News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

AASHTO Committee on Route Numbering (Nov. 2012) Actions

Started by Grzrd, November 28, 2012, 10:50:42 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Grzrd

Here is SCOH report:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/SCOH%20Report%2011-16-2012.pdf

Some interstate actions:
Immediate signage of I-22 in Alabama conditionally approved pending Mississippi application.
US 83 action in south Texas disapproved because no number requested
I-369 approved for Texarkana.
I-69C official designation for US 281.


Takumi

Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.

CanesFan27

Quote from: Grzrd on November 28, 2012, 10:50:42 AM
Here is SCOH report:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/SCOH%20Report%2011-16-2012.pdf

Some interstate actions:
Immediate signage of I-22 in Alabama conditionally approved pending Mississippi application.
US 83 action in south Texas disapproved because no number requested
I-369 approved for Texarkana.
I-69C official designation for US 281.

I was going to send a message asking if you had information regarding this. I had tweeted to @aashtospeaks and never got a response!

Thanks for sharing!

Big John

If WisDOT wrote the proposals, they need a proof reader.  It is Fond du Lac, not Fon du Lac.  And is Zoo Interchange, not Zoon Interchange (error done on 2 separate entities).  And Illinois actually submitted the I-41 proposal for the short segment of US 41 concurrent with I-94 in Illinois?

wxfree

This is very interesting.  The designation of the I-69 branches in Texas has been discussed and speculated about quite a bit.  It's also very interesting to me to find out that this information is available.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

Scott5114

uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

TheStranger

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 28, 2012, 11:21:56 AM
I-69C??? Cause why have numbering rules, guys???

Clearly the folks who were anti-suffix in 1980 aren't around anymore!

Chris Sampang

oscar

Quote from: TheStranger on November 28, 2012, 11:22:57 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 28, 2012, 11:21:56 AM
I-69C??? Cause why have numbering rules, guys???

Clearly the folks who were anti-suffix in 1980 aren't around anymore!

I think a lot of the old concerns were about suffixes like N, S, E, and W, that could cause traveler confusion, e.g., unclear to the most clueless of travelers whether I-80N refers to a northern branch from I-80 (as it did, until it was renumbered as western I-84), or to northbound or north-side lanes on mainline I-80.  I read, in AASHTO files, that the old US 99W and 99E in California caused heartburn for that very reason.

Suffixes like A, B, and C still suck (IMO), but don't suck in that way. 
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

vdeane

Well, AASHTO just jumped the shark.  I-69C?  I guess we don't have numbering rules any more.  Let's build the rooftop highway as I-400!
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Scott5114

What is the purpose of AASHTO anymore, then, if they won't enforce the numbering system? Why not just put the damn signs up? Worked well for ODOT...
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

bob7374

Quote from: Big John on November 28, 2012, 11:13:53 AM
If WisDOT wrote the proposals, they need a proof reader.  It is Fond du Lac, not Fon du Lac.  And is Zoo Interchange, not Zoon Interchange (error done on 2 separate entities).  And Illinois actually submitted the I-41 proposal for the short segment of US 41 concurrent with I-94 in Illinois?
Don't know if the misspellings come from the agency applications, or the person putting them together at AASHTO. There typically are a few errors every time and its never from just one state. You would think in either case the SCOH Committee could afford to have an editor look at the document before its published. Hopefully it was corrected before any press release was sent to the mayor of Fond du Loc.

InterstateNG

Perhaps the C stands for "Central" as it would be the central of the three branches?
I demand an apology.

Sanctimoniously

Quote from: InterstateNG on November 28, 2012, 12:21:35 PM
Perhaps the C stands for "Central" as it would be the central of the three branches?

That's exactly what it stands for, but that's not the issue. The issue is that no new suffixed routes are supposed to be created any more.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2013, 06:27:29 AM
[tt]wow                 very cringe
        such clearview          must photo
much clinch      so misalign         wow[/tt]

See it. Live it. Love it. Verdana.

InterstateNG

I demand an apology.

Billy F 1988

Which suffixed routes were created and approved by AASHTO if I may ask?
Finally upgraded to Expressway after, what, seven or so years on this forum? Took a dadgum while, but, I made it!

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on August 02, 2012, 01:27:14 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 15, 2012, 06:54:29 PM
Michigan and Illinois are probably breaking Federal law by not posting I-69 signs on those portions of I-94 east of Chicago that are up to Interstate standards :pan:
GREAT observation.  A couple of months ago, I took the liberty of running your observation by FHWA ... FHWA expects to give me their position on the mandatory signage in the near future. I will post as soon as I receive an answer.
Quote from: deanej on August 03, 2012, 11:36:06 AM
If this results in I-69 insanity up there, I'm blaming you, on the ground that the signs wouldn't go up if they don't find out about the issue.
(above 2 quotes from AASHTO and I-69 thread)
Quote from: deanej on November 28, 2012, 11:41:46 AM
Well, AASHTO just jumped the shark.  I-69C?  I guess we don't have numbering rules any more.

I still have not received a reply from FHWA regarding NE2's issue of mandatory dual I-69/ I-94 signage. I think they cannot come up with an artful dodge from NE2's observation. From my end, I'm just allowing them to stonewall and have it disappear.

Above said, wouldn't I-69W in Michigan and Illinois be a wonderful bookend to I-69C in Texas?  :happy:

Alex

I thought there was to be a decision made for Arkansas regarding redesignating Interstate 540 north from I-40 as I-49. Did not see that covered in the notes document.

Was it postponed for a future meeting?

hbelkins

So is the Wisconsin proposal for US 41 taking it off the potential co-routing with I-41?


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Grzrd

Quote from: Alex on November 28, 2012, 01:38:18 PM
I thought there was to be a decision made for Arkansas regarding redesignating Interstate 540 north from I-40 as I-49. Did not see that covered in the notes document.
Was it postponed for a future meeting?

I received an early August email from AHTD to that effect.  I was surprised that it was not included in the notes document. I will follow up with AHTD.

edit

I recently received an email reply from AHTD.  Part of the reply:

Quote
...  we can't apply for I-49 designation unless we can get some kind of exceptions ...
For Arkansas to be able to rename I-540 to I-49 (and Arkansas Highway 549 to I‑49), US 49 will have to be either renumbered or changed from a US Highway to a State Highway.

rickmastfan67

#19
Can somebody post the PDF on another site?  For some odd reason, I can't get onto the AASHTO website. :(

EDIT: Never mind, I found an online proxy browser that let me load it.  Really weird that I can't get it to open on my normal connection. :(

english si

Quote from: hbelkins on November 28, 2012, 01:41:44 PMSo is the Wisconsin proposal for US 41 taking it off the potential co-routing with I-41?
It's putting it onto I-41's route.

Very surprised to see IL having their I-94/US41 multiplex as I-41. I'm guessing that from there to Green Bay, US41 will not be signed, effectively making I-41 simply an interstate section of US41.

rickmastfan67

Has anybody found the PDF that gives the links to all proposals individual PDFs?

NE2

Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 28, 2012, 03:01:55 PM
Has anybody found the PDF that gives the links to all proposals individual PDFs?
Yeah, what the fuck.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

NE2

Going down the list:

AZ US 95 Truck already exists. Not sure if they're rerouting it.

AZ US 93 already bypasses Kingman.

AZ US 89-180 already goes as described.

MD I-370 is a truncation, not a relocation.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

The High Plains Traveler

Minnesota's new BL I-35 at Pine City is not on state trunk highways. The routes which it covers are all county state-aid highways. This would not be unique (see I-90 Business at Fairmont) but I wonder if those other routes were AASHTO-approved.
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."



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.