I-49 in Arkansas

[vdeane]

Groundbreaking was today for the new I-49 Bridge connecting Barling with the north side of the Arkansas River

https://talkbusiness.net/2025/08/officials-note-promise-and-progress-of-i-49-river-bridge-segment/

Looks like they're finally making some headway figuring out the routing for the phases after the river crossing:
"While it's not concrete and steel, Wiley announced Friday that in the next 12 to 18 months there will be crews working on I-49 route evaluation between Greenwood and Y City. That route length is between 50 and 55 miles."

And the best way would probably be one that has zero consideration. US-59 and US-271

Why would the best way be to swing way out of the way into Oklahoma?

[bwana39]

Groundbreaking was today for the new I-49 Bridge connecting Barling with the north side of the Arkansas River

https://talkbusiness.net/2025/08/officials-note-promise-and-progress-of-i-49-river-bridge-segment/

Looks like they're finally making some headway figuring out the routing for the phases after the river crossing:
"While it's not concrete and steel, Wiley announced Friday that in the next 12 to 18 months there will be crews working on I-49 route evaluation between Greenwood and Y City. That route length is between 50 and 55 miles."

And the best way would probably be one that has zero consideration. US-59 and US-271

Why would the best way be to swing way out of the way into Oklahoma?

Way out? The total track miles are less. The mountains are less. Folks from NW arkansas tend to go through Oklahoma coming to SW arkansas. That said US-71 is terrible.

The reason why Arkansas built the Arkansas River to US-71 section of I-49 first is to seemingly preclude that even being a possibility. As far south as the already built section ends, it makes using the existing I-540 / US-271 freeway a non-option. That said, US-27 in Oklahoma is still about 5 miles away from the I-49 / US-71 junction. So yes, as you have said, "way over" (15 miles or less) into Oklahoma.  71 veers even further east at a point or two.

If there were a more direct route from Mansfield to Acorn or Mena or directly from Page, OK to Hatfield, AR those would be game changers. Tunnels are expensive.

[vdeane]

The total track miles are less.

Am I looking at it wrong?  From the US 71/US 59 junction north of Mena to the I-49/I-40 junction east of Fort Smith, it's very approximately 70 miles following the future I-49 route vs. 85 miles for US 59, OK 112, and I-540.

[bugo]

I have found two maps that show US 71 going through Oklahoma. Both of the maps are official state highway maps from 1027. These are the only two maps that I've ever seen with US 71 marked in Oklahoma. I have to wonder if there wasn't some sort of border war going on. I always go through Oklahoma when going between Acorn and Fort Smith because the roads are better, there is less traffic and the speed limit is higher. Maybe it was a better road back then as well.

[msunat97]

Would Oklahoma DOT put up the funds and do the work to run I49 on their side of the border or is I49 from Ft Smith to Texarkana exclusively an Arkansas thing?

[bwana39]

The total track miles are less.

Am I looking at it wrong?  From the US 71/US 59 junction north of Mena to the I-49/I-40 junction east of Fort Smith, it's very approximately 70 miles following the future I-49 route vs. 85 miles for US 59, OK 112, and I-540.

It is not that much. You had maps follow current roads. It is would likely be less than tha ten and possibly as little as none with a greenfield route over to OK-112. It possible the route following US-71 could be more than the current US-71 route.  Clearly the mountains using the Oklahoma routing would be less formidable.

Would Oklahoma DOT put up the funds and do the work to run I49 on their side of the border or is I49 from Ft Smith to Texarkana exclusively an Arkansas thing?

I wrote a post that somehow was lost.  It is doubtful OK would pay for it. On the other hand, Arkansas would bankrupt themselves to prevent it. 

So with a short (less than ten mile) section in Texas, it is indeed an Arkansas only project.

[Bobby5280]

Shifting I-49 into the Eastern edge of Oklahoma would do little if anything to benefit Oklahoma. The state has other corridors in far greater need of upgrades.

Also, I don't like it if an Interstate highway goes from one state into another and then back again. Only a couple of brief instances of this occur in the overall Interstate system. This I-49 idea in Oklahoma would be a pretty big deviation.

[roadman65]

The total track miles are less.

Am I looking at it wrong?  From the US 71/US 59 junction north of Mena to the I-49/I-40 junction east of Fort Smith, it's very approximately 70 miles following the future I-49 route vs. 85 miles for US 59, OK 112, and I-540.

It is not that much. You had maps follow current roads. It is would likely be less than tha ten and possibly as little as none with a greenfield route over to OK-112. It possible the route following US-71 could be more than the current US-71 route.  Clearly the mountains using the Oklahoma routing would be less formidable.

Would Oklahoma DOT put up the funds and do the work to run I49 on their side of the border or is I49 from Ft Smith to Texarkana exclusively an Arkansas thing?

I wrote a post that somehow was lost.  It is doubtful OK would pay for it. On the other hand, Arkansas would bankrupt themselves to prevent it. 

So with a short (less than ten mile) section in Texas, it is indeed an Arkansas only project.

So Arkansas will do what New York does for I-86 and I-684?

Build in another state, but agree to maintain though?

[Sapphuby]

Progression looks steady on Copernicus at the Arkansas River crossing. Dirt is being turned at the new exit with Gun Club Road as of the 18th and 23rd.

[TBKS1]

Announcement from ARDOT earlier today about I-49. Route to Y City (US 270) has been confirmed and land surveys are expected to start soon.

[ozarkman417]

With this and the recent work near the Arkansas River, we're finally seeing real progress!

I did my best to overlay the new route using the second image in the previous post over the USGS elevation-tinted hill-shade map. The golden dots are the ends at US-71/AR-549 and US-71 at Y-City, respectively.

Topographically, I believe this is feasible. But blasting through some of the numerous scattered ridges will need to be done. The one place along the route that may be particularly difficult is High Point Mountain, which I've marked in purple. The gap to the right of it is currently used by US 71.

[Road Hog]

The Foran Gap job is going to be pretty straight-forward (only 16 miles) but a doozy nonetheless. We're talking at least a 60-mile detour on either side to get to and from either end without at least a 2-lane alternative through the gap.

Frontage roads (or maybe just one 2-lane one) will be needed for maybe not combines like in East Arkansas, but certainly loggers, which are crazy thick there.

[bugo]

The Foran Gap job is going to be pretty straight-forward (only 16 miles) but a doozy nonetheless. We're talking at least a 60-mile detour on either side to get to and from either end without at least a 2-lane alternative through the gap.

Frontage roads (or maybe just one 2-lane one) will be needed for maybe not combines like in East Arkansas, but certainly loggers, which are crazy thick there.

They're closing US 71-270 through Foran Gap? Why?

I have been wondering if the 2 lane highway will be left intact or if the US highways will piggyback on I-49 through the mountain pass. If the latter comes to pass, then US 71-270 will likely be routed down Posey Hollow Road (Polk 70) for a couple of miles.

[Henry]

I'm not surprised that the corridor will be worked on from north to south as the Ft. Smith-Texarkana gap continues to shrink. That section through the mountains sure looks ambitious, but as long as it gets done, then bravo to them!

[Bobby5280]

So far, I like the way the proposed routing looks from Fort Smith to "Y" City. The new Interstate will run a considerably smoother, more straight path than existing US-71.

Are there any tunnels? I figured there might be at least a couple, such as where the highway runs near High Point Mountain.

Of course I'm still wondering what kind of alignment I-49 will take between "Y" City and Acorn. Existing US-71 runs a particularly crooked path through there.

[bugo]

Are there any tunnels? I figured there might be at least a couple, such as where the highway runs near High Point Mountain.

There won't be any tunnels on the proposed section.

Of course I'm still wondering what kind of alignment I-49 will take between "Y" City and Acorn. Existing US-71 runs a particularly crooked path through there.

It will roughly follow US 270/71. The reason the highway makes a giant "S" is because  it follows a mountain pass called Foran Gap. The mountains are quite tall. To build a straight highway, it would require either a tunnel or a huge roadcut through Fourche Mountain, which would destroy the landscape. Foran Gap is the path of least resistance and lower cost.

[Bobby5280]

I'm familiar with the Foran Gap. But I haven't really seen anything to indicate a final alignment has been chosen for the "Y" City to Acorn segment of I-49. A tunnel (a kind of long one) could cut some significant distance off the route and/or make the grade angles easier for commercial vehicles to handle. Tunnels cost a shit ton of money though.

[bugo]

Here's a terrain map of the Foran Gap area. You can clearly see the pass between the two mountains (both mountains are part of Fourche Mountain) and how the highway curves through the pass. If you head northbound on US 59-71 between Hillcrest and Acorn, Fourche Mountain looms in the distance. It looks huge from that angle. A tunnel would be expensive and would have to be quite long to cut through the mountain, and as I said, a road cut would be unacceptable. Running the Interstate through Foran Gap is the best solution in nearly every way.

[msunat97]

I thought I read something that ArDOT wouldn't build another tunnel after the Bobby Hopper tunnel experience

[Plutonic Panda]

They could just blast through and then cap it for wildlife crossings essentially creating an "artificial" tunnel which is kind of a linguistically absurd term but I don't know how else to phrase it. The tunnel mafia seems strong in Europe as well as other countries but not in the US.

[Bobby5280]

It's probably going to be at least several years or more before serious planning could even begin for the Foran Gap segment of I-49. That might still leave some tiny outside chance of a more straight alignment being developed that did incorporate at least one tunnel.

If a tunnel was to be built it probably would involve serious V cuts into the mountain leading to the actual tunnel. I don't know what the grade percentages are on the existing US-71 road through the pass. One of the main benefits of building a tunnel is to lower grade percentages on inclines and declines so they are easier to drive. Mileage/time savings is another benefit.

If the existing US-71 grade through Foran Gap isn't bad (5%-6% or more) then a tunnel may not be worth considering at all.

[Road Hog]

The times I drove the Foran Gap, you can keep it 55 all the way (it's Arkansas) and the big "S" curve on the map is gentle. No issues at all with a freeway through it, but I worry that there would be no alternative through route for slower traffic.

[bugo]

They could just blast through and then cap it for wildlife crossings essentially creating an "artificial" tunnel which is kind of a linguistically absurd term but I don't know how else to phrase it. The tunnel mafia seems strong in Europe as well as other countries but not in the US.

I don't think you understand the size of Fourche Mountain. The prominence is about 1300 feet. A road cut would destroy the landscape. The Ouachita Trail crosses Fourche Mountain east-west, and a road cut would require a long bridge over I-49. Trust me, routing it through Foran Gap is the best and cheapest alternative.

Here's a view on US 59-71 of Fourche Mountain looming off in the distance. A rock cut would be ugly and no doubt more expensive than just routing it through the pass.

[bugo]

It's probably going to be at least several years or more before serious planning could even begin for the Foran Gap segment of I-49. That might still leave some tiny outside chance of a more straight alignment being developed that did incorporate at least one tunnel.

If a tunnel was to be built it probably would involve serious V cuts into the mountain leading to the actual tunnel. I don't know what the grade percentages are on the existing US-71 road through the pass. One of the main benefits of building a tunnel is to lower grade percentages on inclines and declines so they are easier to drive. Mileage/time savings is another benefit.

If the existing US-71 grade through Foran Gap isn't bad (5%-6% or more) then a tunnel may not be worth considering at all.

There is zero chance a tunnel will be built. Foran Gap is nearly flat. A tunnel would add millions to the cost and would only save a few miles.

[bwana39]

It's probably going to be at least several years or more before serious planning could even begin for the Foran Gap segment of I-49. That might still leave some tiny outside chance of a more straight alignment being developed that did incorporate at least one tunnel.

If a tunnel was to be built it probably would involve serious V cuts into the mountain leading to the actual tunnel. I don't know what the grade percentages are on the existing US-71 road through the pass. One of the main benefits of building a tunnel is to lower grade percentages on inclines and declines so they are easier to drive. Mileage/time savings is another benefit.

If the existing US-71 grade through Foran Gap isn't bad (5%-6% or more) then a tunnel may not be worth considering at all.

There is zero chance a tunnel will be built. Foran Gap is nearly flat. A tunnel would add millions to the cost and would only save a few miles.

If the Foran Gap is so flat, why have they not used it previously?