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?