AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: I-49 in Arkansas  (Read 1248249 times)

Arkansastravelguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 376
  • Location: Farmington, AR
  • Last Login: May 07, 2023, 05:15:45 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1000 on: June 26, 2014, 10:44:31 PM »


The 540 signs are hit and miss, I've seen several I-540s on mileage signs and at exit 61 it still has the thru trucks to I 40 use 540 sign. Yet in Farmington the milage sign says I-49


iPhone
This one still remains, as well, though it's probably City of Rogers' sign (but I'd love to have it for my collection ;) )


I've wondered if that's a Rogers sign or if Promonade Mall bought it


iPhone
Logged

M86

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 515
  • Livin' the dream, in my dreams

  • Location: South Dakota
  • Last Login: August 09, 2023, 07:13:01 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1001 on: June 27, 2014, 01:31:19 AM »

The 540 signs are hit and miss, I've seen several I-540s on mileage signs and at exit 61 it still has the thru trucks to I 40 use 540 sign. Yet in Farmington the milage sign says I-49

iPhone
This one still remains, as well, though it's probably City of Rogers' sign (but I'd love to have it for my collection ;) )


Definitely a City of Rogers sign... The font gives it away.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4009
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:15:58 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1002 on: June 27, 2014, 10:46:25 AM »

Quote from: agentsteel53
I disagree.  if we're gonna have the truncated-crown, narrow-margin shields (70 spec), then the height of the number should be diminished.  on the 24" blank, the 12" numbers look terrible, while the 10" look passable.

I don't think you understand my point. The bureaucrats seem to insist on squeezing 12" Series D numerals onto 24" Interstate highway shields when they clearly do not fit properly. If having the letters 12" tall is the top priority then they need to change them to Series C numerals.

Note: last time I checked the MUTCD SHS, there was no spec explicitly allowing these 120% larger numerals onto an Interstate highway shield. A 24" shield is supposed to have 10" Series D numerals, not 12". Proportionately it scales on up from there for 36" and 48" shields.

I agree 10" numerals do work better on Interstate shields, even set in Series D. Aesthetically, I prefer the look of state names on Interstate shields. But if the FHWA wants a neutered look on Interstate shields the 10" tall characters are going to work better. I would even be willing to bet the more generous spacing around the numerals would actually make these shields more legible than the current, very ugly shields with stupidly over-sized numerals.

The neutered look with 12" numerals just plain sucks. And this is my expert opinion based on over 20 years of sign design work on top of having a 4 year New York art school degree. Really, no one needs expert credentials to see that design formula isn't working. It just involves looking at the design results and being objectively honest over how it looks.

Basically, the Interstate highway shields looked fine from the 1950's and through the 1970's until some bureaucrat in recent years decided we need to squeeze the same size numerals used on US Highway and State Highway markers onto existing Interstate shield designs. I wonder if the person who made this decision flunked geometry in high school.

In order for 12" numerals to work properly on a standard Interstate highway shield the whole freaking shield must be redesigned to accommodate them.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 10:49:22 AM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

bjrush

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 378
  • Go Hogs

  • Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
  • Last Login: November 11, 2020, 08:53:42 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1003 on: June 27, 2014, 11:09:09 AM »

Congrats on the four year New York art school degree, but this rant seems to be unrelated to I-49
Logged
Woo Pig Sooie

US71

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

  • Posts: 11846
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 63
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: April 06, 2023, 10:39:02 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1004 on: June 27, 2014, 12:23:52 PM »

Since we're talking about signs:


MODOT


AHTD


LADOTD
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 42
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1005 on: June 27, 2014, 01:10:16 PM »

I don't think you understand my point. The bureaucrats seem to insist on squeezing 12" Series D numerals onto 24" Interstate highway shields when they clearly do not fit properly. If having the letters 12" tall is the top priority then they need to change them to Series C numerals.

how do we know 12" is the priority, as opposed to Series D being the priority?

Quote
Basically, the Interstate highway shields looked fine from the 1950's and through the 1970's until some bureaucrat in recent years decided we need to squeeze the same size numerals used on US Highway and State Highway markers onto existing Interstate shield designs. I wonder if the person who made this decision flunked geometry in high school.

1965, Pennsylvania.  we have them to thank for garish '70 spec US and interstate shields.



photo taken Dec. 10, 1965.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 42
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1006 on: June 27, 2014, 01:10:46 PM »

Congrats on the four year New York art school degree, but this rant seems to be unrelated to I-49

congrats on the anti-intellectualism.  your anti-intellectualism also seems to be unrelated to I-49.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6822
  • The Devil has arrived!

  • Age: 50
  • Location: Tulsa
  • Last Login: Today at 05:00:56 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1007 on: June 27, 2014, 03:08:00 PM »

and this is at the Greenland exit


That one is still technically correct.
Logged

bjrush

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 378
  • Go Hogs

  • Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
  • Last Login: November 11, 2020, 08:53:42 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1008 on: June 27, 2014, 09:24:36 PM »

Congrats on the four year New York art school degree, but this rant seems to be unrelated to I-49

congrats on the anti-intellectualism.  your anti-intellectualism also seems to be unrelated to I-49.

chill out, I have a pricey education as well. I am more laughing at your usage of New York to make whatever school you went to sound high class
Logged
Woo Pig Sooie

Arkansastravelguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 376
  • Location: Farmington, AR
  • Last Login: May 07, 2023, 05:15:45 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1009 on: June 27, 2014, 09:26:22 PM »


Since we're talking about signs:


MODOT


AHTD


LADOTD

Hmm which one looks the best?


iPhone
Logged

Arkansastravelguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 376
  • Location: Farmington, AR
  • Last Login: May 07, 2023, 05:15:45 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1010 on: June 27, 2014, 09:27:44 PM »



While we're still talking about signs: Don Tyson is getting signed


iPhone
Logged

rickmastfan67

  • The Invisible One
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3195
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 39
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:55:25 AM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1011 on: June 27, 2014, 10:01:48 PM »

No need for any personal attacks here guys, alright?

US71

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

  • Posts: 11846
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 63
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: April 06, 2023, 10:39:02 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1012 on: June 27, 2014, 11:10:05 PM »



While we're still talking about signs: Don Tyson is getting signed


iPhone
Glad I didn't make any bets: I was expecting Exit 71  :thumbdown:
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

apjung

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 146
  • Andy P. Jung on misc.transport.road

  • Age: 52
  • Location: Metairie, Louisiana, USA and born in Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
  • Last Login: August 29, 2023, 04:06:35 PM
    • Welcome to JungWorld.com!
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1013 on: June 27, 2014, 11:11:58 PM »

Since we're talking about signs:


MODOT


AHTD


LADOTD

Arkansas is a bit cheap since they use the u-channel post commonly seen in residential areas instead of the breakaway bolted post on a concrete base that Louisiana uses. U-channel signs usually can't withstand the high winds from passing traffic and over time the posts will bend and warp.

It's probably the only interstate that is in all three states it traverses but not connected at any of the state borders at this moment.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 11:22:36 PM by apjung »
Logged

robbones

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 300
  • life on the black river of tar can be challenging

  • Age: 40
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 17, 2023, 02:46:23 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1014 on: June 29, 2014, 07:54:50 PM »

Looks like the I-540 shield is still there. Shouldn't AHTD at least add a "To", if not outright remove it?

They HAVE removed the 540 shields approaching I-40. They also removed the free-standing 540 along WB I-40.

I agree that it should be changed to "TO 540" . It would seem to be the easiest solution.

EB 40 before the 540 interchange is still incorrect.  It still shows 540 north continues onto 40. It should state TO 49 Fayetteville in its place.
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8626
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 05:08:05 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1015 on: June 29, 2014, 08:34:55 PM »

I don't think you understand my point. The bureaucrats seem to insist on squeezing 12" Series D numerals onto 24" Interstate highway shields when they clearly do not fit properly. If having the letters 12" tall is the top priority then they need to change them to Series C numerals.

Note: last time I checked the MUTCD SHS, there was no spec explicitly allowing these 120% larger numerals onto an Interstate highway shield. A 24" shield is supposed to have 10" Series D numerals, not 12". Proportionately it scales on up from there for 36" and 48" shields.

I agree 10" numerals do work better on Interstate shields, even set in Series D. Aesthetically, I prefer the look of state names on Interstate shields. But if the FHWA wants a neutered look on Interstate shields the 10" tall characters are going to work better. I would even be willing to bet the more generous spacing around the numerals would actually make these shields more legible than the current, very ugly shields with stupidly over-sized numerals.

The problem here is that the two references--the MUTCD and Standard Highway Signs--contradict each other.  The MUTCD (Table 2E-2) requires digits half shield height all the way down the line (US, state, and Interstate):  this means 12" on 24" shield, 18" on 36" shield, etc.  On the other hand, Standard Highway Signs requires digits 5/12 shield height all the way down the line, the digits in question being Series D on two-digit shields and Series C on three-digit shields.  Which standard governs?
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

M86

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 515
  • Livin' the dream, in my dreams

  • Location: South Dakota
  • Last Login: August 09, 2023, 07:13:01 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1016 on: June 30, 2014, 01:50:13 AM »

Since we're talking about signs:


MODOT


AHTD


LADOTD

Arkansas is a bit cheap since they use the u-channel post commonly seen in residential areas instead of the breakaway bolted post on a concrete base that Louisiana uses. U-channel signs usually can't withstand the high winds from passing traffic and over time the posts will bend and warp.

It's probably the only interstate that is in all three states it traverses but not connected at any of the state borders at this moment.

Agree with the U-Channel posts... That needs to be changed.

But it's better than the wooden posts I've seen in Iowa: http://goo.gl/maps/zD2TD

Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4009
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:15:58 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1017 on: June 30, 2014, 01:53:22 AM »

Quote from: J N Winkler
The problem here is that the two references--the MUTCD and Standard Highway Signs--contradict each other.  The MUTCD (Table 2E-2) requires digits half shield height all the way down the line (US, state, and Interstate):  this means 12" on 24" shield, 18" on 36" shield, etc.  On the other hand, Standard Highway Signs requires digits 5/12 shield height all the way down the line, the digits in question being Series D on two-digit shields and Series C on three-digit shields.  Which standard governs?

Common sense in terms of what actually fits the space on an Interstate shield (what the SHS dictates) should override the contradictory rule (what the MUTCD says). 12" Series D numerals do not fit a 24" Interstate highway shield properly in most cases. The only way they would have a chance to fit properly is if they got rid of the top "Interstate" portion of the route marker and centered the numerals vertically on the shield. But that would only yield a slight gain in space for the numerals. It's either that or re-design the shields so 12" Series D numerals would fit on the 24" shield.
Logged

apjung

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 146
  • Andy P. Jung on misc.transport.road

  • Age: 52
  • Location: Metairie, Louisiana, USA and born in Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
  • Last Login: August 29, 2023, 04:06:35 PM
    • Welcome to JungWorld.com!
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1018 on: June 30, 2014, 11:35:29 AM »

Since we're talking about signs:


MODOT


AHTD


LADOTD

Arkansas is a bit cheap since they use the u-channel post commonly seen in residential areas instead of the breakaway bolted post on a concrete base that Louisiana uses. U-channel signs usually can't withstand the high winds from passing traffic and over time the posts will bend and warp.

It's probably the only interstate that is in all three states it traverses but not connected at any of the state borders at this moment.

Agree with the U-Channel posts... That needs to be changed.

But it's better than the wooden posts I've seen in Iowa: http://goo.gl/maps/zD2TD



Speaking of wooden posts, it's seems that CA uses nothing but wooden posts on all signs. The only metal used are the gantry signs.
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 11846
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 63
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: April 06, 2023, 10:39:02 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1019 on: June 30, 2014, 01:26:22 PM »


Speaking of wooden posts, it's seems that CA uses nothing but wooden posts on all signs. The only metal used are the gantry signs.

MoDOT used to use wooden posts almost exclusively except along expressways. The last few years, they seem to be using more square metal posts and some U-channel, but not a lot. I still see wood posts, but they seem fewer and fewer these days.
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 436
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: March 18, 2023, 03:35:18 PM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1020 on: July 01, 2014, 07:45:55 AM »

Quote
Citing a map showing the mean population center of the United States now on the border of Laclede and Pulaski counties in South Central Missouri, he said, “In the 2020 Census, it is quite possible that Neosho or some area within a few miles of us would be the mean population center of the United States. Meaning exactly half of the population will reside east of us and exactly half of the population will reside to the west of us. So we are perfectly located not just geographically, but in terms of the distribution of our population as well.”

This could (and should also go) in the Missouri forum, but Neosho is figuratively little more than a whisker's breadth outside the Northwest Arkansas metro.  This is a four page article on the proposed Crowder Intermodal facility (that would indeed eventually use I-49) on the Kansas City Southern railroad just south of that city.  It shows how significant this corridor is becoming to people who are connecting the dots.

http://www.neoshodailynews.com/article/20140630/NEWS/140639877/1994/NEWS
« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 07:58:28 AM by O Tamandua »
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2133
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: February 21, 2023, 08:45:18 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1021 on: July 01, 2014, 11:35:27 AM »

I think some folks fail to see the picture that Arkansas is trying to paint.  They may be witholding building a larger capacity highway in lieu of a smaller one to keep people in Arkansas.  If Arkansas was to build a nice four lane plus facility into MO without a stop light what can happen? 

Well MO could start offering incentives for folks to move north to move to a get a place out in the country and new subdivisions could be going up in MO.  AR keeping this a super two keeps the capacity down and keeps folks in AR.
Logged

bjrush

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 378
  • Go Hogs

  • Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
  • Last Login: November 11, 2020, 08:53:42 PM
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1022 on: July 01, 2014, 12:46:55 PM »

Um, not likely

Northwest Arkansas doesn't need to "trap" people, they are willingly moving there by the thousands

Missouri, not so much. None of the things people move to NWA for are available in Missouri, and that will not change with a bypass

Also, AHTD doesnt sit in their offices dreaming about the socioeconomic impact on population shifts their projects will have. They make decisions on traffic counts, engineering, etc

Also, it is Missouri holding up the completion at present. If there were thousands of folks just waiting to move north, they may have a little more urgency
« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 03:02:53 PM by bjrush »
Logged
Woo Pig Sooie

US71

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

  • Posts: 11846
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 63
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: April 06, 2023, 10:39:02 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1023 on: July 01, 2014, 01:10:28 PM »

I think some folks fail to see the picture that Arkansas is trying to paint.  They may be witholding building a larger capacity highway in lieu of a smaller one to keep people in Arkansas.  If Arkansas was to build a nice four lane plus facility into MO without a stop light what can happen? 

Well MO could start offering incentives for folks to move north to move to a get a place out in the country and new subdivisions could be going up in MO.  AR keeping this a super two keeps the capacity down and keeps folks in AR.

Maybe for some, but not all. Many people like the metro area. Plus SW Missouri can be a little too conservative for some people's liking. I have a friend who just moved from Fayetteville to Bella Vista. The running joke is now that Benton County is wet, Bella Vista is the place to be ;)
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

O Tamandua

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 436
  • Location: Bella Vista, AR
  • Last Login: March 18, 2023, 03:35:18 PM
    • A-B-P Ministries - An evangelical Christian ministry serving Angola, Brazil, Portugal.
Re: I-49 in Arkansas
« Reply #1024 on: July 01, 2014, 02:24:22 PM »

Um, not likely

At one point last decade McDonald people were believing their high school could get as big as Bentonville in terms of population.  Don't shoot the messenger, that's what I was told (and maybe read in their paper, can't remember for sure).
Logged

 


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.