AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: US71 on November 06, 2018, 10:48:31 PM

Title: Redesignating US 63
Post by: US71 on November 06, 2018, 10:48:31 PM
ARDOT in their infinite wisdom is wanting to move US 63 (https://www.kait8.com/2018/11/06/ardot-schedules-public-meetings-redesignate-highway/) off I-555 and move it to (and replace) US 49 from Jonesboro to Brinkley.

They should just end 63 at Jonesboro. South of I-40, change it back to AR 11.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: edwaleni on November 07, 2018, 12:32:52 PM
ARDOT in their infinite wisdom is wanting to move US 63 (https://www.kait8.com/2018/11/06/ardot-schedules-public-meetings-redesignate-highway/) off I-555 and move it to (and replace) US 49 from Jonesboro to Brinkley.

They should just end 63 at Jonesboro. South of I-40, change it back to AR 11.

Didn't US63 end in West Memphis until they extended it in 1996?  After that it takes a rather odd route back west then south.

Word was they want to remove the West Memphis routing and take it straight south from Jonesboro.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: cjk374 on November 07, 2018, 04:38:00 PM
US 63 was AR 15 from El Dorado north to somewhere north of Pine Bluff. Was it AR 11 closer to northeast AR?

Also...as discussed before...what use does US 63 even serve south of Jonesboro? There is no need to replace 49. Leave it alone.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: usends on November 07, 2018, 06:54:08 PM
I didn't see where the linked article said they wanted to replace US 49.  (And they really couldn't, since that would leave two disconnected segments of US 49.)  I interpret it to mean 49 and 63 would simply be overlapped from Jonesboro to Brinkley.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: US71 on November 07, 2018, 07:59:54 PM
US 63 was AR 15 from El Dorado north to somewhere north of Pine Bluff. Was it AR 11 closer to northeast AR?

Also...as discussed before...what use does US 63 even serve south of Jonesboro? There is no need to replace 49. Leave it alone.

South of Hazen (I-40) it was AR 11. I'm not sure where the switch to 15 was... Pine Bluff?  Just renumber it as 11 to Stuttgart, 15 south from Pine Bluff to ElDorado, then call it good. No sense, IMO, keeping it to Ruston.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: cjk374 on November 07, 2018, 10:02:37 PM
US 63 was AR 15 from El Dorado north to somewhere north of Pine Bluff. Was it AR 11 closer to northeast AR?

Also...as discussed before...what use does US 63 even serve south of Jonesboro? There is no need to replace 49. Leave it alone.

South of Hazen (I-40) it was AR 11. I'm not sure where the switch to 15 was... Pine Bluff?  Just renumber it as 11 to Stuttgart, 15 south from Pine Bluff to ElDorado, then call it good. No sense, IMO, keeping it to Ruston.

AMEN!
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 08, 2018, 01:49:37 AM
US 63 was AR 15 from El Dorado north to somewhere north of Pine Bluff. Was it AR 11 closer to northeast AR?

Also...as discussed before...what use does US 63 even serve south of Jonesboro? There is no need to replace 49. Leave it alone.

South of Hazen (I-40) it was AR 11. I'm not sure where the switch to 15 was... Pine Bluff?  Just renumber it as 11 to Stuttgart, 15 south from Pine Bluff to ElDorado, then call it good. No sense, IMO, keeping it to Ruston.

AMEN!

How about the opposite approach: keeping US 63 as is, but extending/cosigning with US 167 to Alexandria, then LA 1 to New Roads, then LA 10 to St. Francisville to cross the Mississippi River using the John James Audobon Bridge to end at US 61 north of Baton Rouge?

Or...simply overlay/replace US 167 all to way to Abbeville and Ester?
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: Henry on November 08, 2018, 10:11:02 AM
I agree, truncate it in Jonesboro and call it a day, now that I-555 is here.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: jbnv on November 08, 2018, 11:58:22 AM
How about the opposite approach: keeping US 63 as is, but extending/cosigning with US 167 to Alexandria, then LA 1 to New Roads, then LA 10 to St. Francisville to cross the Mississippi River using the John James Audobon Bridge to end at US 61 north of Baton Rouge?

Or...simply overlay/replace US 167 all to way to Abbeville and Ester?

Second Anthony's route except that routing it over the Audubon bridge, I'd extend it all the way to Boutte via LA 415, LA 1, and LA 3127.

But if Arkansas wants to end it within their borders, that's fine with me. It currently doesn't serve Louisiana any purpose. And the US 63 I just proposed could easily be a reroute of US 71.

I don't see much benefit in replacing US 167 with US 63 past Pineville. I'd truncate US 167/63 at Pineville.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: KamKam on November 09, 2018, 07:54:58 AM
Agreed U.S. 63 Southern Terminus should end in Jonesboro.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: bassoon1986 on November 09, 2018, 04:28:40 PM
With US 63 in Louisiana, I always liked the idea of sending it SW from the state line rather than to Ruston. Let it use LA 9 to Homer, then with US 79 to Minden and down LA 531 to I-20. It would make directions from Shreveport to ElDorado simpler than multiple route numbers.


iPhone
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: sparker on November 11, 2018, 11:07:59 PM
Better idea:  Truncate US 167 at I-530/US 65; replace the segment of 167 from Hardy south to US 67 at Bald Knob with US 63, then multiplex it south with US 67 to AR 11, and replace AR 11 until it hits the present US 63 (extension) at I-40.  At Pine Bluff, reroute US 63 south and replace the entirety of US 425 with it.  The current US 63 between Walnut Ridge and Jonesboro would become AR 555 (SH extension of you-know-what); current US 63 between Pine Bluff and El Dorado reverts to AR 15; of course the multiplex with US 167 into LA is eliminated.  Gets rid of the US 425 designation (which is, IMO, a good thing!); lets US 63 merge/terminate at US 61 like it did before madness set in -- but this time down at Natchez, and basically retains the trajectory of US 63 north of the MO/AR line. 
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: MikieTimT on November 12, 2018, 05:24:08 AM
Better idea:  Truncate US 167 at I-530/US 65; replace the segment of 167 from Hardy south to US 67 at Bald Knob with US 63, then multiplex it south with US 67 to AR 11, and replace AR 11 until it hits the present US 63 (extension) at I-40.  At Pine Bluff, reroute US 63 south and replace the entirety of US 425 with it.  The current US 63 between Walnut Ridge and Jonesboro would become AR 555 (SH extension of you-know-what); current US 63 between Pine Bluff and El Dorado reverts to AR 15; of course the multiplex with US 167 into LA is eliminated.  Gets rid of the US 425 designation (which is, IMO, a good thing!); lets US 63 merge/terminate at US 61 like it did before madness set in -- but this time down at Natchez, and basically retains the trajectory of US 63 north of the MO/AR line.

Like this plan.  US-425 is just a pipe dream anyway as a placeholder for an eventual 4-lane between Natchez and Pine Bluff.  The area is just too broke and depopulated south of Monticello to ever justify a rural 4-lane anyway.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: sparker on November 12, 2018, 12:43:39 PM
Better idea:  Truncate US 167 at I-530/US 65; replace the segment of 167 from Hardy south to US 67 at Bald Knob with US 63, then multiplex it south with US 67 to AR 11, and replace AR 11 until it hits the present US 63 (extension) at I-40.  At Pine Bluff, reroute US 63 south and replace the entirety of US 425 with it.  The current US 63 between Walnut Ridge and Jonesboro would become AR 555 (SH extension of you-know-what); current US 63 between Pine Bluff and El Dorado reverts to AR 15; of course the multiplex with US 167 into LA is eliminated.  Gets rid of the US 425 designation (which is, IMO, a good thing!); lets US 63 merge/terminate at US 61 like it did before madness set in -- but this time down at Natchez, and basically retains the trajectory of US 63 north of the MO/AR line.

Like this plan.  US-425 is just a pipe dream anyway as a placeholder for an eventual 4-lane between Natchez and Pine Bluff.  The area is just too broke and depopulated south of Monticello to ever justify a rural 4-lane anyway.

And north of Monticello the expressway/freeway role will be filled by AR 530 (future I-530 -- or as some have speculated, a I-57 southern extension), part of the I-69 funding (or what passes for such) family.  ARDOT and LADOT seem to be engaging in the practice of slapping US highway numbers on state routes (and apparently AASHTO's going along with it! -- e.g. US 425, US 371, US 278).  Obviously done for political and/or speculative purposes, the whole exercise seems, in practical terms, pointless.  I suppose that in these days of scarce funds, the relatively cheap process of re-signing an existing facility is proving to be sufficient to stave off the clamoring of needy local voices.  I agree that US 63 really doesn't need to be in either AR or LA -- but if folks in those states want its extension, it may as well be on a reasonably rational alignment.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: jbnv on November 12, 2018, 01:17:07 PM
US-425 is just a pipe dream anyway as a placeholder for an eventual 4-lane between Natchez and Pine Bluff.  The area is just too broke and depopulated south of Monticello to ever justify a rural 4-lane anyway.

425 is already four-laned from Natchez to Rayville and from Bastrop to the state line. US 165 is also four-laned from Bastrop all the way to Lake Charles. So we have two established corridors from Little Rock south into Louisiana--one to the southwest corner (and, by extension, Texas) and one to Natchez (and, by extension, Baton Rouge and the lower Mississippi River).

Yes, there is an expressway gap in 425 between Bastrop and Rayville. Yes, it is very rural and not heavily travelled (I drove 530 and 425 from Pine Bluff all the way to Natchez just a few weeks ago). May there ever be a complete expressway between Pine Bluff and Natchez? I don't know, but I prefer to think big and remain optimistic.

As for numbers, I like the idea of routing 63 down 425. Take 65 and put it on the 425-165 corridor down to Lake Charles. The current US 65 can become LA 265 or whatever.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: MikieTimT on November 13, 2018, 02:06:14 PM
US-425 is just a pipe dream anyway as a placeholder for an eventual 4-lane between Natchez and Pine Bluff.  The area is just too broke and depopulated south of Monticello to ever justify a rural 4-lane anyway.

425 is already four-laned from Natchez to Rayville and from Bastrop to the state line. US 165 is also four-laned from Bastrop all the way to Lake Charles. So we have two established corridors from Little Rock south into Louisiana--one to the southwest corner (and, by extension, Texas) and one to Natchez (and, by extension, Baton Rouge and the lower Mississippi River).

Yes, there is an expressway gap in 425 between Bastrop and Rayville. Yes, it is very rural and not heavily travelled (I drove 530 and 425 from Pine Bluff all the way to Natchez just a few weeks ago). May there ever be a complete expressway between Pine Bluff and Natchez? I don't know, but I prefer to think big and remain optimistic.

As for numbers, I like the idea of routing 63 down 425. Take 65 and put it on the 425-165 corridor down to Lake Charles. The current US 65 can become LA 265 or whatever.

I was down that stretch back early summer, and I didn't notice much traffic at all compared to what I'm used to in NWA.  I know the road surface down close to the state line was attrocious, but it does look like they're going to widen it between US-82 and the Louisiana border.  Looks like a $44M job, so I'd assume by widen they mean to make it 4 lanes.

https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/press-releases/highway-82-425-ashley-county/547/arkansas-highway-commission-approves-bid-nbspfor-improvements-in-ashley-county-ca0201/ (https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/press-releases/highway-82-425-ashley-county/547/arkansas-highway-commission-approves-bid-nbspfor-improvements-in-ashley-county-ca0201/)

So, maybe your optimism will be rewarded!
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 13, 2018, 03:06:25 PM
I don't see US 63 being redesignated or rerouted in Arkansas. If it was going to happen, it likely would have happened in 1999, when US 63 was extended to Ruston, Louisiana. Not that I disagree that US 63's extension without being substantially rerouted isn't stark-raving bonkers.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: NE2 on November 13, 2018, 03:10:49 PM
I don't
So don't.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: Highway63 on November 14, 2018, 12:52:29 AM
Oh look, a bat signal. ;)

First, Arkansas is one of if not THE worst states in signing any US highways on interstate multiplexes. Unfortunately, many of the highways that go through Iowa are victims of this.

I have been on record as being against 63's extension basically since when it was created (http://iowahighwayends.net/ends/usends/us63.html) because of that, because the extension was so unnatural for the overall route, and because there was so much overlap with other routes. Even before the extension its south end was unclear, as it officially existed down to West Memphis but vanished once it met I-55.

But now that I-555 is created, it looks like 63 went poof from that route too. (Business 63 at Marked Tree, according to Street View, ends only at I-555 and its parent is not seen.) Given that, I would approve of any plan that marked US 63 for a greater distance again, if only because Arkansas has abused it so much things can't get worse. (Famous last words.)

Frankly, it would make more sense to route 63 down AR 1, cutting the proposed 49 overlap and also sending a US highway through two more county seats. Then double up 63 onto US 70 in between, rather than being invisible on I-40.

I'd also be in favor of 63 replacing US 425, but unless AR 15 remains signed south of Pine Bluff that would be much harder to do.

No matter what happens, I would like the future route to be set so I only have to do my clinch of the route once. :)
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: bugo on November 14, 2018, 04:18:46 AM
If they reroute US 63 south of Jonesboro will they move US 49 over to AR 1?

Nexus 5X

Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: cjk374 on November 14, 2018, 04:36:11 AM

I'd also be in favor of 63 replacing US 425, but unless AR 15 remains signed south of Pine Bluff that would be much harder to do.


AR 15 hasn't been signed between Pine Bluff & El Dorado since 2001. The only stretch of AR 15 left runs from US 82 to the Louisiana state line.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: US71 on November 14, 2018, 09:12:18 AM
I wonder what would become of 63B in Jonesboro and Marked Tree?
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: NE2 on November 14, 2018, 03:06:23 PM
I wonder what would become of 63B in Jonesboro and Marked Tree?
Nothing. Because Arkansas.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: paulthemapguy on November 14, 2018, 04:42:54 PM
There really needs to be a more direct north-south route from Searcy to Hazen.  Then call that US63.  Duplex US63 from Searcy to Hardy.  Then you have a continuous US63.  The old segment from Jonesboro to Hardy can be SR-555 or something.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: US71 on November 14, 2018, 10:44:53 PM
There really needs to be a more direct north-south route from Searcy to Hazen.  Then call that US63.  Duplex US63 from Searcy to Hardy.  Then you have a continuous US63.  The old segment from Jonesboro to Hardy can be SR-555 or something.

Extend AR 463 (old US 63) north of Jonesboro
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: sparker on November 15, 2018, 02:16:00 AM
There really needs to be a more direct north-south route from Searcy to Hazen.  Then call that US63.  Duplex US63 from Searcy to Hardy.  Then you have a continuous US63.  The old segment from Jonesboro to Hardy can be SR-555 or something.

Extend AR 463 (old US 63) north of Jonesboro

No need to designate a new route over current US 63 NW of Walnut Ridge; it's multiplexed with US 412 all the way to Hardy (as well as US 62 west of Imboden).  Still think an "AR 555" would work Jonesboro-Walnut Ridge. 
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: US71 on November 15, 2018, 12:12:58 PM
There really needs to be a more direct north-south route from Searcy to Hazen.  Then call that US63.  Duplex US63 from Searcy to Hardy.  Then you have a continuous US63.  The old segment from Jonesboro to Hardy can be SR-555 or something.

Once I-57 becomes official, 63 would again become redundant (as will US 67, 167 and 64)
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: paulthemapguy on November 15, 2018, 12:42:58 PM
Yeah, it depends on if Arkansas thinks that extra designations will help people find where to go. I'm okay with duplicity if it'll help people.  I'm on the fence about whether AR-555 should take over the whole remainder of 63

SM-G930P

Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: capt.ron on November 15, 2018, 04:44:46 PM
Have they chosen an alignment of US 63 yet or is that still up in the air?
I'm guessing it would make the most sense to send it down AR 367 beginning at Walnut Ridge until reaching Newport, then use AR 17 until reaching Cotton Plant, then meander its way over to US 49 and use it until reaching US 70. Follow it [US 70] toward Hazen and then continue down its current path.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: Tom958 on November 15, 2018, 06:33:21 PM
To me, a case could be made for a single route incorporating the non-Interstate portions of the direct route between Kansas City and Memphis. And the obvious number, painful as it would be to admit, would be US 555.  :clap:  Then they could do about any damn thing with US 63.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: US71 on November 15, 2018, 10:31:45 PM
Have they chosen an alignment of US 63 yet or is that still up in the air?
I'm guessing it would make the most sense to send it down AR 367 beginning at Walnut Ridge until reaching Newport, then use AR 17 until reaching Cotton Plant, then meander its way over to US 49 and use it until reaching US 70. Follow it [US 70] toward Hazen and then continue down its current path.

Still discussing it/holding meetings.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: texaskdog on November 15, 2018, 10:50:46 PM

New Roads


…..is this the official town of our page?
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: cjk374 on November 16, 2018, 06:11:46 AM

New Roads


…..is this the official town of our page?

For those wondering, New Roads is the parish seat of Pointe Coupeé Parish:

https://goo.gl/maps/6k8jgB4wu2K2
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: sparker on November 16, 2018, 06:29:02 PM
Have they chosen an alignment of US 63 yet or is that still up in the air?
I'm guessing it would make the most sense to send it down AR 367 beginning at Walnut Ridge until reaching Newport, then use AR 17 until reaching Cotton Plant, then meander its way over to US 49 and use it until reaching US 70. Follow it [US 70] toward Hazen and then continue down its current path.

Still discussing it/holding meetings.

I wonder if that was the process employed when the current convoluted US 63 alignment was selected.  Hope it works out better this time!
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: cjk374 on November 16, 2018, 07:09:32 PM
Have they chosen an alignment of US 63 yet or is that still up in the air?
I'm guessing it would make the most sense to send it down AR 367 beginning at Walnut Ridge until reaching Newport, then use AR 17 until reaching Cotton Plant, then meander its way over to US 49 and use it until reaching US 70. Follow it [US 70] toward Hazen and then continue down its current path.

Still discussing it/holding meetings.

I wonder if that was the process employed when the current convoluted US 63 alignment was selected.  Hope it works out better this time!

The last meetings that may have created the current routing of US 63 were probably held at some local bars after happy hour. :cheers:
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: US71 on November 16, 2018, 08:44:28 PM
Have they chosen an alignment of US 63 yet or is that still up in the air?
I'm guessing it would make the most sense to send it down AR 367 beginning at Walnut Ridge until reaching Newport, then use AR 17 until reaching Cotton Plant, then meander its way over to US 49 and use it until reaching US 70. Follow it [US 70] toward Hazen and then continue down its current path.

Still discussing it/holding meetings.

I wonder if that was the process employed when the current convoluted US 63 alignment was selected.  Hope it works out better this time!

If memory serves correct, it was extended past West Memphis with little fanfare, just a simple "we did this"
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: sparker on November 16, 2018, 09:58:34 PM
Have they chosen an alignment of US 63 yet or is that still up in the air?
I'm guessing it would make the most sense to send it down AR 367 beginning at Walnut Ridge until reaching Newport, then use AR 17 until reaching Cotton Plant, then meander its way over to US 49 and use it until reaching US 70. Follow it [US 70] toward Hazen and then continue down its current path.

Still discussing it/holding meetings.

I wonder if that was the process employed when the current convoluted US 63 alignment was selected.  Hope it works out better this time!

The last meetings that may have created the current routing of US 63 were probably held at some local bars after happy hour. :cheers:

Arguably the same process that AASHTO's SCOURN used back in 2016 at their spring Des Moines meeting that produced the I-87 designation for the NC/VA HPC-13 corridor.  Not that there's that much else to do in Des Moines. :-P

(I fully expect to get pithy comments about this one!)
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: MNHighwayMan on November 16, 2018, 10:30:51 PM
Arguably the same process that AASHTO's SCOURN used back in 2016 at their spring Des Moines meeting that produced the I-87 designation for the NC/VA HPC-13 corridor.  Not that there's that much else to do in Des Moines. :-P

(I fully expect to get pithy comments about this one!)

Nah, it's accurate. :D
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: Mapmikey on November 19, 2018, 07:42:21 PM
ARDOT put up their proposed map...

Just making a US 49-63 duplex.

US 63 Business designations in Jonesboro and Marked Tree to get state route designations...

See - http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2018/Hwy63/US63_ReRoute8OCT2018_Pamplet.pdf
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: hbelkins on November 20, 2018, 09:30:10 AM
ARDOT put up their proposed map...

Just making a US 49-63 duplex.

US 63 Business designations in Jonesboro and Marked Tree to get state route designations...

See - http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2018/Hwy63/US63_ReRoute8OCT2018_Pamplet.pdf

Makes sense. US 63 takes a straighter, less-convoluted route with hidden concurrencies with interstates.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: codyg1985 on November 20, 2018, 12:47:43 PM
ARDOT put up their proposed map...

Just making a US 49-63 duplex.

US 63 Business designations in Jonesboro and Marked Tree to get state route designations...

See - http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2018/Hwy63/US63_ReRoute8OCT2018_Pamplet.pdf

I wished the US 63 Bus designations would be turned into BL I-555 designations, but I guess that thought hasn't occured to ARDOT.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: rte66man on November 20, 2018, 08:04:53 PM
ARDOT put up their proposed map...

Just making a US 49-63 duplex.

US 63 Business designations in Jonesboro and Marked Tree to get state route designations...

See - http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2018/Hwy63/US63_ReRoute8OCT2018_Pamplet.pdf

What is a "pamplet"?    Ohhhh, pamphlet
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: US71 on November 20, 2018, 08:33:22 PM
ARDOT put up their proposed map...

Just making a US 49-63 duplex.

US 63 Business designations in Jonesboro and Marked Tree to get state route designations...

See - http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2018/Hwy63/US63_ReRoute8OCT2018_Pamplet.pdf

I wished the US 63 Bus designations would be turned into BL I-555 designations, but I guess that thought hasn't occurred to ARDOT.

We've not had Interstate Business Loop designations since the mid 70's when BL 30 was decommissioned.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: bugo on November 22, 2018, 05:53:09 AM
I wonder what would become of 63B in Jonesboro and Marked Tree?
State highways.

Nexus 5X

Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: bugo on November 22, 2018, 05:56:11 AM
There are some truly terrible ideas being suggested in here. You know who you are. Now I remember why I avoid the fantasy highway forum.

Nexus 5X

Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: bugo on November 22, 2018, 05:59:18 AM
US 63 once ended in Memphis, Tennessee. I don't know if it ended at the foot of the bridge, at the state line or at the I-55-Crump interchange.

Nexus 5X

Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: bugo on November 22, 2018, 06:06:07 AM
This will establish perhaps the shortest US highway triplex in the country, consisting of US 49-63-64.

Nexus 5X

Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: US71 on November 22, 2018, 08:03:33 AM
This will establish perhaps the shortest US highway triplex in the country, consisting of US 49-63-64.


Interesting point. I hadn't thought of that.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: sparker on November 23, 2018, 02:17:30 AM
US 63 once ended in Memphis, Tennessee. I don't know if it ended at the foot of the bridge, at the state line or at the I-55-Crump interchange.

Nexus 5X



IIRC from Gousha maps from the early '60's, US 63 ended at the corner of Crump Blvd. and 3rd. Street, a few blocks east of the bridge and where US 61 turned south from its multi-route multiplex across the river. 
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: usends on November 23, 2018, 11:45:30 AM
US 63 once ended in Memphis, Tennessee. I don't know if it ended at the foot of the bridge, at the state line or at the I-55-Crump interchange.
IIRC from Gousha maps from the early '60's, US 63 ended at the corner of Crump Blvd. and 3rd. Street, a few blocks east of the bridge and where US 61 turned south from its multi-route multiplex across the river.
I've never seen any evidence (https://www.usends.com/west-memphis.html) that US 63 was ever signposted anywhere in Tennessee, so if you ever come across a map or a photo that shows otherwise, I'd love to see it.  I'm under the impression that TNDoT had no use for (and therefore never signed) the US 63 designation.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 26, 2018, 05:18:03 PM
Rerouting US 63 to follow US 49's route from Jonesboro to Brinkley makes sense. The only question I have is why they waited almost 20 years to relocate US 63 along this route, when they could have done it in 1999, when US 63 was first extended?
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: codyg1985 on November 26, 2018, 05:25:05 PM
Rerouting US 63 to follow US 49's route from Jonesboro to Brinkley makes sense. The only question I have is why they waited almost 20 years to relocate US 63 along this route, when they could have done it in 1999, when US 63 was first extended?

I am guessing ARDOT was waiting on I-555 to become official before rerouting US 63.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: US71 on November 26, 2018, 06:34:17 PM
Rerouting US 63 to follow US 49's route from Jonesboro to Brinkley makes sense. The only question I have is why they waited almost 20 years to relocate US 63 along this route, when they could have done it in 1999, when US 63 was first extended?

I am guessing ARDOT was waiting on I-555 to become official before rerouting US 63.

Most likely. Without Rick Crawford, it would never have happened , or at least for many more years.
Title: [Arkansas] New alignment of US Route 63
Post by: TBKS1 on May 23, 2021, 06:37:45 PM
Hey everyone! I haven't written anything on this forum in a while, but I do think this should really be brought up, and I haven't seen any forum threads posted about it elsewhere.

U.S. Route 63 has changed its alignment between U.S. Route 70 and Jonesboro. I don't have any sort of legal proof of this (minute orders or anything similar), but I did go to Jonesboro earlier today, and followed the new alignment of US 63 pretty much the entire way, even though I had no idea that this changed. I took several photos of the new alignment, which can all be found in this folder. (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Il0NTWd-ZCxMpycNBhb_FZP037Z-N5Dx?usp=sharing)

In short,

The new alignment for US 63 follows I-40 between Hazen and Brinkley (Exits 193 - 216), and is concurrent with US 49 between Brinkley and I-555, before continuing to follow I-555 north.

The old alignment for US 63 follows I-40 between Hazen and I-55 (exits 193 - 277), then follows I-55 between I-40 and I-555 (exits 8 - 23), then follows I-555 for its entire length.

(https://i.imgur.com/Vx8RtM3.png)

The new alignment is about 101.5 miles long, and the old alignment is about 152.4 miles. The most recent map files from ARDOT (November, 2020) do not show this new alignment for US 63, and I still need to look a bit more regarding this new change.
Title: Re: [Arkansas] New alignment of US Route 63
Post by: froggie on May 23, 2021, 10:42:56 PM
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2019/06/Final_Report-to-CHS_USRN-Application-Results-Spring-2019vF.pdf

Was approved by AASHTO at their Spring 2019 meeting.
Title: Re: [Arkansas] New alignment of US Route 63
Post by: SkyPesos on May 23, 2021, 10:48:28 PM
From the document linked above:
Quote
A shorter route exists between Brinkley, Arkansas and Jonesboro, Arkansas along existing U.S. Highway 49.
Why specifically those two points? An even shorter route compared to the reroute also exists between El Dorado and Hardy along US 167.
Title: Re: [Arkansas] New alignment of US Route 63
Post by: TBKS1 on May 24, 2021, 12:03:56 AM
From the document linked above:
Quote
A shorter route exists between Brinkley, Arkansas and Jonesboro, Arkansas along existing U.S. Highway 49.
Why specifically those two points? An even shorter route compared to the reroute also exists between El Dorado and Hardy along US 167.

They probably wanted to retain the route through Jonesboro, at least that's my guess.
Title: Re: [Arkansas] New alignment of US Route 63
Post by: kenarmy on May 24, 2021, 08:33:41 AM
I hate ARDOT why tf haven't they moved US 49 to AR 1? Now 49 looks even more redundant  :-/.
Title: Re: [Arkansas] New alignment of US Route 63
Post by: Avalanchez71 on May 24, 2021, 12:48:15 PM
I hate ARDOT why tf haven't they moved US 49 to AR 1? Now 49 looks even more redundant  :-/.

Doesn't US 49 bypass Forrest City and Marianna unlike AR 1?
Title: Re: [Arkansas] New alignment of US Route 63
Post by: bwana39 on May 24, 2021, 03:34:43 PM
I swear I read all about this back around Christmas on here, but I cannot find it anywhere.
Title: Re: [Arkansas] New alignment of US Route 63
Post by: kenarmy on May 24, 2021, 03:59:32 PM
I swear I read all about this back around Christmas on here, but I cannot find it anywhere.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25202.0

I hate ARDOT why tf haven't they moved US 49 to AR 1? Now 49 looks even more redundant  :-/.


Doesn't US 49 bypass Forrest City and Marianna unlike AR 1?
Yeah, but AR 1 bypasses Brinkley and is the most direct route from Barton to Jonesboro. Hell, 63 could've been put on it and could swing over to US 79. But anyway.
Title: Re: [Arkansas] New alignment of US Route 63
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 24, 2021, 04:01:04 PM
They probably should have rerouted US 63 this way in 1999, when 63 was extended to Reston, Louisiana; or in 2016, when Interstate 555 was officially designated. That being said, I think US 63 should have terminated at US 167 in El Dorado, and should not have duplexed with 167 all the way to Reston, unless the purpose was for the US 63 extension to terminate at an Interstate Highway.
Title: Re: [Arkansas] New alignment of US Route 63
Post by: Lyon Wonder on May 24, 2021, 10:06:07 PM
They probably should have rerouted US 63 this way in 1999, when 63 was extended to Reston, Louisiana; or in 2016, when Interstate 555 was officially designated. That being said, I think US 63 should have terminated at US 167 in El Dorado, and should not have duplexed with 167 all the way to Reston, unless the purpose was for the US 63 extension to terminate at an Interstate Highway.

With I-555 now southeast of Jonesboro they should just completely replace US 167 in LA and AR with US 63 and the section between US 412 and I-555 becoming AR-555. 
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: texaskdog on May 25, 2021, 09:29:28 AM
ARDOT in their infinite wisdom is wanting to move US 63 (https://www.kait8.com/2018/11/06/ardot-schedules-public-meetings-redesignate-highway/) off I-555 and move it to (and replace) US 49 from Jonesboro to Brinkley.

They should just end 63 at Jonesboro. South of I-40, change it back to AR 11.

Didn't US63 end in West Memphis until they extended it in 1996?  After that it takes a rather odd route back west then south.

Word was they want to remove the West Memphis routing and take it straight south from Jonesboro.

Find it interesting the only way you can enter Memphis from the west is by freeway.
Title: Re: [Arkansas] New alignment of US Route 63
Post by: jbnv on May 25, 2021, 09:31:33 AM
They probably should have rerouted US 63 this way in 1999, when 63 was extended to Reston, Louisiana; or in 2016, when Interstate 555 was officially designated. That being said, I think US 63 should have terminated at US 167 in El Dorado, and should not have duplexed with 167 all the way to Reston, unless the purpose was for the US 63 extension to terminate at an Interstate Highway.

With I-555 now southeast of Jonesboro they should just completely replace US 167 in LA and AR with US 63 and the section between US 412 and I-555 becoming AR-555.

I wouldn't take US 167-cum-63 any further than I-49 at the terminus of the Pineville Expressway. (Hey look, termination at an interstate! Yay!) US 167 doesn't really serve any purpose south of Alexandria other than connecting Ville Platte and Abbeville to the US system.

The main problem with extending US 63 into Louisiana is that La. doesn't let LA highways share numbers with US highways, and we already have an LA 63. That's probably why US 63 doesn't go any further than Ruston and multiplexes with 167 in its entirety in La.; it's technically "LA" 167.

And if ceremonial multiplexing isn't a problem, then US 165 Alexandria to Lake Charles makes more sense than US 167 Alexandria to Abbeville.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: US71 on May 25, 2021, 02:49:08 PM
I hate ARDOT why tf haven't they moved US 49 to AR 1? Now 49 looks even more redundant  :-/.

Doesn't US 49 bypass Forrest City and Marianna unlike AR 1?

Doesn't come close to either one.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: sparker on May 25, 2021, 08:58:06 PM
IMO, what should have been done was:
     (1) Truncate US 167 at I-530/US 65
     (2) Extend US 63 south over the former northern section of US 167
     (3) Multiplex US 63 south over US 67 to Higginson/AR 11
     (4) Replace AR 11 south to I-40 at the present US 63 divergence. 
The remainder of US 63 south of there would remain on its present alignment.  This would eliminate the US 67/167 duplex north of LR and keep US 63 more or less on the N-S trajectory it has farther north.  And as has been suggested upthread, present US 63 from Jonesboro NW to US 412 would become AR 555. 
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: Avalanchez71 on May 26, 2021, 08:43:17 AM
I hate ARDOT why tf haven't they moved US 49 to AR 1? Now 49 looks even more redundant  :-/.

Doesn't US 49 bypass Forrest City and Marianna unlike AR 1?

Doesn't come close to either one.

It is an effective bypass as a through route, however, the route does not serve as a bypass of said towns.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 26, 2021, 12:27:51 PM
US 49 needs rerouted down Ark 1 from Jonesboro to Barton now. Talk about straightening something out.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: jbnv on May 26, 2021, 02:11:50 PM
IMO, what should have been done was:
     (1) Truncate US 167 [north of] I-530/US 65

Couple that with replacing US 167 with 63 south of El Dorado and there's no reason for US 167 to continue to exist. The short segment between I-530 and El Dorado should have been US 63W.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: Avalanchez71 on May 26, 2021, 04:18:30 PM
US 49 needs rerouted down Ark 1 from Jonesboro to Barton now. Talk about straightening something out.

You want to compensate those who need new stationary and to reprogram computers and websites?
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: edwaleni on May 26, 2021, 04:44:51 PM
Not sure if it got covered in a legacy thread.

ArDOT is planning on using US-63 now as part of a future corridor to Louisiana.

The West Memphis endpoint dates back to the 1930's and now instead of recycling a number from the grave, they are simply going to re-route the existing.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 27, 2021, 12:05:11 PM
US 49 needs rerouted down Ark 1 from Jonesboro to Barton now. Talk about straightening something out.

You want to compensate those who need new stationary and to reprogram computers and websites?

Cities do it all the time as I reply from  6th Street in Fayetteville. Most of these business will be in a town where it has a name like Red Wolf Drive or whatever it is from Stadium Drive.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: ran4sh on May 27, 2021, 12:42:02 PM
US 49 needs rerouted down Ark 1 from Jonesboro to Barton now. Talk about straightening something out.

You want to compensate those who need new stationary and to reprogram computers and websites?

Cities should not use state or higher route designations as the street name of addresses on a street. An actual street name should be determined. State routes (and US routes, etc) need to have the flexibility to be routed along what would be the best route for traffic using the route to travel between cities.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 27, 2021, 01:47:03 PM
Perhaps the 1999 extension of US 63 between El Dorado and Brinkley should have been a newly-commissioned 3-digit US Highway. Or maybe, like US 425, its pre-existing state highway designation(s) should have been maintained. Since we likely agree that the US 63 extension was a "what-were-they-thinking?" move, would you have preferred the former or the latter?
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: andy3175 on May 27, 2021, 11:13:38 PM
IMO, what should have been done was:
     (1) Truncate US 167 [north of] I-530/US 65

Couple that with replacing US 167 with 63 south of El Dorado and there's no reason for US 167 to continue to exist. The short segment between I-530 and El Dorado should have been US 63W.

Agreed. US 167 no longer needs to exist if US 63 can replace most of it.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 28, 2021, 05:30:32 AM
They probably should have rerouted US 63 this way in 1999, when 63 was extended to Reston, Louisiana; or in 2016, when Interstate 555 was officially designated. That being said, I think US 63 should have terminated at US 167 in El Dorado, and should not have duplexed with 167 all the way to Reston, unless the purpose was for the US 63 extension to terminate at an Interstate Highway.

*Ruston*, not Reston.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 28, 2021, 05:47:45 AM
They probably should have rerouted US 63 this way in 1999, when 63 was extended to Reston, Louisiana; or in 2016, when Interstate 555 was officially designated. That being said, I think US 63 should have terminated at US 167 in El Dorado, and should not have duplexed with 167 all the way to Reston, unless the purpose was for the US 63 extension to terminate at an Interstate Highway.

With I-555 now southeast of Jonesboro they should just completely replace US 167 in LA and AR with US 63 and the section between US 412 and I-555 becoming AR-555.

I wouldn't take US 167-cum-63 any further than I-49 at the terminus of the Pineville Expressway. (Hey look, termination at an interstate! Yay!) US 167 doesn't really serve any purpose south of Alexandria other than connecting Ville Platte and Abbeville to the US system.

The main problem with extending US 63 into Louisiana is that La. doesn't let LA highways share numbers with US highways, and we already have an LA 63. That's probably why US 63 doesn't go any further than Ruston and multiplexes with 167 in its entirety in La.; it's technically "LA" 167.

And if ceremonial multiplexing isn't a problem, then US 165 Alexandria to Lake Charles makes more sense than US 167 Alexandria to Abbeville.

If ceremonial multiplexing isn't a problem, maybe re-route an extended US 63 through Alexandria down LA 1/LA 10 through Avoyelles and Pointe Coupee parishes and terminate it at US 61 near St. Francisville?

Ville Platte's connection to the NHS is perfectly fine via LA 10 (which runs concurrent with US 167 through that town), and LA 29 (Tate Cove Road, which interchanges with I-49 just to the north). Just extend LA 10 east along the recently built extension at Nuba to I-49, run it on that route to the current interchange north of Washington, and call it a day.

Now, what you would do with US 167 from Lafayette to Abbeville via Maurice? A different kettle of crawfish. (Hello, 4dius? US 3167??)
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2021, 03:25:50 PM
Maybe US 167 could be truncated to Ruston (or El Dorado) and US 63 could be extended to Abbeville. Maybe that would give US 63's 1999 extension more legitimacy.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: sparker on May 28, 2021, 04:17:24 PM
Maybe US 167 could be truncated to Ruston (or El Dorado) and US 63 could be extended to Abbeville. Maybe that would give US 63's 1999 extension more legitimacy.

That would result in US 63 having multiplexes with both US 49 and I-49!  Can't think of any other N-S 2dus where that's the case.
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: Mapmikey on May 28, 2021, 09:14:59 PM
Maybe US 167 could be truncated to Ruston (or El Dorado) and US 63 could be extended to Abbeville. Maybe that would give US 63's 1999 extension more legitimacy.

That would result in US 63 having multiplexes with both US 49 and I-49!  Can't think of any other N-S 2dus where that's the case.

US 59 does this with US 69 and I-69

US 45 does this with US 41 and I-41
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: sparker on May 29, 2021, 04:32:32 PM
Maybe US 167 could be truncated to Ruston (or El Dorado) and US 63 could be extended to Abbeville. Maybe that would give US 63's 1999 extension more legitimacy.

That would result in US 63 having multiplexes with both US 49 and I-49!  Can't think of any other N-S 2dus where that's the case.

US 59 does this with US 69 and I-69

US 45 does this with US 41 and I-41

Oops -- forgot about the US 59/69 multiplex on the Lufkin bypass -- but I-69 hasn't quite gotten there yet -- and US 69 may not be rerouted on the I-69 bypass when constructed; we shall see sometime relatively soon.  As for the US 41/I-41 multiplex in which US 45 sporadically interfaces -- that's something of an arbitrary fluke.  I should have specified multiplexes in separate locations on the US route in question.  Oh well, too late now! 
Title: Re: Redesignating US 63
Post by: bassoon1986 on May 29, 2021, 09:20:47 PM
Maybe US 167 could be truncated to Ruston (or El Dorado) and US 63 could be extended to Abbeville. Maybe that would give US 63's 1999 extension more legitimacy.

That would result in US 63 having multiplexes with both US 49 and I-49!  Can't think of any other N-S 2dus where that's the case.

US 59 does this with US 69 and I-69

US 45 does this with US 41 and I-41

Oops -- forgot about the US 59/69 multiplex on the Lufkin bypass -- but I-69 hasn't quite gotten there yet -- and US 69 may not be rerouted on the I-69 bypass when constructed; we shall see sometime relatively soon.  As for the US 41/I-41 multiplex in which US 45 sporadically interfaces -- that's something of an arbitrary fluke.  I should have specified multiplexes in separate locations on the US route in question.  Oh well, too late now!
Actually 59 shares with US 69 twice. It has another good overlap in NE Oklahoma.


iPhone