Print

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

[US71]

You have questions?
 
Please feel free to ask anything, we are here to provide the answers.
 
 

I've noticed new exit signs going up on I-540 in Ft Smith. but no exit numbers yet. Is the rumor true that the exit numbers are being shifted to match the Alma-Bentonville segment (ie Exit 1 will now be Hwy 271 instead of I-40 West? I am guessing that won't officially happen until the 540 rebuild is finished this Spring?

[AHTD]

You have questions?
 
Please feel free to ask anything, we are here to provide the answers.
 
 

I've noticed new exit signs going up on I-540 in Ft Smith. but no exit numbers yet. Is the rumor true that the exit numbers are being shifted to match the Alma-Bentonville segment (ie Exit 1 will now be Hwy 271 instead of I-40 West? I am guessing that won't officially happen until the 540 rebuild is finished this Spring?

The project in question involves reconstruction of I-540 in Crawford and Sebastian Counties from State Highway 22 to I-40 (AHTD Job No. BB0407) and is part of our Interstate Rehabilitation Program. Replacement of signage is part of the contract. Our intent is to wait until the work is completed and then post exit numbers all at once. The current estimated completion for this project is mid-2014.
 
At one time there was discussion of renumbering these exits to complement the northern section of I-540 (I-40 to Bentonville), however that will not happen now that we are actively seeking re-designation of the northern section as I-49.
 
Both I-540 to the north and to the south are Interstate spurs (so too is I-530 in Southeast Arkansas). Numbering of exits for Interstate spurs begin at the parent Interstate – in this case I-40 – and proceed the distance. In the case of I-540 in Crawford and Sebastian Counties, the current exit numbers (the way they were prior to construction) are correct and will likely stay the way they have been. It is too early to say what will happen to exit numbers on the northern section once it is re-designated I-49.
 
Now for some interesting trivia! When I-540 in Crawford and Sebastian Counties was constructed, it was originally done so and signed as U.S. Highway 271. This is a west to east route and as such, the log miles begin at the state line and proceed the distance to I-40. Eventually this section of U.S. Highway 271 was re-designated as Interstate spur 540. What resulted is exit numbers that went one direction and log miles that go another.
 
Currently we have a request before FHWA to re-log this southern section of I-540 to match the progression of exit numbers – which is the standard practice.
 

[US71]

Now for some interesting trivia! When I-540 in Crawford and Sebastian Counties was constructed, it was originally done so and signed as U.S. Highway 271. This is a west to east route and as such, the log miles begin at the state line and proceed the distance to I-40. Eventually this section of U.S. Highway 271 was re-designated as Interstate spur 540. What resulted is exit numbers that went one direction and log miles that go another.
 

Very interesting!  I've seen some old maps that designated it AR 540 in the 1960's but was unaware of US 271, though I've been able to trace 271's other alignments in & around Ft Smith.

[rickmastfan67]

AHTD, when the 'Northern' segment of I-540 is re-designated as I-49, will it get new exit numbers at the same time?  If it does, it is possible to post the list here?

Also, will you be submitting an application to the AASHTO for removal of I-540 north of I-40 (and also along I-40) in the Spring '14 meeting since you now have I-49 approval from the AASHTO, and hopefully soon the FHWA?

[AHTD]

OK, *if* the $$ was there right now for AR to finish I-49, how soon could what's left to do (Fort Smith-Texarkana, Ark. River bridge, Red River bridge, full 4-laning of the Bella Vista bypass) be built and opened?

 
Among other things, this map illustrates the remaining sections of I-49 that are not under construction (red lines). The current gross estimate for completing everything is $2.8 Billion. This includes the river crossings (Arkansas River estimated around $500 million) and the remaining two lanes of the Bella Vista Bypass (estimated at $50 million). It does not include the first two lanes of the Bella Vista Bypass that are under construction; nor does it include those sections of the first two lanes that will be under construction as a result of the half-cent sales tax program.
 
It is important to note here the Bella Vista Bypass will not be completed as a two lane or a four lane facility until Missouri DOT is able to meet us at the state line. Through the years and during the course of this project’s development, there have been times when Arkansas was not ready to meet Missouri at the state line. Currently the bypass will be completed up to Benton County Road 34.
 
If the money were all of a sudden magically available as described in the original question quoted above, the planning estimates for the remaining sections would have to be updated. While the route (new alignment) is approved and environmental impact statements have been completed, design work has not been started.
 
Among the items to consider here include whether or not to divide the design into several projects that multiple consultants could tackle at the same time. Public meetings would be required. Purchase of right-of-way would be required. Not until all utilities are relocated would these projects be let to construction.
 
The amount of time it will take for a contractor to complete any of these projects will vary as it does on any other construction project. Depending upon how the job is set-up, a contractor’s bid may include the number of working days in which to complete the project. And then there are the river crossings…
 
Currently we are estimating 24 months for the U.S. Highway 70 (Broadway) bridge over the Arkansas River at Little Rock to be out of service while the old structure is demolished and the new one constructed. That is an estimate based on a fast-track schedule. A bridge over the Arkansas and Red Rivers on new location is not likely to be fast-tracked.
 
So how would this all play out if the money were available? While nothing is written in stone, it’s reasonable to assume that as money does come available, we would start by constructing bypasses around several of the communities along the route – Mena, DeQueen, Waldron, etc. Then as more money becomes available, we would begin to link those bypasses. Eventually we would have a highway.
 
As a comparison, consider the construction of I-540 between I-40 and the State Highway 265 interchange (Exit 60):
 
      · 42 miles in length
      · $459 million to construct (including $37.1 million for the twin tunnels)
      · Let as 24 separate contracts
      · Construction began in January 1987
      · Construction completed in January 1999
 
 
 
All of the above was after design was finalized, after public meetings were held, after right of way was purchased, and after utilities were relocated.
 
 
 

[AHTD]

AHTD, when the 'Northern' segment of I-540 is re-designated as I-49, will it get new exit numbers at the same time?  If it does, it is possible to post the list here?

Also, will you be submitting an application to the AASHTO for removal of I-540 north of I-40 (and also along I-40) in the Spring '14 meeting since you now have I-49 approval from the AASHTO, and hopefully soon the FHWA?

Too early to tell if re-designation of I-49 will yield new exit numbers, and yes we can post those here when they are available. There will be a public information campaign necessary to ensure everyone knows about the change. Businesses will need to change letterhead, etc.
 
See our earlier post regarding application for re-designation: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg270962#msg270962
 
Does this answer your question? Please advise otherwise.

[bjrush]

This is awesome, thanks AHTD

I think posting on a road-lover's message board is going above and beyond the call of duty

 

[Grzrd]

Currently we are working with the FHWA local division office to formally submit the application to that agency. We submitted an initial application to the local division office late last year and continue to work with this office to finalize the document. Essentially, the local division office is helping to guide AHTD through the application process.

AHTD, welcome to the Forum!

Does the application include a request for FHWA to make a determination as to whether I-540 north of I-40 and AR 549 meet current interstate standards?  Or, is it simply a numbering redesignation request?

[rickmastfan67]

Also, will you be submitting an application to the AASHTO for removal of I-540 north of I-40 (and also along I-40) in the Spring '14 meeting since you now have I-49 approval from the AASHTO, and hopefully soon the FHWA?

See our earlier post regarding application for re-designation: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg270962#msg270962
 
Does this answer your question? Please advise otherwise.

For the 1st question, yes, it does.  However, for the second question it doesn't.

The PDF link you provided in the post you linked to is just the same map that you submitted to the AASHTO for the Fall '13 meeting for the creation of I-49 in the state.  What I was trying to get at, is that I think you still need to submit another application to the AASHTO to eliminate I-540 along and above I-40.  The reason I'm saying this is because of what Indiana did in the Fall '13 meeting to redesignate I-164 as I-69.  They submitted two separate applications to do that, one to eliminate I-164, and then another to establish I-69 along the same route.

All you've done right now is just ask to add I-49 along I-540, but not eliminate I-540 along that section of highway (including the I-40 co-sign) since no application was submitted for that segment of I-540 to be removed.  So, in the eyes of the AASHTO at least, they might think you're going to keep I-540 signed with I-49.  Thus, I think you need to get an application ready for the Spring '14 meeting asking for the elimination of I-540 along and above I-40.  I know that the FHWA has control of the Interstate #'s, but it's still good to have all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed when it comes to the logs and everything else.

I hope you understand what I was trying to get at in my previous post now.

[AHTD]

Also, will you be submitting an application to the AASHTO for removal of I-540 north of I-40 (and also along I-40) in the Spring '14 meeting since you now have I-49 approval from the AASHTO, and hopefully soon the FHWA?

See our earlier post regarding application for re-designation: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg270962#msg270962
 
Does this answer your question? Please advise otherwise.

For the 1st question, yes, it does.  However, for the second question it doesn't.

The PDF link you provided in the post you linked to is just the same map that you submitted to the AASHTO for the Fall '13 meeting for the creation of I-49 in the state.  What I was trying to get at, is that I think you still need to submit another application to the AASHTO to eliminate I-540 along and above I-40.  The reason I'm saying this is because of what Indiana did in the Fall '13 meeting to redesignate I-164 as I-69.  They submitted two separate applications to do that, one to eliminate I-164, and then another to establish I-69 along the same route.

All you've done right now is just ask to add I-49 along I-540, but not eliminate I-540 along that section of highway (including the I-40 co-sign) since no application was submitted for that segment of I-540 to be removed.  So, in the eyes of the AASHTO at least, they might think you're going to keep I-540 signed with I-49.  Thus, I think you need to get an application ready for the Spring '14 meeting asking for the elimination of I-540 along and above I-40.  I know that the FHWA has control of the Interstate #'s, but it's still good to have all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed when it comes to the logs and everything else.

I hope you understand what I was trying to get at in my previous post now.

Thank you for the clarification!
 
Like the application reviewed by the AASHTO U.S. Route Numbering Committee, the application we are currently assembling for submission to FHWA is a re-designation request. It is our understanding the entire action of removing 540 and replacing with 49 is a single action handled with a single application. As we continue to work with the local FHWA division office to assemble the application, if we are told otherwise, the appropriate action will be taken and we'll let you know. Understand we are taking very deliberate steps to ensure there aren't any snags along the way. Perhaps there was some other determining factor that required Indiana to submit two applications? Perhaps because I-540 is a spur makes a difference?
 
Speaking of spurs.... I-540 does not share alignment with I-40 and thus is not co-signed as such. Both stretches of I-540 are spurs that originate from I-40 separately. There is no continuity. Google Maps show this stretch of I-40 to be co-signed - implying there is a shared alignment. As we have stated previously in this forum, Google Maps contains several errors concerning the highway system in Arkansas. We are working with them to become a preferred ground truth provider to help make their product more accurate.
 
 

[NE2]

Speaking of spurs.... I-540 does not share alignment with I-40 and thus is not co-signed as such. Both stretches of I-540 are spurs that originate from I-40 separately. There is no continuity. Google Maps show this stretch of I-40 to be co-signed - implying there is a shared alignment.

Sigh. There is a shared alignment, since Interstate numbers cannot be repeated within a state. And it is signed as such:


AASHTO even approved the overlap. Peep and weep:


But go ahead, make the Goog suck more than it already does.

[AHTD]

Currently we are working with the FHWA local division office to formally submit the application to that agency. We submitted an initial application to the local division office late last year and continue to work with this office to finalize the document. Essentially, the local division office is helping to guide AHTD through the application process.

AHTD, welcome to the Forum!

Does the application include a request for FHWA to make a determination as to whether I-540 north of I-40 and AR 549 meet current interstate standards?  Or, is it simply a numbering redesignation request?

 
This is an excellent question!
 
When I-540 was constructed from I-40 to the State Highway 265 interchange and tied-in with the existing bypass of Fayetteville, Springdale and points north, this question was raised during the application process for signing the new route as 540. Apparently a few areas in the older section of the route request were not in compliance with current standards at the time of application.
 
These areas were reviewed by FHWA and certain design exceptions were made as part of the application approval process. Now as we are moving forward with our application to re-designate the route as I-49, part of our due diligence includes making sure documentation of these exceptions are included in the application so we don’t have to go through another round of design exception requests – which would delay the route re-designation process.
 
The oldest parts of State Highway 549 were constructed recently enough to be in compliance with current standards, so it’s good to go. We are in the process of paving the remaining 4.5 miles of this route from Doddridge to the Louisiana State Line and current estimates are that it will be completed in mid-2014.
 
 
 
 
 

[US71]

Speaking of spurs.... I-540 does not share alignment with I-40 and thus is not co-signed as such. Both stretches of I-540 are spurs that originate from I-40 separately. There is no continuity. Google Maps show this stretch of I-40 to be co-signed - implying there is a shared alignment.

Sigh. There is a shared alignment, since Interstate numbers cannot be repeated within a state. And it is signed as such:

South I-540 is co-signed with West I-40 just past Exit 12. Is that a contractor error?

NB I-540 is also co-signed on overheads along EB  I-40



If it's not duplexed, shouldn't the signs say TO I-540

[bugo]

Now for some interesting trivia! When I-540 in Crawford and Sebastian Counties was constructed, it was originally done so and signed as U.S. Highway 271. This is a west to east route and as such, the log miles begin at the state line and proceed the distance to I-40. Eventually this section of U.S. Highway 271 was re-designated as Interstate spur 540. What resulted is exit numbers that went one direction and log miles that go another.

Whaaaaa?  What years were I-540 signed as US 71.  I'm having a hard time buying this because I have maps that show I-540 ending at AR 22 and continuing to US 71 as AR 540.  The connection between US 71 and US 271 was the last portion completed, and at that time the entire road was signed as I-540 (I assume). 

What was the number of 271 north of 540?

[bugo]

Too early to tell if re-designation of I-49 will yield new exit numbers, and yes we can post those here when they are available. There will be a public information campaign necessary to ensure everyone knows about the change. Businesses will need to change letterhead, etc.

Well, of course they will have to be renumbered.  There is no question of this.  Milepost 0 will be at the Arkansas/Louisiana line.    It would be confusing to have two Exit 62s off of I-49.

What initial number will the Bella Vista Bypass have?  It obviously won't be I-49 if it is 2 lanes.

[AHTD]

Now for some interesting trivia! When I-540 in Crawford and Sebastian Counties was constructed, it was originally done so and signed as U.S. Highway 271. This is a west to east route and as such, the log miles begin at the state line and proceed the distance to I-40. Eventually this section of U.S. Highway 271 was re-designated as Interstate spur 540. What resulted is exit numbers that went one direction and log miles that go another.

Whaaaaa?  What years were I-540 signed as US 71.  I'm having a hard time buying this because I have maps that show I-540 ending at AR 22 and continuing to US 71 as AR 540.  The connection between US 71 and US 271 was the last portion completed, and at that time the entire road was signed as I-540 (I assume). 

What was the number of 271 north of 540?

Yeah we had to go back and look at that one too.
 
The route wasn't signed U.S. Highway 271, it originated FROM U.S. Highway 271. First section was constructed from U.S. 271 to State Highway 22. Minute order 4469 on January 31, 1962 approves the naming of this first section as State Highway 540. Since it progresses west to east (or actually south to north?), the log mile numbering began where it does.
 
Sorry for the confusion. We can upload a copy of the minute order with a graphic illustrating the above if someone can tell us how to paste photos in the thread. Have tried it but cannot seem to make it work.
 
Thanks!

[US71]

Sorry for the confusion. We can upload a copy of the minute order with a graphic illustrating the above if someone can tell us how to paste photos in the thread. Have tried it but cannot seem to make it work.
 
Thanks!

You can't post it directly, but use

[AHTD]

Too early to tell if re-designation of I-49 will yield new exit numbers, and yes we can post those here when they are available. There will be a public information campaign necessary to ensure everyone knows about the change. Businesses will need to change letterhead, etc.

Well, of course they will have to be renumbered.  There is no question of this.  Milepost 0 will be at the Arkansas/Louisiana line.    It would be confusing to have two Exit 62s off of I-49.

What initial number will the Bella Vista Bypass have?  It obviously won't be I-49 if it is 2 lanes.

Not sure at this time because of the way the modified connector will be constructed. Since the bypass cannot be fully completed until Missouri meets us at the state line, we cannot directly connect the bypass to I-540 and feed it through traffic. Until the bypass is completed to the state line, U.S. 71 will continue to be the main through traffic feed to I-540. The modified connector will function like a roundabout, so depending upon how they number exits in the modified connector, it could be any of a number of options.
 
We'll definitely keep everyone posted!
 
 

[rickmastfan67]

Speaking of spurs.... I-540 does not share alignment with I-40 and thus is not co-signed as such. Both stretches of I-540 are spurs that originate from I-40 separately. There is no continuity. Google Maps show this stretch of I-40 to be co-signed - implying there is a shared alignment. As we have stated previously in this forum, Google Maps contains several errors concerning the highway system in Arkansas. We are working with them to become a preferred ground truth provider to help make their product more accurate.

Might want to tell your signage department then.  As the posts above mine clearly show I-540 shields on the overhead signs.  And I found a pair of ground mounted signage showing both I-40 & I-540 being signed together. http://goo.gl/maps/KZpVu

So, Google Maps is correct in showing it as co-signed as of right now.

Speaking of spurs.... I-540 does not share alignment with I-40 and thus is not co-signed as such. Both stretches of I-540 are spurs that originate from I-40 separately. There is no continuity. Google Maps show this stretch of I-40 to be co-signed - implying there is a shared alignment.

Sigh. There is a shared alignment, since Interstate numbers cannot be repeated within a state. And it is signed as such:


AASHTO even approved the overlap. Peep and weep:

This also proves my point that there needs to be another application submitted for the I-540 removal.

[bugo]

Speaking of spurs.... I-540 does not share alignment with I-40 and thus is not co-signed as such. Both stretches of I-540 are spurs that originate from I-40 separately. There is no continuity. Google Maps show this stretch of I-40 to be co-signed - implying there is a shared alignment. As we have stated previously in this forum, Google Maps contains several errors concerning the highway system in Arkansas. We are working with them to become a preferred ground truth provider to help make their product more accurate.

This is incorrect.  According to both AASHTO and the FHWA, I-540 shares pavement with I-40.  Also, the last time I was through there there was an I-540 sign westbound just west of the 40/Future 49 interchange.

[NE2]

Sorry for the confusion. We can upload a copy of the minute order with a graphic illustrating the above if someone can tell us how to paste photos in the thread. Have tried it but cannot seem to make it work.
 
Thanks!

You can't post it directly, but use

No need to use


because it's already OCRed at http://www.arkansashighways.com/minute_orders/minute_orders.aspx. (Any plans to put up actual images? There is the occasional OCR error.)

[bugo]

Now for some interesting trivia! When I-540 in Crawford and Sebastian Counties was constructed, it was originally done so and signed as U.S. Highway 271. This is a west to east route and as such, the log miles begin at the state line and proceed the distance to I-40. Eventually this section of U.S. Highway 271 was re-designated as Interstate spur 540. What resulted is exit numbers that went one direction and log miles that go another.

Whaaaaa?  What years were I-540 signed as US 71.  I'm having a hard time buying this because I have maps that show I-540 ending at AR 22 and continuing to US 71 as AR 540.  The connection between US 71 and US 271 was the last portion completed, and at that time the entire road was signed as I-540 (I assume). 

What was the number of 271 north of 540?

Yeah we had to go back and look at that one too.
 
The route wasn't signed U.S. Highway 271, it originated FROM U.S. Highway 271. First section was constructed from U.S. 271 to State Highway 22. Minute order 4469 on January 31, 1962 approves the naming of this first section as State Highway 540. Since it progresses west to east (or actually south to north?), the log mile numbering began where it does.
 
Sorry for the confusion. We can upload a copy of the minute order with a graphic illustrating the above if someone can tell us how to paste photos in the thread. Have tried it but cannot seem to make it work.
 
Thanks!

Here is the minute order in question:

4469 In SEBASTIAN COUNTY, a proposed highway route is hereby established between State Highway No. US 271 south of Fort Smith and the proposed State Highway No. 22 Interchange of Interstate Route No. 540 in Fort Smith, a distance of approximately 6.0 miles, generally along the location shown on the attached sketch, and said route is hereby made a part of the State Highway System, subject to approval by the Bureau of Public Roads as part of the Federal-Aid Primary System.

This says nothing about US 271 following I-540.  It just gave a number for the proposed highway. 

There was, however, a plan to extend US 271 north along AR 59 into Missouri but it was denied by AASHTO (or AASHO).

[AHTD]

Sorry for the confusion. We can upload a copy of the minute order with a graphic illustrating the above if someone can tell us how to paste photos in the thread. Have tried it but cannot seem to make it work.
 
Thanks!

You can't post it directly, but use

No need to use


because it's already OCRed at http://www.arkansashighways.com/minute_orders/minute_orders.aspx. (Any plans to put up actual images? There is the occasional OCR error.)

Not at this time but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

[AHTD]

Now for some interesting trivia! When I-540 in Crawford and Sebastian Counties was constructed, it was originally done so and signed as U.S. Highway 271. This is a west to east route and as such, the log miles begin at the state line and proceed the distance to I-40. Eventually this section of U.S. Highway 271 was re-designated as Interstate spur 540. What resulted is exit numbers that went one direction and log miles that go another.

Whaaaaa?  What years were I-540 signed as US 71.  I'm having a hard time buying this because I have maps that show I-540 ending at AR 22 and continuing to US 71 as AR 540.  The connection between US 71 and US 271 was the last portion completed, and at that time the entire road was signed as I-540 (I assume). 

What was the number of 271 north of 540?

Yeah we had to go back and look at that one too.
 
The route wasn't signed U.S. Highway 271, it originated FROM U.S. Highway 271. First section was constructed from U.S. 271 to State Highway 22. Minute order 4469 on January 31, 1962 approves the naming of this first section as State Highway 540. Since it progresses west to east (or actually south to north?), the log mile numbering began where it does.
 
Sorry for the confusion. We can upload a copy of the minute order with a graphic illustrating the above if someone can tell us how to paste photos in the thread. Have tried it but cannot seem to make it work.
 
Thanks!

Here is the minute order in question:

4469 In SEBASTIAN COUNTY, a proposed highway route is hereby established between State Highway No. US 271 south of Fort Smith and the proposed State Highway No. 22 Interchange of Interstate Route No. 540 in Fort Smith, a distance of approximately 6.0 miles, generally along the location shown on the attached sketch, and said route is hereby made a part of the State Highway System, subject to approval by the Bureau of Public Roads as part of the Federal-Aid Primary System.

This says nothing about US 271 following I-540.  It just gave a number for the proposed highway. 

There was, however, a plan to extend US 271 north along AR 59 into Missouri but it was denied by AASHTO (or AASHO).

The link below will display a PDF copy of the graphic associated with MO4469. It illustrates how I-540 progressed from U.S. 271.
 
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/minute_order_4469.pdf
 

[US71]

The link below will display a PDF copy of the graphic associated with MO4469. It illustrates how I-540 progressed from U.S. 271.
 
http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/minute_order_4469.pdf
 

AH! This makes more sense .