Some family friends from Shreveport came to Mena, Arkansas and we got to talking about I-49. The guy said he would have liked to have driven part of it, but didn't see any signs. I told him it was currently *5*49 and gave him directions back to Shreveport the fast way. AASHTO and AHTD are confusing motorists with their temporary designations of a road that everybody is calling I-49 already. This madness must end.
Quote from: bugo on September 21, 2013, 09:24:24 PM
Some family friends from Shreveport came to Mena, Arkansas and we got to talking about I-49. The guy said he would have liked to have driven part of it, but didn't see any signs. I told him it was currently *5*49 and gave him directions back to Shreveport the fast way. AASHTO and AHTD are confusing motorists with their temporary designations of a road that everybody is calling I-49 already. This madness must end.
Are you talking about the south end of AR 549? I haven't been down there, but judging by StreetView, I think you have a point. AHTD isn't known for their signage.
Normally I'd say that it's stupid to designate an Interstate unless the ends end at an Interstate... but I think of I-49 in Missouri. I think the best thing would be to install signage that states Thru Traffic on US 71, Follow AR 549 kinda thing.
If the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49. Temporary numbers only cause confusion.
I'm with Bugo on this.
Whatever my feelings about I-69 in Indiana, etc, at least they're putting up the shields when chunks are opening.
QuoteIf the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.
Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet. Or has AHTD submitted the request to FHWA? M86's comment about Arkansas signage comes into play here.
Quote from: froggie on September 23, 2013, 12:50:59 AM
Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet. Or has AHTD submitted the request to FHWA? M86's comment about Arkansas signage comes into play here.
I don't believe they have.
http://www.interstate49.org/
After a random google, I came upon that website.
Quote from: froggie on September 23, 2013, 12:50:59 AM
QuoteIf the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.
Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet. Or has AHTD submitted the request to FHWA? M86's comment about Arkansas signage comes into play here.
This post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg226593#msg226593) discusses an email from AHTD indicating that they would apply for the I-49 designation at the the October AASHTO meeting and a subsequent post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg228041#msg228041) discusses FHWA's position that Congress has mandated the I-49 designation and that neither FHWA nor AASHTO can prevent the designation.
Since the deadline for submitting an application to AASHTO was September 9 (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx), I'm hoping that AHTD
has asked by submitting a timely application and that it will be approved on October 17. However, AHTD seems to look for excuses to not seek the I-49 designation ..........
To froggie's point, I'm halfway (but not too seriously) wondering if the recent AR 549 designation for the Texarkana Eastern Loop, since it directly connects to I-30, was a technical violation of the Congressional legislation mandating an I-49 designation (note the language from the FHWA email that once the two prerequisites are met, then the state
must initiate a request). Hope it all becomes a moot point on October 17.
Quote from: froggie on September 23, 2013, 12:50:59 AM
QuoteIf the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.
Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet. Or has AHTD submitted the request to FHWA? M86's comment about Arkansas signage comes into play here.
AHTD could use signage such as: "TEMP I-49" or "FUTURE I-49" along the route along with the AR-549 signage if they so chose, IIRC. That might make navigation easier.
Quote from: froggie on September 23, 2013, 12:50:59 AM
QuoteIf the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.
Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet.
Yes it is. What else are they going to call it?
Quote from: bugo on September 23, 2013, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 23, 2013, 12:50:59 AM
QuoteIf the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.
Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet.
Yes it is. What else are they going to call it?
When the LA segments are complete all the way to I-220, then it will become I-49 officially. Until then, AR 549 suffices. No need to rush putting in shields before its time.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2013, 03:43:10 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 23, 2013, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 23, 2013, 12:50:59 AM
QuoteIf the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.
Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet.
Yes it is. What else are they going to call it?
When the LA segments are complete all the way to I-220, then it will become I-49 officially. Until then, AR 549 suffices. No need to rush putting in shields before its time.
You're wrong. As I said, it is already being called I-49 which is causing confusion. Why give a road a designation that you plan on changing in the future? It only leads to confusion. AR 549 does not suffice.
Quote from: bugo on September 24, 2013, 05:35:49 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2013, 03:43:10 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 23, 2013, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 23, 2013, 12:50:59 AM
QuoteIf the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.
Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet.
Yes it is. What else are they going to call it?
When the LA segments are complete all the way to I-220, then it will become I-49 officially. Until then, AR 549 suffices. No need to rush putting in shields before its time.
You're wrong. As I said, it is already being called I-49 which is causing confusion. Why give a road a designation that you plan on changing in the future? It only leads to confusion. AR 549 does not suffice.
I'm with bugo on this one! Whatever the proposed road is called, it should be referred that way until either it is completed or cancelled. Temporary numbers do nothing for me either.
Quote from: Henry on September 24, 2013, 01:49:09 PM
Quote from: bugo on September 24, 2013, 05:35:49 AM
You're wrong. As I said, it is already being called I-49 which is causing confusion. Why give a road a designation that you plan on changing in the future? It only leads to confusion. AR 549 does not suffice.
I'm with bugo on this one! Whatever the proposed road is called, it should be referred that way until either it is completed or cancelled. Temporary numbers do nothing for me either.
I was talking about Arkansas' segment, which is NOT yet signed as I-49. Louisiana went in a different direction and decided to sign their segments as I-49.
But once LA finishes their sections all the way to I-220, the whole shebang will become I-49 as you want it. Again...why such a rush?
Until FHWA fully signs off on it becoming I-49, it is not I-49. Period. Regardless of Congressional legislation, the road is not I-49 until it's completed and FHWA signs off on it. Furthermore, there are no intermediate major crossing highways or cities that could be used to sign a partial segment, so the whole thing will have to be finished first.
That said, Brandon has a point where they could post "Future I-49" signs in the interim. It's not like AHTD hasn't done that before (i.e. I-555).
Quote
I was talking about Arkansas' segment, which is NOT yet signed as I-49. Louisiana went in a different direction and decided to sign their segments as I-49.
Louisiana doesn't really do the whole 'temporary numbering' thing unless the road is a new alignment for an existing designation, is only partially opened and completion is still in the distant future. LA 3052 comes to mind.
But it is going to be I-49. Period. So why not sign it as such? All temporary designations do is cause confusion, like the gentleman that I mentioned in the initial post.
Look at the waste of money. Most states cannot build the roads anyway because of funds so we don't need to waste it on signs if they have been designated anyway.
Quote from: bugo on September 26, 2013, 10:53:11 AM
But it is going to be I-49. Period. So why not sign it as such? All temporary designations do is cause confusion, like the gentleman that I mentioned in the initial post.
Absolutely. NCDOT signs Future 840 and Future 295, which have the same shield colors and shapes as the final routes, and doesn't invent other numbers in the interim.
Quote from: bugo on September 23, 2013, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 23, 2013, 12:50:59 AM
QuoteIf the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.
Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet.
Yes it is. What else are they going to call it?
AR 49 ? :spin:
Quote from: US71 on September 27, 2013, 10:28:36 PM
Quote from: bugo on September 23, 2013, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 23, 2013, 12:50:59 AM
QuoteIf the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.
Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet.
Yes it is. What else are they going to call it?
AR 49 ? :spin:
It has precedent. Indiana signed I-469 as IN-469 until it was complete.
Quote from: Brandon on September 28, 2013, 07:55:44 PM
Quote from: US71 on September 27, 2013, 10:28:36 PM
Quote from: bugo on September 23, 2013, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 23, 2013, 12:50:59 AM
QuoteIf the road's permanent name is I-49, the road should be signed I-49.
Except that the road's permanent name isn't I-49 yet.
Yes it is. What else are they going to call it?
AR 49 ? :spin:
It has precedent. Indiana signed I-469 as IN-469 until it was complete.
Also AR 540 and AR 440 ;)
Signing I-49 along AR 549 is no worse than I-69 (and family) being signed along it's tiny parcels. For continuity reasons, I do believe both of these routes should have temporary designations which connect their completed portions.
Big difference, I-49 must go by rules presented by FHWA and AASHTO. I-69 is a congress mandated highway. Thus, signs and approvals are on two different time tables. The first must be complete, the second, is eh, good enough for now. The whole East, Central, 369, I-2, and Houston area don't even touch the rest of I-69.
But then they have to go by the BS rule of U.S. 49 being located at the opposite end of the state. Seriously? I-69 and U.S. 69 is far worse. Amend this crap so that completed sections must be signed I-49.
I-49 is legislated by Congress, per FHWA.
Quote from: NE2 on September 29, 2013, 01:39:06 PM
I-49 is legislated by Congress, per FHWA.
High Priority Corridor 72's statutory language (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l72) provides a Congessional designation of I-49 from Kansas City to Shreveport, as per FHWA's interpretation of the language:
Quote
72.The North-South corridor, along Interstate Route 49 North, from Kansas City, Missouri, to Shreveport, Louisiana.
However, in regard to the US 90 corridor from Lafayette to New Orleans, Congress has apparently left the numbering discretion up to LaDOTD, as reflected by the statutory language of High Priority Corridor 74 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l74):
Quote
74.The portion of United States Route 90 from Interstate Route 49 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to Interstate Route 10 in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Hmmmmm ..... Maybe there is a covert I-6 Congressional Caucus within the Louisiana delegation? :spin:
edit
Interestingly, FHWA notes that High Priority Corridor 37 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l37) ("37.United States Route 90 from I-49 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to I-10 in New Orleans.") is officially designated as a Future Interstate (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcfitext.cfm). Is there any substantial difference between the language of HPC 37 and HPC 74? ........ unless I-10 goes near a New Orleans outside of Louisiana. :sombrero:
Quote from: Perfxion on September 29, 2013, 10:55:19 AM
Big difference, I-49 must go by rules presented by FHWA and AASHTO. I-69 is a congress mandated highway. Thus, signs and approvals are on two different time tables. The first must be complete, the second, is eh, good enough for now. The whole East, Central, 369, I-2, and Houston area don't even touch the rest of I-69.
MAP-21 changed the rules, not only for I-69 (and I-11), but also for the "other" interstates. This post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7067.msg159167#msg159167) discusses MAP-21's impact on the "other" interstates, whether Congress mandated a number or not. Also, the post following the linked post provides some historical context for the origin of this thread.
Looks like AHTD now has permission from AASHTO to post I-49. Now if the Federal Highway Administration will sign off on it, we could start seeing signs.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/viewart/20131028/NEWS/131028008/Arkansas-gets-initial-OK-Interstate-49-name-
Quote from: US71 on October 28, 2013, 08:56:01 PM
Looks like AHTD now has permission from AASHTO to post I-49. Now if the Federal Highway Administration will sign off on it, we could start seeing signs.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/viewart/20131028/NEWS/131028008/Arkansas-gets-initial-OK-Interstate-49-name-
This makes me happy. Assuming this passes, MoDOT and AHTD need to post some "Future I-49 Corridor" signage.
I know a lot of the people here in NW Arkansas refer to current I-540 as "the bypass". It drives me insane... Because now we need a bypass of "the bypass".
It was once US 71, US 62, now it's I-540 and it will soon be I-49. Is there any wonder why they call it "the bypass"?
Quote from: bugo on October 29, 2013, 08:18:57 AM
It was once US 71, US 62, now it's I-540 and it will soon be I-49. Is there any wonder why they call it "the bypass"?
It was originally called the "71 Bypass" when it first opened, as was the extension to Bella Vista. No one (except maybe a few people at AHTD) gave any thought to to I-540 or I-49 when the "bypasses" were built.