Massive I-30 construction to begin in Texarkana

[KJW]

Of course local officials *always* say that.

Well, for starters the rust belt cities of the upper mid-west in the past several decades. Those cities have excellent interstate acces.

----- Also, before anybody get too excited about future I-49, I'm telling you the traffic won't be that much. The current traffic on the eastern part of 245 loop/hwy 71 in Texarkana is lower than many 2-lane roads in NWA. I've seen the studies and traffic projections for the future I-49, even assuming full completion of it and hwy 59, even 20 years from now-- it was still lower than some 2-lane roads in regions like NWA. I'm not exagerating.

But yes, interstates do help out and yada yada, obviously as a publicly subsidized infrastructure, they are vital to the nation's economy.... and they are of major interest for locating shopping malls, industrial facilities, office parks, etc. But too much emphasis is placed on them by the general public, which is I think in large part due to politicians-- of course, they will likely blame any poor economy on something like lack of adequate infrastructure... and take lots of credit if he or his adminstration get a highway built (that's in part why ear-marks, aka pork-barrel money, are increasingly stuffed into transportation bills like crazy).

That's why I think NWA is the antithesis of this common notion-- it's economy was doing fine before four-lane highways. (Though that doesn't mean it doesn't need a lot of congestion relief). Though a good point to make might be that NWA's economy is doing better once something like I-540 to Alma opened (by cutting travel time substantially and relieving congestion).

Major urban congestion is a large cause of much delay in the US (which amounts to loss of economic production etc.), and deserves more attention than sexy ideas like completion of major freeways or 4-lane highway connections IMO. None of the studies or reports I've seen are convincing to anyone, period. Whenever you hear countless politicians selling their idea of some new interstate connection, rarely do I ever hear facts or stats to back up their claim.

However, IMO something like I-69 makes more sense, considering how much freight traffic I-30/I-40 handles through Arkansas, which is one of the heaviest truck routes in the US. In that regard, the need is a bit more obvious (identifing a current problem, rather than saying it will boost local economies and traffic will just pop up). When it comes to non-earmarked projects, that is the normal way of things to justify something major-- that is, it will help solve a current problem, not hopefully benefit local economies.

But another part of my skepticism is money-- I would be all for it if money would just fall out of the sky, but with all the problems going on right now with the federal budget and transportation funding, I don't see a remedy soon for mega billion $ projects in a relatively small and poor state like Arkansas. If Arkansas gets tons of ear-marks for I-49 by some miracle, then that would be great.

Itk, you had a link to a big .pdf document on the other board which showed (among many other things) for lack of a better term, a map of congressionally proposed (or of federal interest) transportation projects. What was fascinating about that map was how many of them ran through Arkansas, both along the I-49 and I-69 corridors.

At the time I discounted somewhat that map because it was "congressional interest". Would that just have been interest from the Arkansas 3rd and 4th U.S. districts, or would others (obviously those in adjacent states would have an interest) have been looking at this as well?

Again, if it would have only been one road I'd also have not put too much stock in this, but there were multiple corridors of interest again running along I-49 and I-69. Plus, John Q. Hammons' comments from last week still stand out. JQH won't be spending his own money (save those from taxes, ostensibly) on finishing I-49 (which our Missouri friends have told us is in the not-too-distant future going to be put up to interstate quality by their state government from Kansas City all the way to the Arkansas line) but he sure seems to believe that's one of two key components to the growth of "the 51st state (northwest Arkansas, his term for it)".

And, wow, if I-40 is one of the heaviest truck routes in the U.S., it makes sense to me that there would be some growth for FSM as a result of a complete I-49. (Matt Cheiss, I seem to recall that the editorial I read hinted there would be the potential for extensive trucking operations/expansions in FSM, not just truck stops and restaurants which are pretty much already there). But again, I-69 between SHV and Houston will explode...I'd think that would be a good candidate for a three-lane (each way) interstate if there ever was one. Then again, it's not raining money. And you know how this stuff works better than I will. I'm merely on the ground over here in NWA and have talked with truckers here.

Then AGAIN, fuel's the most expensive it's been in the U.S., and I still can see how a completed I-49 / I-69 would save fuel for a lot of people and companies...

[KJW]

One last thing, hopefully more brief than my last post above.

I mentioned Missouri's plan to take U.S. 71 from Kansas City to Bella Vista to Interstate quality. There's Interstate highway both from Minneapolis and Des Moines to Kansas City, and also such highway from, I believe, Winnipeg, Manitoba through Fargo, Sioux Falls and Omaha to Kansas City. We're working on the Bella Vista toll bypass which will also be of such quality to link the future Missouri and current Arkansas Interstates together.

Does it really make sense to have this big funnel, (and yes, I know that the highway from Minneapolis also leads through KC way over to Wichita, then Oklahoma City, Dallas and points south) from Canada and Minneapolis through KC straight down through Northwest Arkansas* with it all ending at Fort Smith?!?!

If it does, that tells me NWA really is going to get a lot more significant than it has been, and even without a southern link to Shreveport Fort Smith may get moreso as well...

* Paralleling the Kansas City Southern railroad which is and always has been the shortest rail line from Kansas City to the Gulf of Mexico.

[bigboyz05]

Very informative! Thanks for your posts KJW!

[itk]

Itk, you had a link to a big .pdf document on the other board which showed (among many other things) for lack of a better term, a map of congressionally proposed (or of federal interest) transportation projects. What was fascinating about that map was how many of them ran through Arkansas, both along the I-49 and I-69 corridors.

At the time I discounted somewhat that map because it was "congressional interest". Would that just have been interest from the Arkansas 3rd and 4th U.S. districts, or would others (obviously those in adjacent states would have an interest) have been looking at this as well?

Again, if it would have only been one road I'd also have not put too much stock in this, but there were multiple corridors of interest again running along I-49 and I-69. Plus, John Q. Hammons' comments from last week still stand out. JQH won't be spending his own money (save those from taxes, ostensibly) on finishing I-49 (which our Missouri friends have told us is in the not-too-distant future going to be put up to interstate quality by their state government from Kansas City all the way to the Arkansas line) but he sure seems to believe that's one of two key components to the growth of "the 51st state (northwest Arkansas, his term for it)".

And, wow, if I-40 is one of the heaviest truck routes in the U.S., it makes sense to me that there would be some growth for FSM as a result of a complete I-49. (Matt Cheiss, I seem to recall that the editorial I read hinted there would be the potential for extensive trucking operations/expansions in FSM, not just truck stops and restaurants which are pretty much already there). But again, I-69 between SHV and Houston will explode...I'd think that would be a good candidate for a three-lane (each way) interstate if there ever was one. Then again, it's not raining money. And you know how this stuff works better than I will. I'm merely on the ground over here in NWA and have talked with truckers here.

Then AGAIN, fuel's the most expensive it's been in the U.S., and I still can see how a completed I-49 / I-69 would save fuel for a lot of people and companies...

I guess I should've been more specific-- I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis, not Little Rock westward.

Truckers drive the trucks... I have heard and read what the owners and leaders of trucking associations (I forget the names) have said and written. Since I don't have any studies, economic ones particularly, in front of me, it's difficult to debate point by point (I always do enjoy an intelligent debate). So it comes to anecdotal evidence. I am an engineer by trade, and many of the people who make transportation decisions in the US are as well. Engineers, fundamentally speaking, follow the tenants of the scientific method and practice-- most of everything we do is based in theory on sound, quantifiable, evidence and facts. That is why economic studies and economic "notions" in relation to transportation are, so to speak, left to politicians and economists [cough]. Not to engineers (or, really planners for that matter). Again, if the benefit was so obvious to people, something like I-49 would get high priority. But, like I have said before, it is very debatable and so it gives politicians something to talk about.

I understand the politician and businessman POV, and I don't really blame them. People of "vision" and such and such. But, as one of the reasons I speak up the way I do on UP, I just want to try to bring some perspective to the listening audience, that's all. Everybody can make up their own mind. But please don't hold your breath over I-49 (I'm not picking on I-49, or Texarkana for that matter, I rather like it as a matter of fact), and get too high expectations.

Next time I get time I'll try to dig up some economic/freight studies somewhere (heck, I bet they're somewhere on the internet). People can read it themselves.

[Aporkalypse]

I guess I should've been more specific-- I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis, not Little Rock westward.

Truckers drive the trucks... I have heard and read what the owners and leaders of trucking associations (I forget the names) have said and written. Since I don't have any studies, economic ones particularly, in front of me, it's difficult to debate point by point (I always do enjoy an intelligent debate). So it comes to anecdotal evidence. I am an engineer by trade, and many of the people who make transportation decisions in the US are as well. Engineers, fundamentally speaking, follow the tenants of the scientific method and practice-- most of everything we do is based in theory on sound, quantifiable, evidence and facts. That is why economic studies and economic "notions" in relation to transportation are, so to speak, left to politicians and economists [cough]. Not to engineers (or, really planners for that matter). Again, if the benefit was so obvious to people, something like I-49 would get high priority. But, like I have said before, it is very debatable and so it gives politicians something to talk about.

I understand the politician and businessman POV, and I don't really blame them. People of "vision" and such and such. But, as one of the reasons I speak up the way I do on UP, I just want to try to bring some perspective to the listening audience, that's all. Everybody can make up their own mind. But please don't hold your breath over I-49 (I'm not picking on I-49, or Texarkana for that matter, I rather like it as a matter of fact), and get too high expectations.

Next time I get time I'll try to dig up some economic/freight studies somewhere (heck, I bet they're somewhere on the internet). People can read it themselves.

There was a study released a few years ago when the whole idea of I-49 being a toll road was first raised. The traffic was projected to be very light and because of it tolls would have to be extremely high to really help defray construction costs. This was the time when the idea of using tolls collected on the North Belt Freeway in NLR to build I-49 was proposed and many Central Arkansans were outraged by this and it was promptly scrapped. Obviously Western AR is very hilly and construction costs per mile will be quite high as they were on I-540. The bridge in Ft Smith was supposed to cost around $80 million at that time (though it would be much more now). I don't remember the exact figure thrown around but the cost per Arkansas resident was shockingly high, something like $30,000. I was really taken aback by the number and maybe someone here can find the study and post it.

I-40 is so busy because it's an East-West route connecting Southern California with the East Coast and this makes it a very important truck route. It also is the convergence of I-40 with additional traffic from Eastbound I-30 from Texas which merges in Little Rock all onto a single segment of I-40 to Memphis. North-South routes are less busy though I-55 which connects Chicago, St Louis, Memphis, and New Orleans (a major port city) is important and a bit busier and the coastal hwys (I-5 and I-95) are obviously very busy. I think the most important thing preventing I-49 from being built is the presence of alternate routes. I-44, particularly, connects traffic from Kansas City and Minneapolis to DFW and the rest of Texas via I-35 to I-44 to US 71. The KC to Springfield portion of US 71 is an easy 4-lane divided road already.

The only real gain to I-49 I can see is connecting New Orleans and KC more directly and shaving some time off the Minneapolis to New Orleans drive that currently largely goes down I-55. I don't see why this would be a heavily-traveled trucking route.

Arkansas ranks very high on the list of state by interstate highway miles per capita and maintenance is very expensive as we found out a few years ago.

[Mith242]

Yeah that is something to consider, Arkansas already has a lot of highways it has to maintain. I also think that I-49 costs aren't going to be too cheap. Granted I think things will be different, the Ouchitas aren't the Ozarks. But I still think the terrain will make things more expensive. You're probably going to have more bridges than usual which will really add to the cost. I certainly like the idea of I-49 but I won't be holding my breath either on funding becoming available for this. Especially for the part between Texarkana and Ft Smith. Although I still argue that if they need another route around Ft Smith (and bridge) for I-49 then there needs to be another route for NWA as well. I just can't see how there will be too much added traffic for Ft Smith so a new interstate route has to be put in but not the same situation in NWA. Does anyone have any vehicle numbers of I-540 around Van Buren and Ft Smith compared to NWA figures?

[KJW]

When one "googles" or "yahoos" the phrase with no quotes "Texarkana I-49"...LOTS of stuff comes up. There are a number of hopeful people out there.

Anyone got a link (Bigboy?) to any article about the Texarkana-Ashdown, AR portion of I-49 and when it will begin? That's significant right there...Little River County is pretty much completely flat so there won't be burdensome Ouachita and River Valley hills to bypass or cut through. Still, apart from the (former?) Georgia Pacific/Great Northern Nekoosa paper plant there's not much call to "dead-end" an interstate at the county seat of Ashdown...that would be significant to see any kind of I-49 construction north of TXK.

itk, sorry that I misread your post, guy. Still, it's all good...I always appreciate your info and input.

[KJW]

When one "googles" or "yahoos" the phrase with no quotes "Texarkana I-49"...LOTS of stuff comes up. There are a number of hopeful people out there.

Anyone got a link (Bigboy?) to any article about the Texarkana-Ashdown, AR portion of I-49 and when it will begin? That's significant right there...Little River County is pretty much completely flat so there won't be burdensome Ouachita and River Valley hills to bypass or cut through. Still, apart from the (former?) Georgia Pacific/Great Northern Nekoosa paper plant there's not much call to "dead-end" an interstate at the county seat of Ashdown...that would be significant to see any kind of I-49 construction north of TXK.

itk, sorry that I misread your post, guy. Still, it's all good...I always appreciate your info and input.

BTW, itk, with the LR to Memphis traffic (which spills down I-30), when I-69 between SHV and Houston is completed some day it would indeed make perfect sense to have the I-49 Texarkana/Shreveport lanes (complete now except as the man said for five miles)...under those conditions traffic from Memphis north/northeastward to Houston and the lower Rio Grande Valley/Mexico would be foolish not to use that connector.

[itk]

There was a study released a few years ago when the whole idea of I-49 being a toll road was first raised. The traffic was projected to be very light and because of it tolls would have to be extremely high to really help defray construction costs. This was the time when the idea of using tolls collected on the North Belt Freeway in NLR to build I-49 was proposed and many Central Arkansans were outraged by this and it was promptly scrapped. Obviously Western AR is very hilly and construction costs per mile will be quite high as they were on I-540. The bridge in Ft Smith was supposed to cost around $80 million at that time (though it would be much more now). I don't remember the exact figure thrown around but the cost per Arkansas resident was shockingly high, something like $30,000. I was really taken aback by the number and maybe someone here can find the study and post it.

I-40 is so busy because it's an East-West route connecting Southern California with the East Coast and this makes it a very important truck route. It also is the convergence of I-40 with additional traffic from Eastbound I-30 from Texas which merges in Little Rock all onto a single segment of I-40 to Memphis. North-South routes are less busy though I-55 which connects Chicago, St Louis, Memphis, and New Orleans (a major port city) is important and a bit busier and the coastal hwys (I-5 and I-95) are obviously very busy. I think the most important thing preventing I-49 from being built is the presence of alternate routes. I-44, particularly, connects traffic from Kansas City and Minneapolis to DFW and the rest of Texas via I-35 to I-44 to US 71. The KC to Springfield portion of US 71 is an easy 4-lane divided road already.

The only real gain to I-49 I can see is connecting New Orleans and KC more directly and shaving some time off the Minneapolis to New Orleans drive that currently largely goes down I-55. I don't see why this would be a heavily-traveled trucking route.

Arkansas ranks very high on the list of state by interstate highway miles per capita and maintenance is very expensive as we found out a few years ago.

I forgot to mention maintenance-- that's a very good point. Adding that many lane-miles not only is expensive to construct, but also adds considerably to M&O, so that is also a major, major consideration.

It's been a long time since I've been on I-35 in Oklahoma/Kansas-- I wonder how the # of trucks compare on that to other interstates.

[itk]

BTW, itk, with the LR to Memphis traffic (which spills down I-30), when I-69 between SHV and Houston is completed some day it would indeed make perfect sense to have the I-49 Texarkana/Shreveport lanes (complete now except as the man said for five miles)...under those conditions traffic from Memphis north/northeastward to Houston and the lower Rio Grande Valley/Mexico would be foolish not to use that connector.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, then yes it would make sense.

It just occurred to me-- what affects frieght patterns through Arkansas might be affected substantially by what Texas does with their Trans-Texas corridors-- that is, if they do I-35 TTC then that might funnel more traffic to I-30 that want to go N-NE. If that's the case, then I-49 could be more attractive. I don't know what the priorities are by the powers-that-be in Texas. It seems like the I-35 TTC has higher political backing and momentum than I-69, but someone in that area like Apork might know more.

[bigboyz05]

When one "googles" or "yahoos" the phrase with no quotes "Texarkana I-49"...LOTS of stuff comes up. There are a number of hopeful people out there.

Anyone got a link (Bigboy?) to any article about the Texarkana-Ashdown, AR portion of I-49 and when it will begin? That's significant right there...Little River County is pretty much completely flat so there won't be burdensome Ouachita and River Valley hills to bypass or cut through. Still, apart from the (former?) Georgia Pacific/Great Northern Nekoosa paper plant there's not much call to "dead-end" an interstate at the county seat of Ashdown...that would be significant to see any kind of I-49 construction north of TXK.

itk, sorry that I misread your post, guy. Still, it's all good...I always appreciate your info and input.

KJW if you go to the beginning of this thread and click on the link then there's a small mention of I-49 construction of that segment possibly starting either late 2006 or early 2007.

[Aporkalypse]

I forgot to mention maintenance-- that's a very good point. Adding that many lane-miles not only is expensive to construct, but also adds considerably to M&O, so that is also a major, major consideration.

It's been a long time since I've been on I-35 in Oklahoma/Kansas-- I wonder how the # of trucks compare on that to other interstates.

Maintenance is the killer. Even when the project is fully federally funded the state is responsible for all the maintenance afterwards. In a state like Arkansas with low incomes and high numbers of per capita interstate miles, and interstates pounded by semis passing through, that causes big problems.