I-42 in OK and AR

[FutureInterstateCorridors]

Future I-42 now joins the long list of disconnected interstates (I-74, I-76, I-82, I-84, I-86, I-87, I-88), the "isle of misfit/disconnected" interstates, first started by AASHTO itself when it wanted to get rid of ordinal suffix interstate numbers.

The Indian Nations Council of Governments in Tulsa passed a resolution on May 11, 2018 seeking support from the Oklahoma and Arkansas transportation departments and elected officials and then sent it to the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission. U.S. Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), John Boozman (R-Rogers) and Tom Cotton (R-Little Rock) introduced a bill in Congress to designate the 189 miles of U.S. 412 a future interstate highway, but did not assign it a number.  The purpose was not because of traffic but to encourage economic development along this corridor and expand opportunities for employment in the region.
 
The Arkansas and Oklahoma transportation departments expressed support for the proposal in a letter to Inhofe, a requirement today for Congress to create a future interstate corridor. 

[FutureInterstateCorridors]

Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, introduced legislation May 20, 2021 to designate US-412 between I-35 in Noble County and I-49 in Springdale, Arkansas as future interstate corridor, the "Future Interstate in Oklahoma and Arkansas Act" (S. 1766), cosponsored by Senators John Boozman and Tom Cotton.  The bill was included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684) of 2021. The Oklahoma and Arkansas transportation departments submitted their request to AASHTO to designate the corridor as Future I-42.

AASHTO had already assigned I-42 to the interstate conversion of U.S. 70 in North Carolina, making the request an unnecessary duplication since other numbers such as I-46, I-48 and even I-50 were available.  AASHTO asked the question what is the chance I-42 in Oklahoma would connect to I-42 in North Carolina.  To do this U.S. 412 would need to be converted through Arkansas all the way to I-40 in Jackson Tennessee.  This conceptual I-42 would need to run concurrent with I-40 over half of I-42's length from I-35 to Moreshead North Carolina since U.S. 70 and I-40 run parallel from North Carolina to Arkansas.  The states withdrew their applications, but resubmitted the application to the Spring 2024 meeting at which time AASHTO approved the route as Interstate 42 on condition that the Oklahoma and Arkansas build U.S. 412 to interstate-standard. That means the highway must go through the typical 10 years of environmental study and wait for funding in the state budgets to cover their cost share, with NO guarantee of Federal funding, which could range from 0% to 90% if they are lucky.  At the minimum, that means no interstate sign will be seen on U.S. 412 for the next 20 years, maybe 30 years.

[FutureInterstateCorridors]

If I-42 did continue along US 412 through Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee, it would follow an old proposed interstate between I-55 and I-40 that created I-155. In 1962, the governors of Missouri and Tennessee proposed to build a new Mississippi River Bridge between I-55 and U.S. 51 at Dyersburg Tennessee. They submitted their proposal to the Bureau of Public Roads to also build an interstate connector between I-55 to I-40 near Jackson Tennessee. The Bureau of Public Roads approved the bridge but limited the interstate from I-55 to US 51 in Dyersburg which became I-155. AASHTO created U.S. 412 from New Mexico to Tennessee in 1982, the first of the 400-series of U.S. Routes (U.S. 400, U.S. 412, U.S. 425).

[english si]

Future I-42 now joins the long list of disconnected interstates (I-74, I-76, I-82, I-84, I-86, I-87, I-88), the "isle of misfit/disconnected" interstates, first started by AASHTO itself when it wanted to get rid of ordinal suffix interstate numbers.

The 1957 numbering plan had two 82s (along with multiple repeated suffixed interstates). The 1958 plan had two 77s (and, again, multiple repeated suffixed routes).

AASHTO asked the question what is the chance I-42 in Oklahoma would connect to I-42 in North Carolina.

Did they? AASHTO certainly asked for more information (despite approving it) at the Fall meeting. OK and AR sent a team of people to give a presentation to the Special Committee on Route Numbering in Spring 2024, but they were discussing technical things like where the route doesn't meet interstate standards, options for the new built bits, etc. There was absolutely nothing seeking to justify the (already approved, despite the states' withdrawal) number, or extending it across Arkansas in their documentation.

That means the highway must go through the typical 10 years of environmental study and wait for funding in the state budgets to cover their cost share, with NO guarantee of Federal funding, which could range from 0% to 90% if they are lucky.

Even on the bits that are lengthy new build, rather than minor tweaks, they had already got some way through the years of route selection, environmental study, etc before applying for the I-42 designation - it's not decades away. It's a more developed plan than the unbuilt bit I-57 in AR, where they are a couple of years further behind. I'm pretty sure bits of the other I-42 are further behind in the planning process than this one.

As for funding, it's a High Priority Corridor and therefore just as likely as anything else to receive federal funds. It's also something the states already spend money on doing detailed plans for, so it's a priority. AR has four future 2dis and I'd argue that I-42 is the closest to completion in the state - not least because it is the shortest, but it's a couple of years ahead in the planning as the new-build bits of I-57 (and way ahead of lots of the I-49 and I-69 corridors).

This new interstate proposal isn't like some of the others that were merely a crayon corridor on a map (eg I-14) and still embryonic several years later with only some bits designed. It's a route planned in its entirety with very little option selection left and several of the upgrade schemes to get bits up to standard already completed.

At the minimum, that means no interstate sign will be seen on U.S. 412 for the next 20 years, maybe 30 years.

??? I'd be very surprised if parts aren't signed as I-42 in 2, maybe 3, years.

[Bobby5280]

Any notion of the I-42 route in Oklahoma (and NWA) being connected to I-42 in North Carolina is pure fantasy, completely unnecessary and likely impossible to implement. An I-42 overlap with I-40 across most of Tennessee and North Carolina would be kooky.

Duplicate numbered Interstate routes that are permanently disconnected have long been a feature of the Interstate highway system. I-42 should be no different than other routes such as I-84 and I-76.

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't think the western Interstate 42 will go east of Interstate 49, due to a lack of need along the US 412 corridor. Maybe the US 412 corridor could be upgraded to freeway standards between Dyersburg and Jackson if the need arises, but I doubt Interstate 155 (or Interstate 42 if Arkansas somehow gets 42 constructed across northern Arkansas) will be extended eastward even if that happened. Connecting the two Interstate 42s in Oklahoma-Arkansas and North Carolina is a ludicrous suggestion.

[Molandfreak]

AASHTO asked the question what is the chance I-42 in Oklahoma would connect to I-42 in North Carolina.

Along with your earlier claim that the lowest available number is preferred by AASHTO and the FHWA, there is absolutely no evidence this is the case. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[english si]

Duplicate numbered Interstate routes that are permanently disconnected have long been a feature of the Interstate highway system. I-42 should be no different than other routes such as I-84 and I-76.

As I pointed out earlier, both very early drafts of the numbering had duplicates. It's always been there.

I don't think the western Interstate 42 will go east of Interstate 49, due to a lack of need along the US 412 corridor.

Arguably it could extend to existing US412 east of Springdale, so that all the Northern bypass is interstate. But yes, you aren't going to go beyond that. The next plausible bit of US412 to be interstate would be east of I-57, if not the already existing bit east of I-55.

[Rothman]

Whether AI or not, my AI antennae are going off.  Something tells me I'm as lousy an AI detector as whatever professors are doing nowadays to prevent "cheating."

[Molandfreak]

Anyway, since this is largely a duplicate topic with the only new material being a conflation of the ancient I-24W proposal with current I-42 projects, maybe this belongs in fictional.

[FutureInterstateCorridors]

High priority corridors mean nothing when it comes to getting real money from the Federal government.  I-49 has been the number one high priority corridor on FHWA lists, and Missouri and Louisiana have built parts, but the high priority has built only a couple of miles between Texarkana and Ft Smith with the rest still 20 years to go.  The first funding problem is the state budgets and Oklahoma and Arkansas have a lot of projects that need funding before I-42.  The FHWA only gives out money these days in relatively small grants, sometime only loans, of $100M or less.  There are no guarantees of getting funding from year to year, and only highly visible projects that produce huge political bragging rights like I-75 Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati get $1B or more, and I-42 is not in that league.  I-49 in Arkansas may take 20 years because of this same problem.  The NEPA process is just beginning for I-42 and already the neighborhood along I-244 in Tulsa wants it removed, not rebuilt or widened.  ODOT wants to rebuild I-244, so expect environmental/social justice lawsuits to stop it, delaying the project to I-35 or requiring a new bypass around Tulsa, requiring another environmental study and more expense.  I-42 is NOT continuing into Arkansas beyond I-49, as ArDOT and MDOT are only planning to four-lane U.S. 412.  At best, maybe a few miles of highway that already meets interstate-standard may get interstate signs like I-14 in Kileen and I-27 south of Lubbock.

[FutureInterstateCorridors]

I don't think the western Interstate 42 will go east of Interstate 49, due to a lack of need along the US 412 corridor. Maybe the US 412 corridor could be upgraded to freeway standards between Dyersburg and Jackson if the need arises, but I doubt Interstate 155 (or Interstate 42 if Arkansas somehow gets 42 constructed across northern Arkansas) will be extended eastward even if that happened. Connecting the two Interstate 42s in Oklahoma-Arkansas and North Carolina is a ludicrous suggestion.

Correct, the map shows how ridiculous it is to believe I-42 in Oklahoma could ever connect to North Carolina as ArDOT and MDOT are only planning to four-lane U.S. 412.  This topic was started as a new thread based on AARoads.com recommendation to not post to threads that have not been posted to for 120 days.  Since AASHTO has already assigned U.S. 412 the duplicate number I-42 and the Oklahoma DOT and Arkansas DOT are proceeding forward with their project plans set in stone.

[english si]

I-49 has been the number one high priority corridor on FHWA lists, and Missouri and Louisiana have built parts, but the high priority has built only a couple of miles between Texarkana and Ft Smith with the rest still 20 years to go.

If the numbering of HPCs mattered in terms of their priority, states would stop re-entering the same corridors to the list, giving them higher numbers, but rather point out the lower numbered one.

Arkansas doesn't care about the middle bit of I-49 in the state (and Texas really really doesn't care), no one but Kentucky ever cared about corridor 3 (and even they dropped it and replaced it with higher numbered High Priority Corridors), etc, etc.

HPCs are simply lines in legislation that congresspeople put into infrastructure spending bills so that their states can use the designation on grant applications to say to the Feds "money please!". Their corridor numbering doesn't matter. Whether the state sees the whole thing (or even any) as a priority also doesn't matter.

[Rothman]

High priority corridors mean nothing when it comes to getting real money from the Federal government.  I-49 has been the number one high priority corridor on FHWA lists, and Missouri and Louisiana have built parts, but the high priority has built only a couple of miles between Texarkana and Ft Smith with the rest still 20 years to go.  The first funding problem is the state budgets and Oklahoma and Arkansas have a lot of projects that need funding before I-42.  The FHWA only gives out money these days in relatively small grants, sometime only loans, of $100M or less.  There are no guarantees of getting funding from year to year, and only highly visible projects that produce huge political bragging rights like I-75 Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati get $1B or more, and I-42 is not in that league.  I-49 in Arkansas may take 20 years because of this same problem.  The NEPA process is just beginning for I-42 and already the neighborhood along I-244 in Tulsa wants it removed, not rebuilt or widened.  ODOT wants to rebuild I-244, so expect environmental/social justice lawsuits to stop it, delaying the project to I-35 or requiring a new bypass around Tulsa, requiring another environmental study and more expense.  I-42 is NOT continuing into Arkansas beyond I-49, as ArDOT and MDOT are only planning to four-lane U.S. 412.  At best, maybe a few miles of highway that already meets interstate-standard may get interstate signs like I-14 in Kileen and I-27 south of Lubbock.

We're getting into nonsense AI territory.  FHWA hardly only hands out grants.

[roadman65]

The question we need to ask ourselves is, for those wanting to see the two I-42s connect, would you be willing to connect them if they had different numbers?

The answer is probably no.

We cant really want miles of freeway built just to connect two routes hundreds of miles apart just to justify a single number.

Now with I-87 we suggested the two of them to be connected before, but at least that connection has some merit. The Delmarva could benefit well if US 13 from Hampton Roads to Wilmington was upgraded. Now that's a big if as I'm aware that people along Route 13 don't want a full freeway, but that suggestion to this one is apples verses oranges.

Look at even the two I-74s. They were intended to be one from Myrtle Beach to Davenport, IA however we can't get them connected. So what makes it possible that two interstates in different parts will be able to become part of one longer route.

[Bobby5280]

I think it's politically impossible to convert US-412 to Interstate standards across Northern Arkansas. There are some locations along the way where such an upgrade would be extremely disruptive to existing properties. The highway snakes its way thru towns with tourism/resort businesses.

Some portions of US-412 in Northern Arkansas can be converted to freeway segments that meet Interstate quality. But many other segments could be no better than undivided 4-lane highway due to ROW constraints.

An Interstate spur related to I-49 or I-42 could run East from Springdale as far as Huntsville and the existing AR-23 freeway exit. East of their the highway can only be a mix of different highway types.

I'd like to see I-555 extended from Jonesboro up to Walnut Ridge (and US-412). But upgrading US-412/US-63 to Interstate standards from that point going Northwest would be very difficult. The US-63 corridor from Willow Springs, MO to Walnut Ridge, AR could potentially be an important highway for long distance commerce. A bunch of it is 4-lane divided in Southern Missouri. It's of lesser standards in Arkansas.

[Molandfreak]

I don't think the western Interstate 42 will go east of Interstate 49, due to a lack of need along the US 412 corridor. Maybe the US 412 corridor could be upgraded to freeway standards between Dyersburg and Jackson if the need arises, but I doubt Interstate 155 (or Interstate 42 if Arkansas somehow gets 42 constructed across northern Arkansas) will be extended eastward even if that happened. Connecting the two Interstate 42s in Oklahoma-Arkansas and North Carolina is a ludicrous suggestion.

Correct, the map shows how ridiculous it is to believe I-42 in Oklahoma could ever connect to North Carolina as ArDOT and MDOT are only planning to four-lane U.S. 412.  This topic was started as a new thread based on AARoads.com recommendation to not post to threads that have not been posted to for 120 days.  Since AASHTO has already assigned U.S. 412 the duplicate number I-42 and the Oklahoma DOT and Arkansas DOT are proceeding forward with their project plans set in stone.

You are mistaken. You can bump old threads if you find new information regarding the topic, it isn't something that's frowned upon unless you're bringing in ancient information that has already been discussed elsewhere, like the I-66 threads you bumped.

This topic is relatively recent. It would not have been bumped with this information, though you might want to be extremely clear about the intentions of your posts. Historic proposals are interesting, but shouldn't be connected to modern construction like this unless there are concrete plans to revisit the proposal in question. I'm still not sure if you are advocating for an I-42 built across northern Arkansas.

[vdeane]

Whether AI or not, my AI antennae are going off.  Something tells me I'm as lousy an AI detector as whatever professors are doing nowadays to prevent "cheating."

I've also noticed that said user has a tendency to delete posts after we call out things that are wrong.  Almost as if someone is trying to train an AI on this forum.

[ElishaGOtis]

Whether AI or not, my AI antennae are going off.  Something tells me I'm as lousy an AI detector as whatever professors are doing nowadays to prevent "cheating."

I've also noticed that said user has a tendency to delete posts after we call out things that are wrong.  Almost as if someone is trying to train an AI on this forum.

Unlikely... GPTzero suggests only a 1% chance of AI on the responses in question.

[MikieTimT]

I think it's politically impossible to convert US-412 to Interstate standards across Northern Arkansas. There are some locations along the way where such an upgrade would be extremely disruptive to existing properties. The highway snakes its way thru towns with tourism/resort businesses.

Some portions of US-412 in Northern Arkansas can be converted to freeway segments that meet Interstate quality. But many other segments could be no better than undivided 4-lane highway due to ROW constraints.

An Interstate spur related to I-49 or I-42 could run East from Springdale as far as Huntsville and the existing AR-23 freeway exit. East of their the highway can only be a mix of different highway types.

I'd like to see I-555 extended from Jonesboro up to Walnut Ridge (and US-412). But upgrading US-412/US-63 to Interstate standards from that point going Northwest would be very difficult. The US-63 corridor from Willow Springs, MO to Walnut Ridge, AR could potentially be an important highway for long distance commerce. A bunch of it is 4-lane divided in Southern Missouri. It's of lesser standards in Arkansas.

US-412 east of Springdale/Lowell has almost no chance of being Interstate mileage.  It is part of ARDOT's 4 lane upgrades of the major arterials around the state, of which I-49 along the western edge is the only one projected to be an Interstate.  US-412 and US-82 will only be 4 lane divided with at-grade intersections with bypasses of larger communities at certain points of development with grade separated major crossings, like the US-412 bypass around Mountain Home.  Other sections will likely be 5 laned where it doesn't make sense to bypass a community.  US-82 will upgrade along the western and eastern legs with 4-5 lane as well.  None of us will live long enough to see either completed, but will progress piecemeal near the larger communities along the routes and work from both sides outward.

[Molandfreak]

I-42 is NOT continuing into Arkansas beyond I-49, as ArDOT and MDOT are only planning to four-lane U.S. 412.  At best, maybe a few miles of highway that already meets interstate-standard may get interstate signs like I-14 in Kileen and I-27 south of Lubbock.

So, do you care to explain this statement and why you implied that an extension/connection was being studied in your earlier posts?

[Scott5114]

Thread redundant to https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29375