seen any progress on 49. They could finish that in 1 quick project.

Because Texas has a greater northern loop in mind for Texarkana, not just the section to cross the Red River and into Arkansas. TxDOT and the Texarkana MPO consider it one project.

[bwana39]

I'm surprised Texas hasn't already done their portion, they're moving super fast with 69 and 2, haven't seen any progress on 49. They could finish that in 1 quick project.

Because Texas has a greater northern loop in mind for Texarkana, not just the section to cross the Red River and into Arkansas. TxDOT and the Texarkana MPO consider it one project.

This is indeed JUST a wish list.

The Green portion (Labeled 2015-2019) is STILL 2 to 3 years from completion.
 
The red portion of I-30 (labeled 2020-2024) the portion from FM-3419 (OLd Red Lick RD) to Kings HWY is on track with the green portion. The red portion of Gibson Lane was completed two or three years ago, but after it opened, the intersection with Kings Highway needed reworked and Kings is being redone from I-30 to a point past the intersection with Gibson. It is assumed the I-30 portion to FM-2253 (Leary Road) (which would be close to any potential the western freeway loop) will come relatively soon after the completion of the rest of the I-30 project.  The rest of the red portion is still yet to be let for bids if ever.


The Blue Portion of summerhill (FM-1397) is needed badly. Locally it is thought that it eventually will be relabeled as SH-93 and connect to I-49 out in the Red river bottom. Not even sure what the blue on US-67 is about, likely a 4-lane (5-lane) from FM-2148 to Kings Hwy.

The maise colored lines are absolutely wish list stuff. They are doubtful in my lifetime, except MAYBE I-369 to the loop.

[silverback1065]

   why isn't 369 signed all the way to 49?

[sprjus4]

  why isn't 369 signed all the way to 49?

I-369 is signed between I-30 and the US-59 interchange. In the future, I-369 will extend south along the US-59 corridor, whether on its current location or new alignment. It will not connect with I-49 anywhere - unless it is extended directly north of I-30, which I don't see likely.

[bwana39]

  why isn't 369 signed all the way to 49?

If that stretch were to be signed as an interstate, it would probably be an X49. 369 clearly is a long-haul interstate going to meet I-69 in either Panola or Shelby county.

The simple reason would be the lack of any sort of coordination between Texarkana Arkansas and anything labeled as Texas.  It is kind of like the snowmageddon in 2021. Half of Stateline Blvd was plowed. Half was not.

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe existing Interstate 369 and AR/TX 151 should have been designated Interstate 230 or 249. Maybe 369 should have been a 2di, such as Interstate 47. Nevertheless, it's going to be a long march to connect Interstate 369 with future Interstate 69.

[sprjus4]

Maybe existing Interstate 369 and AR/TX 151 should have been designated Interstate 230 or 249. Maybe 369 should have been a 2di, such as Interstate 47. Nevertheless, it's going to be a long march to connect Interstate 369 with future Interstate 69.

I-369 is proposed to be around 117 miles long and be entirely within the state of Texas, connecting I-30 with the I-69 system.

That doesn't warrant a 2di designation.

[Rothman]

Maybe existing Interstate 369 and AR/TX 151 should have been designated Interstate 230 or 249. Maybe 369 should have been a 2di, such as Interstate 47. Nevertheless, it's going to be a long march to connect Interstate 369 with future Interstate 69.

I-369 is proposed to be around 117 miles long and be entirely within the state of Texas, connecting I-30 with the I-69 system.

That doesn't warrant a 2di designation.

Subjective roadgeek blather.

[edwaleni]

Subjective roadgeek blather.

Isn't that what much of AARoads is?

[sprjus4]

Maybe existing Interstate 369 and AR/TX 151 should have been designated Interstate 230 or 249. Maybe 369 should have been a 2di, such as Interstate 47. Nevertheless, it's going to be a long march to connect Interstate 369 with future Interstate 69.

I-369 is proposed to be around 117 miles long and be entirely within the state of Texas, connecting I-30 with the I-69 system.

That doesn't warrant a 2di designation.

Subjective roadgeek blather.

Welcome to the AARoads Forum! Good to have you!

[bwana39]

Maybe existing Interstate 369 and AR/TX 151 should have been designated Interstate 230 or 249. Maybe 369 should have been a 2di, such as Interstate 47. Nevertheless, it's going to be a long march to connect Interstate 369 with future Interstate 69.

My take is I-369 will likely be completed before I-69 is completed to mate to it.

[Henry]

Maybe existing Interstate 369 and AR/TX 151 should have been designated Interstate 230 or 249. Maybe 369 should have been a 2di, such as Interstate 47. Nevertheless, it's going to be a long march to connect Interstate 369 with future Interstate 69.

My take is I-369 will likely be completed before I-69 is completed to mate to it.

I just found out that a completed I-369 would be the third-longest 3di, behind only I-476 and I-495 around Boston. In any case, signing it right now is very premature, especially since we don't know if the parent route will be built at all; most of us will probably be dead when the connection is made, so there's that.

[bwana39]

Maybe existing Interstate 369 and AR/TX 151 should have been designated Interstate 230 or 249. Maybe 369 should have been a 2di, such as Interstate 47. Nevertheless, it's going to be a long march to connect Interstate 369 with future Interstate 69.

My take is I-369 will likely be completed before I-69 is completed to mate to it.

I just found out that a completed I-369 would be the third-longest 3di, behind only I-476 and I-495 around Boston. In any case, signing it right now is very premature, especially since we don't know if the parent route will be built at all; most of us will probably be dead when the connection is made, so there's that.

I-69 will almost surely be built as far as to the I-369 split. Likely completed in less than 20 years. Once it gets that far, it will likely be built to at least I-49. The part from Shreveport to Memphis is an entirely different issue.

[silverback1065]

Maybe existing Interstate 369 and AR/TX 151 should have been designated Interstate 230 or 249. Maybe 369 should have been a 2di, such as Interstate 47. Nevertheless, it's going to be a long march to connect Interstate 369 with future Interstate 69.

I-369 is proposed to be around 117 miles long and be entirely within the state of Texas, connecting I-30 with the I-69 system.

That doesn't warrant a 2di designation.

Have you ever heard of I-37? or I-97?

[bwana39]

Maybe existing Interstate 369 and AR/TX 151 should have been designated Interstate 230 or 249. Maybe 369 should have been a 2di, such as Interstate 47. Nevertheless, it's going to be a long march to connect Interstate 369 with future Interstate 69.

I-369 is proposed to be around 117 miles long and be entirely within the state of Texas, connecting I-30 with the I-69 system.

That doesn't warrant a 2di designation.

Have you ever heard of I-37? or I-97?

Either way, it is either "too long" for a 3-di or "too short" for a 2-di. It is all about some sort of legalistic quibbling. I don't think anyone will complain about the number when they are driving on the much improved roadway.

[LilianaUwU]

Maybe existing Interstate 369 and AR/TX 151 should have been designated Interstate 230 or 249. Maybe 369 should have been a 2di, such as Interstate 47. Nevertheless, it's going to be a long march to connect Interstate 369 with future Interstate 69.

I-369 is proposed to be around 117 miles long and be entirely within the state of Texas, connecting I-30 with the I-69 system.

That doesn't warrant a 2di designation.

Have you ever heard of I-37? or I-97?

Counterpoints: I-135, I-476, I-495 MA.

[Rick Powell]

[quote author=bwana39

I-69 will almost surely be built as far as to the I-369 split. Likely completed in less than 20 years. Once it gets that far, it will likely be built to at least I-49. The part from Shreveport to Memphis is an entirely different issue.
[/quote]

As Memphis to Dyersburg TN is also a completely different issue.

I think 20 years is generous for TxDOT to do another 800 miles of I-69. I think it may drag out to past the middle of the century for every section done.