Commission approves US Highway 78 designation through Northeast Arkansas

[ozarkman417]

Now that I-22 has been a thing for a while now, truncating rather than extending US 78 would have been a much more logical decision.

[bwana39]

Hey, keeping the messed up numbers game, the this road should be numbered as US-412S

[Molandfreak]

But it's more of a "US 400" type of thing which adds nothing to the system.

But we have to remember the origins of US-400. US-400 was originally designated about 25 years ago when Congress came up with the idea of building another transcontinental interstate by extending I-66 from northern Virginia to California. US-400 was designated to establish the future I-66 corridor through Kansas and eastern Colorado, and a short section of what was to be I-66 was built around Neodosha, Kansas.

But now that the transcontinental I-66 proposal is dead, I would agree that US-400 no longer serves any real purpose, and should be decommissioned.

Not sure why this is such a popular opinion. US 400 pretty much follows the original intent of 3-digit US highways to the t. The Wichita metro has over 500,000 people in it, so naturally it will attract traffic from multiple states. US 54 serves other destinations, so without 400, there is no direct connection on the national grid between Wichita and Joplin or Springfield. I would say it's much more important than US 166.

The numbering choice and extension to Colorado are a different story, but let's not act like it isn't important.

[vdeane]

US 400 pretty much follows the original intent of 3-digit US highways to the t.

So it's a spur of US 0?  Where is US 0, where does US 400 intersect it, and how does US 400 as a spur further the function of US 0?

[Molandfreak]

US 400 pretty much follows the original intent of 3-digit US highways to the t.

So it's a spur of US 0?  Where is US 0, where does US 400 intersect it, and how does US 400 as a spur further the function of US 0?

I'm talking about the highway, not the number. If it were numbered as an x54, x50, or x66 and truncated to Dodge City, it would be just fine.

The numbering choice and extension to Colorado are a different story, but let's not act like it isn't important.

[-- US 175 --]

Another reason this is a crazy plan:  one of the states most likely to not sign an overlap, is the one who has put together a plan with overlaps.  So AR really wants this, but how much of US 78 in AR will drivers actually see signed?

Hopefully this will get turned down flat.

[The Ghostbuster]

The US 78 Wikipedia page has been updated to reference the US 78 extension proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_78#Future. I still think the US 78 designation has a better chance of being truncated than extended, although US 278 had a convoluted extension from Amory, MS to Wickes, AR in 1998, so this US 78 extension proposal is not unprecedented.

[Road Hog]

This article from the Batesville Daily Guard makes a questionable claim:

Approximately 140 highway miles in Arkansas will be dual-signed as U.S. Highway 78. Highways and Interstates included in the dual-signage route will retain their original designation as well as the new U.S. Highway 78 designation, as is common practice with many existing State Highways.

This is highly unlikely, as the AR 226 and AR 18 signs will more than likely come down not long after the US 78 shields go up.

This is the transportation version of "Just the tip."

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

The US 78 Wikipedia page has been updated to reference the US 78 extension proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_78#Future. I still think the US 78 designation has a better chance of being truncated than extended, although US 278 had a convoluted extension from Amory, MS to Wickes, AR in 1998, so this US 78 extension proposal is not unprecedented.

How long till the powers that be at Wikipedia delete (or deny) the changes?

[codyg1985]

As for the US 78 extension, I approve of a single number for AR 226 and AR 18, but the dogleg along I-55 is ridiculous. Too bad AASHTO doesn't allow single state US highways anymore, because this would be perfect for it. As far as extending existing US highways, there really aren't any good options. AASHTO's own policies are at fault for silly convoluted routings, much like the old US 63 when it still went through West Memphis. Perhaps a better option is to get Kentucky and Tennessee on board, and commission a brand new US highway that follows AR 226 and AR 18, but turns north on I-55 at Blytheville, then follow I-155 across that little brook that divides the country, then north on US 51/Future I-69 and east on KY 80 all the way to west of Glasgow, where it would follow the Cumberland Parkway east to Somerset, then back to KY 80 east to London, then the Hal Rogers Parkway east to Watergap, where it would end at US 23. This is still inelegant, but it's better than Dogleg 78.

I thought about something that would involve Kentucky and Tennessee (and Missouri) that would be more logical than the extension of US 78 due north, then due west.

Eliminate US 68 northwest of KY 80 at the western end of the Eggners Ferry Bridge. Continue the US 68/KY 80 concurrency west to Mayfield, then route US 68 along either US 45 or the Purchase Parkway (future I-69) southwest to Fulton, then along US 45W/US 51 (future I-69) to Union City and along US 51 (again, future I-69) to Dyersburg, then across the river on US 412/I-155 to I-55 south to Blytheville, where it would take over the proposed US 78 corridor.

There's a lot of overlap on existing routes, but it would get Arkansas its desire for a US highway corridor between Jonesboro and Blytheville if they're not sold on the concept of it being US 78 and would accept 68 instead.

As for Jeremy's proposal, I think it makes sense for the corridor between I-65 and US 23 to have its own singular designation. But the Cumberland Parkway Expressway is already in line to be I-365, and there are still references to I-66 within Kentucky's planning documents.

I honestly like this idea better than the US 78 proposal. It involves more states, but it is more of a logical extension than US 78 is.

[kphoger]

But it's more of a "US 400" type of thing which adds nothing to the system.

But we have to remember the origins of US-400. US-400 was originally designated about 25 years ago when Congress came up with the idea of building another transcontinental interstate by extending I-66 from northern Virginia to California. US-400 was designated to establish the future I-66 corridor through Kansas and eastern Colorado, and a short section of what was to be I-66 was built around Neodosha, Kansas.

But now that the transcontinental I-66 proposal is dead, I would agree that US-400 no longer serves any real purpose, and should be decommissioned.

Not sure why this is such a popular opinion. US 400 pretty much follows the original intent of 3-digit US highways to the t. The Wichita metro has over 500,000 people in it, so naturally it will attract traffic from multiple states. US 54 serves other destinations, so without 400, there is no direct connection on the national grid between Wichita and Joplin or Springfield. I would say it's much more important than US 166.

The numbering choice and extension to Colorado are a different story, but let's not act like it isn't important.

As I've mentioned elsewhere on the forum, US-400 in southeastern Kansas is also busier than US-54, especially commercial traffic.

[bwana39]

As for the US 78 extension, I approve of a single number for AR 226 and AR 18, but the dogleg along I-55 is ridiculous. Too bad AASHTO doesn't allow single state US highways anymore, because this would be perfect for it. As far as extending existing US highways, there really aren't any good options. AASHTO's own policies are at fault for silly convoluted routings, much like the old US 63 when it still went through West Memphis. Perhaps a better option is to get Kentucky and Tennessee on board, and commission a brand new US highway that follows AR 226 and AR 18, but turns north on I-55 at Blytheville, then follow I-155 across that little brook that divides the country, then north on US 51/Future I-69 and east on KY 80 all the way to west of Glasgow, where it would follow the Cumberland Parkway east to Somerset, then back to KY 80 east to London, then the Hal Rogers Parkway east to Watergap, where it would end at US 23. This is still inelegant, but it's better than Dogleg 78.

I thought about something that would involve Kentucky and Tennessee (and Missouri) that would be more logical than the extension of US 78 due north, then due west.

Eliminate US 68 northwest of KY 80 at the western end of the Eggners Ferry Bridge. Continue the US 68/KY 80 concurrency west to Mayfield, then route US 68 along either US 45 or the Purchase Parkway (future I-69) southwest to Fulton, then along US 45W/US 51 (future I-69) to Union City and along US 51 (again, future I-69) to Dyersburg, then across the river on US 412/I-155 to I-55 south to Blytheville, where it would take over the proposed US 78 corridor.

There's a lot of overlap on existing routes, but it would get Arkansas its desire for a US highway corridor between Jonesboro and Blytheville if they're not sold on the concept of it being US 78 and would accept 68 instead.

As for Jeremy's proposal, I think it makes sense for the corridor between I-65 and US 23 to have its own singular designation. But the Cumberland Parkway Expressway is already in line to be I-365, and there are still references to I-66 within Kentucky's planning documents.

Yours is not much (any) less convoluted and it is not going to happen as yours would have to reroute US-68 in a state that gains nothing from it.

[Rover_0]

It's a stretch, but I like that a U.S. Route is getting extended, but that routing is not ideal, to say the least.

It may be a stretch, but IMO a better option, similar to what's posted above, is to extend either US-48 or US-58 across Kentucky (along KY 80) or Tennessee (possibly replace TN's portion of 412?) and have it drop down from the Missouri bootheel before splitting from I-55 at Blytheville. Yes, it's a long extension for this, and yes, it cuts a tiny corner of Missouri, but either option is a better alignment than this.

If anything, 78 should just follow I-555 to Jonesboro and split off there, or it could subsume US-412 from Jonesboro west, with 412 east (all the way to Columbia TN) becoming an available US-x78

[bugo]

A better idea would have been to renumber AR 18 from west of Jonesboro to Newport and renaming AR 226 to AR 18. Problem solved.

[KamKam]

That's disappointing that the extension of U.S 78 includes following I-55 to Blytheville then westward. It makes it kinda useless except from U.S. 67 (Future I-57) to Jonesboro

[Road Hog]

It's lame as all get out, but that's how Arkansas rolls. The original US 63 extension from Turrell to West Memphis to Hazen was even worse.

[usends]

Update: AASHTO approved this extension of US 78 at their Nov. 2023 meeting.  It was a joint application from TN and AR.  TN had to truncate the westernmost segment of 78, and then reroute it along Crump Blvd. in order to get to I-55 and into AR.

[codyg1985]

That really surprises me.

[zzcarp]

That really surprises me.

One of the members of the subcommittee is an Arkansan, so it probably a fait accompli.

The Crump realignment of US 78 in Memphis seems like the only logical portion of the extension. Crump is the through movement on US 78 at I-240 and is a continuous route to I-55.

[bwana39]

The US 78 Wikipedia page has been updated to reference the US 78 extension proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_78#Future. I still think the US 78 designation has a better chance of being truncated than extended, although US 278 had a convoluted extension from Amory, MS to Wickes, AR in 1998, so this US 78 extension proposal is not unprecedented.

How long till the powers that be at Wikipedia delete (or deny) the changes?

It is rarely the powers that be. It is usually a former poster who is notified of his script being changed. For what it is worth. The two times an edit of mine was quickly rolled back, what it was replaced by was new and actually an improvement on the minor edit I had made. The other time, it was the exact drivel I had edited.  I probably have 200 minor edits in wikipedia. The US-78 one was not one of mine. Fact of business, I don't think I have done anything about highways at all.

[The Ghostbuster]

How will US 78 connect with Interstate 40? One possibility is to run it northward on US 64/70/79/S. B.B. King Blvd. (and southward on S. 2nd St.), have it turn west on Union Ave., then turn north on Riverside Dr. to Interstate 40. I prefer this routing to having it head southward on S. B.B. King Blvd., west on E. E.H. Crump Ave., and then west on Interstate 55 (which I believe is the route it is proposed to follow).

[Mapmikey]

How will US 78 connect with Interstate 40? One possibility is to run it northward on US 64/70/79/S. B.B. King Blvd. (and southward on S. 2nd St.), have it turn west on Union Ave., then turn north on Riverside Dr. to Interstate 40. I prefer this routing to having it head southward on S. B.B. King Blvd., west on E. E.H. Crump Ave., and then west on Interstate 55 (which I believe is the route it is proposed to follow).

US 78 will change to run Lamar to Crump directly instead of going downtown at all

[Henry]

How will US 78 connect with Interstate 40? One possibility is to run it northward on US 64/70/79/S. B.B. King Blvd. (and southward on S. 2nd St.), have it turn west on Union Ave., then turn north on Riverside Dr. to Interstate 40. I prefer this routing to having it head southward on S. B.B. King Blvd., west on E. E.H. Crump Ave., and then west on Interstate 55 (which I believe is the route it is proposed to follow).

US 78 will change to run Lamar to Crump directly instead of going downtown at all

Which is the better routing solution anyway. It can then run along Crump to pick up I-55 and (to answer The Ghostbuster's question) converge with I-40 in West Memphis. I do like the idea of continuing through downtown and onto Riverside Drive to join I-40 in town, and certainly that routing will justify the existence of the directional T interchange there, but I don't think TDOT/the City of Memphis would want to undertake an expensive upgrade to accommodate it.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

That really surprises me.

A leaf covered in hieroglyphics could blow onto the desk of the AASHTO US Numbering Committee and they would approve it.

[usends]

Does anyone know if ARDOT has signposted US 78 yet?