I-49 in Arkansas

[Arkansastravelguy]

The 540 signs are hit and miss, I've seen several I-540s on mileage signs and at exit 61 it still has the thru trucks to I 40 use 540 sign. Yet in Farmington the milage sign says I-49


iPhone

This one still remains, as well, though it's probably City of Rogers' sign (but I'd love to have it for my collection )

I've wondered if that's a Rogers sign or if Promonade Mall bought it


iPhone

[M86]

The 540 signs are hit and miss, I've seen several I-540s on mileage signs and at exit 61 it still has the thru trucks to I 40 use 540 sign. Yet in Farmington the milage sign says I-49

iPhone

This one still remains, as well, though it's probably City of Rogers' sign (but I'd love to have it for my collection )

Definitely a City of Rogers sign... The font gives it away.

[Bobby5280]

I disagree.  if we're gonna have the truncated-crown, narrow-margin shields (70 spec), then the height of the number should be diminished.  on the 24" blank, the 12" numbers look terrible, while the 10" look passable.

I don't think you understand my point. The bureaucrats seem to insist on squeezing 12" Series D numerals onto 24" Interstate highway shields when they clearly do not fit properly. If having the letters 12" tall is the top priority then they need to change them to Series C numerals.

Note: last time I checked the MUTCD SHS, there was no spec explicitly allowing these 120% larger numerals onto an Interstate highway shield. A 24" shield is supposed to have 10" Series D numerals, not 12". Proportionately it scales on up from there for 36" and 48" shields.

I agree 10" numerals do work better on Interstate shields, even set in Series D. Aesthetically, I prefer the look of state names on Interstate shields. But if the FHWA wants a neutered look on Interstate shields the 10" tall characters are going to work better. I would even be willing to bet the more generous spacing around the numerals would actually make these shields more legible than the current, very ugly shields with stupidly over-sized numerals.

The neutered look with 12" numerals just plain sucks. And this is my expert opinion based on over 20 years of sign design work on top of having a 4 year New York art school degree. Really, no one needs expert credentials to see that design formula isn't working. It just involves looking at the design results and being objectively honest over how it looks.

Basically, the Interstate highway shields looked fine from the 1950's and through the 1970's until some bureaucrat in recent years decided we need to squeeze the same size numerals used on US Highway and State Highway markers onto existing Interstate shield designs. I wonder if the person who made this decision flunked geometry in high school.

In order for 12" numerals to work properly on a standard Interstate highway shield the whole freaking shield must be redesigned to accommodate them.

[bjrush]

Congrats on the four year New York art school degree, but this rant seems to be unrelated to I-49

[US71]

Since we're talking about signs:


MODOT


AHTD


LADOTD

[agentsteel53]

I don't think you understand my point. The bureaucrats seem to insist on squeezing 12" Series D numerals onto 24" Interstate highway shields when they clearly do not fit properly. If having the letters 12" tall is the top priority then they need to change them to Series C numerals.

how do we know 12" is the priority, as opposed to Series D being the priority?

Basically, the Interstate highway shields looked fine from the 1950's and through the 1970's until some bureaucrat in recent years decided we need to squeeze the same size numerals used on US Highway and State Highway markers onto existing Interstate shield designs. I wonder if the person who made this decision flunked geometry in high school.

1965, Pennsylvania.  we have them to thank for garish '70 spec US and interstate shields.



photo taken Dec. 10, 1965.

[agentsteel53]

Congrats on the four year New York art school degree, but this rant seems to be unrelated to I-49

congrats on the anti-intellectualism.  your anti-intellectualism also seems to be unrelated to I-49.

[bugo]

and this is at the Greenland exit

That one is still technically correct.

[bjrush]

Congrats on the four year New York art school degree, but this rant seems to be unrelated to I-49

congrats on the anti-intellectualism.  your anti-intellectualism also seems to be unrelated to I-49.

chill out, I have a pricey education as well. I am more laughing at your usage of New York to make whatever school you went to sound high class

[Arkansastravelguy]

Since we're talking about signs:


MODOT


AHTD


LADOTD

Hmm which one looks the best?


iPhone

[Arkansastravelguy]

While we're still talking about signs: Don Tyson is getting signed


iPhone

[rickmastfan67]

No need for any personal attacks here guys, alright?

[US71]

While we're still talking about signs: Don Tyson is getting signed


iPhone

Glad I didn't make any bets: I was expecting Exit 71 

[apjung]

Since we're talking about signs:


MODOT


AHTD


LADOTD

Arkansas is a bit cheap since they use the u-channel post commonly seen in residential areas instead of the breakaway bolted post on a concrete base that Louisiana uses. U-channel signs usually can't withstand the high winds from passing traffic and over time the posts will bend and warp.

It's probably the only interstate that is in all three states it traverses but not connected at any of the state borders at this moment.

[robbones]

Looks like the I-540 shield is still there. Shouldn't AHTD at least add a "To", if not outright remove it?

They HAVE removed the 540 shields approaching I-40. They also removed the free-standing 540 along WB I-40.

I agree that it should be changed to "TO 540" . It would seem to be the easiest solution.

EB 40 before the 540 interchange is still incorrect.  It still shows 540 north continues onto 40. It should state TO 49 Fayetteville in its place.

[J N Winkler]

I don't think you understand my point. The bureaucrats seem to insist on squeezing 12" Series D numerals onto 24" Interstate highway shields when they clearly do not fit properly. If having the letters 12" tall is the top priority then they need to change them to Series C numerals.

Note: last time I checked the MUTCD SHS, there was no spec explicitly allowing these 120% larger numerals onto an Interstate highway shield. A 24" shield is supposed to have 10" Series D numerals, not 12". Proportionately it scales on up from there for 36" and 48" shields.

I agree 10" numerals do work better on Interstate shields, even set in Series D. Aesthetically, I prefer the look of state names on Interstate shields. But if the FHWA wants a neutered look on Interstate shields the 10" tall characters are going to work better. I would even be willing to bet the more generous spacing around the numerals would actually make these shields more legible than the current, very ugly shields with stupidly over-sized numerals.

The problem here is that the two references--the MUTCD and Standard Highway Signs--contradict each other.  The MUTCD (Table 2E-2) requires digits half shield height all the way down the line (US, state, and Interstate):  this means 12" on 24" shield, 18" on 36" shield, etc.  On the other hand, Standard Highway Signs requires digits 5/12 shield height all the way down the line, the digits in question being Series D on two-digit shields and Series C on three-digit shields.  Which standard governs?

[M86]

Since we're talking about signs:


MODOT


AHTD


LADOTD

Arkansas is a bit cheap since they use the u-channel post commonly seen in residential areas instead of the breakaway bolted post on a concrete base that Louisiana uses. U-channel signs usually can't withstand the high winds from passing traffic and over time the posts will bend and warp.

It's probably the only interstate that is in all three states it traverses but not connected at any of the state borders at this moment.

Agree with the U-Channel posts... That needs to be changed.

But it's better than the wooden posts I've seen in Iowa: http://goo.gl/maps/zD2TD

[Bobby5280]

The problem here is that the two references--the MUTCD and Standard Highway Signs--contradict each other.  The MUTCD (Table 2E-2) requires digits half shield height all the way down the line (US, state, and Interstate):  this means 12" on 24" shield, 18" on 36" shield, etc.  On the other hand, Standard Highway Signs requires digits 5/12 shield height all the way down the line, the digits in question being Series D on two-digit shields and Series C on three-digit shields.  Which standard governs?

Common sense in terms of what actually fits the space on an Interstate shield (what the SHS dictates) should override the contradictory rule (what the MUTCD says). 12" Series D numerals do not fit a 24" Interstate highway shield properly in most cases. The only way they would have a chance to fit properly is if they got rid of the top "Interstate" portion of the route marker and centered the numerals vertically on the shield. But that would only yield a slight gain in space for the numerals. It's either that or re-design the shields so 12" Series D numerals would fit on the 24" shield.

[apjung]

Since we're talking about signs:


MODOT


AHTD


LADOTD

Arkansas is a bit cheap since they use the u-channel post commonly seen in residential areas instead of the breakaway bolted post on a concrete base that Louisiana uses. U-channel signs usually can't withstand the high winds from passing traffic and over time the posts will bend and warp.

It's probably the only interstate that is in all three states it traverses but not connected at any of the state borders at this moment.

Agree with the U-Channel posts... That needs to be changed.

But it's better than the wooden posts I've seen in Iowa: http://goo.gl/maps/zD2TD

Speaking of wooden posts, it's seems that CA uses nothing but wooden posts on all signs. The only metal used are the gantry signs.

[US71]

Speaking of wooden posts, it's seems that CA uses nothing but wooden posts on all signs. The only metal used are the gantry signs.

MoDOT used to use wooden posts almost exclusively except along expressways. The last few years, they seem to be using more square metal posts and some U-channel, but not a lot. I still see wood posts, but they seem fewer and fewer these days.

[O Tamandua]

Citing a map showing the mean population center of the United States now on the border of Laclede and Pulaski counties in South Central Missouri, he said, "In the 2020 Census, it is quite possible that Neosho or some area within a few miles of us would be the mean population center of the United States. Meaning exactly half of the population will reside east of us and exactly half of the population will reside to the west of us. So we are perfectly located not just geographically, but in terms of the distribution of our population as well."

This could (and should also go) in the Missouri forum, but Neosho is figuratively little more than a whisker's breadth outside the Northwest Arkansas metro.  This is a four page article on the proposed Crowder Intermodal facility (that would indeed eventually use I-49) on the Kansas City Southern railroad just south of that city.  It shows how significant this corridor is becoming to people who are connecting the dots.

http://www.neoshodailynews.com/article/20140630/NEWS/140639877/1994/NEWS

[Avalanchez71]

I think some folks fail to see the picture that Arkansas is trying to paint.  They may be witholding building a larger capacity highway in lieu of a smaller one to keep people in Arkansas.  If Arkansas was to build a nice four lane plus facility into MO without a stop light what can happen? 

Well MO could start offering incentives for folks to move north to move to a get a place out in the country and new subdivisions could be going up in MO.  AR keeping this a super two keeps the capacity down and keeps folks in AR.

[bjrush]

Um, not likely

Northwest Arkansas doesn't need to "trap" people, they are willingly moving there by the thousands

Missouri, not so much. None of the things people move to NWA for are available in Missouri, and that will not change with a bypass

Also, AHTD doesnt sit in their offices dreaming about the socioeconomic impact on population shifts their projects will have. They make decisions on traffic counts, engineering, etc

Also, it is Missouri holding up the completion at present. If there were thousands of folks just waiting to move north, they may have a little more urgency

[US71]

I think some folks fail to see the picture that Arkansas is trying to paint.  They may be witholding building a larger capacity highway in lieu of a smaller one to keep people in Arkansas.  If Arkansas was to build a nice four lane plus facility into MO without a stop light what can happen? 

Well MO could start offering incentives for folks to move north to move to a get a place out in the country and new subdivisions could be going up in MO.  AR keeping this a super two keeps the capacity down and keeps folks in AR.

Maybe for some, but not all. Many people like the metro area. Plus SW Missouri can be a little too conservative for some people's liking. I have a friend who just moved from Fayetteville to Bella Vista. The running joke is now that Benton County is wet, Bella Vista is the place to be

[O Tamandua]

Um, not likely

At one point last decade McDonald people were believing their high school could get as big as Bentonville in terms of population.  Don't shoot the messenger, that's what I was told (and maybe read in their paper, can't remember for sure).