Many states west of the Mississippi River are reluctant to sign US route overlaps on interstates. Why should Arkansas be any different.
[Split posts off from the I-49 in AR thread and merged with Jeremy's topic on this subject to create one big thread for AHTD to look at. -S.]
Quote from: roadman65 on May 18, 2014, 07:52:24 PM
Many states west of the Mississippi River are reluctant to sign US route overlaps on interstates. Why should Arkansas be any different.
Missouri does. Kansas does. Wyoming does.
Quote from: US71 on May 18, 2014, 07:45:02 PM
71 has never been co-signed on 540 at Fort Smith.
Wrong. Right after 71 was rerouted, an I-540/US 71 assembly was posted just north of the entrance ramp from 71/71B to 540 north. All other 540 assemblies all the way to I-40 were missing US 71. I don't know how long it lasted but I know for a fact that there was a 540/71 assembly for at least a short time.
Quote from: US71 on May 18, 2014, 07:59:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 18, 2014, 07:52:24 PM
Many states west of the Mississippi River are reluctant to sign US route overlaps on interstates. Why should Arkansas be any different.
Missouri does. Kansas does. Wyoming does.
Wow 3 states out of many. You have more that do not though. Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, South Dakota, and about Kansas I will give them credit but at the I-35/ I-435 interchange near Olathe you have US 50, US 56, and US 169 on ground posts instead of above with the main guide signs that have plenty of room for extra shields. Then do not forget the northern terminus of I-135 that forgets to include US 40 with I-70 on any type of signs.
There are only four states west of the Mississippi that consistently do not sign US routes on interstates: AR, CO, NM, and UT. Other states may miss a concurrency here or there but mostly sign them, especially if the route is important. South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas absolutely sign them for the most part.
Colorado and Utah even sign a couple for navigational purposes. The US 160/I 25 and US 6/I 15 concurrencies come to mind.
Yes, some of those states don't put them on overhead signs, but that doesn't matter, they are secondary routes. Having them signed in reassurance markers is sufficient.
It's really not black and white, but it is hard to argue that Arkansas current signing policy isn't one of if not the most anti-U.S. route concurrency in the country.
Quote from: corco on May 19, 2014, 11:38:42 AM
It's really not black and white, but it is hard to argue that Arkansas current signing policy isn't one of if not the most anti-U.S. route concurrency in the country.
Agreed. Especially in a state that will put a state shield on anything even old pothole ridden forest dirt roads (hello AR220)
iPhone
I took this picture a couple of weeks after I-540 (Future I-49) was completed through the Ozarks. It proves that a 3 highway triplex sign assembly doesn't have to be cluttered. This is not calculus or trigonometry folks. The "one roadway = one number" policy of AHTD is ridiculous. If Arkansas were flat and every one of its roads were section line roads, there would still be 'plexes. Somebody said they were in Dothan, AL and were confused by some signs (they must not have been the sharpest sickle on a Soviet flag) at a highway junction. Of course, AHTD sent out a crew (costing taxpayers money, which was some of my money as I lived in Arkansas at the time) just to remove these signs. That's right, they went out of their way just to make the roads less navigable.
Besides, I just wanted another chance to share my picture. You can call it blurry, but I think the blur ads a psychedelic effect to it and makes it even cooler.
You cannot compare
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3245/2874833866_a1a1f607ab_o.jpg)
to
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi167.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu126%2Fbugo348%2Falabama_zpsb6f18890.jpg&hash=071e7efcef5150b76dd387b81f66cd2a56f4dde5)
They aren't even in the same ballpark.
Still, the Alabama sign assembly isn't that confusing. Seriously. Not to anybody with an IQ over 40.
Yes, I talk about this a lot but it embarrasses me when I tell somebody I'm from Arkansas. It is a passion and a crusade of mine to get this policy changed.
The Alabama signs could be more organized. Put all of the left turns on the far left, put the AL 210 , AL 53 and both of the TO US 84 signs in the middle and put all of the right hand turns on the far right. That looks like a big clusterduck.
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on May 19, 2014, 11:59:30 AM
Quote from: corco on May 19, 2014, 11:38:42 AM
It's really not black and white, but it is hard to argue that Arkansas current signing policy isn't one of if not the most anti-U.S. route concurrency in the country.
Agreed. Especially in a state that will put a state shield on anything even old pothole ridden forest dirt roads (hello AR220)
It's kind of fun if you take it slow. Just don't rely on your GPS, as a friend of mine discovered ;)
Quote from: roadman65 on May 19, 2014, 11:20:56 AM
You have more that do not though. Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, South Dakota, and about Kansas I will give them credit but at the I-35/ I-435 interchange near Olathe you have US 50, US 56, and US 169 on ground posts instead of above with the main guide signs that have plenty of room for extra shields. Then do not forget the northern terminus of I-135 that forgets to include US 40 with I-70 on any type of signs.
Oklahoma
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3128/2824023218_c5b1ccf5e4_d.jpg)
Texas
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3277/3057814544_35b3f2e395_d.jpg)
Kansas
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4074/4822814514_c77d658647_d.jpg)
South Dakota
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3451/3960085449_cd262b0a45_d.jpg)
Crawford County is full of surprises
If you rely too much on GPS you wind up in a situation like this.
^ "We need to document what a bad idea this was."
I wonder how it turned out?
To add to US71's post, here are a few interstate/US concurrencies in Texas.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Ftx%2F10%2F37spurto375loop%2F1.jpg&hash=cf1620332cd175e66703188d6cabca944d7ae780)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Ftx%2F10%2F1053to10ftstockton%2F1.jpg&hash=da1a2339f8ba66873ec2bdd0798c58558811e42b)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Ftx%2F87%2F2641to289loop%2F1.jpg&hash=ae604d225fc3af48e83b7fdb3f204c79193931f6)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Ftx%2F90%2F380spurto10%2F10.jpg&hash=508de90037987770e72f6f68e9724433d05bae81)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Ftx%2F87%2F287to27%2F1.jpg&hash=d0165b706ca3973a73a48de26c8be02e75cbb809)
Quote from: robbones on May 19, 2014, 12:31:49 PM
The Alabama signs could be more organized. Put all of the left turns on the far left, put the AL 210 , AL 53 and both of the TO US 84 signs in the middle and put all of the right hand turns on the far right. That looks like a big clusterduck.
In that case, I don't see why signing AL 210 was even necessary since all of the loop has some US highway signed along it (US 84, US 231, or US 431). Just imagine if all of the secret state routes were signed as well, like they do in Georgia.
But back to the topic at hand. If you are trying to follow a US highway or state road that happens to multiplex with an interstate or another highway for a few miles, it should be signed so you can follow it along the other route. The reassurance markers reassures you that you are on the correct road heading in the correct direction.
Right, one thing that kind of bothers me about how AHTD, at least on the forum, has been representing it is with a flippant sort of attitude that nobody will notice anyway because their GPS screens tell them where to go and they probably won't notice if roads have different numbers.
If that's the case, why have road numbers at all? If you can just change them without any transition signing in place and not sign routes that run along roadways because nobody pays attention to them, what is the point in having numbers?
They exist for a reason, and until we're 100% sure that the reason they exist is obsolete, DOTs need to take them seriously and act as if they are important and that people actually do navigate sometimes by the numbers on the signs, otherwise they are just wasting tax dollars on meaningless steel. If nobody pays attention to road numbers anymore, then why the heck are we wasting tax dollars on road signs?
I'm probably not saying every single route needs to be signed 100% of the time- Wyoming is probably overkilling it by signing US 87 with I-25 and US 20/26 religiously, I think Colorado probably has the right idea on just not signing US 87. That route is functionally obsolete and doesn't have an independent alignment. For the same reason, I get why Minnesota doesn't really sign US 52 and New Mexico doesn't sign US 85. Those are the only three corridors west of the Mississippi where I think it makes a good amount of sense to hide the concurrency. As far as US 71 in Arkansas? That route really ought to be signed.
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 19, 2014, 02:08:54 PM
^ "We need to document what a bad idea this was."
I wonder how it turned out?
I grew up just a couple miles up the road from there. It used to be well maintained but in the late 90s the county stopped maintaining so the only way to get up and down is in a tall pickup with 4wd and a winch is highly encouraged with the 2 or 3 deep mudholes on the road. About another 500 feet there is a 2 ft drop off and you have to ease off of the left side of the "slab".
Wait a second, once you pointed it out, AHTD went out and REMOVED the signs? Reassurance shields are meant to reassure people that they are indeed driving along US 71, instead of being surprised when US 71 changes into I-540. Why even run routes concurrent if you're never going to sign them as such? Here's our version of an upcoming route concurrency...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Flwu4Z9H.jpg&hash=e1abe6e40deb541a600f88e08882bf69f636f689)
Now, really, if you have a "one road, one number" policy, what happens whenever you have a US highway upgraded to an Interstate... do you sign both highways as an Interstate, for concurrencies, or do you only use one? And, really, what happens if a US highway is changed into an Interstate? Would you, for example, change US 425 immediately into I-530 with no transition? And, even better, if Louisiana continues to sign a fictional extension of I-530 as I-530/US 425, what will drivers think whenever the US 425 designation just disappears? You're confusing more people by not signing the concurrency than actually using one number.
Quote from: corco on May 19, 2014, 02:13:01 PM
To add to US71's post, here are a few interstate/US concurrencies in Texas.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Ftx%2F87%2F287to27%2F1.jpg&hash=d0165b706ca3973a73a48de26c8be02e75cbb809)
Still weird to see Albuquerque as the control city now for I-40 west... when I lived in Amarillo all the WB BGSes used 'Tucumcari'.
That I-27 South one is different now. The previous BGSes looked similar to this
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpic60.picturetrail.com%2FVOL1724%2F9497942%2F24536499%2F409458776.jpg&hash=b69f21aad612abb419582543e136ae9b4cc3dfa5)
(OK, oh well, so much for my cheap quickie presto-change-o... but I think you get the idea)
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 19, 2014, 03:50:37 PM
Wait a second, once you pointed it out, AHTD went out and REMOVED the signs? Reassurance shields are meant to reassure people that they are indeed driving along US 71, instead of being surprised when US 71 changes into I-540. Why even run routes concurrent if you're never going to sign them as such? Here's our version of an upcoming route concurrency...
Yes, they removed the 62/71 signs shortly after posting I-540 signs, and they removed the US 71 and I-540 signs when they posted I-49. They sent out crews and ordered them to take down the signs. Your tax money at work. As for me, I am boycotting purchasing gasoline in Arkansas until they change their signage policy. I'll get it in Poteau or somewhere.
US 62 and US 77 are signed well while multiplexed with I-40 in Oklahoma
iPhone
I haven't quite figured out AHTD's co-signing process/policy... They don't have a method to their madness, and the OCD in me always goes crazy.
AR 12 in Bentonville and Rogers is a clear example. I still haven't figured out the exact routing of AR 12... AR 72 is badly signed too through the towns.
http://goo.gl/maps/GyQI1
There's that sign... Once you turn left, you're on your own to find AR 72.
For Interstate signage of AR 12... http://goo.gl/maps/tPYyl
AR 12 is going west.
AR 12 is going east now: http://goo.gl/maps/alZhK
http://goo.gl/maps/p5hBd ... So AR 12 doesn't travel north from Exit 85 to 86 on I-49 to go east?
It's such a mess here. And this is why you sign routes, and not do it sporadically. Establish a standard of signing routes... Otherwise there is no use for route numbers!
Quote from: bugo on May 19, 2014, 12:14:11 PM
I took this picture a couple of weeks after I-540 (Future I-49) was completed through the Ozarks. It proves that a 3 highway triplex sign assembly doesn't have to be cluttered. This is not calculus or trigonometry folks. The "one roadway = one number" policy of AHTD is ridiculous. If Arkansas were flat and every one of its roads were section line roads, there would still be 'plexes. Somebody said they were in Dothan, AL and were confused by some signs (they must not have been the sharpest sickle on a Soviet flag) at a highway junction. Of course, AHTD sent out a crew (costing taxpayers money, which was some of my money as I lived in Arkansas at the time) just to remove these signs. That's right, they went out of their way just to make the roads less navigable.
Besides, I just wanted another chance to share my picture. You can call it blurry, but I think the blur ads a psychedelic effect to it and makes it even cooler.
You cannot compare
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3245/2874833866_a1a1f607ab_o.jpg)
to
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi167.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu126%2Fbugo348%2Falabama_zpsb6f18890.jpg&hash=071e7efcef5150b76dd387b81f66cd2a56f4dde5)
They aren't even in the same ballpark.
Still, the Alabama sign assembly isn't that confusing. Seriously. Not to anybody with an IQ over 40.
Yes, I talk about this a lot but it embarrasses me when I tell somebody I'm from Arkansas. It is a passion and a crusade of mine to get this policy changed.
I totally agree with bugo. Another of Arkansas' signing problems (not really related to refusing to sign concurrencies) is having different sections of one state highway in different parts of the state that, if you were to try to connect them with signed concurrencies, would turn into the nightmare that AHTD's policy is trying to avoid. AR 355 & AR 88 (or is it 89? :hmmm: Crap now I can't remember! :banghead: ) are 2 examples of this.
Quote from: bugo on May 19, 2014, 10:50:08 PM
Yes, they removed the 62/71 signs shortly after posting I-540 signs, and they removed the US 71 and I-540 signs when they posted I-49. They sent out crews and ordered them to take down the signs. Your tax money at work. As for me, I am boycotting purchasing gasoline in Arkansas until they change their signage policy. I'll get it in Poteau or somewhere.
The 71 signs disappeared at US 62 when 540 was changed to 49. There was one junction that wasn't changed, but I hesitate to mention where. Then we have TWO alignments of AR 12, but one of them isn't signed well.
Quote from: M86 on May 20, 2014, 02:23:29 AM
I haven't quite figured out AHTD's co-signing process/policy... They don't have a method to their madness, and the OCD in me always goes crazy.
AR 12 in Bentonville and Rogers is a clear example. I still haven't figured out the exact routing of AR 12... AR 72 is badly signed too through the towns.
http://goo.gl/maps/GyQI1
There's that sign... Once you turn left, you're on your own to find AR 72.
For Interstate signage of AR 12... http://goo.gl/maps/tPYyl
AR 12 is going west.
AR 12 is going east now: http://goo.gl/maps/alZhK
http://goo.gl/maps/p5hBd ... So AR 12 doesn't travel north from Exit 85 to 86 on I-49 to go east?
It's such a mess here. And this is why you sign routes, and not do it sporadically. Establish a standard of signing routes... Otherwise there is no use for route numbers!
I think WB 72 "ends" at 49 and begins again at Walton Blvd and Central. It ran with 112 along J St to SW 14th for a while, but J St has reverted back to the city. If you're eastbound on Central, there is a JCT 72 assembly at I-49.
As far as AR 12, maybe that's to keep trucks away from downtown? I can sort see the logic in that, but if that is the case, US 62/Hudson Rd needs to be co-posted
TO 12 , with perhaps a
TO 49 along US 62 at the 8th St/Hudson Rd intersection where 94 goes south.
Jeremy, from the response you have been getting from AHTD, it might be better to go the political route and contact the state senators/reps from Mena and let them know how you feel about this. Either that, or the press. "AHTD policies make it easy for motorists to get lost" should grab someone's attention.
Quote from: cjk374 on May 20, 2014, 06:58:49 AM
I totally agree with bugo. Another of Arkansas' signing problems (not really related to refusing to sign concurrencies) is having different sections of one state highway in different parts of the state that, if you were to try to connect them with signed concurrencies, would turn into the nightmare that AHTD's policy is trying to avoid. AR 355 & AR 88 (or is it 89? :hmmm: Crap now I can't remember! :banghead: ) are 2 examples of this.
I was driving south of Danville on AR 27 and came to AR 28. Rather than concurrent them , AR 28 ends at 27 then picks up again 1 mile further. The route is signed AR 27 TO AR 28. What? Absurdity. Just like AR 74. There is so many I lost count. 3 in Washington County alone. (Elkins, Devils Den, and Whitehouse Rd). I saw 2 295s, 2 16s, 2 103s, 2 28s, 2 88s, and amazingly, a multiplexed AR 10/27.
iPhone
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on May 21, 2014, 01:43:28 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on May 20, 2014, 06:58:49 AM
I totally agree with bugo. Another of Arkansas' signing problems (not really related to refusing to sign concurrencies) is having different sections of one state highway in different parts of the state that, if you were to try to connect them with signed concurrencies, would turn into the nightmare that AHTD's policy is trying to avoid. AR 355 & AR 88 (or is it 89? :hmmm: Crap now I can't remember! :banghead: ) are 2 examples of this.
I was driving south of Danville on AR 27 and came to AR 28. Rather than concurrent them , AR 28 ends at 27 then picks up again 1 mile further. The route is signed AR 27 TO AR 28. What? Absurdity. Just like AR 74. There is so many I lost count. 3 in Washington County alone. (Elkins, Devils Den, and Whitehouse Rd). I saw 2 295s, 2 16s, 2 103s, 2 28s, 2 88s, and amazingly, a multiplexed AR 10/27.
iPhone
74 is one of the most common repeat routes. There's one in Kingston, Jasper, and Marshall as well.
16 was once continuous, but got chopped up .
There are 2 AR 21's (on a technicality). One ends at 412 near Marble, the other begins less than a mile down the road. The interim is posted as TO 21. It's really silly, IMO.
Quote from: US71 on May 21, 2014, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on May 21, 2014, 01:43:28 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on May 20, 2014, 06:58:49 AM
I totally agree with bugo. Another of Arkansas' signing problems (not really related to refusing to sign concurrencies) is having different sections of one state highway in different parts of the state that, if you were to try to connect them with signed concurrencies, would turn into the nightmare that AHTD's policy is trying to avoid. AR 355 & AR 88 (or is it 89? :hmmm: Crap now I can't remember! :banghead: ) are 2 examples of this.
I was driving south of Danville on AR 27 and came to AR 28. Rather than concurrent them , AR 28 ends at 27 then picks up again 1 mile further. The route is signed AR 27 TO AR 28. What? Absurdity. Just like AR 74. There is so many I lost count. 3 in Washington County alone. (Elkins, Devils Den, and Whitehouse Rd). I saw 2 295s, 2 16s, 2 103s, 2 28s, 2 88s, and amazingly, a multiplexed AR 10/27.
iPhone
74 is one of the most common repeat routes. There's one in Kingston, Jasper, and Marshall as well.
16 was once continuous, but got chopped up .
There are 2 AR 21's (on a technicality). One ends at 412 near Marble, the other begins less than a mile down the road. The interim is posted as TO 21. It's really silly, IMO.
We could go all day with this . 2 45s 2 303s. And again this is in just one county...
iPhone
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on May 21, 2014, 10:25:08 AM
Quote from: US71 on May 21, 2014, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on May 21, 2014, 01:43:28 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on May 20, 2014, 06:58:49 AM
I totally agree with bugo. Another of Arkansas' signing problems (not really related to refusing to sign concurrencies) is having different sections of one state highway in different parts of the state that, if you were to try to connect them with signed concurrencies, would turn into the nightmare that AHTD's policy is trying to avoid. AR 355 & AR 88 (or is it 89? :hmmm: Crap now I can't remember! :banghead: ) are 2 examples of this.
I was driving south of Danville on AR 27 and came to AR 28. Rather than concurrent them , AR 28 ends at 27 then picks up again 1 mile further. The route is signed AR 27 TO AR 28. What? Absurdity. Just like AR 74. There is so many I lost count. 3 in Washington County alone. (Elkins, Devils Den, and Whitehouse Rd). I saw 2 295s, 2 16s, 2 103s, 2 28s, 2 88s, and amazingly, a multiplexed AR 10/27.
iPhone
74 is one of the most common repeat routes. There's one in Kingston, Jasper, and Marshall as well.
16 was once continuous, but got chopped up .
There are 2 AR 21's (on a technicality). One ends at 412 near Marble, the other begins less than a mile down the road. The interim is posted as TO 21. It's really silly, IMO.
We could go all day with this . 2 45s 2 303s. And again this is in just one county...
iPhone
In Crawford County, 2 (162's, 348's, 60's, and 282's [282 is concurrent with US 71 for 1/2 mile just north of Alma but is signed as 3 seperate segments]) plus another hwy 60 in conway
Quote from: robbones on May 21, 2014, 09:42:02 PM
In Crawford County, 2 (162's, 348's, 60's, and 282's [282 is concurrent with US 71 for 1/2 mile just north of Alma but is signed as 3 seperate segments]) plus another hwy 60 in conway
And another AR 60 east of Booneville (formerly Hwy 10) ;)
AHTD should just put US71, Bugo, & me in a sign truck filled to max with banner signs, arrow signs, lots of state & US signs & a fuel card. We could solve Arkansas' concurrency signing issues! :nod:
Quote from: cjk374 on May 22, 2014, 11:36:22 PM
AHTD should just put US71, Bugo, & me in a sign truck filled to max with banner signs, arrow signs, lots of state & US signs & a fuel card. We could solve Arkansas' concurrency signing issues! :nod:
I want in on it!!!
iPhone
Quote from: cjk374 on May 22, 2014, 11:36:22 PM
AHTD should just put US71, Bugo, & me in a sign truck filled to max with banner signs, arrow signs, lots of state & US signs & a fuel card. We could solve Arkansas' concurrency signing issues! :nod:
Count me in! I have extreme OCD when it comes to route signage. My Camry won't do.
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on May 23, 2014, 12:56:49 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on May 22, 2014, 11:36:22 PM
AHTD should just put US71, Bugo, & me in a sign truck filled to max with banner signs, arrow signs, lots of state & US signs & a fuel card. We could solve Arkansas' concurrency signing issues! :nod:
I want in on it!!!
iPhone
When can we start? ;)
I'm driving. Since it's an official government operation, we get an official AHTD truck and carte blanche to break the speed limit when it is safe to do so.
Quote from: bugo on May 23, 2014, 10:06:41 AM
I'm driving. Since it's an official government operation, we get an official AHTD truck and carte blanche to break the speed limit when it is safe to do so.
I call dibs on any "dead" signs we find if they can't be used again ;)
Makes you wonder what will happen to 71 when 49 is completed from Texarkana. 471? 71B? Just leave it alone? I suspect it will be rerouted to 49, and be unsigned... Sigh...
iPhone
71 between I-540 and the Louisiana line will most likely be left in place, other than the stretch through Foran Gap, which will be a (likely unsigned unless AHTD changes their policy) triplex of I-49, US 71, and US 270. The interstate will follow the current 71/270 alignment very closely in that area.
Quote from: bugo on May 23, 2014, 02:41:07 PM
71 between I-540 and the Louisiana line will most likely be left in place, other than the stretch through Foran Gap, which will be a (likely unsigned unless AHTD changes their policy) triplex of I-49, US 71, and US 270. The interstate will follow the current 71/270 alignment very closely in that area.
I'm curious about it considering 540 will eventually have a "spur" to I-49 (splitting off somewhere near Exit 10/ AR 45)
Will 71 then be rerouted to 49 or left alone?
If it is rerouted, I suspect we'd see 471 resurrected.
Quote from: US71 on May 27, 2014, 11:39:24 AM
I'm curious about it considering 540 will eventually have a "spur" to I-49 (splitting off somewhere near Exit 10/ AR 45)
Will 71 then be rerouted to 49 or left alone? If it is rerouted, I suspect we'd see 471 resurrected.
I thought such a connector was in the works. I would expect it to be I-449 or something like that.
Quote from: bugo on May 27, 2014, 03:24:40 PM
Quote from: US71 on May 27, 2014, 11:39:24 AM
I'm curious about it considering 540 will eventually have a "spur" to I-49 (splitting off somewhere near Exit 10/ AR 45)
Will 71 then be rerouted to 49 or left alone? If it is rerouted, I suspect we'd see 471 resurrected.
I thought such a connector was in the works. I would expect it to be I-449 or something like that.
Proposed only at this time. I've seen no work being done.
Quote from: US71 on May 27, 2014, 11:39:24 AM
Quote from: bugo on May 23, 2014, 02:41:07 PM
71 between I-540 and the Louisiana line will most likely be left in place, other than the stretch through Foran Gap, which will be a (likely unsigned unless AHTD changes their policy) triplex of I-49, US 71, and US 270. The interstate will follow the current 71/270 alignment very closely in that area.
I'm curious about it considering 540 will eventually have a "spur" to I-49 (splitting off somewhere near Exit 10/ AR 45)
Will 71 then be rerouted to 49 or left alone? If it is rerouted, I suspect we'd see 471 resurrected.
More than likely they will just make it 71B just to keep the US designation. IMO 71A would be a better name if they realign 71
They're not moving 71...zero chance of it unless AHTD's policies change radically.
Quote from: bugo on June 02, 2014, 10:30:54 PM
They're not moving 71...zero chance of it unless AHTD's policies change radically.
It's been known to happen. The Alma-Fayetteville Freeway (I-49) was originally going to be US 71, then it was changed to I-540 before it was actually signed. Pity they didn't keep AR 540.
There were two AR 540s historically...the first one in Fort Smith and the second one from Alma to Mountainburg....both eventually became I-540 and we know what happened to the northern one.
Quote from: bugo on June 03, 2014, 06:55:04 PM
There were two AR 540s historically...the first one in Fort Smith and the second one from Alma to Mountainburg....both eventually became I-540 and we know what happened to the northern one.
I've seen a photo of a 2d-style AR 540 It's an "outline" shield (white outer background)
Quote from: US71 on June 03, 2014, 09:26:16 PM
I've seen a photo of a 2d-style AR 540 It's an "outline" shield (white outer background)
can you post that pic?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 03, 2014, 09:40:45 PM
Quote from: US71 on June 03, 2014, 09:26:16 PM
I've seen a photo of a 2d-style AR 540 It's an "outline" shield (white outer background)
can you post that pic?
If I ever find it again.
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 19, 2014, 03:50:37 PM
Now, really, if you have a "one road, one number" policy, what happens whenever you have a US highway upgraded to an Interstate... do you sign both highways as an Interstate, for concurrencies, or do you only use one? And, really, what happens if a US highway is changed into an Interstate? Would you, for example, change US 425 immediately into I-530 with no transition? And, even better, if Louisiana continues to sign a fictional extension of I-530 as I-530/US 425, what will drivers think whenever the US 425 designation just disappears? You're confusing more people by not signing the concurrency than actually using one number.
I-530 and US 425 are not going to overlap.
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on May 21, 2014, 01:43:28 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on May 20, 2014, 06:58:49 AM
I totally agree with bugo. Another of Arkansas' signing problems (not really related to refusing to sign concurrencies) is having different sections of one state highway in different parts of the state that, if you were to try to connect them with signed concurrencies, would turn into the nightmare that AHTD's policy is trying to avoid. AR 355 & AR 88 (or is it 89? :hmmm: Crap now I can't remember! :banghead: ) are 2 examples of this.
I was driving south of Danville on AR 27 and came to AR 28. Rather than concurrent them , AR 28 ends at 27 then picks up again 1 mile further. The route is signed AR 27 TO AR 28. What?
This has the potential to be confusing. "TO 28"? I thought I was on 28. Did I get lost?"