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 748386 times)

US71

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

  • Posts: 9514
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 03:38:22 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2500 on: January 18, 2020, 06:29:08 PM »

Fort Smith/River Valley is not against I-49. It would be great for Chaffee Crossing.

The newest Highway Commissioner is from Lavaca, surely a big part of his selection was to keep the emphasis on I-49

Very possible, but Philip Taldo is also from NWA.
Logged
Like Alice, I try to believe three impossible things before breakfast. --5th Doctor

bjrush

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 370
  • Go Hogs

  • Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 07:30:39 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2501 on: January 18, 2020, 10:26:01 PM »

It'll be interesting to see who the next governor is. NWA has enjoyed great newfound access in LR under Asa
Logged
Woo Pig Sooie

US71

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

  • Posts: 9514
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 03:38:22 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2502 on: January 22, 2020, 08:55:35 PM »

Logged
Like Alice, I try to believe three impossible things before breakfast. --5th Doctor

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 649
  • Last Login: Today at 12:41:36 AM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2503 on: January 24, 2020, 12:28:35 PM »

There appears to be a delay (SURPRISE! --NOT!)

https://talkbusiness.net/2020/01/bella-vista-bypass-project-cost-rises-by-7-million-fayetteville-interchange-delayed/

No delay in I-49 Bella Vista Bypass.

The delay is with a set of ramp upgrades in Fayetteville.

The $7 million bump by MoDOT is because when they benchmarked the project against recent like builds nationally, they had underestimated certain  material costs. By bumping up the total allotted, this will ensure the bids don't exceed the budget.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 344
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: April 04, 2020, 01:27:13 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2504 on: March 25, 2020, 08:34:54 PM »

Drove the Bella Vista bypass twice today and noted a huge change from a month ago when I'd last went through there.  Much of the rock blasting is completed and it sure does look different coming down the hill where I-49 terminates currently northbound.  The construction sign says that it is estimated to be completed Oct. 2021, so here's hoping Missouri can get with the program.

I went to the Springdale 1/2 cent continuation proposal meeting that ARDOT was canvassing the state promoting (before COVID-19 shut them down) and they stated that the maps with the 2nd Connecting Arkansas Program that have a number of long-desired new terrain Interstates (at least 2 lanes of them) and 4-laning upgrades of US highways were not a 10 year horizon, but rather a 20 year horizon.  So it sounds like there's going to have to be a huge gift from Uncle Sam before anything substantive comes about in our lifetimes.
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 9514
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 03:38:22 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2505 on: March 25, 2020, 08:40:49 PM »

Drove the Bella Vista bypass twice today and noted a huge change from a month ago when I'd last went through there.  Much of the rock blasting is completed and it sure does look different coming down the hill where I-49 terminates currently northbound.  The construction sign says that it is estimated to be completed Oct. 2021, so here's hoping Missouri can get with the program.

I went to the Springdale 1/2 cent continuation proposal meeting that ARDOT was canvassing the state promoting (before COVID-19 shut them down) and they stated that the maps with the 2nd Connecting Arkansas Program that have a number of long-desired new terrain Interstates (at least 2 lanes of them) and 4-laning upgrades of US highways were not a 10 year horizon, but rather a 20 year horizon.  So it sounds like there's going to have to be a huge gift from Uncle Sam before anything substantive comes about in our lifetimes.

MoDOT is aiming for mid-2022 to have their section of I-49 done. All that's left is to formally award the bid before construction begins.
Logged
Like Alice, I try to believe three impossible things before breakfast. --5th Doctor

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 815
  • Super Bowl Champs!!!!

  • Last Login: Today at 05:17:26 AM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2506 on: March 27, 2020, 02:32:41 AM »

Drove the Bella Vista bypass twice today and noted a huge change from a month ago when I'd last went through there.  Much of the rock blasting is completed and it sure does look different coming down the hill where I-49 terminates currently northbound.  The construction sign says that it is estimated to be completed Oct. 2021, so here's hoping Missouri can get with the program.

I went to the Springdale 1/2 cent continuation proposal meeting that ARDOT was canvassing the state promoting (before COVID-19 shut them down) and they stated that the maps with the 2nd Connecting Arkansas Program that have a number of long-desired new terrain Interstates (at least 2 lanes of them) and 4-laning upgrades of US highways were not a 10 year horizon, but rather a 20 year horizon.  So it sounds like there's going to have to be a huge gift from Uncle Sam before anything substantive comes about in our lifetimes.

MoDOT is aiming for mid-2022 to have their section of I-49 done. All that's left is to formally award the bid before construction begins.
I think they’re planning on finishing the Missouri part by the end of next year as well. That might change if there are any construction delays due to this Covid19.


iPhone
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 149
  • The Interstate Ideas just keep coming!

  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: April 04, 2020, 11:23:16 PM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2507 on: March 29, 2020, 07:16:46 PM »

I've heard that Progress in Arkansas is going to move Slowly because of Arkansas having Low funds, and that they have to make 2 new Bridges for Interstate, I-69/US 278 and I-49
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 9514
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 03:38:22 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2508 on: March 29, 2020, 07:54:45 PM »

I've heard that Progress in Arkansas is going to move Slowly because of Arkansas having Low funds, and that they have to make 2 new Bridges for Interstate, I-69/US 278 and I-49

I-49 south of Alma doesn't seem to be as high a priority as the US 67/I-57 upgrade.
Logged
Like Alice, I try to believe three impossible things before breakfast. --5th Doctor

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 649
  • Last Login: Today at 12:41:36 AM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2509 on: March 29, 2020, 08:31:59 PM »

LITTLE ROCK, Ark.  — Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s priorities for the 2020 election season will focus on winning voter approval for a proposed constitutional amendment that would make Arkansas’ 0.5% sales tax for highways and roads permanent.

At Tuesday’s meeting of the Arkansas Good Roads Foundation, Hutchinson said the proposal is vital to the state’s future. Arkansas officials project the measure would raise about $205 million a year for highways.

Voters approved the tax in 2012 but it is set to expire after 10 years, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported.

A Gilmore Strategy Group poll in October found 62% of 800 likely voters said they’re going to vote for Issue 1 or are likely to vote in favor of it, according to Hutchinson. The poll also showed 68.6% of people are more likely to vote for the amendment “if they are assured that it was going to be spent and invested in all four corners of the state.”

About 33% of the respondents indicated their major concern about the quality of roads is potholes damaging vehicles, while 18% are more concerned with congestion and delays, Hutchinson said.

A committee dubbed “Vote for Roads. Vote for Issue 1” will promote the proposed amendment ahead of next year’s election.

Hutchinson said he’s delighted that highway commissioners and the Transportation Department will be hosting 12 public hearings across the state. The meetings will begin in Monticello on Jan. 21 and end April 2 in El Dorado, according to the agency.

Hutchinson said the meetings are critical because the public wants to know how the money will be used.

“They want to make sure that the divvying up and the allocation of those funds was not done simply behind a closed door, but that they had input into it, that they were able to express their views on it, they were able to see it on a map and to comment on it and help develop it and shape it,” the governor said.
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 9514
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 03:38:22 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2510 on: March 29, 2020, 08:44:56 PM »

LITTLE ROCK, Ark.  — Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s priorities for the 2020 election season will focus on winning voter approval for a proposed constitutional amendment that would make Arkansas’ 0.5% sales tax for highways and roads permanent.

At Tuesday’s meeting of the Arkansas Good Roads Foundation, Hutchinson said the proposal is vital to the state’s future. Arkansas officials project the measure would raise about $205 million a year for highways.

Voters approved the tax in 2012 but it is set to expire after 10 years, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported.

A Gilmore Strategy Group poll in October found 62% of 800 likely voters said they’re going to vote for Issue 1 or are likely to vote in favor of it, according to Hutchinson. The poll also showed 68.6% of people are more likely to vote for the amendment “if they are assured that it was going to be spent and invested in all four corners of the state.”

About 33% of the respondents indicated their major concern about the quality of roads is potholes damaging vehicles, while 18% are more concerned with congestion and delays, Hutchinson said.

A committee dubbed “Vote for Roads. Vote for Issue 1” will promote the proposed amendment ahead of next year’s election.

Hutchinson said he’s delighted that highway commissioners and the Transportation Department will be hosting 12 public hearings across the state. The meetings will begin in Monticello on Jan. 21 and end April 2 in El Dorado, according to the agency.

Hutchinson said the meetings are critical because the public wants to know how the money will be used.

“They want to make sure that the divvying up and the allocation of those funds was not done simply behind a closed door, but that they had input into it, that they were able to express their views on it, they were able to see it on a map and to comment on it and help develop it and shape it,” the governor said.

The hearings are currently on hold due to the Corona virus outbreak.
Logged
Like Alice, I try to believe three impossible things before breakfast. --5th Doctor

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 79
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 10:32:23 AM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2511 on: March 29, 2020, 10:45:11 PM »

I've heard that Progress in Arkansas is going to move Slowly because of Arkansas having Low funds, and that they have to make 2 new Bridges for Interstate, I-69/US 278 and I-49

I don't really think I-49 is going to be held up for I-69. The I-69 bridge is decades in the future if ever. Common sense is to take I-69 from south of US 82 (west of ElDorado) to the current US278 (US 82 Greenville) bridge, extend the future I-530 (US 425 / 278 or US-65) from Pine Bluff to Lake Village. A few miles more of freeway, but no half billion+dollar  bridge.

Here is what it takes to get the Dean bridge built.

1) I-69 in Louisiana.
2) I-69 in Arkansas.
3) I-530 Finished to Monticello AR
4) Missippi Coming up with money for their part of the bridge (which they may want in a different location or not at all.)
5) Arkansas having funding to build the bridge.

I-69 in LA doesn't start until AFTER I-69 is complete past Nacogdoches in Texas.  That is just the component from US-59 to US-71. The part north of I-20 may be 30 years in the future.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 79
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 10:32:23 AM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2512 on: March 31, 2020, 02:38:59 PM »

Quote from: sparker on Today at 06:51:14 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 11:38:26 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2020, 10:03:35 PM

But without that bridge project, completion of the remainder south to Texarkana is, in the larger sense, a bit pointless.
Can't say I would necessarily agree. I-540 could act as a "temporary" routing if the rest of I-49 is built south of Fort Smith while that bridge is still being worked out.

That's all this corridor needs -- to have US 71 between I-49 and I-540 become the western version of Breezewood!  In all likelihood, though, the bridge will be done well before most of the route's remainder south to Texarkana is even let.  The high level of regional need effectively renders that crossing it's own SIU independent of the full I-49 corridor -- even if it is tolled.


I say just build it as a toll bridge and call it a day.

******************************************************************

Building I-49 through with the bridge would be more like Breezewood than without it. (From looking at a map.)
As to a Toll bridge, I am not sure that getting around a fairly small town for minimally shorter distance and pay a toll is not going to play. The tolls will be minimal outside of peak (rush hour) traffic and Home UA football games.

« Last Edit: April 01, 2020, 08:23:50 AM by bwana39 »
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 9514
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 03:38:22 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2513 on: March 31, 2020, 02:51:41 PM »


I say just build it as a toll bridge and call it a day.

Currently, toll roads/bridges are not allowed on public highways in Arkansas.
Logged
Like Alice, I try to believe three impossible things before breakfast. --5th Doctor

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 303
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:09 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2514 on: March 31, 2020, 08:00:05 PM »


I say just build it as a toll bridge and call it a day.

Currently, toll roads/bridges are not allowed on public highways in Arkansas.

ArDOT did a feasibility study about financing the Arkansas River brige with tolls. That study concluded that tolling the bridge would come nowhere near close to covering the cost of the bridge's construction. And so the main sticking point holding up construction that would link the orphaned section of I-49 to I-40 and the rest of I-49 is how to pay for it. No one can seem to figure that out.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2077
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 07:39:26 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2515 on: March 31, 2020, 11:41:17 PM »

Quote from: bwana39
I don't really think I-49 is going to be held up for I-69. The I-69 bridge is decades in the future if ever. Common sense is to take I-69 from south of US 82 (west of ElDorado) to the current US278 (US 82 Greenville) bridge, extend the future I-530 (US 425 / 278 or US-65) from Pine Bluff to Lake Village. A few miles more of freeway, but no half billion+dollar  bridge.

The currently proposed I-69 path between Shreveport and Memphis sucks out loud bad enough for being a really crooked route, not in the slightest bit direct at all. But pulling the Mississippi River crossing farther South to US-82 would make I-69 even more of a joke not worth building out at all ever.

No one except for local regional traffic will ever use that route. Everyone else will stick to using I-30 and I-40 and just avoid that I-69 jerky, dog-leg ridden waste of time.

Interstate highways need to be built on paths direct as possible to save as much time and mileage as possible. Otherwise there is zero point in building them at all. One Interstate route should never be a disjointed Frankstein's monster of local routes stitched together.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3800
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:37:33 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2516 on: March 31, 2020, 11:50:24 PM »

The currently proposed I-69 path between Shreveport and Memphis sucks out loud bad enough for being a really crooked route, not in the slightest bit direct at all. But pulling the Mississippi River crossing farther South to US-82 would make I-69 even more of a joke not worth building out at all ever.

No one except for local regional traffic will ever use that route. Everyone else will stick to using I-30 and I-40 and just avoid that I-69 jerky, dog-leg ridden waste of time.

Interstate highways need to be built on paths direct as possible to save as much time and mileage as possible. Otherwise there is zero point in building them at all. One Interstate route should never be a disjointed Frankstein's monster of local routes stitched together.
:paranoid:

You just keep ignoring the actual numbers, don't ya?

Quote
And then there's the matter of the I-69 route being so crooked. How much time/mileage will it save versus using the I-30/40 combo coming up from I-369? I really don't see the value of I-69 between the I-369 split in Texas all the way up to Indianapolis as being a primary highway to move traffic between Mexico and Canada.
Curious as well, I decided to draw the proposed routing as accurately as possible based on state maps and compared the distance / time of Future I-69 and I-269 to Future I-369, I-30, and I-40, for a routing between Tenaha and I-40 east of Memphis at I-269.

Tenaha -> Memphis
I-369 -> I-30 -> I-40 = 6 hours, 4 minutes; 426 miles
I-69 -> I-269 = 6 hours, 8 minutes; 430 miles

So ultimately, both routes would have about the same mileage and travel times, with I-69 also avoiding the Little Rock, Memphis, and Texarkana metros. The traffic load would additionally be split. I-69 would serve southeastern Texas traffic whereas I-40 and I-30 would serve Oklahoma and northern Texas traffic. If I-69 could reasonably get completed through Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi, it indeed would take traffic off of I-40 and I-30 and relieve congestion, especially those high truck percentages, over 50% of the traffic volumes.

Additionally, Google's time calculations tend to assume a slightly higher speed than the actual speed limit, so I would have to go through each segment of I-40 and I-30, notably in the urban areas, and get an accurate time calculation based on the posted speed limit. The I-30 and I-40 time estimate could be ~5 minutes off. I assumed a consistent 70 mph speed limit on the I-69 route, whereas Google may have assumed a consistent 75 mph driving speed on I-30 / I-40.

It's not a crooked route... It's just as direct as I-30 / I-40, and will take southern Texas bound traffic off of the existing I-30 / I-40 corridor, leaving it open to northern Texas, Oklahoma, and beyond traffic, reducing congestion significantly if built to its full design.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2077
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 07:39:26 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2517 on: April 01, 2020, 12:02:57 AM »

I-69 in Arkansas, as currently proposed, is indeed a crooked route. And shifting the Mississippi crossing farther South to US-82 will make it even more stupidly crooked. It will make I-69 in Arkansas a mostly East-West route and the path in Mississippi very much a North-South route. The path would be a stupid, giant backwards L-shape route. Just worthless.

The I-30/I-40 combo is a long established route with lots of services along its exits. I-69 doesn't have any guarantees of attracting similar amounts of development along its path, especially if it runs an even more out of the way angle to re-purpose the US-82 crossing. Most of the traffic will likely keep using I-30 and I-40.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3800
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:37:33 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2518 on: April 01, 2020, 12:06:45 AM »

I-69 in Arkansas, as currently proposed, is indeed a crooked route. And shifting the Mississippi crossing farther South to US-82 will make it even more stupidly crooked. It will make I-69 in Arkansas a mostly East-West route and the path in Mississippi very much a North-South route. The path would be a stupid, giant backwards L-shape route. Just worthless.

The I-30/I-40 combo is a long established route with lots of services along its exits. I-69 doesn't have any guarantees of attracting similar amounts of development along its path, especially if it runs an even more out of the way angle to re-purpose the US-82 crossing. Most of the traffic will likely keep using I-30 and I-40.
There's no official proposal to re-route it to US-82.

For the existing proposed route, it's just as long as the current I-30 / I-40 routing. Look above.
Logged

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 149
  • The Interstate Ideas just keep coming!

  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: April 04, 2020, 11:23:16 PM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2519 on: April 01, 2020, 12:35:43 AM »

I-69 in Arkansas, as currently proposed, is indeed a crooked route. And shifting the Mississippi crossing farther South to US-82 will make it even more stupidly crooked. It will make I-69 in Arkansas a mostly East-West route and the path in Mississippi very much a North-South route. The path would be a stupid, giant backwards L-shape route. Just worthless.

The I-30/I-40 combo is a long established route with lots of services along its exits. I-69 doesn't have any guarantees of attracting similar amounts of development along its path, especially if it runs an even more out of the way angle to re-purpose the US-82 crossing. Most of the traffic will likely keep using I-30 and I-40.
There's no official proposal to re-route it to US-82.

For the existing proposed route, it's just as long as the current I-30 / I-40 routing. Look above.

yeah i Haven't seen anything of US 82 being the Bridge of I-69, But i do believe they might have to due to low funding for both Arkansas and Mississippi
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 344
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: April 04, 2020, 01:27:13 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2520 on: April 01, 2020, 09:38:36 AM »

Quote from: bwana39
I don't really think I-49 is going to be held up for I-69. The I-69 bridge is decades in the future if ever. Common sense is to take I-69 from south of US 82 (west of ElDorado) to the current US278 (US 82 Greenville) bridge, extend the future I-530 (US 425 / 278 or US-65) from Pine Bluff to Lake Village. A few miles more of freeway, but no half billion+dollar  bridge.

The currently proposed I-69 path between Shreveport and Memphis sucks out loud bad enough for being a really crooked route, not in the slightest bit direct at all. But pulling the Mississippi River crossing farther South to US-82 would make I-69 even more of a joke not worth building out at all ever.

No one except for local regional traffic will ever use that route. Everyone else will stick to using I-30 and I-40 and just avoid that I-69 jerky, dog-leg ridden waste of time.

Interstate highways need to be built on paths direct as possible to save as much time and mileage as possible. Otherwise there is zero point in building them at all. One Interstate route should never be a disjointed Frankstein's monster of local routes stitched together.

There's just as big a dogleg up I-369 off mainline I-69 as is currently proposed up to I-30/I-40 and back to the I-69 junction east of Memphis as I-69 itself would have in SE Arkansas.  It's a question of whether you want your dogleg to put you into a congested series of cities, at least 2 of which (LR and Memphis/West Memphis) have significant slowdowns at rush hours and would continue to even with additional lanes on I-30/I-40.  When I travel, I like to choose routes that don't feed me directly into large metroplexes if there are options with less than a 15 minute impact, because I hate to drive slowly and travel times through metros vary widely from rush hour (which can add more than the 15 minutes a reasonable alternate route might add) to middle of the night.  As far as services go, there's no way that I-69 in SE Arkansas wouldn't have at least a truck stop or two around Monticello within 2 years of it being built out.  They can slap those things up in amazingly quick fashion and capitalism has a wonderful way of fulfilling under-served demand.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2020, 09:40:40 AM by MikieTimT »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6537
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:52:27 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2521 on: April 01, 2020, 04:03:08 PM »

I-69 in Arkansas, as currently proposed, is indeed a crooked route. And shifting the Mississippi crossing farther South to US-82 will make it even more stupidly crooked. It will make I-69 in Arkansas a mostly East-West route and the path in Mississippi very much a North-South route. The path would be a stupid, giant backwards L-shape route. Just worthless.

The I-30/I-40 combo is a long established route with lots of services along its exits. I-69 doesn't have any guarantees of attracting similar amounts of development along its path, especially if it runs an even more out of the way angle to re-purpose the US-82 crossing. Most of the traffic will likely keep using I-30 and I-40.
There's no official proposal to re-route it to US-82.

For the existing proposed route, it's just as long as the current I-30 / I-40 routing. Look above.

yeah i Haven't seen anything of US 82 being the Bridge of I-69, But i do believe they might have to due to low funding for both Arkansas and Mississippi

As far as funding goes, while AR is certainly not an overly wealthy state, it does have a tax base that is considerably greater than neighboring MS due to several corporate HQ (including one major "big box" retailer whose name needs not be mentioned!) located within its borders.  Unfortunately for MS, most of its businesses don't, in the aggregate, provide the revenues needed for consistent public works progress; what's in the state are branches or subsidiaries, like the Tupelo Toyota plant;  while a major regional employer, even its USA corporate HQ, where most of the corporate revenue taxes are paid, is elsewhere.   And what local/state taxes are paid are certainly insufficient to support statwide expenditures. 

But while the US 82 bridge is Interstate-standard, it's not part of the corridor and has never been considered as an alternate routing (although it certainly will see some interim service albeit a bit out of the way).   
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 649
  • Last Login: Today at 12:41:36 AM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2522 on: April 01, 2020, 05:34:00 PM »


I say just build it as a toll bridge and call it a day.

Currently, toll roads/bridges are not allowed on public highways in Arkansas.

ArDOT did a feasibility study about financing the Arkansas River brige with tolls. That study concluded that tolling the bridge would come nowhere near close to covering the cost of the bridge's construction. And so the main sticking point holding up construction that would link the orphaned section of I-49 to I-40 and the rest of I-49 is how to pay for it. No one can seem to figure that out.

There is one problem right there. Expecting a toll to cover the *entire* cost of the bridge. Why not consider a toll as a cost reduction exercise? Price the tolls only to cover the gap between what ArDOT can come up with and the total cost of the bridge.

So if ArDOT can only come up with say $600 million, and the gap is $300 million, only sell toll revenue bonds on the $300 million. Toll the bridge based on a 30 year payback period for $300 million, not the $900 million to build it.

The tolls are less, the payback is less, the risk is more distributed. Seems like a win-win to me.

Per the FHA.

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141), enacted in
2012, reinforced the encouragement of tolls on HOV lanes and congestion pricing. It allowed new
Interstate system routes or route extensions to be built as toll roads,
but continued to block tolling
of most existing Interstate Highway lane capacity. MAP-21 retained two pilot programs, one
encouraging the use of pricing to control congestion and another allowing Interstate route
segments in three states to be converted to tolling as part of their reconstruction.

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94), enacted in December
2015, clarified that public authorities generally, as opposed to solely state agencies, may impose
tolls on single-occupant vehicles using HOV lanes. It modified the TEA-21 pilot program
allowing existing Interstate Highway segments in three states to be subject to tolls to finance
reconstruction by providing that federal approval lapses if the selected states have not started
construction within three years of approval.
Logged

bjrush

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 370
  • Go Hogs

  • Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 07:30:39 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2523 on: April 01, 2020, 07:53:41 PM »

I believe it is state law, which isn't going to change
Logged
Woo Pig Sooie

sprjus4

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3800
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:37:33 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #2524 on: April 01, 2020, 08:57:19 PM »

I believe it is state law, which isn't going to change
State law can be changed.
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.