Talk:Interstate 530

The 530 extension at Pine Bluff will actually be AR 530. It is being built to expressway standards, but not freeway/interstate standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by US 71 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 530. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707161957/http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/technical_services/databases/Arkansas_Roadlog_2009.zip to http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/technical_services/databases/Arkansas_Roadlog_2009.zip

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

This article has been tagged because it wasn't written in a south-to-north direction as normally required by WP:USRD. Normally that would be a valid criticism, but I submit that is inappropriate for this article for these reasons:

• The reason WP:USRD favors south-to-north is that is the usual progression of mile markers within states on the interstate system (and other highways in some states as well), such that mile 0 is at the south end of the road/state line. However, I-530 mile markers run north-to-south starting at I-30 in Little Rock, thus reflecting distance from its parent interstate. (As the text notes, this is normal for true spur 3DIs like I-530.)
• If WP:USRD is to be followed, WHICH southern terminus should be used? The southern terminus of present I-530 (Exit 46, now locally known as the Pines Mall interchange but may be known more in the near future for the Saracen Casino being built nearby)? The southern terminus of the AR 530 segment branching from I-530 at Exit 44, at AR 11 south of Star City? The south end of the most southerly segment of AR 530 built so far, at US 278 between Monticello & Wilmar? Or the planned southern terminus of AR 530 at Future I-69, on the not-yet-built western half of the Monticello bypass? This is especially problematic as even though AR 530 is intended to be an extension of I-530 (and is designated as SIU 28 of Interstate 69 in Arkansas), it has NOT been designated as "Future I-530" by AASHTO (unlike the planned I-69 mainline and the US 67 freeway aka Future I-57).

For a better understanding of how these issues can complicate mile markers (and articles) on spur freeways that may become part of bigger freeways, see Interstate 540 (Arkansas), Interstate 49 in Arkansas, and Arkansas Highway 549. The original I-540 to Fort Smith was mileposted from I-40 in Van Buren south, as it is now. When the former northern segment (now I-49) was opened fully from I-40 in Alma to Bentonville, it was mileposted assuming the southern end of original I-540 (at the Oklahoma state line) was mile 0, thus making its first marker mile 20 just north of I-40; that forced new mile markers and renumbering of freeway exits in Northwest Arkansas as the former US 71 freeway there was built assuming I-40 was mile 0. Original I-540 was supposed to be re-signed as well, but it never was. When the northern spur became I-49, the mileage signs on both segments were left unchanged -- correct for original I-540, but not for the northern spur (even though preliminary mileage for the unbuilt I-49 Western Arkansas segment is available *and* was used to milepost both the Fort Chaffee and Bella Vista segments of AR 549/Future I-49).

Ultimately, my suggestion would be to simply ignore WP:USRD (or get an exemption if possible) and leave this article as is. However, that should be decided by a consensus; I certainly don't want a repeat of the revert war I got into a few weeks back on Press Your Luck where some other editor decided a hidden instruction he apparently buried in the guts of a template was somehow Wikipedia policy. (Not only did I not know about it till he reluctantly posted a link to his so-called "easily findable" template on his SECOND revert, but IMO his instruction was inappropriate for that article. Still haven't even read his tirades on my talk page; I'm too disgusted with his attitude to go back into the battle.) --RBBrittain (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have to 100% support this, per above. It may be for the best to remove the template as 1) no one has changed it in the 2.5 years it's been up, 2) no one has challenged this in the 1.5 years since this was first brought up in the talk, and 3) WP:USRD/STDS states that the "progression should follow the mileposts as they are maintained by the state, typically from south to north, west to east"...if ARDOT is atypical with this interstate and signposts it from N-to-S, then this template should be removed. Wwnws98 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply