https://www.kait8.com/2023/10/25/commission-approves-highway-78-designation-through-northeast-arkansas/
Well, this is weird, I am sure most of us were just waiting for US 78 to be truncated to I-22 northwest of Birmingham. :spin: :wow:
Extending US 78 following the route on the map is an even dumber extension of a US highway in Arkansas than the US 63 and US 278 extensions in years past, and it certainly is not direct. I am wondering if AASHTO has approved this yet.
would make way more sense to try to extend US 68. Or get a new number that would also include KY 80.
Was this one of the AASHTO approvals this year? Maybe I ought to start paying attention to their minutes if they are actually approving US Route extensions again.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 26, 2023, 09:31:15 AM
Was this one of the AASHTO approvals this year? Maybe I ought to start paying attention to their minutes if they are actually approving US Route extensions again.
It was not in the Spring one.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 26, 2023, 09:34:22 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 26, 2023, 09:31:15 AM
Was this one of the AASHTO approvals this year? Maybe I ought to start paying attention to their minutes if they are actually approving US Route extensions again.
It was not in the Spring one.
That's even more interesting then if the Arkansas Highway Commission decided they are just doing this without an AASHTO application.
Why?
Like they'll actually sign it anywhere other than where it replaces state routes? The logical routing would be along I-555 into Jonesboro, then along US-49/AR-226 as that's the only reason anyone would take that routing from Memphis. Maybe to get more federal money for maintenance of roads within Jonesboro, for AR-226, and a 4-lane facility between Blytheville and Jonesboro?
Raise your hand if you think Arkansas will dual-sign US 78 along its I-55 concurrency :rolleyes:
I noticed this is a 4-lane corridor, so I guess I can see why AR wants to unify it under a single number. But why is it always Arkansas' first move to do a frivolous US route extension (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2425.50)? Why can't they just give it a single state route number and be done with it?
Talk about a routing no one will use. This routing makes so little sense that I doubt even AASHTO would approve it. Then again, AASHTO has allowed US routes to be truncated at Interstate overpasses without exit ramps, so maybe they'd approve this silly routing.
Quote from: zzcarp on October 26, 2023, 11:04:18 AM
Talk about a routing no one will use. This routing makes so little sense that I doubt even AASHTO would approve it. Then again, AASHTO has allowed US routes to be truncated at Interstate overpasses without exit ramps, so maybe they'd approve this silly routing.
Maybe that's the angle? If you don't think it will get approved then don't bother asking for permission. That angle has worked for a couple states like with US 50A in Nevada and with New Mexico yanking US 82 signs back to Alamogordo.
US 78 has connected Memphis, Tennessee with Charleston, South Carolina since the US Highway System debuted in 1926. Outside of the newspaper article I could not find anything official about the extension: https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2023/oct/26/commission-approves-extending-us-78-designation/. So, I think this is one of those I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it proposals.
A little more research reveals that this idea seems to have been put forth by interests in Jonesboro/Craighead County (https://craigheadcountyar.gov/files/documents/2023-20%20Resolution%20requesting%20the%20addition%20of%20US%20Hwy%2078%20designation%20to%20portions%20of%20interstates%20to%20future%20Interstate%2057.pdf). So it may well be that ARDOT realizes it's a dumb idea. But maybe they don't want to be the ones to tell their own constituents "no". If they submit it to AASHTO but the proposal gets nixed, then at least ARDOT can say they tried, and they don't look like the bad guy. There's lots of precedent for that tactic, going all the way back to... oh, about 1927.
Quote from: usends on October 26, 2023, 12:11:47 PM
https://craigheadcountyar.gov/files/documents/2023-20%20Resolution%20requesting%20the%20addition%20of%20US%20Hwy%2078%20designation%20to%20portions%20of%20interstates%20to%20future%20Interstate%2057.pdf
"Federal Highways" . . . :biggrin:
Quote from: usends on October 26, 2023, 09:58:58 AM
Raise your hand if you think Arkansas will dual-sign US 78 along its I-55 concurrency :rolleyes:
I noticed this is a 4-lane corridor, so I guess I can see why AR wants to unify it under a single number. But why is it always Arkansas' first move to do a frivolous US route extension (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2425.50)? Why can't they just give it a single state route number and be done with it?
It is all over Arkansas. It was mostly done during the Clinton Presidency and the Huckabee Governor Administration it obviously is still going.
Overall in Arkansas, there is a CLEAR difference between the quality of State Highways versus U.S. Highways
Looks like the main reason for this is to replace a major 3-digit state road with a shield. AR 18 has shoulders but is crooked and goes through a bunch of towns.
I'm offended by this proposal as a road geek. :pan: :pan:
Yeah, this is a dumb idea. Who, other than a route-clincher, is going to take US 78 from Memphis to Jonesboro (via Blytheville) when you can take I-155 instead?
This is in preparation for a new bridge at Memphis. When the new bridge is built, they will demote the M-A Bridge to a US route only. (Ahem, US-78)
There I said it.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 26, 2023, 02:23:34 PM
I'm offended by this proposal as a road geek. :pan: :pan:
On the contrary, this should be fascinating you. I see this as something potentially unnecessarily weird and maybe bucking established AASHTO protocols. We need more asymmetry in this hobby as opposed to homogenization.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 26, 2023, 03:05:36 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 26, 2023, 02:23:34 PM
I'm offended by this proposal as a road geek. :pan: :pan:
On the contrary, this should be fascinating you. I see this as something potentially unnecessarily weird and maybe bucking established AASHTO protocols. We need more asymmetry in this hobby as opposed to homogenization.
In the days when improved or paved routes were scarce, or terrain made a through nearly impossible, then route anomalies like this made sense.
This is just...strange and unnecessary. Kind of fascinating in weird way, because nobody seriously asks for major route extensions like this anymore. But it's more of a "US 400" type of thing which adds nothing to the system.
Quote from: formulanone on October 26, 2023, 03:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 26, 2023, 03:05:36 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 26, 2023, 02:23:34 PM
I'm offended by this proposal as a road geek. :pan: :pan:
On the contrary, this should be fascinating you. I see this as something potentially unnecessarily weird and maybe bucking established AASHTO protocols. We need more asymmetry in this hobby as opposed to homogenization.
In the days when improved or paved routes were scarce, or terrain made a through nearly impossible, then route anomalies like this made sense.
This is just...strange and unnecessary. Kind of fascinating in weird way, because nobody seriously asks for major route extensions like this anymore. But it's more of a "US 400" type of thing which adds nothing to the system.
Right, I get all that. That said, if things like US 400 didn't exist how much less interesting would this hobby be? I tend to be of the belief that not having anomalies lessens how interesting the hobby can be when it comes to signed routes. This is part of my argument why grid perfectionism is bad for the hobby.
If it's really needed to have a US route between Blytheville and Jonesboro (to emphasize the road "quality"), they could have applied for it to be an x49 3dus. And it could extend west to hit current US-67 or the future I-57. (When's I-57 going to be finished, anyway?)
The balderdash about needing a single US route from Memphis to I-57 is just that - nonsense. There's already Interstate routes.
At least US-400 is a corridor.
(says the guy who lives 2½ blocks from it...)
I grew up close to US 78, and I still find this extension that may not have even be coordinated with Tennessee or AASHTO quite silly and unnecessary.
I have an idea — instead let's extend US 266 east out of Oklahoma. Run it along existing AR 22 from Fort Smith to Dardanelle, hop it across the Arkansas River, have it follow AR 25 and 14 from Conway to Newport, and then route it the proposed US 78 route.
This is a very dumb routing (and extension of US 78) into Arkansas... :pan:
How much do any of you want to bet that this proposal never gets implemented? If a US Highway were to be designated along this corridor (very unlikely), it would very likely get a different designation, like US 261 or US 267.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 26, 2023, 05:44:21 PM
How much do any of you want to bet that this proposal never gets implemented? If a US Highway were to be designated along this corridor (very unlikely), it would very likely get a different designation, like US 261 or US 267.
In recent times, AASHTO and FHWA have cared very little about Roadgeeks' interpretations of numbering rules.
Three US routes terminate from the east at Memphis: US 51, US 72 and US 78. There just isn't any logical extension of any of them across the river, but logical extensions didn't stop ARDOT with US 63. The creation of I-555 saved them.
I looked and there aren't any good options coming down from up north either. In fact, I was surprised (and a little refreshed) at how there were so few E-W US highways in Southern Illinois.
US 51 terminates in La Place, LA (and historically New Orleans), not Memphis. US 72 and US 78 are the only US Highways that terminate in Memphis.
This is what happens when you have politicians running the transportation department...instead of, oh I dunno, a professional who's at least half sane...
Arkansas wanted a US highway number for a 75-mile corridor. So they stole a US number from another state, 70 miles out of direction to do it...
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 26, 2023, 06:18:27 AM
Well, this is weird, I am sure most of us were just waiting for US 78 to be truncated to I-22 northwest of Birmingham. :spin: :wow:
I know I was.
As for this extension, I believe that it's most likely the prank of some dumbass in AR who saw the stub end across the river in Memphis and decided to play around with it for a bit.
Quote from: US 89 on October 26, 2023, 10:34:22 PM
Arkansas wanted a US highway number for a 75-mile corridor. So they stole a US number from another state, 70 miles out of direction to do it...
Well, I guess they recognized that the AASTHO probably wouldn't want to allow a less-than-100-mile intrastate US Route designation...
512?
I know, everyone gets upriled when I discuss Arkansas Highways and the Arkansas Highway Commission. The current Chairman of the Highway Commission is Alec Farmer from Jonesboro. While the number 78 may not keep, there will almost surely be a re-numbering of this stretch of road. A X63 or X67 would seem to be a better fit and would require fewer or no co-routed miles. US-72 would also be a feasible number as opposed to 78. They probably selected 78 because it is longer and arguably more prestigious in it current form and there is already an X78 in Arkansas.
As far as road go, the Highway Commission makes all the decisions for ArDOT. The Chairman is probably among the three most powerful positions in Arkansas Government. It might be as powerful as the governor and the speaker of the house. The only reason the Governor would be more powerful is that she appoints the members of the Commission and nominates its Chairman.
And Lorie Tudor is President of the Southern Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Board of Directors, so there'll be at least that support in AASHTO, especially given that a US designation for the route would make for better marketing in the area for manufacturing and warehousing/logistics companies as well as get more federal funds on an ongoing basis for maintenance/upgrades.
I see the reasoning to request it. I can't really see the justification for continuing up I-55 to Blytheville and turning AR-18 into a US-highway other than for a little extra marketing in the Blytheville area on the southwest outskirts or Jonesboro's eastside for transportation/logistics/manufacturing. They probably want to push more growth especially on Jonesboro's eastside along the new bypass they are constructing from I-555 to US-49. The perks of being the Chairman of ARDOT being from Jonesboro. It is the fastest growing area in Arkansas right now, though, if I'm playing Devil's Advocate.
Makes for an ugly route on a map that no one would follow in its entirety, however.
If you really want a US number on that corridor, a better idea might be to send it north from Blytheville and over the I-155 bridge to Dyersburg, then southeast along TN 104 to US 45W at Trenton, much of which is already a four lane corridor. If you're okay breaking the even = east/west convention (yes I know this isn't technically a rule for 3dus routes, but most follow it anyway), then x67, x49, x63, x61, x51, or x45 designations would be available. If you want an even number for it, it junctions US 412, so... 612?
This of course requires some cooperation on Tennessee and Missouri's parts, but at least it results in a corridor that people might actually follow.
I find extending US 78 like this to be particularly irksome since in my opinion, that route should be truncated to at least Birmingham. I-22 makes it redundant west of there, so it should go bye-bye.
I always thought the I-555 corridor could have been an extension of US78. Dragging it north-northeast and then westward by way of a 120-degree turn is completely asinine, though.
Here are a couple of URLs that have information on this exciting new development in Arkansas' dynamic US highway system:
AHTD (https://www.ardot.gov/news/nr-23-364/)
Arkansas Democrat Gazette (https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2023/oct/26/commission-approves-extending-us-78-designation/)
A couple of maps:
(https://i.imgur.com/kDWBN4H.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/i0UHTOl.jpg)
Here is the resolution from Craighead County requesting ArDOT to extend US 78 along this corridor. I edited the document so it would all fit on one image:
(https://i.imgur.com/mMrLkTh.jpg)
Video from the October 25, 2023 Arkansas State Highway Commission Meeting (starts at 10:17ish). Note that it mentions I-42 and the US 412 reroute at Hoxie/Walnut Ridge as well:
As for the US 78 extension, I approve of a single number for AR 226 and AR 18, but the dogleg along I-55 is ridiculous. Too bad AASHTO doesn't allow single state US highways anymore, because this would be perfect for it. As far as extending existing US highways, there really aren't any good options. AASHTO's own policies are at fault for silly convoluted routings, much like the old US 63 when it still went through West Memphis. Perhaps a better option is to get Kentucky and Tennessee on board, and commission a brand new US highway that follows AR 226 and AR 18, but turns north on I-55 at Blytheville, then follow I-155 across that little brook that divides the country, then north on US 51/Future I-69 and east on KY 80 all the way to west of Glasgow, where it would follow the Cumberland Parkway east to Somerset, then back to KY 80 east to London, then the Hal Rogers Parkway east to Watergap, where it would end at US 23. This is still inelegant, but it's better than Dogleg 78.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 26, 2023, 09:31:15 AM
Was this one of the AASHTO approvals this year? Maybe I ought to start paying attention to their minutes if they are actually approving US Route extensions again.
This is an excerpt from the resolution Craighead County sent to ArDOT:
(https://i.imgur.com/49FqgaG.jpg)
Quote from: formulanone on October 26, 2023, 03:11:16 PM
But it's more of a "US 400" type of thing which adds nothing to the system.
But we have to remember the origins of US-400. US-400 was originally designated about 25 years ago when Congress came up with the idea of building another transcontinental interstate by extending I-66 from northern Virginia to California. US-400 was designated to establish the future I-66 corridor through Kansas and eastern Colorado, and a short section of what was to be I-66 was built around Neodosha, Kansas.
But now that the transcontinental I-66 proposal is dead, I would agree that US-400 no longer serves any real purpose, and should be decommissioned.
Quote from: bwana39 on October 26, 2023, 01:17:44 PM
Overall in Arkansas, there is a CLEAR difference between the quality of State Highways versus U.S. Highways
Not always. Some Arkansas state highways are better than some US highways. For example, AR 27 from Mount Ida to Dardanelle is a curvy mountain road, but it is a high quality highway that can be handled at highway speeds. It's no worse than US 71 from Greenwood to Ben Lomond. AR 10 and AR 22 are quality roads, as are long stretches of AR 1, some of which are 4 lanes.
Quote from: Road Hog on October 26, 2023, 02:08:48 PM
Looks like the main reason for this is to replace a major 3-digit state road with a shield. AR 18 has shoulders but is crooked and goes through a bunch of towns.
AR 18 is an Arkansas Freeway from Jonesboro to Blytheville.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 26, 2023, 03:05:36 PM
On the contrary, this should be fascinating (to) you. I see this as something potentially unnecessarily weird and maybe bucking established AASHTO protocols. We need more asymmetry in this hobby as opposed to homogenization.
Right, I get all that. That said, if things like US 400 didn't exist how much less interesting would this hobby be? I tend to be of the belief that not having anomalies lessens how interesting the hobby can be when it comes to signed routes. This is part of my argument why grid perfectionism is bad for the hobby.
I strongly agree. A lot of the geekier road enthuiasts want everything to be the same everywhere. New ugly concrete bridges, shiny new homogenized signs, no numbering anomalies, all highways fitting neatly into a neat grid, no harmless sign errors. They want everything interesting about the hobby to go away. If their utopia had been implemented by 1970, I wouldn't even be interested in roads. So why do they want to fuck that up? Goddam nerds.
Hey, I know I already posted in here, but I have to wonder-- could this be a political ploy to try and pull for a new bridge over the Mississippi River to northeast Arkansas? Are they trying to set the stage for a future plea for a new bridge? "Hey look, we have this important US highway in northeast Arkansas and it just dead-ends at the river, diving south on US61 to Memphis. Maybe we should continue this corridor eastward into Tennessee?" Politicians approve these moves to designate highways, so I'm wondering what the political motive behind this is. This is just me spitballing; you all are welcome to spitball as well.
This article from the Batesville Daily Guard (https://www.guardonline.com/news/arkansas-adds-u-s-highway-78-to-highway-network/article_c0064e7a-fe59-5fef-9a8b-b86d9e4905d6.html) makes a questionable claim:
QuoteApproximately 140 highway miles in Arkansas will be dual-signed as U.S. Highway 78. Highways and Interstates included in the dual-signage route will retain their original designation as well as the new U.S. Highway 78 designation, as is common practice with many existing State Highways.
This is highly unlikely, as the AR 226 and AR 18 signs will more than likely come down not long after the US 78 shields go up.
Has AASHTO approved the extension of US-78? I don't know what AASHTO approves anymore, since after they redid their website, it looks like AASHTO no longer publishes their route numbering decisions online.
Quote from: bugo on October 27, 2023, 10:12:09 AM
As for the US 78 extension, I approve of a single number for AR 226 and AR 18, but the dogleg along I-55 is ridiculous. Too bad AASHTO doesn't allow single state US highways anymore, because this would be perfect for it. As far as extending existing US highways, there really aren't any good options. AASHTO's own policies are at fault for silly convoluted routings, much like the old US 63 when it still went through West Memphis. Perhaps a better option is to get Kentucky and Tennessee on board, and commission a brand new US highway that follows AR 226 and AR 18, but turns north on I-55 at Blytheville, then follow I-155 across that little brook that divides the country, then north on US 51/Future I-69 and east on KY 80 all the way to west of Glasgow, where it would follow the Cumberland Parkway east to Somerset, then back to KY 80 east to London, then the Hal Rogers Parkway east to Watergap, where it would end at US 23. This is still inelegant, but it's better than Dogleg 78.
I thought about something that would involve Kentucky and Tennessee (and Missouri) that would be more logical than the extension of US 78 due north, then due west.
Eliminate US 68 northwest of KY 80 at the western end of the Eggners Ferry Bridge. Continue the US 68/KY 80 concurrency west to Mayfield, then route US 68 along either US 45 or the Purchase Parkway (future I-69) southwest to Fulton, then along US 45W/US 51 (future I-69) to Union City and along US 51 (again, future I-69) to Dyersburg, then across the river on US 412/I-155 to I-55 south to Blytheville, where it would take over the proposed US 78 corridor.
There's a lot of overlap on existing routes, but it would get Arkansas its desire for a US highway corridor between Jonesboro and Blytheville if they're not sold on the concept of it being US 78 and would accept 68 instead.
As for Jeremy's proposal, I think it makes sense for the corridor between I-65 and US 23 to have its own singular designation. But the Cumberland
Parkway Expressway is already in line to be I-365, and there are still references to I-66 within Kentucky's planning documents.
This is the most insane route proposal I have ever seen.
The route via AR 226 and AR 18 could be a viable US route, perhaps as a rerouting of 412. But extending 78 in this manner is crazy.
Now that I-22 has been a thing for a while now, truncating rather than extending US 78 would have been a much more logical decision.
Hey, keeping the messed up numbers game, the this road should be numbered as US-412S
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 27, 2023, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: formulanone on October 26, 2023, 03:11:16 PM
But it's more of a "US 400" type of thing which adds nothing to the system.
But we have to remember the origins of US-400. US-400 was originally designated about 25 years ago when Congress came up with the idea of building another transcontinental interstate by extending I-66 from northern Virginia to California. US-400 was designated to establish the future I-66 corridor through Kansas and eastern Colorado, and a short section of what was to be I-66 was built around Neodosha, Kansas.
But now that the transcontinental I-66 proposal is dead, I would agree that US-400 no longer serves any real purpose, and should be decommissioned.
Not sure why this is such a popular opinion. US 400 pretty much follows the original intent of 3-digit US highways to the t. The Wichita metro has over 500,000 people in it, so naturally it will attract traffic from multiple states. US 54 serves other destinations, so without 400, there is no direct connection on the national grid between Wichita and Joplin or Springfield. I would say it's much more important than US 166.
The numbering choice and extension to Colorado are a different story, but let's not act like it isn't important.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 28, 2023, 11:32:11 AM
US 400 pretty much follows the original intent of 3-digit US highways to the t.
So it's a spur of US 0? Where is US 0, where does US 400 intersect it, and how does US 400 as a spur further the function of US 0?
Quote from: vdeane on October 28, 2023, 04:42:12 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 28, 2023, 11:32:11 AM
US 400 pretty much follows the original intent of 3-digit US highways to the t.
So it's a spur of US 0? Where is US 0, where does US 400 intersect it, and how does US 400 as a spur further the function of US 0?
I'm talking about the highway, not the number. If it were numbered as an x54, x50, or x66 and truncated to Dodge City, it would be just fine.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 28, 2023, 11:32:11 AM
The numbering choice and extension to Colorado are a different story, but let's not act like it isn't important.
Another reason this is a crazy plan: one of the states most likely to not sign an overlap, is the one who has put together a plan with overlaps. So AR really wants this, but how much of US 78 in AR will drivers actually see signed?
Hopefully this will get turned down flat.
The US 78 Wikipedia page has been updated to reference the US 78 extension proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_78#Future. I still think the US 78 designation has a better chance of being truncated than extended, although US 278 had a convoluted extension from Amory, MS to Wickes, AR in 1998, so this US 78 extension proposal is not unprecedented.
Quote from: bugo on October 27, 2023, 01:32:29 PM
This article from the Batesville Daily Guard (https://www.guardonline.com/news/arkansas-adds-u-s-highway-78-to-highway-network/article_c0064e7a-fe59-5fef-9a8b-b86d9e4905d6.html) makes a questionable claim:
QuoteApproximately 140 highway miles in Arkansas will be dual-signed as U.S. Highway 78. Highways and Interstates included in the dual-signage route will retain their original designation as well as the new U.S. Highway 78 designation, as is common practice with many existing State Highways.
This is highly unlikely, as the AR 226 and AR 18 signs will more than likely come down not long after the US 78 shields go up.
This is the transportation version of "Just the tip."
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 29, 2023, 06:47:56 PM
The US 78 Wikipedia page has been updated to reference the US 78 extension proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_78#Future. I still think the US 78 designation has a better chance of being truncated than extended, although US 278 had a convoluted extension from Amory, MS to Wickes, AR in 1998, so this US 78 extension proposal is not unprecedented.
How long till the powers that be at Wikipedia delete (or deny) the changes?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 27, 2023, 01:56:23 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 27, 2023, 10:12:09 AM
As for the US 78 extension, I approve of a single number for AR 226 and AR 18, but the dogleg along I-55 is ridiculous. Too bad AASHTO doesn't allow single state US highways anymore, because this would be perfect for it. As far as extending existing US highways, there really aren't any good options. AASHTO's own policies are at fault for silly convoluted routings, much like the old US 63 when it still went through West Memphis. Perhaps a better option is to get Kentucky and Tennessee on board, and commission a brand new US highway that follows AR 226 and AR 18, but turns north on I-55 at Blytheville, then follow I-155 across that little brook that divides the country, then north on US 51/Future I-69 and east on KY 80 all the way to west of Glasgow, where it would follow the Cumberland Parkway east to Somerset, then back to KY 80 east to London, then the Hal Rogers Parkway east to Watergap, where it would end at US 23. This is still inelegant, but it's better than Dogleg 78.
I thought about something that would involve Kentucky and Tennessee (and Missouri) that would be more logical than the extension of US 78 due north, then due west.
Eliminate US 68 northwest of KY 80 at the western end of the Eggners Ferry Bridge. Continue the US 68/KY 80 concurrency west to Mayfield, then route US 68 along either US 45 or the Purchase Parkway (future I-69) southwest to Fulton, then along US 45W/US 51 (future I-69) to Union City and along US 51 (again, future I-69) to Dyersburg, then across the river on US 412/I-155 to I-55 south to Blytheville, where it would take over the proposed US 78 corridor.
There's a lot of overlap on existing routes, but it would get Arkansas its desire for a US highway corridor between Jonesboro and Blytheville if they're not sold on the concept of it being US 78 and would accept 68 instead.
As for Jeremy's proposal, I think it makes sense for the corridor between I-65 and US 23 to have its own singular designation. But the Cumberland Parkway Expressway is already in line to be I-365, and there are still references to I-66 within Kentucky's planning documents.
I honestly like this idea better than the US 78 proposal. It involves more states, but it is more of a logical extension than US 78 is.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 28, 2023, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 27, 2023, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: formulanone on October 26, 2023, 03:11:16 PM
But it's more of a "US 400" type of thing which adds nothing to the system.
But we have to remember the origins of US-400. US-400 was originally designated about 25 years ago when Congress came up with the idea of building another transcontinental interstate by extending I-66 from northern Virginia to California. US-400 was designated to establish the future I-66 corridor through Kansas and eastern Colorado, and a short section of what was to be I-66 was built around Neodosha, Kansas.
But now that the transcontinental I-66 proposal is dead, I would agree that US-400 no longer serves any real purpose, and should be decommissioned.
Not sure why this is such a popular opinion. US 400 pretty much follows the original intent of 3-digit US highways to the t. The Wichita metro has over 500,000 people in it, so naturally it will attract traffic from multiple states. US 54 serves other destinations, so without 400, there is no direct connection on the national grid between Wichita and Joplin or Springfield. I would say it's much more important than US 166.
The numbering choice and extension to Colorado are a different story, but let's not act like it isn't important.
As I've mentioned elsewhere on the forum, US-400 in southeastern Kansas is also busier than US-54, especially commercial traffic.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 27, 2023, 01:56:23 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 27, 2023, 10:12:09 AM
As for the US 78 extension, I approve of a single number for AR 226 and AR 18, but the dogleg along I-55 is ridiculous. Too bad AASHTO doesn't allow single state US highways anymore, because this would be perfect for it. As far as extending existing US highways, there really aren't any good options. AASHTO's own policies are at fault for silly convoluted routings, much like the old US 63 when it still went through West Memphis. Perhaps a better option is to get Kentucky and Tennessee on board, and commission a brand new US highway that follows AR 226 and AR 18, but turns north on I-55 at Blytheville, then follow I-155 across that little brook that divides the country, then north on US 51/Future I-69 and east on KY 80 all the way to west of Glasgow, where it would follow the Cumberland Parkway east to Somerset, then back to KY 80 east to London, then the Hal Rogers Parkway east to Watergap, where it would end at US 23. This is still inelegant, but it's better than Dogleg 78.
I thought about something that would involve Kentucky and Tennessee (and Missouri) that would be more logical than the extension of US 78 due north, then due west.
Eliminate US 68 northwest of KY 80 at the western end of the Eggners Ferry Bridge. Continue the US 68/KY 80 concurrency west to Mayfield, then route US 68 along either US 45 or the Purchase Parkway (future I-69) southwest to Fulton, then along US 45W/US 51 (future I-69) to Union City and along US 51 (again, future I-69) to Dyersburg, then across the river on US 412/I-155 to I-55 south to Blytheville, where it would take over the proposed US 78 corridor.
There's a lot of overlap on existing routes, but it would get Arkansas its desire for a US highway corridor between Jonesboro and Blytheville if they're not sold on the concept of it being US 78 and would accept 68 instead.
As for Jeremy's proposal, I think it makes sense for the corridor between I-65 and US 23 to have its own singular designation. But the Cumberland Parkway Expressway is already in line to be I-365, and there are still references to I-66 within Kentucky's planning documents.
Yours is not much (any) less convoluted and it is not going to happen as yours would have to reroute US-68 in a state that gains nothing from it.
It's a stretch, but I like that a U.S. Route is getting extended, but that routing is not ideal, to say the least.
It may be a stretch, but IMO a better option, similar to what's posted above, is to extend either US-48 or US-58 across Kentucky (along KY 80) or Tennessee (possibly replace TN's portion of 412?) and have it drop down from the Missouri bootheel before splitting from I-55 at Blytheville. Yes, it's a long extension for this, and yes, it cuts a tiny corner of Missouri, but either option is a better alignment than this.
If anything, 78 should just follow I-555 to Jonesboro and split off there, or it could subsume US-412 from Jonesboro west, with 412 east (all the way to Columbia TN) becoming an available US-x78
A better idea would have been to renumber AR 18 from west of Jonesboro to Newport and renaming AR 226 to AR 18. Problem solved.
That's disappointing that the extension of U.S 78 includes following I-55 to Blytheville then westward. It makes it kinda useless except from U.S. 67 (Future I-57) to Jonesboro
It's lame as all get out, but that's how Arkansas rolls. The original US 63 extension from Turrell to West Memphis to Hazen was even worse.
Update: AASHTO approved (https://transportation.org/route/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2023/12/Final_Report_USRN_Fall_2023_R_1.pdf) this extension of US 78 at their Nov. 2023 meeting. It was a joint application from TN and AR. TN had to truncate the westernmost segment of 78, and then reroute it along Crump Blvd. in order to get to I-55 and into AR.
That really surprises me.
Quote from: codyg1985 on December 05, 2023, 08:05:47 AM
That really surprises me.
One of the members of the subcommittee is an Arkansan, so it probably a fait accompli.
The Crump realignment of US 78 in Memphis seems like the only logical portion of the extension. Crump is the through movement on US 78 at I-240 and is a continuous route to I-55.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 29, 2023, 09:25:18 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 29, 2023, 06:47:56 PM
The US 78 Wikipedia page has been updated to reference the US 78 extension proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_78#Future. I still think the US 78 designation has a better chance of being truncated than extended, although US 278 had a convoluted extension from Amory, MS to Wickes, AR in 1998, so this US 78 extension proposal is not unprecedented.
How long till the powers that be at Wikipedia delete (or deny) the changes?
It is rarely the powers that be. It is usually a former poster who is notified of his script being changed. For what it is worth. The two times an edit of mine was quickly rolled back, what it was replaced by was new and actually an improvement on the minor edit I had made. The other time, it was the exact drivel I had edited. I probably have 200 minor edits in wikipedia. The US-78 one was not one of mine. Fact of business, I don't think I have done anything about highways at all.
How will US 78 connect with Interstate 40? One possibility is to run it northward on US 64/70/79/S. B.B. King Blvd. (and southward on S. 2nd St.), have it turn west on Union Ave., then turn north on Riverside Dr. to Interstate 40. I prefer this routing to having it head southward on S. B.B. King Blvd., west on E. E.H. Crump Ave., and then west on Interstate 55 (which I believe is the route it is proposed to follow).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 05, 2023, 05:59:21 PM
How will US 78 connect with Interstate 40? One possibility is to run it northward on US 64/70/79/S. B.B. King Blvd. (and southward on S. 2nd St.), have it turn west on Union Ave., then turn north on Riverside Dr. to Interstate 40. I prefer this routing to having it head southward on S. B.B. King Blvd., west on E. E.H. Crump Ave., and then west on Interstate 55 (which I believe is the route it is proposed to follow).
US 78 will change to run Lamar to Crump directly instead of going downtown at all
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 05, 2023, 09:18:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 05, 2023, 05:59:21 PM
How will US 78 connect with Interstate 40? One possibility is to run it northward on US 64/70/79/S. B.B. King Blvd. (and southward on S. 2nd St.), have it turn west on Union Ave., then turn north on Riverside Dr. to Interstate 40. I prefer this routing to having it head southward on S. B.B. King Blvd., west on E. E.H. Crump Ave., and then west on Interstate 55 (which I believe is the route it is proposed to follow).
US 78 will change to run Lamar to Crump directly instead of going downtown at all
Which is the better routing solution anyway. It can then run along Crump to pick up I-55 and (to answer The Ghostbuster's question) converge with I-40 in West Memphis. I do like the idea of continuing through downtown and onto Riverside Drive to join I-40 in town, and certainly that routing will justify the existence of the directional T interchange there, but I don't think TDOT/the City of Memphis would want to undertake an expensive upgrade to accommodate it.
Quote from: codyg1985 on December 05, 2023, 08:05:47 AM
That really surprises me.
A leaf covered in hieroglyphics could blow onto the desk of the AASHTO US Numbering Committee and they would approve it.
Does anyone know if ARDOT has signposted US 78 yet?
I highly doubt it is yet, although Wikipedia's US 78 page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_78) and usends.com's US 78 page (https://www.usends.com/78.html) have both been updated to reflect US 78's new (and in my opinion, dubious) western terminus.
Quote from: usends on February 21, 2024, 05:24:01 PM
Does anyone know if ARDOT has signposted US 78 yet?
The only places it ever will be done will be on the starting ends of on ramps and on the segments where it will supersede a state highway. ARDOT is not well known for signing concurrencies on roads with multiple tiers of classification when it comes to confidence shields at least.
I believe US 78 is still signed on its old alignment in Memphis, from what I recall seeing at the start of last month, but I suppose that's to be expected given with the quality of route signage in the cities in Tennessee.
Both ends of US 78's 1926-2023 terminuses (Memphis, TN to Charleston, SC) signed 78 poorly within their cities: https://www.usends.com/78.html. It will be interesting to see how well-signed it will be in Arkansas, although it likely won't be signed along Interstates 40 and 55.
Swa some posts (from forum user ericlipford) in the AASHTO Fall Meeting 2023 thread showing US 78 signage along Crump Boulevard in Memphis and I-55 in Arkansas, so will link them here:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?msg=2916462
(https://i.imgur.com/zeT2Lpb.jpeg)
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?msg=2916877
(https://i.imgur.com/45ayU4q.jpeg)
This should have been signed as US 412S or US 412A. Routing US 78 via this routing makes no routing sense. They already built I-555.
I think if they're going that way, US 78 can be extended further from Newport to Batesville and Heber down to Conway and maybe farther west, subsuming AR 22.
Doesn't mean I'm in favor of it (US 266 out of OK is a good candidate) but this douche ex machina popped up from nowhere.
Quote from: Road Hog on May 26, 2024, 02:21:16 AMdouche ex machina
Gonna save that phrase in my pocket for a later date.
Google Maps still hasn't been updated to include the US 78 extension to US 67/Future Interstate 57.
Should really extend US 72 instead. Truncate US 78 to Birmingham and nix the long I-22/ US 78 concurrency.
Update: I received a report that US 78 shields have been added to ground-mounted signposts along its segment between I-55 and US 67 (however, overhead signs on those freeways have not yet been changed). Surprisingly the short concurrency with I-555 in Jonesboro is dual-signed as US 78; the only thing I haven't heard is whether Arkansas co-signed US 78 along its I-55 overlap.
Quote from: usends on June 02, 2024, 10:48:57 PMUpdate: I received a report that US 78 shields have been added to ground-mounted signposts along its segment between I-55 and US 67 (however, overhead signs on those freeways have not yet been changed). Surprisingly the short concurrency with I-555 in Jonesboro is dual-signed as US 78; the only thing I haven't heard is whether Arkansas co-signed US 78 along its I-55 overlap.
US 78 is co-signed with I-55 in its concurrency. I drove the I-55 and I-555 overlaps about a week ago (no pictures from me, unfortunately).
Edit: See
The Stranger's image above of US 78 and I-55 being co-signed. Also, I did not see any updated BGSs when I was down there.
I've never seen that style of side-by-side sign mounting in Arkansas before.
Then what about US 61? It too concurs with US 78 along I-55? Is it going to be signed as well?
Probably not. So a big double standard there. Just like US 160 in CO is the only US route in that state to go outside that state's numbering convention to be signed with I-25.
The only reason this is being co-signed with the I-55 concurrency, unlike EVEN A SINGLE OTHER Interstate in Arkansas, is to get Jonesboro and Blytheville more federal money for maintenance and marketing as a federal highway instead of just AR-18. It's a vanity project for an ARDOT commission chairman from the area to bring home bacon. At the end of the day, the road is already a 5 lane Arkansas freeway between Jonesboro and Blytheville, as well as from US-67 to Jonesboro along AR-226. The area certainly needs more investment as NEA is the 2nd fastest growing area in Arkansas, but the money is better spent with US-412 to better directly connect to NWA and I-57 to pull trucks off the east half of I-40.
How does it get them more money? US routes don't get any special pot of money or anything - they're no different than any other federal aid route. Arkansas signing US 78 is just slapping a bunch of shields down for little/no reason.
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2024, 08:02:17 PMHow does it get them more money? US routes don't get any special pot of money or anything - they're no different than any other federal aid route. Arkansas signing US 78 is just slapping a bunch of shields down for little/no reason.
Yep, a concurrency with an Interstate doesn't help any state get more federal-aid funding.
Quote from: formulanone on May 26, 2024, 10:50:53 AMQuote from: Road Hog on May 26, 2024, 02:21:16 AMdouche ex machina
Gonna save that phrase in my pocket for a later date.
Are you sure you would save it in a pocket? :bigass:
Quote from: roadman65 on June 03, 2024, 10:20:38 AMThen what about US 61? It too concurs with US 78 along I-55? Is it going to be signed as well?
Probably not. So a big double standard there. Just like US 160 in CO is the only US route in that state to go outside that state's numbering convention to be signed with I-25.
Someone should make a meme where the dude (I-55) is looking back at US 78 while holding the hand of US 61.
The US 78 designation in Arkansas has been added to Google Maps. However, only the portion from Interstate 555 in Jonesboro (Exit 39) to Interstate 55 in Blytheville (Exit 67) is marked. The rest of the extension of US 78 into Arkansas will likely be added to Google Maps in due time.
Quote from: Road Hog on June 06, 2024, 07:05:52 PMQuote from: roadman65 on June 03, 2024, 10:20:38 AMThen what about US 61? It too concurs with US 78 along I-55? Is it going to be signed as well?
Probably not. So a big double standard there. Just like US 160 in CO is the only US route in that state to go outside that state's numbering convention to be signed with I-25.
Someone should make a meme where the dude (I-55) is looking back at US 78 while holding the hand of US 61.
Like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/6ytiJuH.png)
Nailed it!
I drove some of the highways in northeast Arkansas last week and saw US 78 signs along I-55 between Marion and Blytheville, and along AR 18 between Manila and Blytheville. This has to be the stupidest routing of a US highway that I have ever seen.
US 78 markers now follow Interstate 55 from Blytheville to Memphis on Google Maps, although there aren't any on E. E.H. Crump Blvd. yet. However, Google Maps did make a major boo-boo with the US 78 designation in far-western Memphis and in W. Memphis. Although the US 78 markers are correctly on Interstate 55, US 78 markers were also placed on the railroad tracks that parallel Interstate 55. The western end of the US 78 railroad tracks is here in Marion: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2046693,-90.1923459,262m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu; and the eastern end of the US 78 railroad tracks is here in Memphis: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1264607,-90.0650305,278m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu.
it appears on the 2024 Arkansas official, but apparently they didn't have time to color the road lines red as all US highways are on the Arkansas official.
(https://i.imgur.com/2luhyQV.png) (https://i.imgur.com/2luhyQV.png)
Huge map, but it shows the entire convoluted extension.
(https://i.imgur.com/oCLtWhO.png)
US 78 now begins at US 67 west of Cash, Arkansas. It follows AR 226 and US 49 to Jonesboro...
(https://i.imgur.com/4oBFMv8.png)
It is marked along I-555. US 63 is nowhere to be seen, despite forming a triplex with US 49 and the new bastard child US 78 and a duplex with I-555.
(https://i.imgur.com/qRAitAs.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/SKuQd0w.png)
US 78 crosses US 61 twice in Blytheville and duplexes with it in West Memphis, it meets I-555 twice, once in Turrell and again in Jonesboro.
(https://i.imgur.com/pWNr8eQ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/91fsEYR.png)
US 78 is marked along I-55.
(https://i.imgur.com/UDI6WuR.jpeg)
US 78 is prominently signed, but US 61, 64 and 79 are not? What's the point in even signing this highway that nobody will take from beginning to end if you're going to ignore the others?
I just got a photo of US 78 signage (https://www.usends.com/78.html) from someone who was at the new west terminus. Also, it turns out a Street View car went through there in April, and US 78 was already signposted by then.
Quote from: usends on July 09, 2024, 04:54:49 PMI just got a photo of US 78 signage (https://www.usends.com/78.html) from someone who was at the new west terminus. Also, it turns out a Street View car went through there in April, and US 78 was already signposted by then.
The Cash-Jonesboro sign is a different font. Is ARDOT starting to phase that in?
Quote from: Henry on October 26, 2023, 10:37:19 PMQuote from: 74/171FAN on October 26, 2023, 06:18:27 AMWell, this is weird, I am sure most of us were just waiting for US 78 to be truncated to I-22 northwest of Birmingham. :spin: :wow:
I know I was.
Did you think Mississippi and Alabama would really have truncated US 78? Neither state is known for decommissioning highways.
AASHTO is so zealous about the single state rule that they managed to break two other guidelines they wouldn't have broken if the Cash-Blytheville highway could have been a single state US highway:
QuoteExtension of present U.S. numbered routes may be made only when the proposed extension is in the general direction of the present route.
And this one:
QuoteAny proposal that would exploit the prestige of the U.S. numbered highway system to direct traffic over routes that are not the shortest and best available between major control points on the system, especially when it appears to be for the purpose of benefiting businesses located along such a proposed route, shall constitute reason for denying any application to make such an addition to the system.
I am of the opinion that short single state routes that connect two or more US highways have a place in the system. The former US 154 in Kansas is an excellent example.