I-49 should be signed as such immediately.

[bugo]

Some family friends from Shreveport came to Mena, Arkansas and we got to talking about I-49.  The guy said he would have liked to have driven part of it, but didn't see any signs.  I told him it was currently *5*49 and gave him directions back to Shreveport the fast way.  AASHTO and AHTD are confusing motorists with their temporary designations of a road that everybody is calling I-49 already.  This madness must end.

[M86]

Some family friends from Shreveport came to Mena, Arkansas and we got to talking about I-49.  The guy said he would have liked to have driven part of it, but didn't see any signs.  I told him it was currently *5*49 and gave him directions back to Shreveport the fast way.  AASHTO and AHTD are confusing motorists with their temporary designations of a road that everybody is calling I-49 already.  This madness must end.

Are you talking about the south end of AR 549?  I haven't been down there, but judging by StreetView, I think you have a point.  AHTD isn't known for their signage.

Normally I'd say that it's stupid to designate an Interstate unless the ends end at an Interstate... but I think of I-49 in Missouri.  I think the best thing would be to install signage that states Thru Traffic on US 71, Follow AR 549 kinda thing.

[bugo]

If the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.  Temporary numbers only cause confusion.

[triplemultiplex]

I'm with Bugo on this.
Whatever my feelings about I-69 in Indiana, etc, at least they're putting up the shields when chunks are opening.

[froggie]

If the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.

Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet.  Or has AHTD submitted the request to FHWA?  M86's comment about Arkansas signage comes into play here.

[M86]

Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet.  Or has AHTD submitted the request to FHWA?  M86's comment about Arkansas signage comes into play here.

I don't believe they have. 

http://www.interstate49.org/

After a random google, I came upon that website.

[Grzrd]

If the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.

Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet.  Or has AHTD submitted the request to FHWA?  M86's comment about Arkansas signage comes into play here.

This post discusses an email from AHTD indicating that they would apply for the I-49 designation at the the October AASHTO meeting and a subsequent post discusses FHWA's position that Congress has mandated the I-49 designation and that neither FHWA nor AASHTO can prevent the designation.

Since the deadline for submitting an application to AASHTO was September 9, I'm hoping that AHTD has asked by submitting a timely application and that it will be approved on October 17.  However, AHTD seems to look for excuses to not seek the I-49 designation ..........

To froggie's point, I'm halfway (but not too seriously) wondering if the recent AR 549 designation for the Texarkana Eastern Loop, since it directly connects to I-30, was a technical violation of the Congressional legislation mandating an I-49 designation (note the language from the FHWA email that once the two prerequisites are met, then the state must initiate a request). Hope it all becomes a moot point on October 17.

[Brandon]

If the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.

Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet.  Or has AHTD submitted the request to FHWA?  M86's comment about Arkansas signage comes into play here.

AHTD could use signage such as: "TEMP I-49" or "FUTURE I-49" along the route along with the AR-549 signage if they so chose, IIRC.  That might make navigation easier.

[bugo]

If the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.

Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet. 

Yes it is.  What else are they going to call it?

[Anthony_JK]

If the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.

Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet. 

Yes it is.  What else are they going to call it?

When the LA segments are complete all the way to I-220, then it will become I-49 officially. Until then, AR 549 suffices. No need to rush putting in shields before its time.

[bugo]

If the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.

Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet. 

Yes it is.  What else are they going to call it?

When the LA segments are complete all the way to I-220, then it will become I-49 officially. Until then, AR 549 suffices. No need to rush putting in shields before its time.

You're wrong.  As I said, it is already being called I-49 which is causing confusion.  Why give a road a designation that you plan on changing in the future?  It only leads to confusion.  AR 549 does not suffice.

[Henry]

If the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.

Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet. 

Yes it is.  What else are they going to call it?

When the LA segments are complete all the way to I-220, then it will become I-49 officially. Until then, AR 549 suffices. No need to rush putting in shields before its time.

You're wrong.  As I said, it is already being called I-49 which is causing confusion.  Why give a road a designation that you plan on changing in the future?  It only leads to confusion.  AR 549 does not suffice.

I'm with bugo on this one! Whatever the proposed road is called, it should be referred that way until either it is completed or cancelled. Temporary numbers do nothing for me either.

[Anthony_JK]

You're wrong.  As I said, it is already being called I-49 which is causing confusion.  Why give a road a designation that you plan on changing in the future?  It only leads to confusion.  AR 549 does not suffice.

I'm with bugo on this one! Whatever the proposed road is called, it should be referred that way until either it is completed or cancelled. Temporary numbers do nothing for me either.

I was talking about Arkansas' segment, which is NOT yet signed as I-49. Louisiana went in a different direction and decided to sign their segments as I-49.

But once LA finishes their sections all the way to I-220, the whole shebang will become I-49 as you want it. Again...why such a rush?

[froggie]

Until FHWA fully signs off on it becoming I-49, it is not I-49.  Period.  Regardless of Congressional legislation, the road is not I-49 until it's completed and FHWA signs off on it.  Furthermore, there are no intermediate major crossing highways or cities that could be used to sign a partial segment, so the whole thing will have to be finished first.

That said, Brandon has a point where they could post "Future I-49" signs in the interim.  It's not like AHTD hasn't done that before (i.e. I-555).

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

I was talking about Arkansas' segment, which is NOT yet signed as I-49. Louisiana went in a different direction and decided to sign their segments as I-49.

Louisiana doesn't really do the whole 'temporary numbering' thing unless the road is a new alignment for an existing designation, is only partially opened and completion is still in the distant future. LA 3052 comes to mind.

[bugo]

But it is going to be I-49.  Period.  So why not sign it as such?  All temporary designations do is cause confusion, like the gentleman that I mentioned in the initial post.

[Gordon]

Look at the waste of money. Most states cannot build the roads anyway because of funds so we don't need to waste it on signs if they have been designated anyway.

[Alps]

But it is going to be I-49.  Period.  So why not sign it as such?  All temporary designations do is cause confusion, like the gentleman that I mentioned in the initial post.

Absolutely. NCDOT signs Future 840 and Future 295, which have the same shield colors and shapes as the final routes, and doesn't invent other numbers in the interim.

[US71]

If the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.

Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet. 

Yes it is.  What else are they going to call it?

AR 49 ?   

[Brandon]

If the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.

Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet. 

Yes it is.  What else are they going to call it?

AR 49 ?   

It has precedent.  Indiana signed I-469 as IN-469 until it was complete.

[US71]

If the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.

Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet. 

Yes it is.  What else are they going to call it?

AR 49 ?   

It has precedent.  Indiana signed I-469 as IN-469 until it was complete.

Also AR 540 and AR 440

[Molandfreak]

Signing I-49 along AR 549 is no worse than I-69 (and family) being signed along it's tiny parcels. For continuity reasons, I do believe both of these routes should have temporary designations which connect their completed portions.

[Perfxion]

Big difference, I-49 must go by rules presented by FHWA and AASHTO. I-69 is a congress mandated highway. Thus, signs and approvals are on two different time tables. The first must be complete, the second, is eh, good enough for now. The whole East, Central, 369, I-2, and Houston area don't even touch the rest of I-69.

[Molandfreak]

But then they have to go by the BS rule of U.S. 49 being located at the opposite end of the state. Seriously? I-69 and U.S. 69 is far worse. Amend this crap so that completed sections must be signed I-49.

[NE2]

I-49 is legislated by Congress, per FHWA.