Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[rte66man]

I hate to rehash this but I will do it anyways.

Bobby, what’s to stop this from becoming a long distance route one day and where would you have I-50 go without remembering other interstates?

Furthermore I present a better question, what’s more likely:

Renumbering other interstates?

Or this road being named I-50 and going from I-49 to I-25?

It'll never make it to I-25 because New Mexico will never build it.

Agreed. Not needed west of Enid. You are more likely to see a new N/S route (Del Rio to Pueblo via Lubbock) than an E/W route extension. Just not justified.

I don't think it's needed west of I-35. The existing 4 lane expressway from there to Enid is more than adequate to handle current and future traffic.

[Plutonic Panda]

It’s not needed now. Half a century forward? We’ve had infrastructure projects we planned for almost 100 years in advance(looking at you second ave subway). Texas is already working with New Mexico to build out the port to plains corridor which would bring a new interstate close to the Oklahoma panhandle. It’s up to Oklahoma from there to decide to build a new freeway to connect to it. NM building their part seems more likely to happen then Oklahoma building my proposal.

Point is I think that is more likely to happen than renumbering other interstates. So then where would I-50 go? This is the most logical place to put it even if the other “proposed” extensions like a route from I-35 to a future I-17 north extension is a pipe dream and sits as nothing more than a proposal on a map for the next century. Though I’m sure if you even merely proposed it 80 years into the future you’d still have environmentalists shitting their pants.

[Bobby5280]

Even half a century forward there is very little chance this US-412 Interstate would ever be extended outside the I-35 to I-49 span. It's a short distance route. Calling that thing "I-50" would be like building an Interstate quality highway from Tacoma to Port Angeles and calling that "I-1". Why not? Where else is it going to go?

Why does there even have to be an Interstate 50? There is no I-60 either. I don't think we'll ever use up all 99 possible two-digit route Interstate designations, certainly not in any manner that fits the grid. In the fictional roads area I had one I-50 idea that involved a Salt Lake City to Jacksonville, FL route (Provo, Green River, Grand Junction, Pueblo, Wichita, Springfield, Memphis, Birmingham, Columbus, Albany, Waycross, Jacksonville). A good bit of it would go outside grid logic (and consume I-22 as well as I-555), but it would cross just as much country as I-70. Some segments of that corridor concept will get built out to Interstate quality under different names; others are likely to never happen at all. Very little of this US-412 Interstate idea would exist outside Oklahoma. I know I-45 is a major Intra-State route, but that's Houston to DFW. And there is legit potential to extend I-45 Northward.

There is a number of possible future improved corridors in the region of Western OK, Western KS, Eastern CO and the TX Panhandle. I-27 may have a long term shot at being extended North into Colorado and up to Limon. I strongly believe Denver and Oklahoma City need a direct diagonal Interstate link just like what I-44 does between OKC and St Louis. That would benefit the broader Interstate system for long haul traffic. Major destinations get linked in those concepts. Maybe if that Denver-OKC route was ever built the new US-412 Interstate could be extended West to Woodward to merge into it. But not otherwise. With the current grid arrangement in place there isn't any justification to extend a US-412 freeway West as far as Woodward, much less any points farther West than that. Traffic counts aren't there to justify it. The road isn't traveling direct to big enough destinations.

Likewise, a US-412 Interstate going well East of Springdale is a non-starter. It could be extended as far as Huntsville. Past there such an effort would run into a whole lot of resistance.

[MikieTimT]

Even half a century forward there is very little chance this US-412 Interstate would ever be extended outside the I-35 to I-49 span. It's a short distance route. Calling that thing "I-50" would be like building an Interstate quality highway from Tacoma to Port Angeles and calling that "I-1". Why not? Where else is it going to go?

Why does there even have to be an Interstate 50? There is no I-60 either. I don't think we'll ever use up all 99 possible two-digit route Interstate designations, certainly not in any manner that fits the grid. In the fictional roads area I had one I-50 idea that involved a Salt Lake City to Jacksonville, FL route (Provo, Green River, Grand Junction, Pueblo, Wichita, Springfield, Memphis, Birmingham, Columbus, Albany, Waycross, Jacksonville). A good bit of it would go outside grid logic (and consume I-22 as well as I-555), but it would cross just as much country as I-70. Some segments of that corridor concept will get built out to Interstate quality under different names; others are likely to never happen at all. Very little of this US-412 Interstate idea would exist outside Oklahoma. I know I-45 is a major Intra-State route, but that's Houston to DFW. And there is legit potential to extend I-45 Northward.

There is a number of possible future improved corridors in the region of Western OK, Western KS, Eastern CO and the TX Panhandle. I-27 may have a long term shot at being extended North into Colorado and up to Limon. I strongly believe Denver and Oklahoma City need a direct diagonal Interstate link just like what I-44 does between OKC and St Louis. That would benefit the broader Interstate system for long haul traffic. Major destinations get linked in those concepts. Maybe if that Denver-OKC route was ever built the new US-412 Interstate could be extended West to Woodward to merge into it. But not otherwise. With the current grid arrangement in place there isn't any justification to extend a US-412 freeway West as far as Woodward, much less any points farther West than that. Traffic counts aren't there to justify it. The road isn't traveling direct to big enough destinations.

Likewise, a US-412 Interstate going well East of Springdale is a non-starter. It could be extended as far as Huntsville. Past there such an effort would run into a whole lot of resistance.

By the same token, why does an x0/x5 have to be a transcon by your logic?  There's several exceptions to that rule already, and just because we don't foresee growth of an area over a 2-3 decade timeframe doesn't mean that it won't happen.  Heck, 3 decades ago, folks would have laughed if you said that Benton/Washington/Madison county in Arkansas would be on the verge of being a Top 100 metro area in 2022/23, but here we are.  In 3 decades, Northeast Arkansas might well be in a Top 150 metro area the way things are growing there now with Jonesboro's growth and all the new steel mills going in to the east of it, and you'd better believe that there would be a push to connect the top 2 growing areas of Arkansas just like there's a push to beef up the connection to Tulsa now.  Once I-57 is done, I'd be shocked if the portion from Walnut Ridge to Hayti doesn't get a big push anyway as there's only one non-navigable river crossing, and then with I-155 there, the Mississippi River has a serviceable crossing for whatever makes sense to Tennessee, whether it be just push down to Jackson and call it a day, or run across US-70/70A from Dyersburg and run into Nashville proper without jumping south and then climb back north along I-40, which would likely need a 6 laning by then anyway.

[Scott5114]

Now, I'm not going to be put out too much if this gets the number 46 or 48. But this project would likely be the only good opportunity to use the number 50 in a way that both makes sense with the grid and doesn't conflict with US-50. If we miss the opportunity to request the number now, chances are some other state isn't going to be as shy about it in the future and put somewhere that makes less sense, conflicts with US-50, or both, and probably isn't going to be transcontinental either.

And let's be real—this proposed interstate is about 200 miles long, with plausible destinations for extension on either end. I-97 it ain't. Sure, it's ⅔ the length of I-30 right now. But again...would you rather the I-50 number be used for this or get written into law to be some 7-mile spur in North Carolina?

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah that is more or less my stance. It makes sense here.

[abqtraveler]

Now, I'm not going to be put out too much if this gets the number 46 or 48. But this project would likely be the only good opportunity to use the number 50 in a way that both makes sense with the grid and doesn't conflict with US-50. If we miss the opportunity to request the number now, chances are some other state isn't going to be as shy about it in the future and put somewhere that makes less sense, conflicts with US-50, or both, and probably isn't going to be transcontinental either.

And let's be real—this proposed interstate is about 200 miles long, with plausible destinations for extension on either end. I-97 it ain't. Sure, it's ⅔ the length of I-30 right now. But again...would you rather the I-50 number be used for this or get written into law to be some 7-mile spur in North Carolina?

Let's not forget there are still plenty of parkways in Kentucky that could be signed as I-50, should the KYTC get around to converting them to interstate standards.

[skluth]

It could also be I-22, with the current I-22 subsuming I-555. This might give added incentive to complete a freeway between NWA and Walnut Ridge (and possibly build a new Mississippi River crossing west of Millington to I-55). An eastward extension of whatever interstate US 412 becomes could be extended down I-555 and end near Memphis with a similar situation as I-29 and I-49 in Kansas City (or I-44 and I-64 once did in St Louis before I-64 was extended to Wentzville).

I was against this being I-50 at first, but I've come around to not really caring about it. I never liked I-30, I-45, and I-85 for not being long enough for a X-country number so I don't see why I-50 shouldn't be the same. As others pointed out, it's not like I-50 can be used logically in many other places. There could potentially be both an I-50 and US 50 in Missouri depending on if an how it's extended east, but there already is an I-72 and MO 72 so I don't think that will be an issue as the two "50's" would be far enough apart that there would be minimal confusion. It might be a larger issue should it reach WV and VA depending on routing.

[US 89]

I give zero shits what they number this as long as it's two digits and even.

[sprjus4]

I give zero shits what they number this as long as it's two digits and even.

It would be concerning if this was designated a north-south route.

[Scott5114]

I give zero shits what they number this as long as it's two digits and even.

A second I-44?

[Bobby5280]

Now, I'm not going to be put out too much if this gets the number 46 or 48. But this project would likely be the only good opportunity to use the number 50 in a way that both makes sense with the grid and doesn't conflict with US-50. If we miss the opportunity to request the number now, chances are some other state isn't going to be as shy about it in the future and put somewhere that makes less sense, conflicts with US-50, or both, and probably isn't going to be transcontinental either.

It's pretty sad the only "good" argument for naming this US-412 Interstate "I-50" is a preemptive turn-and-burn of the designation before some politician elsewhere in the country dreams up an even more ridiculous use for the number.

Of course, given the fact there are detached duplicate 2-digit Interstates in various parts of the US (I-76, I-87, I-74, etc) if the I-50 syndrome is an ego-driven thing there is really nothing to stop a politician in Kentucky from renaming a parkway as I-50 even if the number gets used on US-412 here in Oklahoma.

I guess we can thank Bud Shuster and the nonsense known as I-99 for that crap. It kind of makes me regret even mentioning the "I-1" idea in Tacoma. Some jackass might see that in a web search and run with it.

[Road Hog]

It could also be I-22, with the current I-22 subsuming I-555. This might give added incentive to complete a freeway between NWA and Walnut Ridge (and possibly build a new Mississippi River crossing west of Millington to I-55). An eastward extension of whatever interstate US 412 becomes could be extended down I-555 and end near Memphis with a similar situation as I-29 and I-49 in Kansas City (or I-44 and I-64 once did in St Louis before I-64 was extended to Wentzville).

I was against this being I-50 at first, but I've come around to not really caring about it. I never liked I-30, I-45, and I-85 for not being long enough for a X-country number so I don't see why I-50 shouldn't be the same. As others pointed out, it's not like I-50 can be used logically in many other places. There could potentially be both an I-50 and US 50 in Missouri depending on if an how it's extended east, but there already is an I-72 and MO 72 so I don't think that will be an issue as the two "50's" would be far enough apart that there would be minimal confusion. It might be a larger issue should it reach WV and VA depending on routing.

I would be against calling it I-22 if the mileage north of I-40 exceeds the mileage south of it. Diagonal interstates generally violate the grid, but there needs to be a base definition.

[MikieTimT]

I would be against calling it I-22 if the mileage north of I-40 exceeds the mileage south of it. Diagonal interstates generally violate the grid, but there needs to be a base definition.

True, but the grid needs violating as diagonal interstates are a good idea if you care anything about mileage efficiency when traveling.  Since we seem to have a running theme with the 20 series outside of I-20, I-22 continuing on as a diagonal to the northwest as far as makes sense isn't bothersome.

[The Ghostbuster]

The only 3 numbers the US 412 corridor could get is 46, 48 or 50. Personally, I would have continued the US 412 Interstate across Arkansas all the way to the Interstate 55/Interstate 155 interchange, but the traffic counts likely don't warrant it. Whatever number the US 412 corridor gets, the Interstate designation will likely be added in two phases: The Interstate 35-to-Interstate 44 segment would be designated first, since that segment is already a freeway/tollway combo for nearly its entire length. The Interstate 44-to-Interstate 49 segment would be designated later, since the upgrades would have to be far more extensive for that segment to be part of the Interstate System.

[Scott5114]

Theoretically 52, 54, 56, 58 are options, but they're increasingly less sensible the higher you go. 60 and 62 would conflict with US routes in both states so they're off the table, and all higher numbers between there and 70 are already used.

I think the first appearance of whatever the new number is will be a renumbering of the east-west portion of I-244 and the concurrency with I-44 to the SH-364 interchange, as that is the only part that unquestionably meets Interstate standard (by virtue of already being an Interstate). You could also probably slap a second discontiguous segment on the Cherokee, as it's new enough it probably meets Interstate standard.

The Cimarron will probably need some minor upgrades to meet Interstate standard, which OTA may drag their feet on because they're not getting additional revenue out of the infrastructure bill.

[MikieTimT]

The only 3 numbers the US 412 corridor could get is 46, 48 or 50. Personally, I would have continued the US 412 Interstate across Arkansas all the way to the Interstate 55/Interstate 155 interchange, but the traffic counts likely don't warrant it. Whatever number the US 412 corridor gets, the Interstate designation will likely be added in two phases: The Interstate 35-to-Interstate 44 segment would be designated first, since that segment is already a freeway/tollway combo for nearly its entire length. The Interstate 44-to-Interstate 49 segment would be designated later, since the upgrades would have to be far more extensive for that segment to be part of the Interstate System.

Looks like they could just about go ahead and relabel the I-35 to I-44 segment.  Just a quick reroute of Diamond Head Rd. to the end of Keystone Dam would finish it out for limited access.  Are the ramps everywhere good enough for interstate designation, or are some a project like US-67 (Future I-57) in Jacksonville?

[Scott5114]

I think the main problems with the Cimarron are going to be the median (is a cable barrier over a paved median good enough for Interstate standard?) and possibly bridge clearances (it was built in an era where OTA was pretty cavalier about bridge standards).

[sprjus4]

You could also probably slap a second discontiguous segment on the Cherokee, as it's new enough it probably meets Interstate standard.

It violates the main standard of not being connected to any other interstate highway segment.

I think the main problems with the Cimarron are going to be the median (is a cable barrier over a paved median good enough for Interstate standard?)

I-44 south of Lawton says it should work.

[Scott5114]

You could also probably slap a second discontiguous segment on the Cherokee, as it's new enough it probably meets Interstate standard.

It violates the main standard of not being connected to any other interstate highway segment.

Historically, that rule has sort of gone out the window with these written-into-law Interstate segment designations (see the South Texas I-2/69E/69C complex).

I think the main problems with the Cimarron are going to be the median (is a cable barrier over a paved median good enough for Interstate standard?)

I-44 south of Lawton says it should work.

I-44 south of Lawton was also added to the Interstate system in the mid-80s, when standards were looser. FHWA may not be so forthcoming with design waivers these days.

[skluth]

The only 3 numbers the US 412 corridor could get is 46, 48 or 50. Personally, I would have continued the US 412 Interstate across Arkansas all the way to the Interstate 55/Interstate 155 interchange, but the traffic counts likely don't warrant it. Whatever number the US 412 corridor gets, the Interstate designation will likely be added in two phases: The Interstate 35-t

Never underestimate the power of business to push through new and upgraded highways regardless of current traffic. I wouldn't be surprised if JB Hunt and especially Walmart pushed for a North Arkansas four lane highway/ freeway to improve their connectivity to the interstate system east of the Mississippi. It could connect to both the future I-30/57 along the US 67 corridor and the I-555 corridor to Memphis. I wouldn't expect it until at least 2040 given the rate Arkansas builds highways and there's some fairly difficult terrain to cross (though not as difficult as I-49 between Ft Smith and Texarkana).

You could also probably slap a second discontiguous segment on the Cherokee, as it's new enough it probably meets Interstate standard.

It violates the main standard of not being connected to any other interstate highway segment.

Historically, that rule has sort of gone out the window with these written-into-law Interstate segment designations (see the South Texas I-2/69E/69C complex).

It also won't matter as long as lawmakers propose a segment that connects to the system. It's not like politicians are shy about making promises for potential new highways to constituents regardless of how soon they might see it.

[sprjus4]

Historically, that rule has sort of gone out the window with these written-into-law Interstate segment designations (see the South Texas I-2/69E/69C complex).

As far as I'm aware, that is the only instance of the rule being violated - besides instances in the 1960s and 70s were isolated segments of completed highway were designated before connecting segments were constructed.

Additionally, those three interstates do connect each other, form a complex of 117 total miles of freeway, and traverse an expansive metropolitan area.

A bit different than an isolated 32 mile rural segment of freeway that is a component of an otherwise arterial divided highway.

I-44 south of Lawton was also added to the Interstate system in the mid-80s, when standards were looser. FHWA may not be so forthcoming with design waivers these days.

Perhaps. They may grant an exception given the project to replace the median was recent, and the freeway otherwise meets interstate standards.

[Bobby5280]

I think the first appearance of whatever the new number is will be a renumbering of the east-west portion of I-244 and the concurrency with I-44 to the SH-364 interchange, as that is the only part that unquestionably meets Interstate standard (by virtue of already being an Interstate). You could also probably slap a second discontiguous segment on the Cherokee, as it's new enough it probably meets Interstate standard.

It's also possible the route designation will appear on the AR-612 freeway stub in Springdale going West off of I-49. It would be a political move to get a visual place holder on the map for the East end of that Interstate designation.

The Cimarron will probably need some minor upgrades to meet Interstate standard, which OTA may drag their feet on because they're not getting additional revenue out of the infrastructure bill.

I think the upgrades needed are somewhat substantial. Extensive work on shoulders is needed, including work on some bridges. That can get pricey. There is even an at-grade street intersection just West of the OK-151 interchange.

Some portions of the Cimarron Turnpike near the Stillwater Spur may still have those narrow grassy median strips with no cable barrier. OTA has worked to replace some of that with concrete in cable barriers in the past couple or so years.

I think the main problems with the Cimarron are going to be the median (is a cable barrier over a paved median good enough for Interstate standard?) and possibly bridge clearances (it was built in an era where OTA was pretty cavalier about bridge standards).

I-44 south of Lawton says it should work.

I-44 south of Lawton was also added to the Interstate system in the mid-80s, when standards were looser. FHWA may not be so forthcoming with design waivers these days.

The OKC to Wichita Falls leg of I-44 was added in 1982. For much of that time the H.E. Bailey Turnpike had only the narrow grassy median. Not long after a multiple fatality collision near Elgin in the mid 1990's the grassy median was paved over and a concrete Jersey barrier was added. That barrier work was completed on I-44 turnpikes from the Medicine Park exit (North of Lawton) up to the Missouri border. The segment of I-44 South of Lawton has had the grassy median nonsense until the 2014-15 time frame when it was finally covered with concrete and equipped with a cable barrier. Considering how recently that treatment was added it must be good enough for current Interstate standards.

[MikieTimT]

It's also possible the route designation will appear on the AR-612 freeway stub in Springdale going West off of I-49. It would be a political move to get a visual place holder on the map for the East end of that Interstate designation.

Arkansas has a history with I-49 getting signed before connecting with it's other segments, case in point the portion from Alma to Bella Vista.  However, it also has had issues with getting the designation it wanted from  AASHTO in that it originally had to call it I-540 as they didn't approve the original submission of I-49 when AHTD asked for it back in the late 1990's.  That has caused the cluster of a mile marker and exit number scheme that I-49 north of I-40 has, which they made worse recently by removing 3 correct exit numbers on the BVB and replacing with incorrect exit numbers to keep the scheme for what now seems like the foreseeable future.  So, unless the route number gets Congressionally designated like I-57 did in northeastern AR and southeast MO, I wouldn't expect the lead to come from the Arkansas side even if it makes more concrete steps towards the OK border.  The Siloam Springs Bypass will inevitably become another Bella Vista Bypass scenario with its coordination between 2 poor states to cross the border around a city taking probably well over a decade with one state having the money before the other state has it.  The good thing is that now with the Bella Vista Bypass completed finally, there is now a template for success to refer to going forward on how to do it.  Even if I don't personally consider it done until they fix the mile markers and exit numbers.

[MikieTimT]

Now, I'm not going to be put out too much if this gets the number 46 or 48. But this project would likely be the only good opportunity to use the number 50 in a way that both makes sense with the grid and doesn't conflict with US-50. If we miss the opportunity to request the number now, chances are some other state isn't going to be as shy about it in the future and put somewhere that makes less sense, conflicts with US-50, or both, and probably isn't going to be transcontinental either.

It's pretty sad the only "good" argument for naming this US-412 Interstate "I-50" is a preemptive turn-and-burn of the designation before some politician elsewhere in the country dreams up an even more ridiculous use for the number.

Of course, given the fact there are detached duplicate 2-digit Interstates in various parts of the US (I-76, I-87, I-74, etc) if the I-50 syndrome is an ego-driven thing there is really nothing to stop a politician in Kentucky from renaming a parkway as I-50 even if the number gets used on US-412 here in Oklahoma.

I guess we can thank Bud Shuster and the nonsense known as I-99 for that crap. It kind of makes me regret even mentioning the "I-1" idea in Tacoma. Some jackass might see that in a web search and run with it.

It's not the only good argument.  As delineated in the wording of the legislation, it wouldn't make sense to use I-50.  However, there is much evidence outside of just this legislation that there are plans, for good reason too I might add, to extend eastward from I-49.  ISTEA made all of US-412 from Tulsa to Nashville HPC #8, which means that the intent is to upgrade it to 4 lanes throughout.  I don't necessarily care for the portion that drops south of I-40 at Jackson into that connection to Nashville, but since I have no power or money and thus no sway in the matter, what I think isn't germane in the grand scheme of things.  But HPC #8 is codified in legislation, so those that do have sway have made it so.  No money was dedicated as part of it, so it's certainly an unfunded mandate and thus the states in question, all of which are on the more impoverished side of the spectrum with higher priority considerations which they are rightly focused on, have not pushed very hard on this early 90's vision of the road system.

However, Arkansas does ultimately plan to make US-412 a 4 lanes across the state regardless of what happens with the bordering states.  See page 7 of 60:https://www.nwarpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Hwy-412-Executive-Summary-2020-4.pdf

Funding obviously limits the rate in which it will occur, and thus it will happen piecemeal and around the higher density areas first without federal assistance greater than what it's currently getting.  And a 4 lane facility can take multiple forms, but if it's an Interstate for a portion of it, and there's enough large or growing metros in the desired path, then it makes sense to consider limited access at as early a stage as possible for the remainder to be good financial stewards.  There are bypasses for Harrison planned, a bypass of Paragould in the works, but otherwise currently just some climb lanes in the more remote and craggy sections.  However, there's a need to address some bridges and other structures in eastern AR due to flooding and seismic resiliency regardless of the timing of any 4-laning, so it makes sense to consider just going ahead with an upgrade to 4 lane at that time regardless of AADT when the vision calls for it anyway ultimately.  That will happen in eastern AR before the midsections Huntsville and Harrison and Mountain Home to Black Rock.  I think that when the bypass of Harrison is completed, it will knock 15 minutes off the trip all by itself and start drawing traffic off I-40, US-64, and Future I-57, increasing the AADT of US-412 even in the remote sections of Arkansas.  I absolutely hate having to take I-49, I-40, US-64, and US-67/AR-226 to Jonesboro from NWA, but that's currently the shortest way, and I usually schedule a stop in Little Rock to take care of some onsite work to cut out the US-64 portion and make a little more money.  On my return trip, I almost always go back west over US-412 for a change in scenery, but it comes at a 30-40 minute penalty on time despite being over 40 miles less mileage.  This road will get upgraded despite traffic counts due to accident counts, especially those involving semis, which happen at double the national rate.  It's part of Arkansas' 4 lane grid vision and the current facility is dangerous and inadequate for the growing needs of the area.

It's only a matter of time before US-412 is 4 laned completely across Arkansas.  Probably won't happen before I retire from traveling gigs and thus I generally won't personally benefit from the vision, but my kids will.  A good part of what we work on isn't for our benefit, but to setup the next generation with a better foundation than what we had to blow past our successes.  4 laning US-412 will happen regardless of label.  The EIHS needs beefing up in this area for resiliency sake with the possibility of earthquake, flood, fire, and ice closing down I-40 as well as the current creaky US-412 eastern Arkansas infrastructure as it stands.