Highway projects needed in Arkansas

[2kids]

What is the latest on these 2 roads? I 69 and I 49?

[itk]

What is the latest on these 2 roads? I 69 and I 49?

[bchris02]

I heard rumors about the Bush administration cutting funding on the I-49 project because he wanted it to go through Texas. Any truth to this? If they built it as said, it would be a real benefit to be able to connect to I-69 and get to Houston that way, which would benefit Texas. So why not build it?

[vbfl85]

i think there is a plan to make hwy 59 a limited access road from texarkana, tx to meet up with i69. So it would parallel i49. I could be completely wrong though.

[Spaceman Spiff]

One highway need imo, is a 4-lane connection between Little Rock and the three cities in south Arkansas (El Dorado, Camden, Magnolia). Each of this cities has a sizeable industrial base (a lot of chemical process industries and military contractors), and there is no 4-lane connection to the interstate system in any direction.

I understand AHTD is planning to 4-lane US-167 from Little Rock to El Dorado, which will be a big help (I travel this route regularly for my job). US-167 from I-530 to Sheridan is currently undergoing widening in three sections. One stretch, from Arch Street (AR-367) to Ico is already complete as a 5-lane route (4 lanes + continuous center turn lane). The stretch from Ico to just north of the Sheridan city limits is nearing completion, and the stretch from I-530 to Arch Street is just beggining construction (they've cleared trees on both sides of the road for the widening.

I know that a bypass around Sherian is planned in the near term, but I am unsure of the timetable for any widening south of Sheridan to Fordyce and beyond. The Sheridan-to-Little Rock portion is also important as a commuter route into LR, as a growing number of people are commuting into Little Rock from Grant County. There is a lot of suitable land for development in North Grant County/Eastern Saline County which is only about 20-30 minutes from Downtown Little Rock. I could really see an explosion in subdivisions out that way once the 167 widening is completed.

I would like to see US-167 4 or 5-lane from Little Rock to El Dorado, and US-82 4 or 5-laned all the way across south Arkansas, from Texarkana to Lake Village, with a priority on the Texarkana-El Dorado portion, and US 79 4-laned between Magnolia and Camden.

I'd also like to see US-412 widened across north Arkansas to connect the Jonesboro/Paragould area with NWA. This route is a congressionally delegated "high priority corridor", but I don't think much funding has been allocated as of yet. Some work has been done alone this route, with some four-lane sections (some divided) around Hoxie, Cherokee Village, Moutain Home, and Harrison.

The 4-laning of US-65 should also be finished from Conway to the Missouri line. I think it is 4-lane from Conway to near Clinton now, but its been a while since I drove the route.

AHTD also needs to finish the extension of US-67 north of Newport and the widening of AR-226 in order to complete a 4-lane link between Little Rock and Jonesboro. It's crazy that there isn't a good link between the capital and such a large city.

US-49 should be 4-laned from Brinkley to Helena as well. This is really flat terrain, and I'd think would be relatively inexpensive to complete. Not as much as a priority as some others listed here though.

I'd like to see some time spent on improving these "secondary" roads in order to improve in-state travel for those of us who regularly travel to parts of the state not served by the Interstate system.

Funding is getting to be a problem with cars getting more fuel efficient, and gas being taxed by the gallon (rather than on the dollar like most everything else). Total highway revenue is stagnating, while miles driven (and wear and tear on the roads) is increasing.

[db909]

One highway need imo, is a 4-lane connection between Little Rock and the three cities in south Arkansas (El Dorado, Camden, Magnolia). Each of this cities has a sizeable industrial base (a lot of chemical process industries and military contractors), and there is no 4-lane connection to the interstate system in any direction.

I understand AHTD is planning to 4-lane US-167 from Little Rock to El Dorado, which will be a big help (I travel this route regularly for my job). US-167 from I-530 to Sheridan is currently undergoing widening in three sections. One stretch, from Arch Street (AR-367) to Ico is already complete as a 5-lane route (4 lanes + continuous center turn lane). The stretch from Ico to just north of the Sheridan city limits is nearing completion, and the stretch from I-530 to Arch Street is just beggining construction (they've cleared trees on both sides of the road for the widening.

I know that a bypass around Sherian is planned in the near term, but I am unsure of the timetable for any widening south of Sheridan to Fordyce and beyond. The Sheridan-to-Little Rock portion is also important as a commuter route into LR, as a growing number of people are commuting into Little Rock from Grant County. There is a lot of suitable land for development in North Grant County/Eastern Saline County which is only about 20-30 minutes from Downtown Little Rock. I could really see an explosion in subdivisions out that way once the 167 widening is completed.

I would like to see US-167 4 or 5-lane from Little Rock to El Dorado, and US-82 4 or 5-laned all the way across south Arkansas, from Texarkana to Lake Village, with a priority on the Texarkana-El Dorado portion, and US 79 4-laned between Magnolia and Camden.

The 4-laning of US-65 should also be finished from Conway to the Missouri line. I think it is 4-lane from Conway to near Clinton now, but its been a while since I drove the route.

AHTD also needs to finish the extension of US-67 north of Newport and the widening of AR-226 in order to complete a 4-lane link between Little Rock and Jonesboro. It's crazy that there isn't a good link between the capital and such a large city.

US-49 should be 4-laned from Brinkley to Helena as well. This is really flat terrain, and I'd think would be relatively inexpensive to complete. Not as much as a priority as some others listed here though.

I'd like to see some time spent on improving these "secondary" roads in order to improve in-state travel for those of us who regularly travel to parts of the state not served by the Interstate system.

Funding is getting to be a problem with cars getting more fuel efficient, and gas being taxed by the gallon (rather than on the dollar like most everything else). Total highway revenue is stagnating, while miles driven (and wear and tear on the roads) is increasing.

[Spaceman Spiff]

This would depopulate Little Rock and create more sprawl, paving over much of our Natural State. Our highway money should be used to properly maintain the roads we have, both between and within our cities.

[db909]

I fail to see how the projects I listed would affect sprawl around Little Rock, with the exception of the 167 widening to Sheridan...

...failing to address existing capacity needs on suburban roads isn't the answer....To address the sprawl something is going to have to address the underlying reasons/perceptions driving people to move out of Pulaski County...

[Spaceman Spiff]

I was refering to that and your indicated desire for new roads here: "a 4-lane connection between Little Rock and the three cities in south Arkansas (El Dorado, Camden, Magnolia)."

[db909]

These are the same project, as both projects involve widening US-167. Are you familiar with the distances involved here? There's about 100 miles between Little Rock and the 3 cities I mention here. I don't see Little Rock sprawl reaching that far in my lifetime...

I am primarily interested in improving travel between cities, which was the thrust of my post. I did mention the potential for increased development in the area between Little Rock and Sheridan, but that was not the main thrust of my post.

Your issue seems to be related to better planning in order to discourage Little Rock sprawl, which probably belongs in a separate thread in the Little Rock subforum....I would agree that development in metro areas mostly follows the roads...

[Aporkalypse]

It is that last part here which is my point. Development follows roads, hence more/wider roads between Little Rock and smaller municipalities, especially along underdeveloped areas, is bad for Little Rock. It'd be a good thread for the Little Rock subforum, I agree (maybe I'll start it) but regional, state, and federal policies also play major roles in the development of any given metro. That's why I'm throwing in my 2c here as well.

It is unlikely that Sheridan will become a major bedroom community for Little Rock workers any time in the near future, true. Nonetheless, as the space between the cities becomes more accessible to cars, that space will fill and in the process dilute the center.

I'm all for improving travel between cities, sure. If a lot of people are already traveling between the two points, commuter rail could facilitate transit while avoiding the decentering effects of freeways. I suppose that would be my answer. The political will to develop centralized transit may be lacking, however. I'm under no illusions. I simply feel compelled to point out the negative effect of current policies, to bring them to light or at least move them from dogma to the realm of discussion, to the end that perhaps they will be changed. Not by you or I, I'm sure, but still the conversation must start somewhere.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'd throw in another project I think needs to be done in the worst way, expanding US 70 to Hot Springs to 4 lanes. That's an unsafe road that's heavily traveled.

[Aporkalypse]

My family lives in Hot Springs, so I travel from LR>Hot Springs very often, and I know what you mean. I did not mention this route mostly because Hot Springs does already have a 4-lane link to I-30 via US-270. I used to always take 270 to get to Hot Springs from Little Rock, but since the Hot Springs bypass extension opened out to US-70, that route now seems noticeably faster than 270. I was always under the impression that at one point it was planned for US-70 to be 4-lane divided from Hot Springs to Little Rock, judging by the short freeway section around magic springs.

[db909]

Busy two-lane roads are inefficient and dangerous.

[Aporkalypse]

They are inefficient, yes, but the danger does not come from a small number of lanes. Cars are one of the leading causes of death in America, and the factors are varied, such as the distance traveled, speed traveled, road conditions (both in terms of maintenance and weather), car maintenance, driver attentiveness, car spacing, and so on. More lanes only allows more people on the road, at higher speeds.

[db909]

Two-lane roads cause people to cross the median to pass and put themselves in danger from oncoming traffic. Yes, they're considerably more dangerous, especially in hilly areas where visibility can be limited. There is absolutely no argument about that.

Does anyone else remember when US 71 was the only route to Fayetteville? How many people died on that route every year? Part of the reason I-540 was built was because of safety concerns.