Print

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

[yakra]

It's not just you. Scott noticed the same in the I-49 Coming to MO thread.

[O Tamandua]

Last night driving south through Anderson past McDonald County High School, the blue covering had been removed off one of the signs and it said "Interstate" in the red area.

[US71]

Last night driving south through Anderson past McDonald County High School, the blue covering had been removed off one of the signs and it said "Interstate" in the red area.

They ALL do. The state name is usually in the blue area above the number (Interstate State XX).

[O Tamandua]

Last night driving south through Anderson past McDonald County High School, the blue covering had been removed off one of the signs and it said "Interstate" in the red area.

They ALL do. The state name is usually in the blue area above the number (Interstate State XX).

Heh, sorry.  You can tell who doesn't watch the signs as much.

[intelati49]

is it just me or does that shield lack the state name?  Missouri is usually quite fastidious about this.

This is correct.

[US71]

is it just me or does that shield lack the state name?  Missouri is usually quite fastidious about this.

Usually they are, yes.

I am hoping to attend the ceremony (got my new shirt ready), so maybe I can investigate further.

[bugo]

Maybe Missouri has done away with state named shields.  The signs on the new part of I-44 in Tulsa has neutered signs, so it wouldn't be the only state doing it.

[Alps]

In NJ, state names have been left to individual projects/design consultants and contractors. More often than not, they're included, but there's no pattern to it.

[Grzrd]

I thought there was to be a decision made for Arkansas regarding redesignating Interstate 540 north from I-40 as I-49. Did not see that covered in the notes document.
Was it postponed for a future meeting?

I received an early August email from AHTD to that effect.  I was surprised that it was not included in the notes document. I will follow up with AHTD.

(above quote from AASHTO Committee on Route Numbering (Nov. 2012) Actions thread)

I recently received a response from AHTD and, surprisingly, the reason lies with the presence of US 49:

The short answer is that we can’t apply for I-49 designation unless we can get some kind of exceptions.  Here are the reasons.
1.       AASHTO’s US Route Numbering Policies state that there will be no Interstate Route bearing the same number designation as a US Numbered Route in any State (see Attachment, Item 3 on Page 8 of 11 and a similar discussion  on Page 4, Item 4).
2.       US Highway 49 exists in Arkansas and Mississippi.  It begins in Piggott, Arkansas and travels through the State to Helena/West Helena and then crosses the Mississippi River to Gulfport, MS.
3.       Both Missouri and Louisiana have portions of I-49.  Missouri’s portion travels between Kansas City and the Arkansas State Line.  The portion in Louisiana is not yet complete to the Arkansas State Line.
4.       For Arkansas to be able to rename I-540 to I-49 (and Arkansas Highway 549 to I‑49), US 49 will have to be either renumbered or changed from a US Highway to a State Highway. 
5.       AASHTO designation guidelines allow for a US Highway contained within a single State, but the highway must be at least 300 miles long (see Attachment, Page 5 of 11).  US 49 is only 235.6 miles long in Mississippi meaning that it could not be a stand-alone segment of US Highway based on the guidelines.
.. we continue to work on a resolution for this.

Very interesting that US 49 in Mississippi is a large part of the problem.

edit

As previously posted in the Improving I-540 at Fort Smith thread, AHTD apparently intends to dually designate I-49 with I-540 instead of redesignating I-540 as I-49.

[codyg1985]

^ I-41 and I-74 in NC are precedents against that reasoning...

[NE2]

Actually I-24/US 24 in Illinois is a better example. Tell them that Illinois has no problems with it.

[US71]

Actually I-24/US 24 in Illinois is a better example. Tell them that Illinois has no problems with it.

Missouri renumbered MO 57 as 171 after I-57 was built, yet now they have TWO 64's (MO 64 and I-64) and TWO 72's (MO 72 and I-72).

[Alex]

I recently received a response from AHTD and, surprisingly, the reason lies with the presence of US 49:

The short answer is that we can’t apply for I-49 designation unless we can get some kind of exceptions.  Here are the reasons.
1.       AASHTO’s US Route Numbering Policies state that there will be no Interstate Route bearing the same number designation as a US Numbered Route in any State (see Attachment, Item 3 on Page 8 of 11 and a similar discussion  on Page 4, Item 4).
2.       US Highway 49 exists in Arkansas and Mississippi.  It begins in Piggott, Arkansas and travels through the State to Helena/West Helena and then crosses the Mississippi River to Gulfport, MS.
3.       Both Missouri and Louisiana have portions of I-49.  Missouri’s portion travels between Kansas City and the Arkansas State Line.  The portion in Louisiana is not yet complete to the Arkansas State Line.
4.       For Arkansas to be able to rename I-540 to I-49 (and Arkansas Highway 549 to I‑49), US 49 will have to be either renumbered or changed from a US Highway to a State Highway. 
5.       AASHTO designation guidelines allow for a US Highway contained within a single State, but the highway must be at least 300 miles long (see Attachment, Page 5 of 11).  US 49 is only 235.6 miles long in Mississippi meaning that it could not be a stand-alone segment of US Highway based on the guidelines.
.. we continue to work on a resolution for this.

Very interesting that US 49 in Mississippi is a large part of the problem.

Thank you Grzrd for looking into this!

The people at AASHTO really need to have better communications across their committee. Seriously, this is the rational given to prevent I-49 in AR? The precedent of Interstate/U.S. number duplication within a state has been broken on a number of occasions now. Why should it matter in this instance, especially when the two routes in question are across the state from one another and never come close to meeting. Do the people that approve things for NC or WI never talk to the people in charge of the Arkansas applications? Even next door in Texas you have IH 69 and US 69 signed in the same state, and they will eventually also intersect...

[triplemultiplex]

I can't imagine that AASHTO wouldn't grant an exception for this supposed 'conflict' given all the precedent, both old and new.  But the idea that they bring it up all is still pretty stupid.

[ShawnP]

Some good pics........

http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x2082769768/Bella-Vista-bypass-going-forward-following-passage-of-half-cent-sales-tax-in-Arkansas

[US71]

Some good pics........

http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x2082769768/Bella-Vista-bypass-going-forward-following-passage-of-half-cent-sales-tax-in-Arkansas

If you can get the pictures to open correctly

[Grzrd]

This article sets forth some sobering numbers for the completion of I-49 in Arkansas - $2.8 billion to complete I-49, with only $4 billion currently available for overall needs in Arkansas over the next ten years:

I-49 is mainly new construction in Arkansas, with the cost to complete a stretch between Interstates 30 and 40 through the Ouachita mountains estimated at $2 billion, said Randy Ort, spokesman for the Arkansas Department of Transportation. Even with the state's new highway sales tax, he said Arkansas doesn't have much to put toward the I-49 projects because of other transportation needs.
"There's about $2.8 billion needed to complete I-49 in Arkansas," Ort said. "Basically we've identified $23 billion in needs over the next 10 years, but only $4 billion to address those needs. So money is a big issue."
Ort said Arkansas has the nation's 12th-largest highway system but ranks 43rd in revenue to pay for it.
"It's a priority and we want to get it done," Ort said. "We understand there are advantages, not just for Arkansas but for the whole region."

It's going to be a looooooong wait ...

[Grzrd]

Congratulations on the name change! 

[Grzrd]

This article sets forth some sobering numbers for the completion of I-49 in Arkansas - $2.8 billion to complete I-49, with only $4 billion currently available for overall needs in Arkansas over the next ten years

This TV video report is primarily about the I-49 unveiling in Missouri, but it includes Federal Highway Administrator Victor Mendez making the following comment:

Many say I-49 will connect Missouri to the rest of the country and the world.
"If you look at the stretch of I-49 from Louisiana up to Canada, it's an amazing opportunity here that, as a nation, we cannot miss," said Mendez.

If Mendez truly means what he says, and federal funding could be at play, then MAP-21 might provide a 95% federal funding opportunity for significant sections of I-49 in Arkansas (page 70/599 of pdf; page 70 of document):

SEC. 1116. PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS TO IMPROVE FREIGHT MOVEMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 120 of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary may increase the Federal share payable for any project to 95 percent for projects on the Interstate System and 90 percent for any other project if the Secretary certifies that the project meets the requirements of this section.
(b) INCREASED FUNDING.—To be eligible for the increased Federal funding share under this section, a project shall—
(1) demonstrate the improvement made by the project to the efficient movement of freight, including making progress towards meeting performance targets for freight movement established under section 150(d) of title 23, United States Code; and (2) be identified in a State freight plan developed pursuant to section 1118.
(c) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—Eligible projects to improve the movement of freight under this section may include, but are not limited to—
(1) construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and operational improvements directly relating to improving freight
movement ...

IF AHTD were to be aggressive in pursuing this funding, then they might have a receptive ear in Mendez to navigate the technical requirements of eligibility for the funding.  Even a 90% share as "any other project" would be significant.

I admittedly have not read all of the technical requirements for the funding, so maybe I am simply engaging in wishful thinking ... At the very least, AHTD should investigate the possibility.

[O Tamandua]

Just random, but I drove to Gravette today from Bella Vista through what used to be "Hiwasse".  The infrastructure for the future bridge between Hiwasse and Gravette (about 1-2 miles west of downtown Hiwasse) is being set, and construction is proceeding north from there toward the state line...cuts are being put in place for the south exit ramps also there.  Forgive me but, did that article say when Missouri is actually going to start digging on their side?

[Grzrd]

did that article say when Missouri is actually going to start digging on their side?

Information contained in this post indicates that MoDOT has the BVB in its STIP, but that Missouri wants Arkansas to have a firm timetable for construction to the state line before they begin.  Arkansas will not begin collecting the sales tax until July 1, 2013; however, this post includes a quote from an AHTD spokesperson that the BVB will be one of the early projects in the sales tax program.

I'll throw out an optimistic guess that Missouri will start turning dirt on the BVB in Spring 2015; that's just my guess.

[Anthony_JK]

I assume that that is contingent upon AR commiting to a full 4-lane BVB, and not just a temporary Super-2 as is presently proposed??

[Grzrd]

Information contained in this post

I assume that that is contingent upon AR commiting to a full 4-lane BVB, and not just a temporary Super-2 as is presently proposed??

I asked that question in my phone conversation and he said that the commitment to two lanes will be sufficient:

I spoke with a MoDOT individual today and he confirmed that the above 2015 project in the Draft STIP is for the Bella Vista Bypass. However, it is contingent on whether Arkansas will have construction under way to the state line by that time. As he put it, there is no need to build it to a dead-end and have it sit for a long time. MoDOT already has the money set aside and will build the entire four lanes even if Arkansas has to stay at two lanes for a while.

[O Tamandua]

Thanks, gang.

I can assure you, that stretch north of the highway I saw they're building will go to NOWHERE if it doesn't go to the state line...it may head straight to the Bella Vista western city limits.  Don't know.  BTW, I'll be curious if they build an exit for BV at that point, for either Glasgow and/or Highlands (I forget the east/west street there which loops northward and turns into Glasgow heading back east.)

[US71]

Thanks, gang.

I can assure you, that stretch north of the highway I saw they're building will go to NOWHERE if it doesn't go to the state line...it may head straight to the Bella Vista western city limits.  Don't know.  BTW, I'll be curious if they build an exit for BV at that point, for either Glasgow and/or Highlands (I forget the east/west street there which loops northward and turns into Glasgow heading back east.)

Based on what I have read, the next segment to be built after the "Hiwasse Bypass" is supposed to be to the MO state Line.