Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2010, 12:21:58 PM
...the US 278 extension west from US 45 [in Mississippi], though approved in 1997, was not signed for close to 10 years.
That's interesting, because it appears to have been signed right away in Arkansas: this photo...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusends.com%2F70-79%2F278%2Fbegin278w.jpg&hash=c4a7cf3d0eebb96b5232cff843865456d5fe48e2)
...was taken in Wickes AR in 1998. To me that suggests the possibility that 278 was yet another US route that AHTD wanted to be extended into their state, but that neighboring states were less-than-enthusiastic about (in this case, Mississippi).
It was signed right away in Arkansas. My point was that it took MDOT the better part of 10 years to sign the Mississippi portion.
I understand. And I'm saying that hints at the notion that MDOT didn't particularly want US 278 extended through their state, but perhaps signed off on the proposal simply at AHTD's request.
Kinda reminds me of LADOTD's half-hearted response to US 63 being extended through Arkansas into Louisiana...
Quote from: usends on February 17, 2010, 03:07:47 PM
Kinda reminds me of LADOTD's half-hearted response to US 63 being extended through Arkansas into Louisiana...
63 gives me heartburn when I think about it. :-/
Quote from: US71 on February 17, 2010, 10:52:27 PM
Quote from: usends on February 17, 2010, 03:07:47 PM
Kinda reminds me of LADOTD's half-hearted response to US 63 being extended through Arkansas into Louisiana...
63 gives me heartburn when I think about it. :-/
My question is...why was Arkansas so insisted on creating this painfully convoluted route? The segment south of I-40 serves a completely different corridor from the original, pre-extension US 63.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 18, 2010, 11:54:01 AM
Quote from: US71 on February 17, 2010, 10:52:27 PM
Quote from: usends on February 17, 2010, 03:07:47 PM
Kinda reminds me of LADOTD's half-hearted response to US 63 being extended through Arkansas into Louisiana...
63 gives me heartburn when I think about it. :-/
My question is...why was Arkansas so insisted on creating this painfully convoluted route? The segment south of I-40 serves a completely different corridor from the original, pre-extension US 63.
They really wanted a US number for AR 11 and 15. They really should have created a new route, and had it follow AR 1 to Jonesboro and maybe even extend it into Missouri.
Back to US 278, it's kind of interesting that when you read Miss. DOT's route description in their Selected Highway Statistics document (which Froggie pointed out as being their closest approximation to a route log), almost the entire routing of US 278 is defined in terms of which other highways it follows (US 82, US 61, MS 6, US 45). Most of their other highways are defined in terms of which towns they serve.