Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[M86]

It looks like they have asked for the I-49 designation along I-540 from Alma to Bentonville. October 17 should be a big I-49 day!

AHTD has posted its September 30 presentation to the Springdale Rotary Club and it has numerous slides about costs and timetables for individual segments of the Bella Vista Bypass and I-540 (I-49 in less than two weeks?) improvements under the Connecting Arkansas Program and the Interstate Rehabilitation Program.

The first few slides paint the picture... Arkansas needs to decommission a bunch of state highways. 

[english si]

I thought more "gee, California's network is rather sparse". The other states are all smaller in area than AR.

What you didn't spot was how efficient their admin process is - their admin costs are the 49% lowest, and haven't hockey sticked in the last few years.

[Road Hog]

Arkansas would be well-served to go to a two-tiered state system like adjacent states Tennessee, Missouri and Texas. But the problem is the state would still have to maintain the secondary system. Maybe at a slightly lesser priority, but a wholesale turnover to counties would never fly.

[M86]

Arkansas would be well-served to go to a two-tiered state system like adjacent states Tennessee, Missouri and Texas. But the problem is the state would still have to maintain the secondary system. Maybe at a slightly lesser priority, but a wholesale turnover to counties would never fly.

The problem is the amount/mileage of state highways in Arkansas.  I drove on one recently, AR 127, between Clifty and AR 12.  I passed 2 cars (the stretch was 8 miles).  They really need to cut the fat, so to speak.

I love Missouri's system... Arkansas isn't intelligent enough to adopt something like that though.

[NE2]

Who says Arkansas doesn't have something like Missouri's system, where minor state highways get less maintenance (despite having numbers rather than letters)?

[english si]

They really need to cut the fat, so to speak.

Why? Especially as admin costs per mile are so low.

[US71]

They really need to cut the fat, so to speak.

Why? Especially as admin costs per mile are so low.

AHTD likes to take over county roads, like AR 74 (WC 43) east of US 71 near Winslow and AR 400 (Shepherd Springs Rd). They also have lots of short routes (AR 116 south of Booneville)

Conversely, AR 72 has been discontinued between US 71 and Bus 71 in Bentonville, as has AR 16 from I-540 to AR 112. Also AR 245 north of I-30 in Texarkana (south of 30 being replaced by AR 549)

I'm not sure AHTD has a definitive policy.

[M86]

Who says Arkansas doesn't have something like Missouri's system, where minor state highways get less maintenance (despite having numbers rather than letters)?

To my knowledge, they don't, and quite frankly, AHTD is miles behind MoDOT.  But that was my point, minor state highways could have letters.  I really like MO's system. 

I thought more "gee, California's network is rather sparse". The other states are all smaller in area than AR.

What you didn't spot was how efficient their admin process is - their admin costs are the 49% lowest, and haven't hockey sticked in the last few years.

Can you provide any sources or links?  AHTD is very poorly run, in my opinion.  They may have low admin costs, but their output is subpar.

[HandsomeRob]

AHTD has posted its September 30 presentation to the Springdale Rotary Club and it has numerous slides about costs and timetables for individual segments of the Bella Vista Bypass and I-540 (I-49 in less than two weeks?) improvements under the Connecting Arkansas Program and the Interstate Rehabilitation Program.

The map on page 17 of that PDF seems to show a proposed eastern bypass of Rogers. Do we know anything about this proposal?

[Grzrd]

September 30 presentation to the Springdale Rotary Club

The map on page 17 of that PDF seems to show a proposed eastern bypass of Rogers. Do we know anything about this proposal?

Environmental Assessment and a map.

One major purpose for the project is to provide some relief for the I-540 (Future I-49) corridor (p. 9/175 of EA pdf; p. 1 of EA document):

Purpose of the Proposed Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve north-south connectivity in the eastern portions of Springdale, Lowell, Bethel Heights and Rogers and to continue the eastern north-south corridor route of Highway 265 from Highway 264 north to Highway 94. The proposed connectivity improvements would provide another avenue for motorists to travel north and south without having to access Highway 71B and Interstate 540 in the Northwest Arkansas metro area.

[M86]

September 30 presentation to the Springdale Rotary Club

The map on page 17 of that PDF seems to show a proposed eastern bypass of Rogers. Do we know anything about this proposal?

Purpose of the Proposed Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve north-south connectivity in the eastern portions of Springdale, Lowell, Bethel Heights and Rogers and to continue the eastern north-south corridor route of Highway 265 from Highway 264 north to Highway 94. The proposed connectivity improvements would provide another avenue for motorists to travel north and south without having to access Highway 71B and Interstate 540 in the Northwest Arkansas metro area.

This won't be a bypass by any means.  It's just a widening project, really... but could be considered a bypass, if they do it right.  I just hope that AHTD will not make it 2 lanes in each direction, with the dreaded center left turn lane.

[Henry]

September 30 presentation to the Springdale Rotary Club

The map on page 17 of that PDF seems to show a proposed eastern bypass of Rogers. Do we know anything about this proposal?

Purpose of the Proposed Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve north-south connectivity in the eastern portions of Springdale, Lowell, Bethel Heights and Rogers and to continue the eastern north-south corridor route of Highway 265 from Highway 264 north to Highway 94. The proposed connectivity improvements would provide another avenue for motorists to travel north and south without having to access Highway 71B and Interstate 540 in the Northwest Arkansas metro area.

This won't be a bypass by any means.  It's just a widening project, really... but could be considered a bypass, if they do it right.  I just hope that AHTD will not make it 2 lanes in each direction, with the dreaded center left turn lane.

Don't get your hopes up! This being AR, they most likely will.

[NE2]

So related to the whole issue of conflict with US 49: how the hell did I-41 get approved?

[Grzrd]

So related to the whole issue of conflict with US 49: how the hell did I-41 get approved?

Since it is a US 41 to I-41 "Conversion", the same number will remain on the same corridor. The number 41 will be upgraded from US highway to Interstate. My guess is that, if anything, it may have been concluded to be the least confusing interstate number to the public.

[agentsteel53]

So related to the whole issue of conflict with US 49: how the hell did I-41 get approved?

what you should be asking is "how the hell did I-74 get approved in North Carolina".  there, we have a 74/74 junction.

[NE2]

what you should be asking is "how the hell did I-74 get approved in North Carolina".  there, we have a 74/74 junction.

Congress set that number (as they did with I-49 and I-69).

[O Tamandua]

why October 17th?

http://route.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx

Next Meeting of the Special Committee on US Route Number will meet in Denver, CO, October 17, 2013 - Applications due no later than September 9, 2013

Grzrd, forgive me if I missed this, but any word on Arkansas I-49?

[Grzrd]

any word on Arkansas I-49?

The final step of the AASHTO approval process is Board approval of the Committee recommendations.  The Board is pretty much meeting all day today, and should take action on the route applications today.

When will the results be posted? I'm guessing that it could be as early as tomorrow, but past experience indicates that it may be several days past that time.

[O Tamandua]

any word on Arkansas I-49?

The final step of the AASHTO approval process is Board approval of the Committee recommendations.  The Board is pretty much meeting all day today, and should take action on the route applications today.

When will the results be posted? I'm guessing that it could be as early as tomorrow, but past experience indicates that it may be several days past that time.

Thanks, Grzrd.  I know you'll post it as soon as you hear the word.

[Grzrd]

I recently received an email update from AHTD regarding the designation of I-49 in Arkansas:

As you can see from the attached map, we have recently requested route designation changes for several sections of the Highway 71/State Highway 549/I-540 corridor in western Arkansas.

From the attached map (SW Arkansas image posted in Texarkana thread):

I just got a verbal confirmation from AHTD that they were "surprised", but they got "everything they asked for" regarding I-49.

No word on when the first shield will go up. 

edit

Dig the man with the I-49 necktie toward the report's end!

Maybe it's time for some folks on the Forum to get a new tie!:

[Road Hog]

I assume at some point they will renumber the exits? That will show how serious AHTD is about the middle section (Texarkana to Alma).

[O Tamandua]

Well done, Grzrd!  Thank you.

[txstateends]

So, there are no Missouri-style upgrades/changes they have to do, or any timeframe (you-can't-do-this-until) issues (except, of course, the future construction/completion of the unbuilt parts) listed in the approval breakdown...are there any, or is it solely an "I-49 as soon as we can make the signs" situation?

[Grzrd]

So, there are no Missouri-style upgrades/changes they have to do, or any timeframe (you-can't-do-this-until) issues (except, of course, the future construction/completion of the unbuilt parts) listed in the approval breakdown...are there any, or is it solely an "I-49 as soon as we can make the signs" situation?

I have an email in to AHTD asking about their understanding and their short-term plans.  FWIW I think that, if FHWA has already identified a segment as being interstate-grade construction, then a request to put up the shields is a formality that FHWA cannot refuse because the interstate number has been Congressionally designated. Still, AHTD has to ask ...

The map several posts up suggests that AHTD has short-term plans to put shields up on I-540 and AR 549 neat Texarkana.

[Grzrd]

So, there are no Missouri-style upgrades/changes they have to do, or any timeframe (you-can't-do-this-until) issues (except, of course, the future construction/completion of the unbuilt parts) listed in the approval breakdown...are there any, or is it solely an "I-49 as soon as we can make the signs" situation?

I just took a look at what AHTD asked for in their application (page 3/36 of pdf):



* AHTD asked for redesignations of I-540 ("as Interstate 49") and part of US 71 (I assume "as Interstate 49") in NWA.  I had thought that they were going to ask for concurrent designations in order to allow for a transition period.
* Designation of AR 549 from the Louisiana state line to US 71 at the Texas state line as "Interstate 49".  Does this suggest a concurrency?  Although, I suppose that, since it is a state route, they can axe AR 549 on their own and not have to ask AASHTO.

At any rate, I think that they want to put shields up at appropriate places sooner rather than later.