Alright, I think it's about time for me to make a topic on this.
So one thing that I've noticed about highways in Arkansas is the fact that almost every single numbered highway is split into more than one route. Take AR-74 for example:
(https://i.imgur.com/d4X467i.png)
I just can't figure out what the reasoning behind why there's multiple highways with the same number here. I don't know if anyone here would know, and I'll probably even ask ARDOT if there's a reasoning for it sometime later.
Thanks for reading. - TBKS1
Quote from: TBKS1 on July 12, 2018, 06:54:32 PM
Alright, I think it's about time for me to make a topic on this.
So one thing that I've noticed about highways in Arkansas is the fact that almost every single numbered highway is split into more than one route. Take AR-74 for example:
(https://i.imgur.com/d4X467i.png)
I just can't figure out what the reasoning behind why there's multiple highways with the same number here. I don't know if anyone here would know, and I'll probably even ask ARDOT if there's a reasoning for it sometime later.
Thanks for reading. - TBKS1
Per this article, the route is " a series of road segments"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Highway_74 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Highway_74)
A lot of Arkansas' discontinuous highways are in somewhat of a straight line and could be theoretically connected either by a concurrency or a new terrain route. AR 88 is another prime example.
Many of these discontinuous highways could theoretically be connected via overlaps but ArrrrrrrghDOT refuses to sign US routes along interstates and state highways along US highways and even other state highways, so don't count on it happening soon. Discontinuous highways and unsigned highways are my least favorite things about Arkansas.
Nexus 5X
An extreme example of this is AR 980. It's the number designation for every state maintained airport road. They're not even in a line that could be connected in a sensible way, just scattered throughout the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Highway_980
Quote from: TBKS1 on July 12, 2018, 06:54:32 PM
Alright, I think it's about time for me to make a topic on this.
So one thing that I've noticed about highways in Arkansas is the fact that almost every single numbered highway is split into more than one route. Take AR-74 for example:
I just can't figure out what the reasoning behind why there's multiple highways with the same number here. I don't know if anyone here would know, and I'll probably even ask ARDOT if there's a reasoning for it sometime later.
I believe 74 was once a continuous highway. Over the years, parts of it have been relegated to county road departments. 74 to Devil's Den was
not part of the original 74, but appeared later.
45, another discontinuous highway, was also one route from near Clifty, AR to Hartford (possibly to the OK State Line). Over the years, it has been chopped up, truncated, and realigned. US 62 west of Fayetteville was once part of AR 45, as was AR 59 south of Evansville, and US 271 and AR 253 south of Ft Smith.
*psst* dashed routes ;)
The purpose of a state highway department is to maintain connectivity, to facilitate a functioning highway network that might not exist if a hodge-podge of road segments were handed off to smaller agencies or abandoned altogether. ARDOT is not doing the job that was the entire impetus for creating state DOT's in the first place. I wish some larger agency like the federal government would step in and block Arkansas from stepping away from its duty. The state government should be punished. Looking at you, too, Indiana.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 27, 2018, 12:07:26 PM
ARDOT is not doing the job that was the entire impetus for creating state DOT's in the first place. I wish some larger agency like the federal government would step in and block Arkansas from stepping away from its duty. The state government should be punished. Looking at you, too, Indiana.
Dude, do you understand the concept of federalism? Do you seriously believe a federal agency can do a better job of maintaining Arkansas's highways than a state agency? Furthermore, why is that the business of everyone who doesn't live in or work in Arkansas?
OT to an extent. Does 49 ( between US 62 up to Bentonville ) have any street or overhead lighting yet? I was always amazed there was none 15 years ago when the area started to Sprawl...
Quote from: jbnv on July 27, 2018, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 27, 2018, 12:07:26 PM
ARDOT is not doing the job that was the entire impetus for creating state DOT's in the first place. I wish some larger agency like the federal government would step in and block Arkansas from stepping away from its duty. The state government should be punished. Looking at you, too, Indiana.
Dude, do you understand the concept of federalism? Do you seriously believe a federal agency can do a better job of maintaining Arkansas's highways than a state agency? Furthermore, why is that the business of everyone who doesn't live in or work in Arkansas?
Certain politicians believe in states rights. Until they don't.
Quote from: Tomahawkin on July 27, 2018, 11:09:30 PM
OT to an extent. Does 49 ( between US 62 up to Bentonville ) have any street or overhead lighting yet? I was always amazed there was none 15 years ago when the area started to Sprawl...
Not a bit, other than on some of the city street overpasses that manage to shine downward onto it.
Quote from: jbnv on July 27, 2018, 02:32:36 PM
Do you seriously believe a federal agency can do a better job of maintaining Arkansas's highways than a state agency?
Yes.
IMO, the problem with Arkansas is the Little Rock region and NWA get the bulk of the attention while other parts of the state are often neglected. That's putting it in the simplest terms. Also "pet projects" get more attention than what's really needed.
Could federal control change this? I'm uncertain.
Quote from: US71 on March 14, 2019, 10:48:34 AM
IMO, the problem with Arkansas is the Little Rock region and NWA get the bulk of the attention while other parts of the state are often neglected. That's putting it in the simplest terms. Also "pet projects" get more attention than what's really needed.
Could federal control change this? I'm uncertain.
I'm with you totally. I'm not going to begrudge the two biggest population centers from getting help, because they need capacity more then ever, but let's throw El Dorado and Mountain Home a bone too at least.
Quote from: US71 on March 14, 2019, 10:48:34 AM
IMO, the problem with Arkansas is the Little Rock region and NWA get the bulk of the attention while other parts of the state are often neglected. That's putting it in the simplest terms. Also "pet projects" get more attention than what's really needed.
Could federal control change this? I'm uncertain.
I wish I was more familiar with other parts of Arkansas, but I will say that NWA needed significant upgrades, in terms of capacity. When I lived there, there's no reason why it should take me over 90 minutes to drive from Rogers/Bentonville to Fayetteville, all because of a minor accident on a then 2-lane I-49 (then I-540 when I lived there). The congestion in that area was insane, for a metro of only a half a million people.
I've only driven through Little Rock a few times, but I remember reading something that they have the most Interstate miles per capita of any city in the US. I've tried to find the source, but have never been able to.
That being said, so many state highways in Arkansas have deficiencies. No or narrow shoulders, lack of guard rails, skewed intersections, sight distance issues, poor pavement conditions, poor pavement markings, no roadway lighting. I think it's just a matter of funding and having someone that can make change.
And agree on pet projects. I think so much of this exists with the local leadership and MPOs. You need someone local pushing, for Fort Smith, in your case.
Quote from: US71 on July 17, 2018, 10:34:34 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on July 12, 2018, 06:54:32 PM
Alright, I think it's about time for me to make a topic on this.
So one thing that I've noticed about highways in Arkansas is the fact that almost every single numbered highway is split into more than one route. Take AR-74 for example:
I just can't figure out what the reasoning behind why there's multiple highways with the same number here. I don't know if anyone here would know, and I'll probably even ask ARDOT if there's a reasoning for it sometime later.
I believe 74 was once a continuous highway. Over the years, parts of it have been relegated to county road departments. 74 to Devil's Den was not part of the original 74, but appeared later.
AR 74 was never a single continuous highway. From 1926-1937 the only part of AR 74 to exist was the section from US 71 in Winslow to AR 16 in Crosses. This is not the road that is today's AR 74 that runs from US 71 at Brentwood a couple of miles east. This road ran south of that road. Part of this road is now AR 295, but none of it is AR 74 today. In 1938 the section from AR 170 at Devil's Den State Park to US 71 in Winslow. There is no indication if the segment through Winslow was signed along US 71 or not. In 1951, some changes were made. The original AR 74 which ran from Winslow to Crosses decommissioned and became a local road. The segment from AR 16 near Elkins to AR 23 in Huntsville was established in 1951 as well. AR 74 had a section from AR 170 to US 71, and another unrelated section from AR 16 to AR 23, making AR 74 discontinuous for the first time.
Most of the mess that AR 74 is today was started in 1959. The segments from AR 23 south of Huntsville to AR 21 in Kingston, from AR 43 in Ponca to AR 7 in Jasper, a section from Snowball to AR 65 west of Marshall and one from AR 27 in Marshall to 2 miles east of Baker were all commissioned in 1959. At this time, the segments were: AR 170 in Devil's Den to AR 74 at Winslow, AR 16 near Elkins to AR 23 in Huntsville, AR 23 north of Aurora to AR 21 in Kingston, AR 43 in Ponca to AR 7 in Jasper, AR 377 in Snowball to US 65 west of Marshall and from AR 27 in Marshall to a county road 2 miles east of Baker. It is unknown if AR 74 was ever co-signed with AR 23, AR 21, AR 43, US 65 or AR 27.
In 1964, the sections from AR 7 in Jasper and AR 123 south of Hasty and from between AR 27 in Marshall east to Landis were added. In 1966, the section from AR 123 in Mount Judea to a county road in Bass and the section from Landis east to AR 66 west of Alco. Strangely, a new section of AR 74 running from a county road 2 miles southwest of Sulphur City to AR 16 in Elkins. This section was short-lived and last appeared on the 1973 Arkansas highway map. It is unknown if AR 16 and AR 74 had a signed wrong way concurrency. A new designation that ran south along the first 6 miles of the original alignment of AR 74 was AR 295. I assume the state did a "swap" even though it involved two different counties. In 1982, the current alignments of AR 74 were established when a section of AR 74 running from US 71 in Brentwood east about 2 miles until petering out and becoming a local road. This stretch of AR 74 was not part of the original AR 74 from Winslow to Crosses.
It is possible that the sections from AR 16 near Elkins to a country road in Bass was all one signed continuous route, but it is doubtful. The segment of AR 74 between Devil's Den and Winslow and the segment between Elkins and points east have always been different highways. I wouldn't consider it a "gap" because connecting these two segments would look really ugly on a map. There has always been a gap between Bass and Snowball. They should seriously consider connecting AR 74 as much as they can and renumber the other sections. It's too damn confusing now.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 27, 2018, 12:07:26 PM
The purpose of a state highway department is to maintain connectivity, to facilitate a functioning highway network that might not exist if a hodge-podge of road segments were handed off to smaller agencies or abandoned altogether. ARDOT is not doing the job that was the entire impetus for creating state DOT's in the first place.
I'm not sure I follow. The point of ARDOT is maintain a safe transportation network to enhance the state's economy and quality of life. This happens whether you have to follow three numbered highways between a town or one. It may be aggravating to us roadgeeks, but it isn't cause for a Consent Administrative Order.
Hell, renumbering everything now would probably cause more accidents for a few years until everyone settles back down to how it is now.
Quote from: jbnv on July 27, 2018, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 27, 2018, 12:07:26 PM
ARDOT is not doing the job that was the entire impetus for creating state DOT's in the first place. I wish some larger agency like the federal government would step in and block Arkansas from stepping away from its duty. The state government should be punished. Looking at you, too, Indiana.
Dude, do you understand the concept of federalism? Do you seriously believe a federal agency can do a better job of maintaining Arkansas's highways than a state agency? Furthermore, why is that the business of everyone who doesn't live in or work in Arkansas?
Interstate commerce perhaps?
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 29, 2020, 11:02:22 PM
Quote from: jbnv on July 27, 2018, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 27, 2018, 12:07:26 PM
ARDOT is not doing the job that was the entire impetus for creating state DOT's in the first place. I wish some larger agency like the federal government would step in and block Arkansas from stepping away from its duty. The state government should be punished. Looking at you, too, Indiana.
Dude, do you understand the concept of federalism? Do you seriously believe a federal agency can do a better job of maintaining Arkansas's highways than a state agency? Furthermore, why is that the business of everyone who doesn't live in or work in Arkansas?
Interstate commerce perhaps?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
The federal government can
regulate commerce between the states, but not
facilitate it. If you need to get from Texas to New York to conduct commerce, you don't have to pass through Arkansas; you could pass through Louisiana or Missouri. Even if we consider interstate highways and corridors as falling under the purview of "regulating interstate commerce," that still doesn't justify the federal government managing a state's
entire internal road/highway system.
Quote from: jbnv on January 30, 2020, 01:05:14 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 29, 2020, 11:02:22 PM
Quote from: jbnv on July 27, 2018, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 27, 2018, 12:07:26 PM
ARDOT is not doing the job that was the entire impetus for creating state DOT's in the first place. I wish some larger agency like the federal government would step in and block Arkansas from stepping away from its duty. The state government should be punished. Looking at you, too, Indiana.
Dude, do you understand the concept of federalism? Do you seriously believe a federal agency can do a better job of maintaining Arkansas's highways than a state agency? Furthermore, why is that the business of everyone who doesn't live in or work in Arkansas?
Interstate commerce perhaps?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
The federal government can regulate commerce between the states, but not facilitate it. If you need to get from Texas to New York to conduct commerce, you don't have to pass through Arkansas; you could pass through Louisiana or Missouri. Even if we consider interstate highways and corridors as falling under the purview of "regulating interstate commerce," that still doesn't justify the federal government managing a state's entire internal road/highway system.
Sure would be nice if the federal government would take a larger role with the development of the Interstate Highway System within a state that has the GDP that Arkansas does, especially given its proximity to the center of the country and the connectivity options that would facilitate.
Couldn't the feds just mandate that all highways that run along a certain stretch of road be signed in an update to the MUTCD?
Quote from: bugo on February 17, 2020, 06:39:06 AM
Couldn't the feds just mandate that all highways that run along a certain stretch of road be signed in an update to the MUTCD?
I take it you're not that into federalism?
Just consider it to be like Maryland, but the unposted suffix letters A, B, C, D, etc. for the segments are so unposted, they're not even indexed! :)
.
Seriously though, it would be a simple solution for ARDOT to label the segments at least in the inventory system. Texas does the same thing with Business Routes, a small suffix A, B, C, D, etc.
.
It would give it a bit of the Nebraska Link Route flavor, too. 74A, 74B, 74C, etc.
Quote from: sturmde on February 22, 2020, 02:46:40 PM
Just consider it to be like Maryland, but the unposted suffix letters A, B, C, D, etc. for the segments are so unposted, they're not even indexed! :)
.
Seriously though, it would be a simple solution for ARDOT to label the segments at least in the inventory system. Texas does the same thing with Business Routes, a small suffix A, B, C, D, etc.
.
It would give it a bit of the Nebraska Link Route flavor, too. 74A, 74B, 74C, etc.
They already do...sort of. Mainline highways have a section number (like
71-18) and business routes or spurs have a suffix
(71-18B).