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
I recently indirectly asked FHWA about the I-49/US 49 situation, and (I have asked for clarification about where "I-49" was written into law) I was surprised to find out that FHWA's position appears to be that Congressional action mandates the use of "I-49" in the I-49 corridor.
First, my question:
I was just looking at the Interstates FAQ page and read the answer to the question of why there is no Interstate 50. I can think of several exceptions to this rule, including an I-74/US 74 overlap in North Carolina and a future interchange between I-69 and US 69 in Texas. What factors does FHWA consider in granting an exception to the rule? In particular, I am thinking about the possibility of I-49 and US 49 in Arkansas. It seems like an exception to the rule would make a lot of sense in the Arkansas scenario.
The FHWA answer (with my emphasis):
Thank you for your inquiry on FHWA’s Interstate numbering policies. FHWA generally bases our review of proposed Interstate numbering requests on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) numbering policies in their Transportation Policy Book. Most Interstate numbering requests are consistent with these policies, but these policies are neither law nor regulation. We are not required to adhere to them in exercising our authority over Interstate numbering.
You mentioned several exceptions to the policy, “that a State should not have an Interstate route and US route with the same number”. In each case, Congress chose the number ( I-74, I-69 and I-49 ) and wrote it into law. These statutory numbering designations supersede the authority of FHWA, which is required to implement Federal law, and also AASHTO, a voluntary association with no enforcement authority. If a State requests a designation using the congressionally set number, FHWA is required by law to approve that request even if it is inconsistent with AASHTO’s numbering policies used for the remainder of the System. In fact, if a State requested a number that differs from the number in the statute, FHWA would turn it down.
Because the Interstate and U.S. numbering plans are mirror images of each other, the central States could be faced with requesting an Interstate number that coincides with a US route designation. In those rare cases, FHWA and AASHTO have been committed to working with the requesting States to ensure the numbering adequately meets their needs and the integrity of the Interstate System. Through this process, both organizations are able to work with States on developing an Interstate System that is representative of the States’ and country’s needs.
One additional point is that few motorists are aware of AASHTO’s Interstate numbering plan or that the numbers follow a pattern. In general, motorists are not confused when numbering inconsistencies occur as they navigate around the country not by the numbering plan but by maps, directions, GPS, the guide signs on the highways, or other means. Thank you for your inquiry and continued interest in the Interstate System.
The first question in my mind (assuming no error in FHWA's answer) is where is the "I-49" designation written into law? At first glance, in looking at the
FHWA Statutory Listing of Corridor Descriptions page, High Priority Corridor 72 is described as follows:
72.The North-South corridor, along Interstate Route 49 North, from Kansas City, Missouri, to Shreveport, Louisiana.
If this is indeed a Congressional mandate, then FHWA (and AASHTO) would be powerless to deny an AHTD I-49 numbering request (FHWA approval would still be needed as to whether a certain section meets current interstate-grade standards).
I just thought of a reason why this has come up, and it isn't an AASHTO problem, but an Arkansas problem. I think internally Arkansas only refers to the route number and makes no distinction between whether it is a Interstate, US, or State Route. With that said, I don't see why they can't just put up I-49 signs but still refer to it internally as 549 until they can come up with a different system internally for referring to state routes.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think there are any state and US routes in Arkansas that have the same number.
I suspect Cody may be right and that this is purely an internal AHTD thing.
Author
Topic: I-49 in Arkansas (Read 1187030 times)