Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)

[agentsteel53]

what's wrong with it having a US highway designation?  Certainly is long enough and covers plenty of states.  If that highway is frivolous, so are a lot of other US highways. 

US-26 for example. 

I suppose you could make some argument that by switching the number from 26 to 28, Mountain Home would immediately grow into a giant metropolis just by virtue of having a different highway number, thereby making the designation not frivolous at all, but I'd love to hear how that one works.

[bugo]

412 in western AR and eastern OK is definitely worthy of a US route designation. Before it came along, from Alpena to Enid, the route was AR 68-OK 33-I-44-I-244-US 64-Cimmaron Turnpike-US 64-OK 15.  Now it's all one number.  You might disagree with the number but it's hard to argue that this corridor shouldn't have a single US route number.

[corco]

what's wrong with it having a US highway designation?  Certainly is long enough and covers plenty of states.  If that highway is frivolous, so are a lot of other US highways.

US-26 for example.

I suppose you could make some argument that by switching the number from 26 to 28, Mountain Home would immediately grow into a giant metropolis just by virtue of having a different highway number, thereby making the designation not frivolous at all, but I'd love to hear how that one works

I think you're missing my point. Ausinterkid proposed that the route number should be 86 instead of 412. I don't understand why that affects the frivolity or non-frivolity of the US highway designation, and was simply seeking an explanation. His post as it stood had little to do with the content of the thread; I was simply seeking to see how he could make it relate to the thread.

I for one believe that the number has nothing to do with anything, and the designation itself is justified. Mr. Ausinterkid's post seemed to make little sense, however, in the context of the thread

[agentsteel53]

I think you're missing my point.

you posited that the US designation on the road is frivolous, and did not substantiate that argument.

[corco]

I suppose my wording could have been better- I can see where it may very clearly appear that I stated otherwise, but that was not my intent.

I suppose I should have said (and now say):

How does having the number 86 applied to the highway make it any more or less frivolous than the number 412?

[agentsteel53]

How does having the number 86 applied to the highway make it any more or less frivolous than the number 412?

because the route itself isn't particularly frivolous - at least, not the first part.  The part heading to New Mexico does have an unusually long multiplex.  Maybe US-164 and US-156?  (and that solves the problem of the 56/412 multiplex as well.)

[corco]

because the route itself isn't particularly frivolous - at least, not the first part.  The part heading to New Mexico does have an unusually long multiplex.  Maybe US-164 and US-156?  (and that solves the problem of the 56/412 multiplex as well.)

Right, but how would the number 164 or 156 be any better or worse than 412? As I've said, I agree that the route deserves a US highway designation, I just don't see why 164, 156, or 86 for that matter is any better or worse than 412.

The topic of this post is the validity of said corridor having a US designation. What does its number matter, and how would that contribute or detract to/from said validity?

[bugo]

US 59 is rather frivolous, as well. It's duplexed with other routes the way (US 270 from the OK Line to Acorn and US 71 from Acorn to Texarkana).

US 59 doesn't exist to AHTD.  It's signed, but there are no US 59 sections.  The parts duplexed with 71 and 270 are officially 71 and 270.  And nobody calls it US 59.  It's "71" or "270".  But in Oklahoma,  the 59/270 duplex is locally known as "59". 
Post Merge: August 24, 2010, 11:01:04 AM

I suppose my wording could have been better- I can see where it may very clearly appear that I stated otherwise, but that was not my intent.

I suppose I should have said (and now say):

How does having the number 86 applied to the highway make it any more or less frivolous than the number 412?

US 412 is north of US 54, 60, 62, 64, and 66 in places and runs along US 56 for a long ways.  US 86 would fit the grid no better than 412 does.  I don't have a problem with the 400 series.  412 is easier to remember and more distinctive than "164" or "256".  But I wouldn't have a problem with those numbers either.  262 would be my choice if they did renumber it.

[xonhulu]

Right, but how would the number 164 or 156 be any better or worse than 412? As I've said, I agree that the route deserves a US highway designation, I just don't see why 164, 156, or 86 for that matter is any better or worse than 412.

I probably should stay out of this, but ...

Given that this group consists of roadgeeks, people who know the US Route system guidelines, you're not going to find many defenders for the 412 designation.  Face it: it doesn't follow the rules, and if you're not going to stick with the rules why even have them?

86 would also be a poor choice for this corridor, as the number would be out of place.  It really should be a 2dus, given its length, but unless a good way to connect it to an existing 2dus exists, there aren't any logical numbers fitting the grid available.  So a 3-digit was required.  But before you argue that gives some credibility to the 412 number, even if you buy that 400 series numbers are supposed to be future interstate corridors, numbers like 456, 462, 464 or 470 would have been better choices which accomplish the same purpose and fit the system.

In Arkansas, the 412 route would actually be the better route for US 62 as it is more direct.  That could've been another good solution, having current 412/62 as 62/62A or 62/162.

But I would agree with one point: there is little point to changing the number now.  I'd probably eliminate the long multiplex on its western end (NM/OK), though.

As for the topic of this thread, its perfectly o.k. to debate whether this a frivolous US extension.  I think it's way more legit than many of the other recent Arkansas US extensions, like 63, 278, and 425.

[bugo]

I probably should stay out of this, but ...

Given that this group consists of roadgeeks, people who know the US Route system guidelines, you're not going to find many defenders for the 412 designation.  Face it: it doesn't follow the rules, and if you're not going to stick with the rules why even have them?

I would argue that it does follow the rules.  The 400 series routes are part of the rules.  And have been since the early 1980s.  They are the new rules.

In Arkansas, the 412 route would actually be the better route for US 62 as it is more direct.  That could've been another good solution, having current 412/62 as 62/62A or 62/162.

412 is a much better highway than 62.  It is 4 lanes from Hindsville to the Oklahoma border.  62 is a crooked mountain road with some nasty curves west of Eureka Springs.

As for the topic of this thread, its perfectly o.k. to debate whether this a frivolous US extension.  I think it's way more legit than many of the other recent Arkansas US extensions, like 63, 278, and 425.

Those routes all deserved a US route designation.  The US 63 extension is silly and should have been US 179 or 265.  It also should follow LA 9 instead of US 167.  It could also be extended north along AR 11, AR 16, AR 5, AR 9, US 63, and MO 19.  This would be unnecessary but it would give Heber Springs a US route, which seems to be the goal of AHTD: to give every county seat a US highway and it would be better than the US 63 extension.  And to continue the tradition of giving towns 2 new US routes, US 425 could be extended north along AR 81, AR 15, AR 89, AR 321, and AR 5 to end at the new US 179/265 at Heber Springs.

corrected malformed quotes

[agentsteel53]

I would argue that it does follow the rules.  The 400 series routes are part of the rules.  And have been since the early 1980s.  They are the new rules.

I've never seen an official AASHO document with the "12.5 rule" spelled out - I've always thought it was some sort of derivation by roadgeeks trying to make some kind of sense of things by fitting a pattern to the data.

besides, I-99 has obeyed the "I-99 rule" since the 1980s as well.  Something being around for a while doesn't make it legitimate.

[corco]

I've never seen an official AASHO document with the "12.5 rule" spelled out - I've always thought it was some sort of derivation by roadgeeks trying to make some kind of sense of things by fitting a pattern to the data.

besides, I-99 has obeyed the "I-99 rule" since the 1980s as well.  Something being around for a while doesn't make it legitimate.

Beyond that, wasn't 412 commissioned BEFORE 400? That would seem to throw a monkey in the whole 12.5 rule theory

[bugo]

I've never seen an official AASHO document with the "12.5 rule" spelled out - I've always thought it was some sort of derivation by roadgeeks trying to make some kind of sense of things by fitting a pattern to the data.

besides, I-99 has obeyed the "I-99 rule" since the 1980s as well.  Something being around for a while doesn't make it legitimate.

Beyond that, wasn't 412 commissioned BEFORE 400? That would seem to throw a monkey in the whole 12.5 rule theory

I never bought the 12.5 theory either.

[xonhulu]

I'm sure there's no official "12.5" rule -- it's just a coincidence the 400-series routes came out this way.

Anyway, my point was: even if there were a "US 4xx for future interstate corridors" policy guiding AASHTO (which I also doubt), they could have at least come up with 4xx numbers which also fit the older numbering guidelines.  As I said, 412 could've been 470 as it did originally intersect 70.  400 could be 450 or 454 or 456.  425 could be 465.  But from all that's been reported about the histories of these numbers, they were just random numbers picked by state DOT's which AASHTO then approved in violation of their own numbering guidelines.

[Scott5114]

The discussion on how to best renumber 412 and friends has been moved to Fictional Highways.

[bugo]

Then again, it seems the standard to create a US route nowadays (state line MUST be crossed, etc.) is much higher than that of the Interstate system (i.e. I-97)!

for every I-97, there is a US-175.

Of course, 175 came about before AASHTO tightened up the standards for new US route creation...considering that it and US 75 are about a mile away or so from sharing termini in downtown Dallas (after 75 was truncated to Spur 366), I've always wondered why 75 wasn't just simply extended down the child route.

No reason to...US 175 has been US 175 for decades and changing the number would cause confusion...not to mention that 75 is a N-S route and 175 is an E-W route.  I still think it was silly for Michigan to change US 27 to US 127, even though the 127 designation does make more sense today.  The only good reason to change a designation is if the road is "upgraded," eg from a state to a US route or an interstate.

[bugo]

How about US 412 becoming US 86 (like US 59, in a way) running from US 64 @ Guymon OK to Columbia TN?

Won't happen.  Everybody is used to US 412 and changing it would only cause confusion.  And 86 would be just as out of place as 412 is.  And remember, the 400 series routes are not traditional 3d spur routes, but an entire new system of US routes.

[bugo]

I think some of the older extensions of US routes in Arkansas make sense in terms of traffic-the newer ones less so. I never would have thought of the US 371, US 278 and US 63 extensions as unified, important corrdiors that called for one single route number and an upgrade to a US route. They don't serve very well as through routes-just as connections between larger towns. I traveled on the portion of US 63 between Pine Bluff and Warren when it was still AR 15, and I never would have seen it as a candidate for a US route. Not much traffic, as I recall. The others are pretty much the same-mostly local traffic.

My guess for the major impetus behind the US route extensions in the southern part of the state was to put some of the larger towns in the area on a US highway that previously were not on one. Prior to the creation of US 425 in 1989, Monticello and Warren, two of the larger towns in SE Arkansas were not served by any US highway. Same for Nashville in SW Arkansas. 10 years later after the creation of US 425, and the extensions of US 371, US 278 and US 63, all 3 towns were on not 1, but 2 US highways.

I believe this is the answer.  AHTD wanted to put certain county seats on US routes.  There are still some county seats on state routes only, but I could see that changing in the near future.  US 171 being extended into Arkansas is one idea.  It could end at US 62-65-412 at Harrison, AR.  I actually sent this suggestion to AHTD and surprisingly, they weren't interested.  But I wouldn't be surprised if it happened sometime in the near future, expecially if AASHTO decides to decommission it for being a single state US route under 300 miles long.

[NE2]

Oklahoma seems to have had a similar program - only one of their county seats has never had a U.S. Highway.

[US71]

I don't understand why 371 ends at DeQueen instead of Lockesburg. It serves absolutely no purpose along 71/59

[bassoon1986]

I believe this is the answer.  AHTD wanted to put certain county seats on US routes.  There are still some county seats on state routes only, but I could see that changing in the near future.  US 171 being extended into Arkansas is one idea.  It could end at US 62-65-412 at Harrison, AR.  I actually sent this suggestion to AHTD and surprisingly, they weren't interested.  But I wouldn't be surprised if it happened sometime in the near future, expecially if AASHTO decides to decommission it for being a single state US route under 300 miles long.

Where would you propose for US 171 extended north? It would have to duplex with US 71 for quite a while or else change its routing through Shreveport to LA 3 north from Bossier City

[US71]

Where would you propose for US 171 extended north? It would have to duplex with US 71 for quite a while or else change its routing through Shreveport to LA 3 north from Bossier City

In theory, it could follow LA 3094 to 71, then north to I-220 then east to LA 3. Once it hits Arkansas, it would follow AR 29 but that's another  headache. 

[bugo]

I believe this is the answer.  AHTD wanted to put certain county seats on US routes.  There are still some county seats on state routes only, but I could see that changing in the near future.  US 171 being extended into Arkansas is one idea.  It could end at US 62-65-412 at Harrison, AR.  I actually sent this suggestion to AHTD and surprisingly, they weren't interested.  But I wouldn't be surprised if it happened sometime in the near future, expecially if AASHTO decides to decommission it for being a single state US route under 300 miles long.

Where would you propose for US 171 extended north? It would have to duplex with US 71 for quite a while or else change its routing through Shreveport to LA 3 north from Bossier City

LA 3-AR 29-US 278-AR 27-AR 7.

[bassoon1986]

Where would you propose for US 171 extended north? It would have to duplex with US 71 for quite a while or else change its routing through Shreveport to LA 3 north from Bossier City

In theory, it could follow LA 3094 to 71, then north to I-220 then east to LA 3. Once it hits Arkansas, it would follow AR 29 but that's another  headache. 

Shreveport is my hometown but I keep thinking that US 171 actually ends at its parent at US 71/LA 1/N. Market, when it actually doesn't. Going up LA 3094, then US 71 to I 220 but the old route would be cool to restore it to its original terminus: US 79/80 North and East through Downtown Shreveport then across the river to LA 3 in Bossier.

[capt.ron]

I'm surprised that SH 7 and 16 haven't been made into US highways by now. Both are very long routes.