RIP MO 360?

[M86]

Random thought:  Des Moines seems to have/have had this same sort of issue.  US 65 & IA 5 form a partial loop around Des Moines, paralleling I-235... I think the city of Des Moines was trying to pursue an Interstate designation for that partial loop that is Interstand-standard.  I'm not sure what ever happened with that.

I think an Interstate designation would be most helpful for Branson traffic.

Exactly.  Contrary to what M86 suggests, the Interstate shield is not a panacea for economic development.

I agree, a panacea it is not.  I was only suggesting that an "I" designation holds some merit when it comes to economic development.

[bugo]

There's no reason for any of US 65 in Missouri to be an interstate.  It would just add confusion.  However, the James River Freeway should have a single number, whether MO 360 or I-144.

[Scott5114]

There's no reason for any of US 65 in Missouri to be an interstate.  It would just add confusion.  However, the James River Freeway should have a single number, whether MO 360 or I-144.

I don't see how an Interstate spur to Branson would be any more confusing than the I-540 spur to Northwest Arkansas is.

[bugo]

I-540 IS confusing.  To go from Texarkana to Kansas City, you take US 71 to i-540 to US 71 to I-49 to US 71.  It should all be US 71 until I-49 is signed.

[M86]

I-540 IS confusing.  To go from Texarkana to Kansas City, you take US 71 to i-540 to US 71 to I-49 to US 71.  It should all be US 71 until I-49 is signed.

I-540 has served it's purpose.  And eventually it will be I-49.  Did AHTD make a lot of mistakes?  Yes, but eventually, they'll hopefully be fixed.

An Interstate spur to Branson is needed... The amount of out-of-town guests warrants it alone... and it warrants an Interstate designation for the James River Freeway, for traffic coming from the west.  And I can't see making the whole segment MO 360... What about US 60 and US 160?

[bugo]

It should have been I-49 from the start.  Motorists have gotten used to I-540 and it will be confusing when it becomes I-49. 

Why does Branson need an interstate?  Is it that much better if you say "take I-344 to MO 76" than saying "take US 65 to MO 76"?  I'm not sure that US 65 is even up to interstate standards.

[US71]

I-540 IS confusing.  To go from Texarkana to Kansas City, you take US 71 to i-540 to US 71 to I-49 to US 71.  It should all be US 71 until I-49 is signed.

It was supposed to be in Arkansas, but all the little "tourist traps" complained no would know AR 471 was old US 71 and they were afraid of losing business, so AHTD named the new highway I-540. Of course, most of the tourist traps suffered anyway.

[Revive 755]

Why does Branson need an interstate?  Is it that much better if you say "take I-344 to MO 76" than saying "take US 65 to MO 76"?  I'm not sure that US 65 is even up to interstate standards.

US 65 is not a full freeway between Ozark and Branson; it still has many at grade access points.

[Brandon]

Why does Branson need an interstate?  Is it that much better if you say "take I-344 to MO 76" than saying "take US 65 to MO 76"?  I'm not sure that US 65 is even up to interstate standards.

US 65 is not a full freeway between Ozark and Branson; it still has many at grade access points.

Which may be just fine.  Not every road needs to be a full freeway or even an interstate.

[route29]

For railfans, I-844 has a nice ring to it.


iPad - now Free

[US71]

For railfans, I-844 has a nice ring to it.

Yes, it does

[707]

Why does it need an I-number?  Not every freeway needs one, and a freeway is a freeway is a freeway even without a silly I-number.  Missouri (along with other states) needs to get its act together on its map and just use one color for all freeways, regardless of I-status.

Somehow US-131, US-23, M-14, MO-370, most of Kentucky's Parkways, CA-99, etc all get along fine without the pretentious I-number.  US-220 was fine without being I-99 (as an example).

Luckily for you, the state of Arizona and to an extent, myself, agree with you. AZ 101, AZ 202, AZ 303 and AZ 51 are all Interstate style highways, but are still Arizona State Routes. Come to think of it, why have Interstates at all? For example, wouldn't it have been better if I-5 remained US 99 north of LA?

[US71]

FWIW,  I-540 north of Alma, AR was supposed to be US 71 (I'm assuming before they even though of I-49).

[Henry]

For example, wouldn't it have been better if I-5 remained US 99 north of LA?

Maybe, but I-5 does not go through Bakersfield or Fresno.

[I94RoadRunner]

I-540 IS confusing.  To go from Texarkana to Kansas City, you take US 71 to i-540 to US 71 to I-49 to US 71.  It should all be US 71 until I-49 is signed.

It was supposed to be in Arkansas, but all the little "tourist traps" complained no would know AR 471 was old US 71 and they were afraid of losing business, so AHTD named the new highway I-540. Of course, most of the tourist traps suffered anyway.

Of course I-540 has now been resigned between I-40 and Bella Vista as I-49. Now the Bella Vista bypass needs to get finished to close the annoying gap .....

[I94RoadRunner]

Random thought:  Des Moines seems to have/have had this same sort of issue.  US 65 & IA 5 form a partial loop around Des Moines, paralleling I-235... I think the city of Des Moines was trying to pursue an Interstate designation for that partial loop that is Interstand-standard.  I'm not sure what ever happened with that.

I think an Interstate designation would be most helpful for Branson traffic.

Exactly.  Contrary to what M86 suggests, the Interstate shield is not a panacea for economic development.

I agree, a panacea it is not.  I was only suggesting that an "I" designation holds some merit when it comes to economic development.

Apparently this loop has been discussed oddly enough as a new I-335. I wonder why it would not be an even number .....?