Straight from the Chief Engineer's desk:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/mo-2013.091.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/mo-2013.091.pdf)
Quote from: AHTD on March 27, 2014, 02:38:42 PM
Straight from the Chief Engineer's desk:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/mo-2013.091.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/mo-2013.091.pdf)
Any plans to reassign the number or is it permanently retired like 47, 68, and 99?
Quote from: US71 on March 27, 2014, 03:56:58 PM
Quote from: AHTD on March 27, 2014, 02:38:42 PM
Straight from the Chief Engineer's desk:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/mo-2013.091.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/mo-2013.091.pdf)
Any plans to reassign the number or is it permanently retired like 47, 68, and 99?
It could be used again elsewhere, but we'll never know. And this is now a sign that I-49 will come to Texarkana, thus serving a state other than LA.
And speaking of I-49....
The local FHWA Division Office approved our application for submittal to the FHWA in Washington, D.C.
This is not an approval of our request, only an authorization to proceed with official submittal to FHWA. This happened in the last week or so.
Good news on I 49 signage. Hopefully it will be approved by the FHWA and not waste taxpayer money to Sign southern part that will be finished this summer as 549 and then turn around and make signs to rename I 49 later.
Quote from: Henry on March 27, 2014, 03:59:06 PM
Quote from: US71 on March 27, 2014, 03:56:58 PM
Quote from: AHTD on March 27, 2014, 02:38:42 PM
Straight from the Chief Engineer's desk:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/mo-2013.091.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/mo-2013.091.pdf)
Any plans to reassign the number or is it permanently retired like 47, 68, and 99?
It could be used again elsewhere, but we'll never know. And this is now a sign that I-49 will come to Texarkana, thus serving a state other than LA.
If 245 IS reused, I'll find it ;)
(though I suspect it will remain dormant for a while)
Arkansas needs to remove a bunch of state highways, and put them back to the county/city/etc. It's no wonder they have an excessive "state" highway network!
Quote from: M86 on March 28, 2014, 01:43:13 AM
Arkansas needs to remove a bunch of state highways, and put them back to the county/city/etc. It's no wonder they have an excessive "state" highway network!
A lot seem to be state maintained access to commercial interests, like 369 goes to the charcoal plant in Paris and 393 at Morrison Bluff that goes by a chicken plant. One would think these companies wouild have enough money to maintain their OWN roads.
I DO note 180 was removed from Mt Sequoyah in Fayetteville a few years back, also from Gregg Ave after AHTD rebuilt the road for the city.
Quote from: US71 on March 27, 2014, 08:49:36 PM
Quote from: Henry on March 27, 2014, 03:59:06 PM
Quote from: US71 on March 27, 2014, 03:56:58 PM
Quote from: AHTD on March 27, 2014, 02:38:42 PM
Straight from the Chief Engineer's desk:
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/mo-2013.091.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/mo-2013.091.pdf)
Any plans to reassign the number or is it permanently retired like 47, 68, and 99?
It could be used again elsewhere, but we'll never know. And this is now a sign that I-49 will come to Texarkana, thus serving a state other than LA.
If 245 IS reused, I'll find it ;)
(though I suspect it will remain dormant for a while)
My thoughts exactly.
So when is I-540 going to be resigned as I-49?
Quote from: US71 on March 28, 2014, 10:14:59 AM
Quote from: M86 on March 28, 2014, 01:43:13 AM
Arkansas needs to remove a bunch of state highways, and put them back to the county/city/etc. It's no wonder they have an excessive "state" highway network!
A lot seem to be state maintained access to commercial interests, like 369 goes to the charcoal plant in Paris and 393 at Morrison Bluff that goes by a chicken plant. One would think these companies wouild have enough money to maintain their OWN roads.
I DO note 180 was removed from Mt Sequoyah in Fayetteville a few years back, also from Gregg Ave after AHTD rebuilt the road for the city.
True. But AHTD have always said that they have a huge state highway network, compared to other states, and they don't receive the money they need. It's time to cut the fat. And fix the cosigning signage problem! There's no point in signing state highways if they aren't properly signed along the route! Same can be said about US Routes. AHTD, please fix your policy regarding that.
Quote from: US71 on March 28, 2014, 10:14:59 AM
Quote from: M86 on March 28, 2014, 01:43:13 AM
Arkansas needs to remove a bunch of state highways, and put them back to the county/city/etc. It's no wonder they have an excessive "state" highway network!
A lot seem to be state maintained access to commercial interests, like 369 goes to the charcoal plant in Paris and 393 at Morrison Bluff that goes by a chicken plant. One would think these companies wouild have enough money to maintain their OWN roads.
Corporate welfare at its finest.
Quote from: US 41 on March 28, 2014, 05:37:56 PM
So when is I-540 going to be resigned as I-49?
Starting today ,4/21, they are replacing the signs, should take roughly 30 days.
Quote from: robbones on April 21, 2014, 03:18:29 PM
Quote from: US 41 on March 28, 2014, 05:37:56 PM
So when is I-540 going to be resigned as I-49?
Starting today ,4/21, they are replacing the signs, should take roughly 30 days.
That;s good news and welcome to the forum.
Quote from: US 41 on April 22, 2014, 09:41:14 AM
Quote from: robbones on April 21, 2014, 03:18:29 PM
Quote from: US 41 on March 28, 2014, 05:37:56 PM
So when is I-540 going to be resigned as I-49?
Starting today ,4/21, they are replacing the signs, should take roughly 30 days.
That;s good news and welcome to the forum.
Would it be feasible for there to reassign TX 151 and AR 151 as I x49 running from I 369 to future I 49 south
Ll
They should number the entire Texarkana loop as an x30 including the I-30 part. I-369 should be decommissioned south of the loop.
Quote from: robbones on April 21, 2014, 03:18:29 PM
Quote from: US 41 on March 28, 2014, 05:37:56 PM
So when is I-540 going to be resigned as I-49?
Starting today,4/21, they are replacing the signs, should take roughly 30 days.
There was a rain delay, so they didn't get started until today. They started at 71B north of Bentonville and replaced all the signs SB along the highway to Exit 76 (Wagon Wheel Rd), then replaced them all NB. None of the intersecting roads have been changed out yet.
The current game plan is to tackle the route confirmation markers first. We have three crews doing this now and as of noon on Wednesday, we have taken care of most everything north of the Fulbright Expressway.
Next we will move on to the intersections. Lastly we will take on the overhead sign structures as well as I-40. The overhead structures will require lane closures in some areas and will be done a night or off-peak.
Watching the U.S. 71 sign come down yesterday, it was remarkably quick how fast the I-49 sign went up.
Quote from: bugo on April 22, 2014, 07:44:37 PM
They should number the entire Texarkana loop as an x30 including the I-30 part. I-369 should be decommissioned south of the loop.
No.
I-249 or I-230 would be more appropriate for the former loop; running it on I-49/former AR 549 would be redundant. Keeping it as AR/TX 151 and simply dropping I-369 would be even better.
Quote from: Henry on March 27, 2014, 03:59:06 PM
It could be used again elsewhere, but we'll never know. And this is now a sign that I-49 will come to Texarkana, thus serving a state other than LA.
... it's been signed in Missouri for a while now.
Quote from: AHTD on April 23, 2014, 01:24:40 PM
Watching the U.S. 71 sign come down yesterday, it was remarkably quick how fast the I-49 sign went up.
What the fuck was the point of taking it down? The corridor has been US 71 since 1926 and suddenly the number changes with no warning. Why not just leave the 71 markers up, at least for a few years? This policy of not signing all the routes on a stretch of highway is ridiculous. AHTD makes a huge effort for nonsensical US highway routings like the extension of US 63 to El Dorado, but they won't sign the routes they already have. Maybe AASHTO should decommission all US routes in Arkansas. I am from Mena but I currently live in Tulsa and work at a gas station, and I hear customers complaining all the time about how confusing it is getting around northwestern Arkansas because the signage is so terrible. Oklahoma is very good at co-signing routes. In fact, most of the states surrounding Arkansas are and it makes Arkansas look like a backwards hick state.
Seriously, how confusing is this?
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2848/10531330776_4a12e9a799_c.jpg)
Does the addition of the OK 66 sign really make the signage more confusing? Does it clutter up the sign? NO. There is no excuse for AHTD's incompetence. None.
Quote from: bugo on April 23, 2014, 11:43:54 PM
Quote from: AHTD on April 23, 2014, 01:24:40 PM
Watching the U.S. 71 sign come down yesterday, it was remarkably quick how fast the I-49 sign went up.
What the fuck was the point of taking it down? The corridor has been US 71 since 1926 and suddenly the number changes with no warning. Why not just leave the 71 markers up, at least for a few years? This policy of not signing all the routes on a stretch of highway is ridiculous. AHTD makes a huge effort for nonsensical US highway routings like the extension of US 63 to El Dorado, but they won't sign the routes they already have. Maybe AASHTO should decommission all US routes in Arkansas. I am from Mena but I currently live in Tulsa and work at a gas station, and I hear customers complaining all the time about how confusing it is getting around northwestern Arkansas because the signage is so terrible. Oklahoma is very good at co-signing routes. In fact, most of the states surrounding Arkansas are and it makes Arkansas look like a backwards hick state.
Seriously, how confusing is this?
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2848/10531330776_4a12e9a799_c.jpg)
Does the addition of the OK 66 sign really make the signage more confusing? Does it clutter up the sign? NO. There is no excuse for AHTD's incompetence. None.
I agree. Every signed route should be put on the overhead signs. It's better that way. Then people know where the route is they're looking for. Having just the interstate shield and not including the US shield is just stupid.
It sounds petty, but one reason I left Arkansas was because of the piss-poor signage. The other states I've lived and worked in (Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma) have great signage in contrast. AHTD is the Mississippi of DOTs.
I should also mention that MoDOT is doing the opposite: signing US and state routes but not signing the interstates. Idiocy. I don't know which is worse.
Quote from: US71 on March 27, 2014, 03:56:58 PM
Any plans to reassign the number or is it permanently retired like 47, 68, and 99?
What do you mean by permanently retired?
Quote from: Gordon on March 27, 2014, 06:31:37 PM
Good news on I 49 signage. Hopefully it will be approved by the FHWA and not waste taxpayer money to Sign southern part that will be finished this summer as 549 and then turn around and make signs to rename I 49 later.
That's exactly what they did. They signed AR 549 then took the signs down and replaced them with I-49 shields.
Quote from: bugo on June 29, 2019, 06:05:45 AM
Quote from: US71 on March 27, 2014, 03:56:58 PM
Any plans to reassign the number or is it permanently retired like 47, 68, and 99?
What do you mean by permanently retired?
Since 47, 68, and 99 have never been reused, I think it's safe to say they are retired... or at least on extended sabbatical ;)