News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Proposed US 412 Upgrade

Started by US71, May 22, 2021, 02:35:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sprjus4

Quote from: MikieTimT on June 04, 2024, 04:52:13 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 04, 2024, 09:52:59 AMI-50 is a vanity number. Especially for an Interstate highway as short and minor as this one is going to be. The damned thing is short enough to carry a 3-digit designation. In that respect, I don't mind the "I-42" thing. Plus, the sign posts with I-42 and US-412 shields will look kind of cool.

It appears some interests in OK and AR already settled on the I-42 number. The designation is mentioned in this news article from last October.
https://www.fox23.com/news/busy-tulsa-highway-could-become-oklahomas-newest-interstate/article_661988ba-6e11-11ee-9104-373d5129f7a5.html

The only thing they didn't try was signing the designation into law, like I-99 in Pennsylvania.

Disconnected duplicate Interstate numbers have been present in the system for decades. Duplicates of I-76, I-84 and I-86 have been around since the 1970's. Duplicate I-88 in Illinois was signed in the 1980's. The two different I-74 routes may never be connected. The same goes for I-99 in NY & PA (even though that would be much easier to tackle). NC is starting to build out its own I-87 which may not ever enter Virginia.

With all that being said, having two distinct I-42 routes is a small potatoes problem. We're probably not done with new duplicate Interstate routes being signed either. Since I-14 has been used up in the Killeen area that only leaves "I-12" as a possible Interstate designation between Austin and Houston. I think it's likely both the US-290 and TX-71 corridors will be improved to Interstate standards eventually. I can see I-12 being applied to one of those corridors.

Here's the thing.  The current endpoints aren't the ultimate intended endpoints, so while it may seem minor right now, it's intended to go all the way to Nashville eventually, which changes the calculus somewhat on numbering.  Going all the way across northern Arkansas, the Missouri bootheel, and halfway across Tennessee, which is a very wide state, as wide as Oklahoma including the panhandle, the mileage goes up significantly.  I-35 over to I-65 is longer than several other "vanity" numbers in the IHS being more than 650 miles apart.

High Priority Corridor #8

That said, any thought to spend anything on US-412 limited access upgrades in Arkansas other than this current project needs to happen after HPC #1 (I-49 between Alma and Texarkana) gets completed.


It's not going to go beyond I-49 in any realistic world... there's a lot of corridors designated as HPC's that aren't going to be upgraded into interstates. Arkansas has no long range plan to ever upgrade US-412 beyond a four lane divided highway going east. I-42 wasn't the right number for this corridor, IMO, given the unnecessary duplication of NC I-42 when I-46 and I-48 were available, but I-50 doesn't make any rational sense here either. It would just be another I-30 situation.


Plutonic Panda

I just don't subscribe to defeatist mentality. So much of this forum consists of users saying "x" will never happen. Maybe they're right but it's still lousy to just accept things and not advocate for more.

Rothman

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 04, 2024, 06:33:14 PMI just don't subscribe to defeatist mentality. So much of this forum consists of users saying "x" will never happen. Maybe they're right but it's still lousy to just accept things and not advocate for more.

You first.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

sprjus4

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 04, 2024, 06:33:14 PMI just don't subscribe to defeatist mentality. So much of this forum consists of users saying "x" will never happen. Maybe they're right but it's still lousy to just accept things and not advocate for more.
I-50 isn't going to happen. Fictional highways does exist though...

MikieTimT

When the shields go up in Tulsa, which is the likely first segment approved and signed, then I'll give up and change my avatar.

Molandfreak

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 04, 2024, 06:10:38 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on June 04, 2024, 04:52:13 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 04, 2024, 09:52:59 AMI-50 is a vanity number. Especially for an Interstate highway as short and minor as this one is going to be. The damned thing is short enough to carry a 3-digit designation. In that respect, I don't mind the "I-42" thing. Plus, the sign posts with I-42 and US-412 shields will look kind of cool.

It appears some interests in OK and AR already settled on the I-42 number. The designation is mentioned in this news article from last October.
https://www.fox23.com/news/busy-tulsa-highway-could-become-oklahomas-newest-interstate/article_661988ba-6e11-11ee-9104-373d5129f7a5.html

The only thing they didn't try was signing the designation into law, like I-99 in Pennsylvania.

Disconnected duplicate Interstate numbers have been present in the system for decades. Duplicates of I-76, I-84 and I-86 have been around since the 1970's. Duplicate I-88 in Illinois was signed in the 1980's. The two different I-74 routes may never be connected. The same goes for I-99 in NY & PA (even though that would be much easier to tackle). NC is starting to build out its own I-87 which may not ever enter Virginia.

With all that being said, having two distinct I-42 routes is a small potatoes problem. We're probably not done with new duplicate Interstate routes being signed either. Since I-14 has been used up in the Killeen area that only leaves "I-12" as a possible Interstate designation between Austin and Houston. I think it's likely both the US-290 and TX-71 corridors will be improved to Interstate standards eventually. I can see I-12 being applied to one of those corridors.

Here's the thing.  The current endpoints aren't the ultimate intended endpoints, so while it may seem minor right now, it's intended to go all the way to Nashville eventually, which changes the calculus somewhat on numbering.  Going all the way across northern Arkansas, the Missouri bootheel, and halfway across Tennessee, which is a very wide state, as wide as Oklahoma including the panhandle, the mileage goes up significantly.  I-35 over to I-65 is longer than several other "vanity" numbers in the IHS being more than 650 miles apart.

High Priority Corridor #8

That said, any thought to spend anything on US-412 limited access upgrades in Arkansas other than this current project needs to happen after HPC #1 (I-49 between Alma and Texarkana) gets completed.


It's not going to go beyond I-49 in any realistic world... there's a lot of corridors designated as HPC's that aren't going to be upgraded into interstates. Arkansas has no long range plan to ever upgrade US-412 beyond a four lane divided highway going east. I-42 wasn't the right number for this corridor, IMO, given the unnecessary duplication of NC I-42 when I-46 and I-48 were available, but I-50 doesn't make any rational sense here either. It would just be another I-30 situation.
At least it would serve the seventh-largest metro in the country that is not already served by a major interstate—something that both I-30 and I-45 fail to do.
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 14, 2021, 10:50:30 PMWith the risk of being chased off by an angry mob, allow me to explain why this is the perfect place for I-50, and why "I will go as far to say any answer to the question 'what number should this get' that isn't 50 is incorrect."

While it's true that the upgrade starts and ends in places that aren't exactly major, there is a gap that needs to be filled by the backbones of the Interstate system: the Tulsa metropolitan area crossed one million residents this census, and is the 55th-largest metro in the country. Of the 54 metro areas larger than Tulsa, there are only six metro areas that are not served by at least one x0 or x5 Interstate: Orlando, San Jose*, Milwaukee, Hartford, Grand Rapids, and Honolulu.

I would say the fact that designating this as I-50 would put Tulsa on a major Interstate instantly makes it less of a joke than I-30 or I-45. I-30 serves DFW (already served by I-20, I-35, and I-45) and Little Rock (already served by I-40), so excluding those leaves Texarkana, whose metro area is home to a measly 150K. And I-45 serves Dallas (again, already served by I-20, I-30, and I-35) and Houston (already served by I-10), so excluding those leaves the Huntsville micropolitan area, home to about 70K, and the Corsicana micropolitan area, home to about 50K.

There are probably no other routes in this area with a remote chance of being upgraded to a freeway within the next hundred years, and the only other state that seems to be interested in pursuing new Interstates where an I-50 would fit (North Carolina) passed on the chance to designate I-50 multiple times.

And the point of it crossing I-44 is moot, since that's to be expected of a diagonal route, and I-40 crosses it anyway.

*San Jose is served by I-280, I-480, and I-680, so you could reasonably argue I-80 indirectly serves the area.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

Road Hog

Until I-42 makes some progress connecting NWA and NEA, or until state politics change, I expect ARDOT to keep it on the back burner next to I-49 and I-69.

If it doesn't connect to Little Rock, then zzzzzzzz.

MikieTimT

As expected, there will need to be another study done for the Siloam Springs Bypass, so nothing east of I-44 will be signed for quite some time, unless Oklahoma signs it up to the US-59/Kansas, OK exit on the Cherokee Turnpike after taking care of the Inola segment.  I figure that Oklahoma can get that done much quicker than all the work for the extra study, not to mention utility relocation/ROW purchasing around Siloam Springs.  I think my in-laws north of Siloam Springs don't have to worry about an Interstate popping up in their vicinity until they reach retirement age 15 years from now.

intelati49

Quote from: MikieTimT on June 17, 2024, 04:52:33 PMAs expected, there will need to be another study done for the Siloam Springs Bypass, so nothing east of I-44 will be signed for quite some time, unless Oklahoma signs it up to the US-59/Kansas, OK exit on the Cherokee Turnpike after taking care of the Inola segment.  I figure that Oklahoma can get that done much quicker than all the work for the extra study, not to mention utility relocation/ROW purchasing around Siloam Springs.  I think my in-laws north of Siloam Springs don't have to worry about an Interstate popping up in their vicinity until they reach retirement age 15 years from now.
Was the representative there again?

In other words, any thoughts from the people who hold the money?

MikieTimT

Didn't see any politician types there outside of Phillip Taldo when I was there, admittedly before 5PM when it was still early on.  No mention of funding for the Siloam Springs Bypass study yet, so we'll likely have to wait to hear more after the PEL report is issued.  I doubt much progress is made on the controlled access conversion of the US-412 divided segment between the end of the Springdale Northern Bypass in Tontitown and the current west end of the divided segment until they have something concrete to connect to for a Siloam Springs Bypass.

Plutonic Panda

Realistically, what is the timeline for the Siloam Springs Bypass? I doubt it can be completed before 2030 if they are just now doing a study on it.

BigOkie

#1136
Quote from: MikieTimT on June 17, 2024, 04:52:33 PMI figure that Oklahoma can get that done much quicker...

Have you ever seen how Oklahoma does it's road projects?  😎  We still have TrafficHenge up at I-44 and US75 in west Tulsa.

rte66man

Quote from: BigOkie on Today at 08:02:27 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on June 17, 2024, 04:52:33 PMI figure that Oklahoma can get that done much quicker...

Have you ever seen how Oklahoma does it's road projects?  😎  We still have TrafficHenge up at I-44 and US75 in west Tulsa.

The remaining 3 phases will go out for bid in September.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

edwaleni

Quote from: BigOkie on Today at 08:02:27 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on June 17, 2024, 04:52:33 PMI figure that Oklahoma can get that done much quicker...

Have you ever seen how Oklahoma does it's road projects?  😎  We still have TrafficHenge up at I-44 and US75 in west Tulsa.

OMH! I hadnt seen that before! I am sorry, those images makes me laugh. A monument to 'just in time' funding. And judging on the height, it looks like they going for some Texas style ramping too.

Bobby5280

It may very well work out that the Cimarron Turnpike (from I-35 to US-64 junction) gets approved and signed first. The re-builds of the interchanges at US-177 and OK-99 are completed. OTA has crews currently working on removing the last bits of grassy median just West of the Cimarron Spur interchange. Once that work is completed the turnpike will be up to Interstate standards.

That would also open the possibility of the OTA signing the Cimarron Spur to Stillwater as "I-342".
:spin:



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.