AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)  (Read 25765 times)

usends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 433
  • usends.com

  • Location: Headwaters Hill, CO
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 09:08:26 PM
    • US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history
Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« on: February 19, 2010, 12:55:39 PM »

A different discussion on this board got me thinking about the many relatively-recent US highway extensions in Arkansas.  Now that I've taken the time to look a little more closely, I have to ask: what the heck is with these guys?

It seems AHDT has been quite intent on getting as many US routes as possible signed through their state, but I would consider just about every major change they've made since the 1960s to be egregious.  I'm not concerned here with minor changes (such as rerouting a US highway along a new bypass)... I'm referring to US route extensions or creations.  Following is the list I've come up with (am I forgetting anything?)  Notice how many of these changes involve a.) creation of a new US route; b.) extension of an existing US route across the entire state; c.) a routing that is not the shortest distance between endpoints; and/or d.) long overlap with an existing US route:

1961: US 167 extended north from Little Rock to Hardy AR (which is essentially on the Missouri border).  The Hardy-to-Bald Knob segment (formerly SH-11) seems like a fairly-well-traveled corridor, but did it really have to be changed to a US route?  Especially when you consider that extending US 167 from Little Rock to Bald Knob involved a 60-mile overlap with US 67?

1963: US 49 extended from Clarksdale MS to Brinkley AR.  The AR segment was along the former SH-20 and SH-39.  The MS segment of this extension was 30 miles long, and 20 miles of that was an overlap along existing US 61.  Still, I can concede this seems like a reasonable extension, especially considering that it involved what I believe was a new bridge over the Mississippi... but then look at what they did 17 years later (next entry):

1980: US 49 extended (along former SH-39 and SH-1) to its current terminus in Piggott (which is essentially on the Missouri border).  The Arkansas segment of US 49 now runs from Piggott to Helena, but US 49 is not the most direct route between these two towns.

1982: US 165 extended from Dermott AR to Little Rock (via a 24-mile overlap with US 65, and then segments of five former state routes).  This is not the shortest route between these two towns, which are both served by US 65.

1982: US 412 created to run from Walnut Ridge AR to Dyersburg TN.  I concede this was a reasonable candidate for a US route through three states (stupid number notwithstanding)... but then look at what they did 7 years later (next entry):

1989: US 412 extended west from Walnut Ridge, through the remainder of AR and into Oklahoma.  This extension involved a 166-mile overlap with US 62, which makes no sense to me.  Why couldn't they have simply rerouted US 62 along the current US 412 corridor (Alpena-Huntsville-Springdale), and change current US 62 (Alpena-Rogers-Springdale) to Alt. US 62, or else a state route?  You could argue that the corridor from Springdale west into Oklahoma would've needed a new number, but it sure wasn't necessary to drag the US 412 designation all the way across the state.

1989: US 425 created to run from Pine Bluff AR to Bastrop LA (the entire AR segment was formerly SH-81).  Not only was this a ridiculous number, but also I'm not sure why this needed to become a US route anyway.  I suppose one could argue that the ultimate intention was to reduce the amount of different highway numbers for travelers between Little Rock and Baton Rouge -- this was Louisiana's argument when they extended US 425 southward from Bastrop -- but since that didn't happen until 2005, it doesn't seem like that could've been the rationale back in 1989.

1994: US 371 created to run from DeQueen AR to Coushatta LA, along a number of former state routes.  This is not the most direct routing between these two towns, which are both served by US 71.

1997: US 278 extended all the way across Mississippi (via former SH-6) in order to get into Arkansas, and then all the way across that state (via former SH-4) to a new terminus in Wickes (which is essentially on the Oklahoma border).  Between these two former state routes, this extension was accomplished via a convoluted 116-mile overlap along existing US routes from Clarksdale MS to McGehee AR.  US 278 is not the shortest routing between Amory MS and Wickes, not by a long shot: US 278 is 474 miles, and about a 12 hour journey... but if you went up to Memphis and then used I-40, the trip would be only 416 miles, and you could save yourself about 4 hours of drive time (disclaimer: those figures courtesy of Google Maps).  Adam Froehlig points out that it was about 10 years before Mississippi ever got around to signing US 278 in their state, which to me suggests that this was not an extension that MDOT particularly wanted.  They may have agreed to it only for the sake of being a good neighbor to Arkansas.

1999: US 63 extended from Turrell through southeast Arkansas and into Louisiana.  This extension involved a 90-degree change in direction for US 63, and a 100-mile overlap with interstates 55 and 40, along which Arkansas has never posted US 63 signage.  (The remaining AR segment was along SH-11, US 79, and SH-15).  Louisiana had their short segment signed by 2007, but my recollection is prior to that they didn't give much love to US 63... suggesting another example of a neighboring state that was less-than-enthusiastic about an Arkansas highway extension.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2016, 01:24:42 PM by usends »
Logged
usends.com - US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history

mightyace

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3235
  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: October 04, 2012, 01:36:29 PM
    • My Flickr Photos
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2010, 01:15:18 PM »

Sounds like your right.

I do have one point.  Isn't it better to have a highway department that's interested in creating new US routes, even if they are frivolous, than ones like California and Pennsylvania that have decommissioned US highways en-masse during the Interstate era?
Logged
My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3246
  • Last Login: February 20, 2018, 10:08:27 PM
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2010, 01:55:54 PM »

1961: US 167 extended north from Little Rock to Hardy AR (which is essentially on the Missouri border).  The Hardy-to-Bald Knob segment (formerly SH-11) seems like a fairly-well-traveled corridor, but did it really have to be changed to a US route?  Especially when you consider that extending US 167 from Little Rock to Bald Knob involved a 60-mile multiplex along US 67?

There wasn't some secret hope that Missouri would further extend US 167 up the MO 19 corridor back then was there?


1980: US 49 extended (along former SH-39 and SH-1) to its current terminus in Piggott (which is essentially on the Missouri border).  The Arkansas segment of US 49 now runs from Piggott to Helena, but US 49 is not the most direct route between these two towns.

Another one where Arkansas hoped Missouri would further extended US 49 north to somewhere?  If Missouri was Kansas, there probably would be another US route between the US 61 and US 67 corridors.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3164
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 09:53:00 PM
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2010, 03:19:53 PM »

Just thinking out loud...with the lack of signage of US 63 between Terrell and the southern segment, wouldn't the southern segment have made more sense as a 3-digit branch of US 49?
Logged
Chris Sampang

shoptb1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 524
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Columbus, OH
  • Last Login: October 05, 2014, 08:26:34 PM
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2010, 07:26:20 PM »


1989: US 412 extended west from Walnut Ridge, through the remainder of AR and into Oklahoma.  This extension involved a 166-mile multiplex with US 62, which makes no sense to me.  Why couldn't they have simply rerouted US 62 along the current US 412 corridor (Alpena-Huntsville-Springdale), and change current US 62 (Alpena-Rogers-Springdale) to Alt. US 62, or else a state route?  You could argue that the corridor from Springdale west into Oklahoma would've needed a new number, but it sure wasn't necessary to drag the US 412 designation all the way across the state.

While I do agree that the multiplex with US-62 is strange, US-412 is a very important route from Alpena-Springdale-Siloam Springs-Tulsa-Glencoe-US-35, where there was no previous US highway designation.  However, I am actually confused as to why the designation continues past Guymon, OK.  US-412 is multiplexed with existing US highways the entire way from this point until reaching I-25 in New Mexico.  This seems more frivolous to me than providing the same US highway designation from TN to OK. 
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6967
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 58
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 12:00:28 AM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2010, 10:02:19 PM »

US 59 is rather frivolous, as well. It's duplexed with other routes the way (US 270 from the OK Line to Acorn and US 71 from Acorn to Texarkana).

As far as US 412, IIRC there was some grand scheme for a multi-state E-W economic corridor, but I don't remember all the details now.

But yes, Arkansas seems hell-bent on having lots of US Routes (were they hoping for more $$ to maintain the roads?).



Logged
In search of the road less taken...
and the perfect pizza.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_71/

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3164
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 09:53:00 PM
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2010, 10:47:25 PM »

US 59 is rather frivolous, as well. It's duplexed with other routes the way (US 270 from the OK Line to Acorn and US 71 from Acorn to Texarkana).

Did 59 come to Arkansas before 270?  In any case, I wonder how much of this was the result of the old US 96 in Texas becoming part of the current 59 (and 96 becoming part of a north-south intrastate road).
Logged
Chris Sampang

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6967
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 58
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 12:00:28 AM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2010, 10:56:24 PM »


Did 59 come to Arkansas before 270?  In any case, I wonder how much of this was the result of the old US 96 in Texas becoming part of the current 59 (and 96 becoming part of a north-south intrastate road).

I believe it did... I have to check my maps. I thought Jeremy had some info saying it was supposed to follow what's now US 259.


Logged
In search of the road less taken...
and the perfect pizza.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_71/

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5498
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 11:08:23 PM
    • No Frills Picture Page
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2010, 11:16:00 PM »

US 270 came before US 59.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5498
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 11:08:23 PM
    • No Frills Picture Page
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2010, 01:04:02 AM »

A different discussion on this board got me thinking about the many relatively-recent US highway extensions in Arkansas.  Now that I've taken the time to look a little more closely, I have to ask:
what the heck is with these guys?
It seems AHDT has been quite intent on getting as many US routes as possible signed through their state, but I would consider just about every major change they've made since the 1960s to be egregious.  I'm not concerned here with minor changes (such as rerouting a US highway along a new bypass)... I'm referring to US route extensions or creations.  Following is the list I've come up with (am I forgetting anything?)  Notice how many of these changes involve a.) creation of a new US route; b.) extension of an existing US route across the entire state; c.) a routing that is not the shortest distance between endpoints; and/or d.) long duplex with an existing US route:
I don't disagree with your points, but I also agree with mightyace that I'd rather see a state commissioning too many US routes than a state decommissioning and truncating US routes.
Quote
1961: US 167 extended north from Little Rock to Hardy AR (which is essentially on the Missouri border).  The Hardy-to-Bald Knob segment (formerly SH-11) seems like a fairly-well-traveled corridor, but did it really have to be changed to a US route?  Especially when you consider that extending US 167 from Little Rock to Bald Knob involved a 60-mile multiplex along US 67?
I think this one makes sense.  The 60 mile duplex isn't too long.  Batesville definitely needs to be on a US route.
Quote
1963: US 49 extended from Clarksdale MS to Brinkley AR.  The AR segment was along the former SH-20 and SH-39.  The MS segment of this extension was 30 miles long, and 20 miles of that was along existing US 61.  Still, I can concede this seems like a reasonable extension, especially considering that it involved what I believe was a new bridge over the Mississippi... but then look at what they did 17 years later (next entry):
1980: US 49 extended (along former SH-39 and SH-1) to its current terminus in Piggott (which is essentially on the Missouri border).  The Arkansas segment of US 49 now runs from Piggott to Helena, but US 49 is not the most direct route between these two towns.
I think this one makes sense too.  It's not the shortest route between those two cities, but overall it makes sense as a US route.  I would extend it along MO 25, MO 91, MO 51, and one of several possible Illinois state routes.
Quote
1982: US 165 extended from Dermott AR to Little Rock (via segments of five former state routes).  This is not the shortest route between these two towns, which are both served by US 65.
I do agree that this one doesn't make a lot of sense, but it unites this route under one number (although a state route could have done the same thing)
Quote
1982: US 412 created to run from Walnut Ridge AR to Dyersburg TN.  I concede this was a reasonable candidate for a US route through three states (stupid number notwithstanding)... but then look at what they did 7 years later (next entry):

1989: US 412 extended west from Walnut Ridge, through the remainder of AR and into Oklahoma.  This extension involved a 166-mile multiplex with US 62, which makes no sense to me.  Why couldn't they have simply rerouted US 62 along the current US 412 corridor (Alpena-Huntsville-Springdale), and change current US 62 (Alpena-Rogers-Springdale) to Alt. US 62, or else a state route?  You could argue that the corridor from Springdale west into Oklahoma would've needed a new number, but it sure wasn't necessary to drag the US 412 designation all the way across the state.
The duplex is a bit long I agree, but the US 412 corridor is being upgraded and it does make sense for this route to have a single number.    But it doesn't need to extend into New Mexico, it should end at Guymon, OK.  The segment from Woodward to Alpena makes particularly good sense, as it unites a corridor under a single number when it once had several (OK 15, US 60, OK 15, US 64, Cimmaron Turnpike, US 64, I-244, I-44, OK 33, AR 68.)
Quote
1989: US 425 created to run from Pine Bluff AR to Bastrop LA (the entire AR segment was formerly SH-81).  Not only was this a ridiculous number, but also I'm not sure why this needed to become a US route anyway.  I suppose one could argue that the ultimate intention was to reduce the amount of different highway numbers for travelers between Little Rock and Baton Rouge -- this was Louisiana's argument when they extended US 425 southward from Bastrop -- but since that didn't happen until 2005, it doesn't seem like that would've been on the radar back in 1989.
This one doesn't make a lot of sense.  AR 81 was a perfectly good number for it, and the truncation of US 65 in favor of US 425 is an abomination.  However, the 400 series routes don't bother me.
Quote
1994: US 371 created to run from DeQueen AR to Coushatta LA, along a number of former state routes.  This is not the most direct routing between these two towns, which are both served by US 71.
This one doesn't make too much sense, but it does give Nashville (US 371 came before US 278) a US route.
Quote
1997: US 278 extended all the way across Mississippi (via former SH-6) in order to get into Arkansas, and then all the way across that state (via former SH-4) to a new terminus in Wickes (which is essentially on the Oklahoma border).  Between these two former state routes, this extension was accomplished via a convoluted 116-mile multiplex along existing US routes from Clarksdale MS to McGehee AR.  US 278 is not the shortest routing between Amory MS and Wickes, not by a long shot: US 278 is 474 miles, and about a 12 hour journey... but if you went up to Memphis and then used I-40, the trip would be only 416 miles, and you could save yourself about 4 hours of drive time (disclaimer: those figures courtesy of Google Maps).  Adam Froehlig points out that it was about 10 years before Mississippi ever got around to signing US 278 in their state, which to me suggests that this was not an extension that MDOT particularly wanted.  They may have agreed to it only for the sake of being a good neighbor to Arkansas.
Yes, likely Mississippi went along with it to help out Arkansas.  This route, however makes perfect sense to me.  For one thing, the US 61 duplex will be much shorter in the future as US 278 will cross the Mississippi River on the Great River Bridge (I-69) which will also eliminate the duplexes with US 65 and US 82.  I'm not so sure the part west of Dierks makes too much sense, as it's substandard and not really deserving of a US route number.  Either that or extend it to US 271 along AR/OK 4 and OK 144.
Quote
1999: US 63 extended from Turrell through southeast Arkansas and into Louisiana.  This extension involved a 90-degree change in direction for US 63, and a 100-mile multiplex with interstates 55 and 40, along which Arkansas has never posted US 63 signage.  (The remaining AR segment was along SH-11, US 79, and SH-15).  Louisiana had their short segment signed by 2007, but my recollection is prior to that they didn't give much love to US 63... suggesting another example of a neighboring state that was less-than-enthusiastic about an Arkansas highway extension.

The US 63 extension is pointless.  I agree that the road deserved a US route number, but it should have gotten a new number (extended to Homer, LA via LA 9 to make it enter two states.)  As it stands, the US 167 duplex is stupid and pointless.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5498
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 11:08:23 PM
    • No Frills Picture Page
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2010, 01:07:00 AM »

US 59 is rather frivolous, as well. It's duplexed with other routes the way (US 270 from the OK Line to Acorn and US 71 from Acorn to Texarkana).
But it is important in Texas and Oklahoma, where it splits from the 71 and 270 duplexes.
Quote
As far as US 412, IIRC there was some grand scheme for a multi-state E-W economic corridor, but I don't remember all the details now.
That's basically the gist of it.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5498
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 11:08:23 PM
    • No Frills Picture Page
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2010, 01:08:10 AM »


Did 59 come to Arkansas before 270?  In any case, I wonder how much of this was the result of the old US 96 in Texas becoming part of the current 59 (and 96 becoming part of a north-south intrastate road).

I believe it did... I have to check my maps. I thought Jeremy had some info saying it was supposed to follow what's now US 259.

I don't remember that.  It would make sense though.  Another thing that would make sense is giving a US route number to the AR 41/TX 8 corridor.  It could be a rerouted US 59, an ALT US 59, or a US x59.

usends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 433
  • usends.com

  • Location: Headwaters Hill, CO
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 09:08:26 PM
    • US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2010, 11:47:16 AM »

Isn't it better to have a highway department that's interested in creating new US routes, even if they are frivolous, than ones like California and Pennsylvania that have decommissioned US highways en-masse during the Interstate era?

Obviously some truncations have dealt unfortunate blows to the integrity of the US route system.  But personally I agree with a point Froggie has made before: that frivolous US route extensions can also have the effect of undermining the system's integrity.  And when we dilute the integrity, then we call into question the very purpose of the system.  That line of thinking might go something like this: "In Arkansas, the US route shield doesn't signify anything different than any other run-of-the-mill state route.  So what's the point of having US routes?  Why should we confuse drivers by using a shield to mark a few of our state highways, but a state route marker on all the rest?  We might as well decommission US routes throughout our state - then we can number them to whatever works best for us, and make changes as we see fit, without having to worry about getting AASHTO to sign off."
Logged
usends.com - US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3164
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 09:53:00 PM
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2010, 12:09:43 PM »

Isn't it better to have a highway department that's interested in creating new US routes, even if they are frivolous, than ones like California and Pennsylvania that have decommissioned US highways en-masse during the Interstate era?

Obviously some truncations have dealt unfortunate blows to the integrity of the US route system.  But personally I agree with a point Froggie has made before: that frivolous US route extensions can also have the effect of undermining the system's integrity.  And when we dilute the integrity, then we call into question the very purpose of the system.  That line of thinking might go something like this: "In Arkansas, the US route shield doesn't signify anything different than any other run-of-the-mill state route.  So what's the point of having US routes?  Why should we confuse drivers by using a shield to mark a few of our state highways, but a state route marker on all the rest?  We might as well decommission US routes throughout our state - then we can number them to whatever works best for us, and make changes as we see fit, without having to worry about getting AASHTO to sign off."

Then again, it seems the standard to create a US route nowadays (state line MUST be crossed, etc.) is much higher than that of the Interstate system (i.e. I-97)!

I think California (the US routes that remain must be "important" and follows the AASHTO guidelines to an extreme, even forcing the major Route 99 off the system) and Arkansas (if it's a lengthy state route, it's worthy of becoming a US route) represent two different DOT philosophies on what a US route is, but in a strange way they represent the same thing - trying to mark a corridor that is more important than a state route would be (and may be of national importance), but at the same time is more flexible than the must-be-a-freeway (most of the time) Interstates.  

Also, thinking about it further...some DOTs of course are very willing to act without prior AASHTO approval, as noted with the case of US 377 in Oklahoma...
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 01:19:00 PM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7232
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 11:38:44 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2010, 10:00:26 PM »

US 377 wasn't merely ODOT acting without AASHTO approval... it was actually signing the highway against AASHTO's wishes.

ODOT had been submitting  the SH-99 corridor as a US route as early as 1953. Various portions of the highway were submitted to AASHTO for consideration as a US route in 1953, 1964, twice in 1968, in 1970, twice in 1971, in 1972, 1976, 1978, and in 1980. Most of them had the proposed northern terminus near Cleveland. All of these proposals were rejected except the June 1968 one, which barely brought 377 into Oklahoma, ending in Madill. Finally, with ten rejected applications behind them, ODOT signed the road as 377 in 1991.
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5498
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 11:08:23 PM
    • No Frills Picture Page
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2010, 10:22:36 PM »

US 377 wasn't merely ODOT acting without AASHTO approval... it was actually signing the highway against AASHTO's wishes.

ODOT had been submitting  the SH-99 corridor as a US route as early as 1953. Various portions of the highway were submitted to AASHTO for consideration as a US route in 1953, 1964, twice in 1968, in 1970, twice in 1971, in 1972, 1976, 1978, and in 1980. Most of them had the proposed northern terminus near Cleveland. All of these proposals were rejected except the June 1968 one, which barely brought 377 into Oklahoma, ending in Madill. Finally, with ten rejected applications behind them, ODOT signed the road as 377 in 1991.

I don't know why they didn't go ahead and sign it all the way to the Kansas border, or at least to US 60 in Pawhuska.

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 36
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2010, 11:07:32 PM »


Then again, it seems the standard to create a US route nowadays (state line MUST be crossed, etc.) is much higher than that of the Interstate system (i.e. I-97)!

for every I-97, there is a US-175.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3164
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 09:53:00 PM
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2010, 11:33:06 PM »


Then again, it seems the standard to create a US route nowadays (state line MUST be crossed, etc.) is much higher than that of the Interstate system (i.e. I-97)!

for every I-97, there is a US-175.

Of course, 175 came about before AASHTO tightened up the standards for new US route creation...considering that it and US 75 are about a mile away or so from sharing termini in downtown Dallas (after 75 was truncated to Spur 366), I've always wondered why 75 wasn't just simply extended down the child route.
Logged
Chris Sampang

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5498
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 11:08:23 PM
    • No Frills Picture Page
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2010, 11:47:34 PM »


Then again, it seems the standard to create a US route nowadays (state line MUST be crossed, etc.) is much higher than that of the Interstate system (i.e. I-97)!

for every I-97, there is a US-175.

Of course, 175 came about before AASHTO tightened up the standards for new US route creation...considering that it and US 75 are about a mile away or so from sharing termini in downtown Dallas (after 75 was truncated to Spur 366), I've always wondered why 75 wasn't just simply extended down the child route.

I never understood why 75 was truncated in the first place.  There are significant sections south of Dallas that were separate from I-45, and it was a Canada to Gulf highway. 

national highway 1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1669
  • From Down Under

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Carlingford, NSW, Australia
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 08:33:19 AM
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2010, 03:26:30 AM »

How about US 412 becoming US 86 (like US 59, in a way) running from US 64 @ Guymon OK to Columbia TN?
Logged
"Set up road signs; put up guideposts. Take note of the highway, the road that you take." Jeremiah 31:21

leifvanderwall

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 397
  • Last Login: May 01, 2012, 08:35:30 PM
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #20 on: April 19, 2010, 10:26:46 AM »

  I really see usends's point. I really think the southern states such as Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, the Carolinas, and Tennessee love their US routes. I've always thought Michigan could use more US routes , but the Great Lake State prefers its M-Road system. The question I have with routes such as US 371 and US 278 is : What is the traffic volume like. Is there a heavy amount of semi-truck traffic? I think the majority of the time, volume is what constitutes the name change more than anything else, I may be wrong about that assumption. My reasoning maybe a good place to continue the discussion.

Many times a state is influenced by its neighbors, I think Arkansas is influenced by Texas, Missouri, & Tennessee. The Natural State doesn't have many interstates , but it sure has a lot of US routes.
Logged

huskeroadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 610
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Last Login: November 21, 2017, 03:02:47 PM
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2010, 03:13:27 PM »

I think some of the older extensions of US routes in Arkansas make sense in terms of traffic-the newer ones less so. I never would have thought of the US 371, US 278 and US 63 extensions as unified, important corrdiors that called for one single route number and an upgrade to a US route. They don't serve very well as through routes-just as connections between larger towns. I traveled on the portion of US 63 between Pine Bluff and Warren when it was still AR 15, and I never would have seen it as a candidate for a US route. Not much traffic, as I recall. The others are pretty much the same-mostly local traffic.

My guess for the major impetus behind the US route extensions in the southern part of the state was to put some of the larger towns in the area on a US highway that previously were not on one. Prior to the creation of US 425 in 1989, Monticello and Warren, two of the larger towns in SE Arkansas were not served by any US highway. Same for Nashville in SW Arkansas. 10 years later after the creation of US 425, and the extensions of US 371, US 278 and US 63, all 3 towns were on not 1, but 2 US highways.
Logged

corco

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4806
  • Just Livin' the Dream

  • Age: 29
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 11:58:21 PM
    • Corcohighways.org
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2010, 05:28:23 PM »

Quote
How about US 412 becoming US 86 (like US 59, in a way) running from US 64 @ Guymon OK to Columbia TN?

How, exactly, would that solve the frivolity of the highway having a US designation in the first place?

 I suppose you could make some argument that by switching the number from 412 to 86, Mountain Home would immediately grow into a giant metropolis just by virtue of having a different highway number, thereby making the designation not frivolous at all, but I'd love to hear how that one works.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 05:39:40 PM by corco »
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 36
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2010, 09:54:52 PM »

it could be given a sensible US number like 164.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

corco

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4806
  • Just Livin' the Dream

  • Age: 29
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Last Login: February 21, 2018, 11:58:21 PM
    • Corcohighways.org
Re: Frivolous US highway extensions in Arkansas (long)
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2010, 10:38:44 PM »

Quote
it could be given a sensible US number like 164.


How, exactly, would that solve the frivolity of the highway having a US designation in the first place?

 I suppose you could make some argument that by switching the number from 412 to 164, Mountain Home would immediately grow into a giant metropolis just by virtue of having a different highway number, thereby making the designation not frivolous at all, but I'd love to hear how that one works.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.