A different discussion on this board got me thinking about the many relatively-recent US highway extensions in Arkansas. Now that I've taken the time to look a little more closely, I have to ask: what the heck is with these guys?
It seems AHDT has been quite intent on getting as many US routes as possible signed through their state, but I would consider just about every major change they've made since the 1960s to be egregious. I'm not concerned here with minor changes (such as rerouting a US highway along a new bypass)... I'm referring to US route extensions or creations. Following is the list I've come up with (am I forgetting anything?) Notice how many of these changes involve a.) creation of a new US route; b.) extension of an existing US route across the entire state; c.) a routing that is not the shortest distance between endpoints; and/or d.) long overlap with an existing US route:
1961: US 167 extended north from Little Rock to Hardy AR (which is essentially on the Missouri border). The Hardy-to-Bald Knob segment (formerly SH-11) seems like a fairly-well-traveled corridor, but did it really have to be changed to a US route? Especially when you consider that extending US 167 from Little Rock to Bald Knob involved a 60-mile overlap with US 67?
1963: US 49 extended from Clarksdale MS to Brinkley AR. The AR segment was along the former SH-20 and SH-39. The MS segment of this extension was 30 miles long, and 20 miles of that was an overlap along existing US 61. Still, I can concede this seems like a reasonable extension, especially considering that it involved what I believe was a new bridge over the Mississippi... but then look at what they did 17 years later (next entry):
1980: US 49 extended (along former SH-39 and SH-1) to its current terminus in Piggott (which is essentially on the Missouri border). The Arkansas segment of US 49 now runs from Piggott to Helena, but US 49 is not the most direct route between these two towns.
1982: US 165 extended from Dermott AR to Little Rock (via a 24-mile overlap with US 65, and then segments of five former state routes). This is not the shortest route between these two towns, which are both served by US 65.
1982: US 412 created to run from Walnut Ridge AR to Dyersburg TN. I concede this was a reasonable candidate for a US route through three states (stupid number notwithstanding)... but then look at what they did 7 years later (next entry):
1989: US 412 extended west from Walnut Ridge, through the remainder of AR and into Oklahoma. This extension involved a 166-mile overlap with US 62, which makes no sense to me. Why couldn't they have simply rerouted US 62 along the current US 412 corridor (Alpena-Huntsville-Springdale), and change current US 62 (Alpena-Rogers-Springdale) to Alt. US 62, or else a state route? You could argue that the corridor from Springdale west into Oklahoma would've needed a new number, but it sure wasn't necessary to drag the US 412 designation all the way across the state.
1989: US 425 created to run from Pine Bluff AR to Bastrop LA (the entire AR segment was formerly SH-81). Not only was this a ridiculous number, but also I'm not sure why this needed to become a US route anyway. I suppose one could argue that the ultimate intention was to reduce the amount of different highway numbers for travelers between Little Rock and Baton Rouge -- this was Louisiana's argument when they extended US 425 southward from Bastrop -- but since that didn't happen until 2005, it doesn't seem like that could've been the rationale back in 1989.
1994: US 371 created to run from DeQueen AR to Coushatta LA, along a number of former state routes. This is not the most direct routing between these two towns, which are both served by US 71. (Note: AR and/or LA originally requested the designation "US 427" for this route. AASHTO nixed that and gave them 371 instead.)
1997: US 278 extended all the way across Mississippi (via former SH-6) in order to get into Arkansas, and then all the way across that state (via former SH-4) to a new terminus in Wickes (which is essentially on the Oklahoma border). Between these two former state routes, this extension was accomplished via a convoluted 116-mile overlap along existing US routes from Clarksdale MS to McGehee AR. US 278 is not the shortest routing between Amory MS and Wickes, not by a long shot: US 278 is 474 miles, and about a 12 hour journey... but if you went up to Memphis and then used I-40, the trip would be only 416 miles, and you could save yourself about 4 hours of drive time (disclaimer: those figures courtesy of Google Maps). Adam Froehlig points out that it was about 10 years before Mississippi ever got around to signing US 278 in their state, which to me suggests that this was not an extension that MDOT particularly wanted. They may have agreed to it only for the sake of being a good neighbor to Arkansas.
1999: US 63 extended from Turrell through southeast Arkansas and into Louisiana. This extension involved a 90-degree change in direction for US 63, and a 100-mile overlap with interstates 55 and 40, along which Arkansas has never posted US 63 signage. (The remaining AR segment was along SH-11, US 79, and SH-15). Louisiana had their short segment signed by 2007, but my recollection is prior to that they didn't give much love to US 63... suggesting another example of a neighboring state that was less-than-enthusiastic about an Arkansas highway extension.
Sounds like your right.
I do have one point. Isn't it better to have a highway department that's interested in creating new US routes, even if they are frivolous, than ones like California and Pennsylvania that have decommissioned US highways en-masse during the Interstate era?
Quote from: usends on February 19, 2010, 12:55:39 PM
1961: US 167 extended north from Little Rock to Hardy AR (which is essentially on the Missouri border). The Hardy-to-Bald Knob segment (formerly SH-11) seems like a fairly-well-traveled corridor, but did it really have to be changed to a US route? Especially when you consider that extending US 167 from Little Rock to Bald Knob involved a 60-mile multiplex along US 67?
There wasn't some secret hope that Missouri would further extend US 167 up the MO 19 corridor back then was there?
Quote from: usends on February 19, 2010, 12:55:39 PM
1980: US 49 extended (along former SH-39 and SH-1) to its current terminus in Piggott (which is essentially on the Missouri border). The Arkansas segment of US 49 now runs from Piggott to Helena, but US 49 is not the most direct route between these two towns.
Another one where Arkansas hoped Missouri would further extended US 49 north to somewhere? If Missouri was Kansas, there probably would be another US route between the US 61 and US 67 corridors.
Just thinking out loud...with the lack of signage of US 63 between Terrell and the southern segment, wouldn't the southern segment have made more sense as a 3-digit branch of US 49?
Quote from: usends on February 19, 2010, 12:55:39 PM
1989: US 412 extended west from Walnut Ridge, through the remainder of AR and into Oklahoma. This extension involved a 166-mile multiplex with US 62, which makes no sense to me. Why couldn't they have simply rerouted US 62 along the current US 412 corridor (Alpena-Huntsville-Springdale), and change current US 62 (Alpena-Rogers-Springdale) to Alt. US 62, or else a state route? You could argue that the corridor from Springdale west into Oklahoma would've needed a new number, but it sure wasn't necessary to drag the US 412 designation all the way across the state.
While I do agree that the multiplex with US-62 is strange, US-412 is a very important route from Alpena-Springdale-Siloam Springs-Tulsa-Glencoe-US-35, where there was no previous US highway designation. However, I am actually confused as to why the designation continues past Guymon, OK. US-412 is multiplexed with existing US highways the entire way from this point until reaching I-25 in New Mexico. This seems more frivolous to me than providing the same US highway designation from TN to OK.
US 59 is rather frivolous, as well. It's duplexed with other routes the way (US 270 from the OK Line to Acorn and US 71 from Acorn to Texarkana).
As far as US 412, IIRC there was some grand scheme for a multi-state E-W economic corridor, but I don't remember all the details now.
But yes, Arkansas seems hell-bent on having lots of US Routes (were they hoping for more $$ to maintain the roads?).
Quote from: US71 on February 19, 2010, 10:02:19 PM
US 59 is rather frivolous, as well. It's duplexed with other routes the way (US 270 from the OK Line to Acorn and US 71 from Acorn to Texarkana).
Did 59 come to Arkansas before 270? In any case, I wonder how much of this was the result of the old US 96 in Texas becoming part of the current 59 (and 96 becoming part of a north-south intrastate road).
Quote from: TheStranger on February 19, 2010, 10:47:25 PM
Did 59 come to Arkansas before 270? In any case, I wonder how much of this was the result of the old US 96 in Texas becoming part of the current 59 (and 96 becoming part of a north-south intrastate road).
I believe it did... I have to check my maps. I thought Jeremy had some info saying it was supposed to follow what's now US 259.
US 270 came before US 59.
Quote from: usends on February 19, 2010, 12:55:39 PM
A different discussion on this board got me thinking about the many relatively-recent US highway extensions in Arkansas. Now that I've taken the time to look a little more closely, I have to ask:
what the heck is with these guys?
It seems AHDT has been quite intent on getting as many US routes as possible signed through their state, but I would consider just about every major change they've made since the 1960s to be egregious. I'm not concerned here with minor changes (such as rerouting a US highway along a new bypass)... I'm referring to US route extensions or creations. Following is the list I've come up with (am I forgetting anything?) Notice how many of these changes involve a.) creation of a new US route; b.) extension of an existing US route across the entire state; c.) a routing that is not the shortest distance between endpoints; and/or d.) long duplex with an existing US route:
I don't disagree with your points, but I also agree with mightyace that I'd rather see a state commissioning too many US routes than a state decommissioning and truncating US routes.
Quote
1961: US 167 extended north from Little Rock to Hardy AR (which is essentially on the Missouri border). The Hardy-to-Bald Knob segment (formerly SH-11) seems like a fairly-well-traveled corridor, but did it really have to be changed to a US route? Especially when you consider that extending US 167 from Little Rock to Bald Knob involved a 60-mile multiplex along US 67?
I think this one makes sense. The 60 mile duplex isn't too long. Batesville definitely needs to be on a US route.
Quote
1963: US 49 extended from Clarksdale MS to Brinkley AR. The AR segment was along the former SH-20 and SH-39. The MS segment of this extension was 30 miles long, and 20 miles of that was along existing US 61. Still, I can concede this seems like a reasonable extension, especially considering that it involved what I believe was a new bridge over the Mississippi... but then look at what they did 17 years later (next entry):
1980: US 49 extended (along former SH-39 and SH-1) to its current terminus in Piggott (which is essentially on the Missouri border). The Arkansas segment of US 49 now runs from Piggott to Helena, but US 49 is not the most direct route between these two towns.
I think this one makes sense too. It's not the shortest route between those two cities, but overall it makes sense as a US route. I would extend it along MO 25, MO 91, MO 51, and one of several possible Illinois state routes.
Quote
1982: US 165 extended from Dermott AR to Little Rock (via segments of five former state routes). This is not the shortest route between these two towns, which are both served by US 65.
I do agree that this one doesn't make a lot of sense, but it unites this route under one number (although a state route could have done the same thing)
Quote
1982: US 412 created to run from Walnut Ridge AR to Dyersburg TN. I concede this was a reasonable candidate for a US route through three states (stupid number notwithstanding)... but then look at what they did 7 years later (next entry):
1989: US 412 extended west from Walnut Ridge, through the remainder of AR and into Oklahoma. This extension involved a 166-mile multiplex with US 62, which makes no sense to me. Why couldn't they have simply rerouted US 62 along the current US 412 corridor (Alpena-Huntsville-Springdale), and change current US 62 (Alpena-Rogers-Springdale) to Alt. US 62, or else a state route? You could argue that the corridor from Springdale west into Oklahoma would've needed a new number, but it sure wasn't necessary to drag the US 412 designation all the way across the state.
The duplex is a bit long I agree, but the US 412 corridor is being upgraded and it does make sense for this route to have a single number. But it doesn't need to extend into New Mexico, it should end at Guymon, OK. The segment from Woodward to Alpena makes particularly good sense, as it unites a corridor under a single number when it once had several (OK 15, US 60, OK 15, US 64, Cimmaron Turnpike, US 64, I-244, I-44, OK 33, AR 68.)
Quote
1989: US 425 created to run from Pine Bluff AR to Bastrop LA (the entire AR segment was formerly SH-81). Not only was this a ridiculous number, but also I'm not sure why this needed to become a US route anyway. I suppose one could argue that the ultimate intention was to reduce the amount of different highway numbers for travelers between Little Rock and Baton Rouge -- this was Louisiana's argument when they extended US 425 southward from Bastrop -- but since that didn't happen until 2005, it doesn't seem like that would've been on the radar back in 1989.
This one doesn't make a lot of sense. AR 81 was a perfectly good number for it, and the truncation of US 65 in favor of US 425 is an abomination. However, the 400 series routes don't bother me.
Quote
1994: US 371 created to run from DeQueen AR to Coushatta LA, along a number of former state routes. This is not the most direct routing between these two towns, which are both served by US 71.
This one doesn't make too much sense, but it does give Nashville (US 371 came before US 278) a US route.
Quote
1997: US 278 extended all the way across Mississippi (via former SH-6) in order to get into Arkansas, and then all the way across that state (via former SH-4) to a new terminus in Wickes (which is essentially on the Oklahoma border). Between these two former state routes, this extension was accomplished via a convoluted 116-mile multiplex along existing US routes from Clarksdale MS to McGehee AR. US 278 is not the shortest routing between Amory MS and Wickes, not by a long shot: US 278 is 474 miles, and about a 12 hour journey... but if you went up to Memphis and then used I-40, the trip would be only 416 miles, and you could save yourself about 4 hours of drive time (disclaimer: those figures courtesy of Google Maps). Adam Froehlig points out that it was about 10 years before Mississippi ever got around to signing US 278 in their state, which to me suggests that this was not an extension that MDOT particularly wanted. They may have agreed to it only for the sake of being a good neighbor to Arkansas.
Yes, likely Mississippi went along with it to help out Arkansas. This route, however makes perfect sense to me. For one thing, the US 61 duplex will be much shorter in the future as US 278 will cross the Mississippi River on the Great River Bridge (I-69) which will also eliminate the duplexes with US 65 and US 82. I'm not so sure the part west of Dierks makes too much sense, as it's substandard and not really deserving of a US route number. Either that or extend it to US 271 along AR/OK 4 and OK 144.
Quote
1999: US 63 extended from Turrell through southeast Arkansas and into Louisiana. This extension involved a 90-degree change in direction for US 63, and a 100-mile multiplex with interstates 55 and 40, along which Arkansas has never posted US 63 signage. (The remaining AR segment was along SH-11, US 79, and SH-15). Louisiana had their short segment signed by 2007, but my recollection is prior to that they didn't give much love to US 63... suggesting another example of a neighboring state that was less-than-enthusiastic about an Arkansas highway extension.
The US 63 extension is pointless. I agree that the road deserved a US route number, but it should have gotten a new number (extended to Homer, LA via LA 9 to make it enter two states.) As it stands, the US 167 duplex is stupid and pointless.
Quote from: US71 on February 19, 2010, 10:02:19 PM
US 59 is rather frivolous, as well. It's duplexed with other routes the way (US 270 from the OK Line to Acorn and US 71 from Acorn to Texarkana).
But it is important in Texas and Oklahoma, where it splits from the 71 and 270 duplexes.
Quote
As far as US 412, IIRC there was some grand scheme for a multi-state E-W economic corridor, but I don't remember all the details now.
That's basically the gist of it.
Quote from: US71 on February 19, 2010, 10:56:24 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 19, 2010, 10:47:25 PM
Did 59 come to Arkansas before 270? In any case, I wonder how much of this was the result of the old US 96 in Texas becoming part of the current 59 (and 96 becoming part of a north-south intrastate road).
I believe it did... I have to check my maps. I thought Jeremy had some info saying it was supposed to follow what's now US 259.
I don't remember that. It would make sense though. Another thing that would make sense is giving a US route number to the AR 41/TX 8 corridor. It could be a rerouted US 59, an ALT US 59, or a US x59.
Quote from: mightyace on February 19, 2010, 01:15:18 PM
Isn't it better to have a highway department that's interested in creating new US routes, even if they are frivolous, than ones like California and Pennsylvania that have decommissioned US highways en-masse during the Interstate era?
Obviously some truncations have dealt unfortunate blows to the integrity of the US route system. But personally I agree with a point Froggie has made before: that frivolous US route extensions can also have the effect of undermining the system's integrity. And when we dilute the integrity, then we call into question the very purpose of the system. That line of thinking might go something like this: "In Arkansas, the US route shield doesn't signify anything different than any other run-of-the-mill state route. So what's the point of having US routes? Why should we confuse drivers by using a shield to mark a few of our state highways, but a state route marker on all the rest? We might as well decommission US routes throughout our state - then we can number them to whatever works best for us, and make changes as we see fit, without having to worry about getting AASHTO to sign off."
Quote from: usends on February 22, 2010, 11:47:16 AM
Quote from: mightyace on February 19, 2010, 01:15:18 PM
Isn't it better to have a highway department that's interested in creating new US routes, even if they are frivolous, than ones like California and Pennsylvania that have decommissioned US highways en-masse during the Interstate era?
Obviously some truncations have dealt unfortunate blows to the integrity of the US route system. But personally I agree with a point Froggie has made before: that frivolous US route extensions can also have the effect of undermining the system's integrity. And when we dilute the integrity, then we call into question the very purpose of the system. That line of thinking might go something like this: "In Arkansas, the US route shield doesn't signify anything different than any other run-of-the-mill state route. So what's the point of having US routes? Why should we confuse drivers by using a shield to mark a few of our state highways, but a state route marker on all the rest? We might as well decommission US routes throughout our state - then we can number them to whatever works best for us, and make changes as we see fit, without having to worry about getting AASHTO to sign off."
Then again, it seems the standard to create a US route nowadays (state line MUST be crossed, etc.) is much higher than that of the Interstate system (i.e. I-97)!
I think California (the US routes that remain must be "important" and follows the AASHTO guidelines to an extreme, even forcing the major Route 99 off the system) and Arkansas (if it's a lengthy state route, it's worthy of becoming a US route) represent two different DOT philosophies on what a US route is, but in a strange way they represent the same thing - trying to mark a corridor that is more important than a state route would be (and may be of national importance), but at the same time is more flexible than the must-be-a-freeway (most of the time) Interstates.
Also, thinking about it further...some DOTs of course are very willing to act without prior AASHTO approval, as noted with the case of US 377 in Oklahoma...
US 377 wasn't merely ODOT acting without AASHTO approval... it was actually signing the highway against AASHTO's wishes.
ODOT had been submitting the SH-99 corridor as a US route as early as 1953. Various portions of the highway were submitted to AASHTO for consideration as a US route in 1953, 1964, twice in 1968, in 1970, twice in 1971, in 1972, 1976, 1978, and in 1980. Most of them had the proposed northern terminus near Cleveland. All of these proposals were rejected except the June 1968 one, which barely brought 377 into Oklahoma, ending in Madill. Finally, with ten rejected applications behind them, ODOT signed the road as 377 in 1991.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 24, 2010, 10:00:26 PM
US 377 wasn't merely ODOT acting without AASHTO approval... it was actually signing the highway against AASHTO's wishes.
ODOT had been submitting the SH-99 corridor as a US route as early as 1953. Various portions of the highway were submitted to AASHTO for consideration as a US route in 1953, 1964, twice in 1968, in 1970, twice in 1971, in 1972, 1976, 1978, and in 1980. Most of them had the proposed northern terminus near Cleveland. All of these proposals were rejected except the June 1968 one, which barely brought 377 into Oklahoma, ending in Madill. Finally, with ten rejected applications behind them, ODOT signed the road as 377 in 1991.
I don't know why they didn't go ahead and sign it all the way to the Kansas border, or at least to US 60 in Pawhuska.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 22, 2010, 12:09:43 PM
Then again, it seems the standard to create a US route nowadays (state line MUST be crossed, etc.) is much higher than that of the Interstate system (i.e. I-97)!
for every I-97, there is a US-175.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 24, 2010, 11:07:32 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 22, 2010, 12:09:43 PM
Then again, it seems the standard to create a US route nowadays (state line MUST be crossed, etc.) is much higher than that of the Interstate system (i.e. I-97)!
for every I-97, there is a US-175.
Of course, 175 came about before AASHTO tightened up the standards for new US route creation...considering that it and US 75 are about a mile away or so from sharing termini in downtown Dallas (after 75 was truncated to Spur 366), I've always wondered why 75 wasn't just simply extended down the child route.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 24, 2010, 11:33:06 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 24, 2010, 11:07:32 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 22, 2010, 12:09:43 PM
Then again, it seems the standard to create a US route nowadays (state line MUST be crossed, etc.) is much higher than that of the Interstate system (i.e. I-97)!
for every I-97, there is a US-175.
Of course, 175 came about before AASHTO tightened up the standards for new US route creation...considering that it and US 75 are about a mile away or so from sharing termini in downtown Dallas (after 75 was truncated to Spur 366), I've always wondered why 75 wasn't just simply extended down the child route.
I never understood why 75 was truncated in the first place. There are significant sections south of Dallas that were separate from I-45, and it was a Canada to Gulf highway.
How about US 412 becoming US 86 (like US 59, in a way) running from US 64 @ Guymon OK to Columbia TN?
I really see usends's point. I really think the southern states such as Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, the Carolinas, and Tennessee love their US routes. I've always thought Michigan could use more US routes , but the Great Lake State prefers its M-Road system. The question I have with routes such as US 371 and US 278 is : What is the traffic volume like. Is there a heavy amount of semi-truck traffic? I think the majority of the time, volume is what constitutes the name change more than anything else, I may be wrong about that assumption. My reasoning maybe a good place to continue the discussion.
Many times a state is influenced by its neighbors, I think Arkansas is influenced by Texas, Missouri, & Tennessee. The Natural State doesn't have many interstates , but it sure has a lot of US routes.
I think some of the older extensions of US routes in Arkansas make sense in terms of traffic-the newer ones less so. I never would have thought of the US 371, US 278 and US 63 extensions as unified, important corrdiors that called for one single route number and an upgrade to a US route. They don't serve very well as through routes-just as connections between larger towns. I traveled on the portion of US 63 between Pine Bluff and Warren when it was still AR 15, and I never would have seen it as a candidate for a US route. Not much traffic, as I recall. The others are pretty much the same-mostly local traffic.
My guess for the major impetus behind the US route extensions in the southern part of the state was to put some of the larger towns in the area on a US highway that previously were not on one. Prior to the creation of US 425 in 1989, Monticello and Warren, two of the larger towns in SE Arkansas were not served by any US highway. Same for Nashville in SW Arkansas. 10 years later after the creation of US 425, and the extensions of US 371, US 278 and US 63, all 3 towns were on not 1, but 2 US highways.
QuoteHow about US 412 becoming US 86 (like US 59, in a way) running from US 64 @ Guymon OK to Columbia TN?
How, exactly, would that solve the frivolity of the highway having a US designation in the first place?
I suppose you could make some argument that by switching the number from 412 to 86, Mountain Home would immediately grow into a giant metropolis just by virtue of having a different highway number, thereby making the designation not frivolous at all, but I'd love to hear how that one works.
it could be given a sensible US number like 164.
Quoteit could be given a sensible US number like 164.
How, exactly, would that solve the frivolity of the highway having a US designation in the first place?
I suppose you could make some argument that by switching the number from 412 to 164, Mountain Home would immediately grow into a giant metropolis just by virtue of having a different highway number, thereby making the designation not frivolous at all, but I'd love to hear how that one works.
what's wrong with it having a US highway designation? Certainly is long enough and covers plenty of states. If that highway is frivolous, so are a lot of other US highways.
US-26 for example.
I suppose you could make some argument that by switching the number from 26 to 28, Mountain Home would immediately grow into a giant metropolis just by virtue of having a different highway number, thereby making the designation not frivolous at all, but I'd love to hear how that one works.
412 in western AR and eastern OK is definitely worthy of a US route designation. Before it came along, from Alpena to Enid, the route was AR 68-OK 33-I-44-I-244-US 64-Cimmaron Turnpike-US 64-OK 15. Now it's all one number. You might disagree with the number but it's hard to argue that this corridor shouldn't have a single US route number.
Quotewhat's wrong with it having a US highway designation? Certainly is long enough and covers plenty of states. If that highway is frivolous, so are a lot of other US highways.
US-26 for example.
I suppose you could make some argument that by switching the number from 26 to 28, Mountain Home would immediately grow into a giant metropolis just by virtue of having a different highway number, thereby making the designation not frivolous at all, but I'd love to hear how that one works
I think you're missing my point. Ausinterkid proposed that the route number should be 86 instead of 412. I don't understand why that affects the frivolity or non-frivolity of the US highway designation, and was simply seeking an explanation. His post as it stood had little to do with the content of the thread; I was simply seeking to see how he could make it relate to the thread.
I for one believe that the number has nothing to do with anything, and the designation itself is justified. Mr. Ausinterkid's post seemed to make little sense, however, in the context of the thread
Quote from: corco on April 19, 2010, 11:59:10 PM
I think you're missing my point.
you posited that the US designation on the road is frivolous, and did not substantiate that argument.
I suppose my wording could have been better- I can see where it may very clearly appear that I stated otherwise, but that was not my intent.
I suppose I should have said (and now say):
How does having the number 86 applied to the highway make it any more or less frivolous than the number 412?
Quote from: corco on April 20, 2010, 12:28:57 AM
How does having the number 86 applied to the highway make it any more or less frivolous than the number 412?
because the route itself isn't particularly frivolous - at least, not the first part. The part heading to New Mexico does have an unusually long multiplex. Maybe US-164 and US-156? (and that solves the problem of the 56/412 multiplex as well.)
Quotebecause the route itself isn't particularly frivolous - at least, not the first part. The part heading to New Mexico does have an unusually long multiplex. Maybe US-164 and US-156? (and that solves the problem of the 56/412 multiplex as well.)
Right, but how would the number 164 or 156 be any better or worse than 412? As I've said, I agree that the route deserves a US highway designation, I just don't see why 164, 156, or 86 for that matter is any better or worse than 412.
The topic of this post is the validity of said corridor having a US designation. What does its number matter, and how would that contribute or detract to/from said validity?
Quote from: US71 on February 19, 2010, 10:02:19 PM
US 59 is rather frivolous, as well. It's duplexed with other routes the way (US 270 from the OK Line to Acorn and US 71 from Acorn to Texarkana).
US 59 doesn't exist to AHTD. It's signed, but there are no US 59 sections. The parts duplexed with 71 and 270 are officially 71 and 270. And nobody calls it US 59. It's "71" or "270". But in Oklahoma, the 59/270 duplex is locally known as "59".
Post Merge: August 24, 2010, 11:01:04 AM
Quote from: corco on April 20, 2010, 12:28:57 AM
I suppose my wording could have been better- I can see where it may very clearly appear that I stated otherwise, but that was not my intent.
I suppose I should have said (and now say):
How does having the number 86 applied to the highway make it any more or less frivolous than the number 412?
US 412 is north of US 54, 60, 62, 64, and 66 in places and runs along US 56 for a long ways. US 86 would fit the grid no better than 412 does. I don't have a problem with the 400 series. 412 is easier to remember and more distinctive than "164" or "256". But I wouldn't have a problem with those numbers either. 262 would be my choice if they did renumber it.
Quote from: corco on April 20, 2010, 12:37:47 AM
Right, but how would the number 164 or 156 be any better or worse than 412? As I've said, I agree that the route deserves a US highway designation, I just don't see why 164, 156, or 86 for that matter is any better or worse than 412.
I probably should stay out of this, but ...
Given that this group consists of roadgeeks, people who know the US Route system guidelines, you're not going to find many defenders for the 412 designation. Face it: it doesn't follow the rules, and if you're not going to stick with the rules why even have them?
86 would also be a poor choice for this corridor, as the number would be out of place. It really should be a 2dus, given its length, but unless a good way to connect it to an existing 2dus exists, there aren't any logical numbers fitting the grid available. So a 3-digit was required. But before you argue that gives some credibility to the 412 number, even if you buy that 400 series numbers are supposed to be future interstate corridors, numbers like 456, 462, 464 or 470 would have been better choices which accomplish the same purpose and fit the system.
In Arkansas, the 412 route would actually be the better route for US 62 as it is more direct. That could've been another good solution, having current 412/62 as 62/62A or 62/162.
But I would agree with one point: there is little point to changing the number now. I'd probably eliminate the long multiplex on its western end (NM/OK), though.
As for the topic of this thread, its perfectly o.k. to debate whether this a frivolous US extension. I think it's way more legit than many of the other recent Arkansas US extensions, like 63, 278, and 425.
Quote from: xonhulu on April 20, 2010, 12:58:04 AM
I probably should stay out of this, but ...
Given that this group consists of roadgeeks, people who know the US Route system guidelines, you're not going to find many defenders for the 412 designation. Face it: it doesn't follow the rules, and if you're not going to stick with the rules why even have them?
I would argue that it does follow the rules. The 400 series routes are part of the rules. And have been since the early 1980s. They are the new rules.
Quote
In Arkansas, the 412 route would actually be the better route for US 62 as it is more direct. That could've been another good solution, having current 412/62 as 62/62A or 62/162.
412 is a much better highway than 62. It is 4 lanes from Hindsville to the Oklahoma border. 62 is a crooked mountain road with some nasty curves west of Eureka Springs.
Quote
As for the topic of this thread, its perfectly o.k. to debate whether this a frivolous US extension. I think it's way more legit than many of the other recent Arkansas US extensions, like 63, 278, and 425.
Those routes all deserved a US route designation. The US 63 extension is silly and should have been US 179 or 265. It also should follow LA 9 instead of US 167. It could also be extended north along AR 11, AR 16, AR 5, AR 9, US 63, and MO 19. This would be unnecessary but it would give Heber Springs a US route, which seems to be the goal of AHTD: to give every county seat a US highway and it would be better than the US 63 extension. And to continue the tradition of giving towns 2 new US routes, US 425 could be extended north along AR 81, AR 15, AR 89, AR 321, and AR 5 to end at the new US 179/265 at Heber Springs.
corrected malformed quotes
Quote from: bugo on April 20, 2010, 01:49:33 AM
I would argue that it does follow the rules. The 400 series routes are part of the rules. And have been since the early 1980s. They are the new rules.
I've never seen an official AASHO document with the "12.5 rule" spelled out - I've always thought it was some sort of derivation by roadgeeks trying to make some kind of sense of things by fitting a pattern to the data.
besides, I-99 has obeyed the "I-99 rule" since the 1980s as well. Something being around for a while doesn't make it legitimate.
Quote
I've never seen an official AASHO document with the "12.5 rule" spelled out - I've always thought it was some sort of derivation by roadgeeks trying to make some kind of sense of things by fitting a pattern to the data.
besides, I-99 has obeyed the "I-99 rule" since the 1980s as well. Something being around for a while doesn't make it legitimate.
Beyond that, wasn't 412 commissioned BEFORE 400? That would seem to throw a monkey in the whole 12.5 rule theory
Quote from: corco on April 20, 2010, 10:13:15 AM
Quote
I've never seen an official AASHO document with the "12.5 rule" spelled out - I've always thought it was some sort of derivation by roadgeeks trying to make some kind of sense of things by fitting a pattern to the data.
besides, I-99 has obeyed the "I-99 rule" since the 1980s as well. Something being around for a while doesn't make it legitimate.
Beyond that, wasn't 412 commissioned BEFORE 400? That would seem to throw a monkey in the whole 12.5 rule theory
I never bought the 12.5 theory either.
I'm sure there's no official "12.5" rule -- it's just a coincidence the 400-series routes came out this way.
Anyway, my point was: even if there were a "US 4xx for future interstate corridors" policy guiding AASHTO (which I also doubt), they could have at least come up with 4xx numbers which also fit the older numbering guidelines. As I said, 412 could've been 470 as it did originally intersect 70. 400 could be 450 or 454 or 456. 425 could be 465. But from all that's been reported about the histories of these numbers, they were just random numbers picked by state DOT's which AASHTO then approved in violation of their own numbering guidelines.
The discussion on how to best renumber 412 and friends has been moved to Fictional Highways.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 24, 2010, 11:33:06 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 24, 2010, 11:07:32 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 22, 2010, 12:09:43 PM
Then again, it seems the standard to create a US route nowadays (state line MUST be crossed, etc.) is much higher than that of the Interstate system (i.e. I-97)!
for every I-97, there is a US-175.
Of course, 175 came about before AASHTO tightened up the standards for new US route creation...considering that it and US 75 are about a mile away or so from sharing termini in downtown Dallas (after 75 was truncated to Spur 366), I've always wondered why 75 wasn't just simply extended down the child route.
No reason to...US 175 has been US 175 for decades and changing the number would cause confusion...not to mention that 75 is a N-S route and 175 is an E-W route. I still think it was silly for Michigan to change US 27 to US 127, even though the 127 designation does make more sense today. The only good reason to change a designation is if the road is "upgraded," eg from a state to a US route or an interstate.
Quote from: national highway 1 on April 19, 2010, 03:26:30 AM
How about US 412 becoming US 86 (like US 59, in a way) running from US 64 @ Guymon OK to Columbia TN?
Won't happen. Everybody is used to US 412 and changing it would only cause confusion. And 86 would be just as out of place as 412 is. And remember, the 400 series routes are not traditional 3d spur routes, but an entire new system of US routes.
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on April 19, 2010, 03:13:27 PM
I think some of the older extensions of US routes in Arkansas make sense in terms of traffic-the newer ones less so. I never would have thought of the US 371, US 278 and US 63 extensions as unified, important corrdiors that called for one single route number and an upgrade to a US route. They don't serve very well as through routes-just as connections between larger towns. I traveled on the portion of US 63 between Pine Bluff and Warren when it was still AR 15, and I never would have seen it as a candidate for a US route. Not much traffic, as I recall. The others are pretty much the same-mostly local traffic.
My guess for the major impetus behind the US route extensions in the southern part of the state was to put some of the larger towns in the area on a US highway that previously were not on one. Prior to the creation of US 425 in 1989, Monticello and Warren, two of the larger towns in SE Arkansas were not served by any US highway. Same for Nashville in SW Arkansas. 10 years later after the creation of US 425, and the extensions of US 371, US 278 and US 63, all 3 towns were on not 1, but 2 US highways.
I believe this is the answer. AHTD wanted to put certain county seats on US routes. There are still some county seats on state routes only, but I could see that changing in the near future. US 171 being extended into Arkansas is one idea. It could end at US 62-65-412 at Harrison, AR. I actually sent this suggestion to AHTD and surprisingly, they weren't interested. But I wouldn't be surprised if it happened sometime in the near future, expecially if AASHTO decides to decommission it for being a single state US route under 300 miles long.
Oklahoma seems to have had a similar program - only one of their county seats has never had a U.S. Highway.
I don't understand why 371 ends at DeQueen instead of Lockesburg. It serves absolutely no purpose along 71/59
Quote from: bugo on December 03, 2011, 12:52:07 PM
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on April 19, 2010, 03:13:27 PM
I believe this is the answer. AHTD wanted to put certain county seats on US routes. There are still some county seats on state routes only, but I could see that changing in the near future. US 171 being extended into Arkansas is one idea. It could end at US 62-65-412 at Harrison, AR. I actually sent this suggestion to AHTD and surprisingly, they weren't interested. But I wouldn't be surprised if it happened sometime in the near future, expecially if AASHTO decides to decommission it for being a single state US route under 300 miles long.
Where would you propose for US 171 extended north? It would have to duplex with US 71 for quite a while or else change its routing through Shreveport to LA 3 north from Bossier City
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 06, 2011, 06:52:37 PM
Where would you propose for US 171 extended north? It would have to duplex with US 71 for quite a while or else change its routing through Shreveport to LA 3 north from Bossier City
In theory, it could follow LA 3094 to 71, then north to I-220 then east to LA 3. Once it hits Arkansas, it would follow AR 29 but that's another headache. :banghead:
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 06, 2011, 06:52:37 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 03, 2011, 12:52:07 PM
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on April 19, 2010, 03:13:27 PM
I believe this is the answer. AHTD wanted to put certain county seats on US routes. There are still some county seats on state routes only, but I could see that changing in the near future. US 171 being extended into Arkansas is one idea. It could end at US 62-65-412 at Harrison, AR. I actually sent this suggestion to AHTD and surprisingly, they weren't interested. But I wouldn't be surprised if it happened sometime in the near future, expecially if AASHTO decides to decommission it for being a single state US route under 300 miles long.
Where would you propose for US 171 extended north? It would have to duplex with US 71 for quite a while or else change its routing through Shreveport to LA 3 north from Bossier City
LA 3-AR 29-US 278-AR 27-AR 7.
Quote from: US71 on December 06, 2011, 08:05:07 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 06, 2011, 06:52:37 PM
Where would you propose for US 171 extended north? It would have to duplex with US 71 for quite a while or else change its routing through Shreveport to LA 3 north from Bossier City
In theory, it could follow LA 3094 to 71, then north to I-220 then east to LA 3. Once it hits Arkansas, it would follow AR 29 but that's another headache. :banghead:
Shreveport is my hometown but I keep thinking that US 171 actually ends at its parent at US 71/LA 1/N. Market, when it actually doesn't. Going up LA 3094, then US 71 to I 220 but the old route would be cool to restore it to its original terminus: US 79/80 North and East through Downtown Shreveport then across the river to LA 3 in Bossier.
I'm surprised that SH 7 and 16 haven't been made into US highways by now. Both are very long routes.
Quote from: capt.ron on December 08, 2011, 01:28:38 PM
I'm surprised that SH 7 and 16 haven't been made into US highways by now. Both are very long routes.
Probably cost too much to upgrade them from meandering country roads.
Quote from: US71 on January 02, 2012, 12:48:22 PM
Quote from: capt.ron on December 08, 2011, 01:28:38 PM
I'm surprised that SH 7 and 16 haven't been made into US highways by now. Both are very long routes.
Probably cost too much to upgrade them from meandering country roads.
AR 7 is too iconic (AHTD even admitted this) and AR 16 is not worthy of a US highway designation. It's a bit better than a "meandering county road" but it's still very curvy and a very slow drive. If it were a US highway, it would bring more truck traffic which is something that it doesn't need. And it would get a red line on a map, which would make travelers think that it's a good alternative to I-40 or US 412.
Quote from: bugo on January 03, 2012, 01:56:44 AM
Quote from: US71 on January 02, 2012, 12:48:22 PM
Quote from: capt.ron on December 08, 2011, 01:28:38 PM
I'm surprised that SH 7 and 16 haven't been made into US highways by now. Both are very long routes.
Probably cost too much to upgrade them from meandering country roads.
AR 7 is too iconic (AHTD even admitted this) and AR 16 is not worthy of a US highway designation. It's a bit better than a "meandering county road" but it's still very curvy and a very slow drive. If it were a US highway, it would bring more truck traffic which is something that it doesn't need. And it would get a red line on a map, which would make travelers think that it's a good alternative to I-40 or US 412.
Ha-ha-ha-ha... I drove from Fayetteville to Searcy on 16 once: it took all day for what's normally about 4 hours via I-40 & US 67.
I drove parts of AR 16 for fun so I didn't mind having to go slowly (and I was driving my Probe, and having fun in the curves) but I wouldn't want to use it on a regular basis and I wouldn't want to use it on a trip where I was trying to make time.
Arkansas tried a couple other extensions/commissionings of US routes. In 1960, the Arkansas State Highway Commission applied for an extension of US 271 north from Fort Smith to the Missouri line via US 71, US 64 and AR 59. It would likely have ended at US 71 in Anderson, MO. It was denied by AASHO.
Another new US route that was proposed but never commissioned was US 366 which was proposed in 1956. It would have run from Amarillo, TX to Little Rock, AR. The section in Arkansas would have followed US 271 from the Oklahoma line to US 71, US 71 south to AR 10, then AR 10 east to US 70 in Little Rock. Oklahoma initiated this plan, and it was denied by AASHO. In Oklahoma, it would have followed OK 9 in all the way across the state. I don't know how it would have gotten from Amarillo to Vinson but the most logical route would have been to follow US 287 to TX 203 to OK 9. Why it would have ended in Amarillo instead of Hedley is a mystery.
ASHC Minute Order 3913:
In CRAWFORD, WASHINGTON, and BENTON COUNTIES, subject to approval by the American Association of State Highway Officials, IT IS ORDERED that State Highway No. US 271 be extended from its present terminus at the junction of US 71 in Fort Smith to the Missouri State Line north of Sulphur Springs via US 71 and 64 to the junction of State Highway No. 59 in Van Buren, thence along State Highway No. 59 via Evansville, Dutch Mills, Summers, Siloam Springs, Gentry, Decatur, Gravette, and Sulphur Springs to the Missouri State Line.
ASHC Minute Order 1417:
WHEREAS, the State Highway Commission of Oklahoma has asked the Arkansas State Highway Commission to concur with them in their request for the establishment of a U. S. Route from Amarillo, Texas, to Little Rock, Arkansas; and,
WHEREAS, the State Highway Commission of Oklahoma has requested approval of Federal Designation carrying the number U. S. 366 over Oklahoma State Highway No. 9 across the State of Oklahoma, and State Highway No. 9 coincides with Highway No. U. S. 271 from Spiro, Oklahoma, to the Arkansas State Line. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Director be authorized to prepare and submit an application to the American Association of State Highway Officials for the establishment of a U. S. Route, to be designated No. U. S. 366, between Amarillo, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas, with proper supporting papers for the portion within Arkansas, over the following route: From the Oklahoma State Line, over Highway No. U. S. 271 to No. U. S. 71 at Fort Smith; thence over No. U. S. 71 to No.10 at Greenwood; thence over No. 10 through Booneville, Danville, and Ola to No. 9 at Perry; thence over No. 9 through Perryville to No. 10 at Williams Junction; thence over No. 10 to No. U. S. 70 at Little Rock.
Quote from: bugo on December 06, 2017, 04:48:59 PM
Arkansas tried a couple other extensions/commissionings of US routes. In 1960, the Arkansas State Highway Commission applied for an extension of US 271 north from Fort Smith to the Missouri line via US 71, US 64 and AR 59. It would likely have ended at US 71 in Anderson, MO. It was denied by AASHO.
271 seems a waste of highway dollars. Extend 253 to 71B, make the 540 extension a state route, then OK 9 can take over to Sunset Corner
There are only 5 counties not served by a US highway in Arkansas: Yell, Perry, Cleburne, Stone and Izard. (US 71 clips a corner of Logan County and US 65 clips Newton.) Extending US 266 out of Oklahoma along AR 10 to Little Rock would take care of the first two. Extending US 425 through England and Cabot, then up AR 5 to Mountain Home would handle the other three.
Quote from: US71 on December 06, 2017, 07:14:22 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 06, 2017, 04:48:59 PM
Arkansas tried a couple other extensions/commissionings of US routes. In 1960, the Arkansas State Highway Commission applied for an extension of US 271 north from Fort Smith to the Missouri line via US 71, US 64 and AR 59. It would likely have ended at US 71 in Anderson, MO. It was denied by AASHO.
271 seems a waste of highway dollars. Extend 253 to 71B, make the 540 extension a state route, then OK 9 can take over to Sunset Corner
A better suggestion would be to have US 271 follow OK 112 from Poteau to Pocola, then its current route to US 71B, then along either US 71B or AR 255 to US 64, then cross the Arkansas River into Oklahoma along US 64, then north along OK 64D to end at I-40 at the state line.
Quote from: shoptb1 on February 19, 2010, 07:26:20 PM
Quote from: usends on February 19, 2010, 12:55:39 PM
1989: US 412 extended west from Walnut Ridge, through the remainder of AR and into Oklahoma. This extension involved a 166-mile multiplex with US 62, which makes no sense to me. Why couldn't they have simply rerouted US 62 along the current US 412 corridor (Alpena-Huntsville-Springdale), and change current US 62 (Alpena-Rogers-Springdale) to Alt. US 62, or else a state route? You could argue that the corridor from Springdale west into Oklahoma would've needed a new number, but it sure wasn't necessary to drag the US 412 designation all the way across the state.
While I do agree that the multiplex with US-62 is strange, US-412 is a very important route from Alpena-Springdale-Siloam Springs-Tulsa-Glencoe-US-35, where there was no previous US highway designation. However, I am actually confused as to why the designation continues past Guymon, OK. US-412 is multiplexed with existing US highways the entire way from this point until reaching I-25 in New Mexico. This seems more frivolous to me than providing the same US highway designation from TN to OK.
A 4 lane, divided with some limited access US 412 would be a god send and possibly a I-22 extension by using I-555 as part of connecting the dots.