Highway projects needed in Arkansas

[KJW]

Today's Springfield News-leader says there's an estimated 390,000 people live in the Springfield metro area. Add to that 71,000 people (2003 estimate) from fast-growing Stone County, MO and Taney County, MO (the Branson area, to Springfield what Fort Smith is to NWA) and you have 461,000 people in that region.

I guarantee you there will be people using I-49 - I-35/I-69 in droves to and fro Springfield/Branson (through Fort Smith) when those come to pass.

[Mith242]

Today's Springfield News-leader says there's an estimated 390,000 people live in the Springfield metro area.  Add to that 71,000 people (2003 estimate) from fast-growing Stone County, MO and Taney County, MO (the Branson area, to Springfield what Fort Smith is to NWA) and you have 461,000 people in that region.

I guarantee you there will be people using I-49 - I-35/I-69 in droves to and fro Springfield/Branson (through Fort Smith) when those come to pass.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could be wrong but I thought Branson was included into the Springfield metro. But the Ozarks are becoming a place where many people are flocking to, even if you exclude northwest Arkansas.

[KJW]

This will still take time but...I wonder now if I-49, I-69 will be expedited?

- Some are saying that New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt. (I'm not one of them). You CANNOT abandon the major ocean transshipment port near the mouth of the Mississippi River. However, some believe Houston will pick up some of the slack.

- If so, there's going to have to be a better interstate connection between certain points of the midwest from Kansas City eastward and northward than currently exists...for the sake of truck shipments from the midwest to HOU (and New Orleans, which I'm sure will be rebuilt.)

- Also, I-49 in southern Louisiana, had it existed, would have been an additional evacuation route from the city between New Orleans and Lafayette.

Don't know, and I wish this disaster had never happened so I wouldn't even be wondering this.

[Mith242]

This will still take time but...I wonder now if I-49, I-69 will be expedited?

- Some are saying that New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt.  (I'm not one of them).  You CANNOT abandon the major ocean transshipment port near the mouth of the Mississippi River.  However, some believe Houston will pick up some of the slack.

- If so, there's going to have to be a better interstate connection between certain points of the midwest from Kansas City eastward and northward than currently exists...for the sake of truck shipments from the midwest to HOU (and New Orleans, which I'm sure will be rebuilt.)

- Also, I-49 in southern Louisiana, had it existed, would have been an additional evacuation route from the city between New Orleans and Lafayette.

Don't know, and I wish this disaster had never happened so I wouldn't even be wondering this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just don't see New Orleans not being rebuilt. Honestly there are plenty of other cities that are set up just as bad for a major disaster at some point. I think this could be a good time to improve some things around the New Orleans area that could help it better in the future with another hurricane. Not sure whether it will expedite I-49 or not but I suppose it's possible.

[sleepy]

This will still take time but...I wonder now if I-49, I-69 will be expedited?

- Some are saying that New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt.  (I'm not one of them).  You CANNOT abandon the major ocean transshipment port near the mouth of the Mississippi River.  However, some believe Houston will pick up some of the slack.

- If so, there's going to have to be a better interstate connection between certain points of the midwest from Kansas City eastward and northward than currently exists...for the sake of truck shipments from the midwest to HOU (and New Orleans, which I'm sure will be rebuilt.)

- Also, I-49 in southern Louisiana, had it existed, would have been an additional evacuation route from the city between New Orleans and Lafayette.

Don't know, and I wish this disaster had never happened so I wouldn't even be wondering this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the completition of I-49 would have almost no economic impact on New Orleans. I did a quick calculation on Mapquest--going from KC to NO via St. Louis is 910 miles. Going from KC to NO via Ft. Smith, Shreveport, etc is 890 miles.

HWY 90 in south Louisiana--a proposed continuation of I-49--is for the most part a 4 lane highway already, some of it already up to interstate standards. So it functions as a hurricane evacuation route as it is.

[KJW]

I think the completition of I-49 would have almost no economic impact on New Orleans.  I did a quick calculation on Mapquest--going from KC to NO via St. Louis is 910 miles.  Going from KC to NO via Ft. Smith, Shreveport, etc is 890 miles.

HWY 90 in south Louisiana--a proposed continuation of I-49--is for the most part a 4 lane highway already, some of it already up to interstate standards.  So it functions as a hurricane evacuation route as it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sleepy, interesting (especially since we've been talking about increasing congestion in NW Arkansas). Still...when you take the 20 miles longer KC-to St. L-to NO route, you:

Have to put up with the congestion of now heavily built Warren and St. Charles Counties around St. L, plus the downtown congestion of St. L or the west bypass (a little more mileage there) plus the lesser congestion of Jefferson County (south St. L suburbs).

Memphis isn't a picnic, either.

[Mith242]

Sleepy, interesting (especially since we've been talking about increasing congestion in NW Arkansas).  Still...when you take the 20 miles longer KC-to St. L-to NO route, you:

Have to put up with the congestion of now heavily built Warren and St. Charles Counties around St. L, plus the downtown congestion of St. L or the west bypass (a little more mileage there) plus the lesser congestion of Jefferson County (south St. L suburbs).

Memphis isn't a picnic, either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess I-49 from Lafayette to new Orleans wouldn't be a huge addition for the New Orleans area. Although I do agree with KWJ, even if it's only around a 20 mile difference you would also have less traffic congestion going through Ft Smith rather Memphis and St Louis. For now though I think I'll be a little more worried about the Lafayette to New Orleans section after the Texarkana to Ft Smith is well under way.

[Hankster]

I'm from Tennessee but I do a lot of travelling and work in Northwest Arkansas. It is amazing just how much growth you are experiencing out your way. However, I'm really concerned about your infrastructure being able to keep up with this kind of growth. I think the Arkansas Department of Transportation needs to develop a new kind of mindset towards their highway system. Roads that are just being widened to have wider shoulders, really should be widened to four or five lanes. There's a road being widened at exit 85 an I-540 in Rogers (I don't remember the highway number). It's going to five lanes. That's better, but in my opinion, that's not enough. The way that area's growing, you'll have that road torn up again for widening in five to ten years because of gridlock. In Atlanta, when they widen a road, they really widen it. They are thinking in the growth mode I'm talking about. For example, there's a road in Henry Co., about 30 miles south of Atlanta in a high growth area like Rogers/Bentonville, that being widened from two to 11 lanes! I believe NW Arkansas is not keeping up with the growth, and gridlock is going to become more and more of a problem if they don't change to a high growth mindset.

[Mith242]

I'm from Tennessee but I do a lot of travelling and work in Northwest Arkansas.  It is amazing just how much growth you are experiencing out your way.  However, I'm really concerned about your infrastructure being able to keep up with this kind of growth.  I think the Arkansas Department of Transportation needs to develop a new kind of mindset towards their highway system.  Roads that are just being widened to have wider shoulders, really should be widened to four or five lanes.  There's a road being widened at exit 85 an I-540 in Rogers (I don't remember the highway number).  It's going to five lanes.  That's better, but in my opinion, that's not enough.  The way that area's growing, you'll have that road torn up again for widening in five to ten years because of gridlock.  In Atlanta, when they widen a road, they really widen it.  They are thinking in the growth mode I'm talking about.  For example, there's a road in Henry Co., about 30 miles south of Atlanta in a high growth area like Rogers/Bentonville, that being widened from two to 11 lanes!  I believe NW Arkansas is not keeping up with the growth, and gridlock is going to become more and more of a problem if they don't change to a high growth mindset.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are certainly correct. I think overall there are two main things working against this. First there seems to be much more of a reactive instead of a proactive movement. Not much gets done until it's already needed. But I also think there's a bit of a culture shock going on too that's hindering things. Many people are used to this area being a smaller 'sleepier' area of the state and there are a number of people who seem opposed to the idea of really backing large amounts of growth. Or maybe a better way to explain it is to make the area feel like it's not as big as it really is. When there was a study that suggested I-540 be widened to 6-8 lanes a number of people freaked out with having that type of road up here. Eventually I think people will get used to the idea of this being a larger metro that it appears to be heading. But Arkansas and this area also really need to start being more proactive and heading of infrastructure problems before they cause major problems.

[sleepy]

Sleepy, interesting (especially since we've been talking about increasing congestion in NW Arkansas).  Still...when you take the 20 miles longer KC-to St. L-to NO route, you:

Have to put up with the congestion of now heavily built Warren and St. Charles Counties around St. L, plus the downtown congestion of St. L or the west bypass (a little more mileage there) plus the lesser congestion of Jefferson County (south St. L suburbs).

Memphis isn't a picnic, either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think building a whole new interstate that reroutes KC-NO traffic--how much is there anyway?--away from St. Louis to avoid St. Louis congestion would be of any economic benefit to New Orleans.

You're talking about two cities that are 900 miles apart. It's like saying build a freeway that bypasses Birmingham, so Cincinnati-New Orleans traffic can save an hour, and that would somehow be a boon to New Orleans.

I'm not saying the stretch of I-49 through Arkansas doesn't need to be done, just that I can't imagine what effect at all it would have on New Orleans.

[KJW]

I don't think building a whole new interstate that reroutes KC-NO traffic--how much is there anyway?--away from St. Louis to avoid St. Louis congestion would be of any economic benefit to New Orleans.

You're talking about two cities that are 900 miles apart.  It's like saying build a freeway that bypasses Birmingham, so Cincinnati-New Orleans traffic can save an hour, and that would somehow be a boon to New Orleans.

I'm not saying the stretch of I-49 through Arkansas doesn't need to be done, just that I can't imagine what effect at all it would have on New Orleans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sleepy, I've read newspaper stories that say how I-49's purpose is to build a KC / NO link. IMO, I believe the eventual I-49/I-69 Minneapolis/St. Paul-Kansas City-Northwest Arkansas-Houston connection will be the big news for the region...that will be a beeline as opposed to going Kansas City(westward to)-Wichita-Oklahoma City-(back eastward)D/FW-Houston.

[Hankster]

Sleepy, I've read newspaper stories that say how I-49's purpose is to build a KC / NO link.  IMO, I believe the eventual I-49/I-69 Minneapolis/St. Paul-Kansas City-Northwest Arkansas-Houston connection will be the big news for the region...that will be a beeline as opposed to going Kansas City(westward to)-Wichita-Oklahoma City-(back eastward)D/FW-Houston.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With the growth going on in NW Arkansas, I think that it's possible that the MSA there could one day equal Little Rock's. While I-49 would be very helpful to the people in NW Arkansas, I think that the NW Arkansas area also needs Hwy 412 improved heading east, preferably all the way across Arkansas. Are there any plans or talk of doing something like that?

[Mith242]

With the growth going on in NW Arkansas, I think that it's possible that the MSA there could one day equal Little Rock's.  While I-49 would be very helpful to the people in NW Arkansas, I think that the NW Arkansas area also needs Hwy 412 improved heading east, preferably all the way across Arkansas.  Are there any plans or talk of doing something like that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Arkansas has plans for widening Hwy 412 but they aren't in any rush. I believe they are slowly widening some sections to 4 lanes but it's not going to be interstate quality road either. After the I-540 bypass around Bella Vista supposedly the next big project they will work on is a $12 bypass to the north of Springdale.

[sleepy]

Sleepy, I've read newspaper stories that say how I-49's purpose is to build a KC / NO link.  IMO, I believe the eventual I-49/I-69 Minneapolis/St. Paul-Kansas City-Northwest Arkansas-Houston connection will be the big news for the region...that will be a beeline as opposed to going Kansas City(westward to)-Wichita-Oklahoma City-(back eastward)D/FW-Houston.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the purpose is to build a KC-NO link, then it shouldn't be built at all, because it would be a complete waste of money to shave an hour off of a 900 mile trip. And how much traffic is there anyway between the 2 cities? It's like building a new freeway from New Orleans to Raleigh NC to shave an hour off.

There is already a freeway being constructed between St. Louis and St. Paul--the Avenue of the Saints--which completes a freeway link from NO to Minneapolis.

Now, I can see the advantage of building I-49 for the I-69 connection to Houston, way more than the benefit to New Orleans, so those people as you say, get to avoid the roundabout I-35.

[KJW]

If the purpose is to build a KC-NO link, then it shouldn't be built at all, because it would be a complete waste of money to shave an hour off of a 900 mile trip.  And  how much traffic is there anyway between the 2 cities?  It's like building a new freeway from New Orleans to Raleigh NC to shave an hour off.

There is already a freeway being constructed between St. Louis and St. Paul--the Avenue of the Saints--which completes a freeway link from NO to Minneapolis.

Now, I can see the advantage of building I-49 for the I-69 connection to Houston, way more than the benefit to New Orleans, so those people as you say, get to avoid the roundabout I-35.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seems this highway is also being touted as a Winnipeg-to-New Orleans freeway.

Is Winnipeg the center for Canadian grain traffic? (I always thought the biggest thing to come out of that city was Bachman Turner Overdrive, waaaaaay back in the day... )

[sleepy]

Seems this highway is also being touted as a Winnipeg-to-New Orleans freeway.

Is Winnipeg the center for Canadian grain traffic?

[Mith242]

As I've said, there's already a freeway nearing completion between St. Paul and St. Louisl.  And from St. Louis to New Orleans, I-55 already exists.

And from the TwinCities there are existing interstates to Winnipeg.

Frankly, I don't see this as any boon to New Orleans, and can't imagine it as such.  Looks to me from the map that any I-49 route from Minneapolis through KC to New Orleans would be longer than the route through St. Louis.

Like I said earlier, it ought to be pitched as a route from Houston north--I-69 to I-49 at Shreveport, not as a route to New Orleans.  And of course, I-49 would be a boon to west AR in and of itself.

Houston got screwed on its interstates from day one--only I-45 and I-10.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is true about Houston. I'd certainly have no problem if they wanted to build an interstate between say Shreveport and Houston. I wouldn't mind having an interstate here in western Arkansas that connected the Mexican border and the Canadian border. I-29 extends south to Kansas City, just extend it down to Shreveport and then add another section towards Houston.

[Aporkalypse]

That is true about Houston.  I'd certainly have no problem if they wanted to build an interstate between say Shreveport and Houston.  I wouldn't mind having an interstate here in western Arkansas that connected the Mexican border and the Canadian border.  I-29 extends south to Kansas City, just extend it down to Shreveport and then add another section towards Houston.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I-69 will essentially connect Houston and Shreveport.

[Mith242]

I-69 will essentially connect Houston and Shreveport.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well guess we'll have an interstate connection to some of the places mentioned after I-49 is completed. But they won't be all the same numbered interstate.

[johnnydr87]

Speaking of highway projects.....the highway dept. just completed a 2.2 mile section of the Martin Luther King Expressway from Malvern to highway 70 (the most used route from Hot Springs to I-30).

Here: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hot+springs,...63078&t=h&hl=en

It's the road that is incomplete in the satellite image (it just stops). If you zoom up a few notches, it should automatically go to the stretch of road I'm speaking of.

It was several years in the making, and it goes over rough terrain. There should be plenty of scenic mountain views along the way.

The last stretch will connect the King expressway to Highway 7 North: 5 miles through mountains. If th 2.2 mile stretch took 5+ years to allocate funds and build, this one will take a muchhhh longer time.

[Mith242]

Speaking of highway projects.....the highway dept. just completed a 2.2 mile section of the Martin Luther King Expressway from Malvern to highway 70 (the most used route from Hot Springs to I-30).

Here: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hot+springs,...63078&t=h&hl=en

It's the road that is incomplete in the satellite image (it just stops). If you zoom up a few notches, it should automatically go to the stretch of road I'm speaking of.

It was several years in the making, and it goes over rough terrain. There should be plenty of scenic mountain views along the way.

The last stretch will connect the King expressway to Highway 7 North: 5 miles through mountains. If th 2.2 mile stretch took 5+ years to allocate funds and build, this one will take a muchhhh longer time.

Good point Johnny, thanks for the update.

[Mith242]

Guess this topic is as good a place to place this as any. Stretches of I-40 and I-30 in Arkansas were rated as some of the most improved roads in the country. I-40 was top and I-30 was third. Now Arkansas has moved off the worst state list. Pennsylvania was wordt with Missouri second.

[mcheiss]

Guess this topic is as good a place to place this as any. Stretches of I-40 and I-30 in Arkansas were rated as some of the most improved roads in the country. I-40 was top and I-30 was third. Now Arkansas has moved off the worst state list. Pennsylvania was wordt with Missouri second.

Good news for Arkansas. So what are we now? Nu. 48. I'm just glad were not Nu. 49.

[Aporkalypse]

Good news for Arkansas. So what are we now? Nu. 48. I'm just glad were not Nu. 49.

The press release only listed the bottom 5 and top 5, we weren't in either.

[mcheiss]

The press release only listed the bottom 5 and top 5, we weren't in either.

Awesome.

Were moving on up.