Regional Boards > Central States

Proposed US 412 Upgrade

<< < (197/220) > >>

sprjus4:

--- Quote from: swake on November 24, 2023, 12:14:46 AM ---
--- Quote from: Scott5114 on November 23, 2023, 07:45:22 PM ---As shown above, in Oklahoma it is official at the state level, following the same process that would have been used if they had designated it OK-42 (though one already exists, not that that would stop them). All that is needed for that is the agreement of Messrs. Grimsley, Shannon, Freymiller, Dyson, Alexander, La Forge, and Peterson.

It just isn't official at the national level yet.

--- End quote ---

And a designation is mandated by federal law. It doesn't have to be I-42, but there will be an interstate designation.

--- End quote ---
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be an interstate designation. Re-using I-42 is a poor choice, especially given there’s a variety of other numbers available that are not duplicates.

The Ghostbuster:
Like it or not, it looks like there will be two Interstate 42s. Unless one of us can convince the-powers-that-be to pick another number, it looks like we’ll be overruled.

abqtraveler:

--- Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 24, 2023, 05:33:23 PM ---Like it or not, it looks like there will be two Interstate 42s. Unless one of us can convince the-powers-that-be to pick another number, it looks like we’ll be overruled.

--- End quote ---
I wouldn't say it's a foregone conclusion that US-412 will become I-42, just because Oklahoma's choice is 42. I can give you plenty of examples where a state proposes a certain number for an interstate designation and the FHWA and AASHTO assign a different number. Here are just a couple of examples.

- North Carolina originally requested I-36 for upgrading US-70 between I-40 and New Bern; the FHWA and AASHTO approved I-42 instead
- Back in the 1980s, Connecticut and Massachusetts requested that I-290 be extended over CT/MA-52 from I-90 in Auburn, MA to I-95 in Waterford, CT. FHWA and AASHTO rejected that request and subsequently approved I-395 for that stretch.

swake:

--- Quote from: abqtraveler on November 30, 2023, 09:25:31 AM ---
--- Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 24, 2023, 05:33:23 PM ---Like it or not, it looks like there will be two Interstate 42s. Unless one of us can convince the-powers-that-be to pick another number, it looks like we’ll be overruled.

--- End quote ---
I wouldn't say it's a foregone conclusion that US-412 will become I-42, just because Oklahoma's choice is 42. I can give you plenty of examples where a state proposes a certain number for an interstate designation and the FHWA and AASHTO assign a different number. Here are just a couple of examples.

- North Carolina originally requested I-36 for upgrading US-70 between I-40 and New Bern; the FHWA and AASHTO approved I-42 instead
- Back in the 1980s, Connecticut and Massachusetts requested that I-290 be extended over CT/MA-52 from I-90 in Auburn, MA to I-95 in Waterford, CT. FHWA and AASHTO rejected that request and subsequently approved I-395 for that stretch.

--- End quote ---

I hope so, because if I-42 sticks, there will be an interchange in east Tulsa where I-44, I-244 and I-42 all meet. That couldn't possibly be confusing could it?

bugo:
I'd be surprised if AASHTO makes them change the number. AASHTO has bent over for North Carolina, rubber stamping requests for a ton of ridiculous Interstates, and has only made them change one number. It's not something that has been done a lot historically.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version