AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Improvements to I-49 at US 62  (Read 1140 times)

US71

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

  • Posts: 8546
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 10:08:20 AM
    • The Road Less Taken
Improvements to I-49 at US 62
« on: September 16, 2017, 07:56:42 PM »

ARDOT has put forth two proposals for improving I-49 at US 62 in Fayetteville.
Currently EB US 62 has two dedicated left-turn lanes for North 49.

Option 1 is a loop ramp from EB 62 to NB 49
http://arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2017/BB0410/14411_Alt_1_Handout.pdf

Option 2 is a Flyover ramp from EB 62 to NB 49
http://arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2017/BB0410/14411_Alt_2_Handout.pdf

Either one looks like a clusterf*ck to me.
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5842
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:12:17 PM
Re: Improvements to I-49 at US 62
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2017, 12:57:29 AM »

ARDOT has put forth two proposals for improving I-49 at US 62 in Fayetteville.
Currently EB US 62 has two dedicated left-turn lanes for North 49.

Option 1 is a loop ramp from EB 62 to NB 49
http://arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2017/BB0410/14411_Alt_1_Handout.pdf

Option 2 is a Flyover ramp from EB 62 to NB 49
http://arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2017/BB0410/14411_Alt_2_Handout.pdf

Either one looks like a clusterf*ck to me.

Normally I'm all in favor of direct flyovers -- but cobbling one out of what is essentially a left-turn lane looks like a recipe for disaster -- LH exits invite lane-weaving prior to the exit/turnoff itself; in a commercial zone like the one seen here, it's a recipe for perpetual fender-benders.  Of the two options, the RH-exit loop is likely to provide fewer such problems -- although it looks like a mighty tight loop to be part of US 62 continuity -- might cause backup onto the 62 overpass as traffic slows to negotiate the loop itself. 

Ideally, US 62 should be realigned off the commercial stretch and intersect I-49 north of the present interchange, improvements to which are limited by available space.  But that may be a "roadway too far" for ARDOT's current fiscal situation.
Logged

capt.ron

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 217
  • Last Login: Today at 02:12:44 PM
Re: Improvements to I-49 at US 62
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2017, 01:45:29 PM »

The loop makes more sense as long as they provide for a LONG acceleration lane!
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 8546
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 10:08:20 AM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Improvements to I-49 at US 62
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2017, 09:24:10 PM »

The loop makes more sense as long as they provide for a LONG acceleration lane!

As if there is room.
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5842
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:12:17 PM
Re: Improvements to I-49 at US 62
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2017, 01:57:23 AM »

The loop makes more sense as long as they provide for a LONG acceleration lane!

As if there is room.


From the diagram shown on the overlay picture of the loop option, it looks like both directions of I-49 are being shifted a bit to the west, with likely a relatively narrow (K-rail?) median.  If that's the case a more typical NB acceleration lane (not particularly long, but not short either) would likely be included within the plans.  Question: is the EB 62 loop planned for one or two lanes -- and does ARDOT employ ramp metering?  While possibly resulting in additional backups on EB 62 approaching the interchange, metering may help to sort out merging issues, particularly if the loop contains 2 lanes (at least up until just prior to the merge).  Obviously, if the loop is 2 lanes, that would imply that there would be a right lane on EB 62 dedicated solely to the loop, which may ameliorate any congestion in that direction. 

More detailed plans, if presently available, would certainly help in the analysis of the options -- although, as previously stated, the flyover -- as shown -- would be problematic.  Now if they were able to reconfigure it as a right-side exit rather than left, that would be another matter altogether (but that's probably a non-starter because of the roadside businesses). 
Logged

 


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.