AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents  (Read 48715 times)

CNGL-Leudimin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3840
  • When in doubt, US 41

  • Age: 29
  • Location: Across the pond
  • Last Login: Today at 06:09:43 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #175 on: September 13, 2021, 02:44:54 PM »

US 84 to Oregon would have prevented I-80N from being renumbered to I-84 :sombrero:. And the Interstates were already under construction by the time of that letter (1959).
Logged
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 939
  • Why not?

  • Age: -64
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 08:23:08 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #176 on: September 14, 2021, 12:06:51 AM »

US 84 to Oregon would have prevented I-80N from being renumbered to I-84 :sombrero:. And the Interstates were already under construction by the time of that letter (1959).

Ha!

If I were a betting man, I'd say that I-80N would've become I-82 and I-82 something else--maybe I-86 (as this was during the time of the suffixed Interstates)?

US-84 to Oregon is definitely one of the more out-there proposals. Crescent Junction was mentioned in those documents, so I can't help but try to connect the dots for US-84 between there and Bliss; it'd probably go something like this:

US-6 Overlap to Spanish Fork
US-91 Overlap to Brigham City
US-30S Overlap to US-30N/30S split
US-30 Overlap to Bliss

The timing may have worked out as well, given that 91 and 30S were on their way out within 15-20 years, with US-84 possibly supplanting 91 to Brigham City and 30S back to 30 once Interstates 15 and 80N were being built. Of course, US-84 would've been overlapping 80N once it was completed.

Also another tidbit: IIRC part of former US-91, after it was decommissioned south of Brigham City in 1974 and before Utah's 1977 renumbering, was numbered UT-84. (Correct me if I'm wrong, though.)
« Last Edit: September 22, 2021, 05:43:11 PM by Rover_0 »
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4889
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:35:56 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #177 on: September 14, 2021, 12:23:26 AM »

Also another tidbit: IIRC part of former US-91, after it was decommissioned south of Brigham City in 1974 and before Utah's 1977 renumbering, was numbered UT-84. (Correct me if I'm wrong, though.)

Yep - specifically the part of old 91 between I-15/Main St in Layton and 1900 West/Riverdale Rd in Roy was part of SR 84. That was renumbered to SR 126 in 1977.

Had I-80N been renumbered to I-84 just a few years earlier, the two 84s would have intersected at Hot Springs Jct.

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4247
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:58:44 PM
    • Wikipedia
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #178 on: September 14, 2021, 12:30:32 AM »

If I were a betting man, I'd say that I-80N would've become I-82 and I-82 something else--maybe I-86 (as this was during the time of the suffixed Interstates)?

Until 1958, I-82 in fact was assigned to the Portland-SLC corridor (source), while I-82N was assigned to what is now I-86.

US20IL64

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 231
  • Location: Elmhurst IL
  • Last Login: May 04, 2022, 09:28:34 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #179 on: September 14, 2021, 08:44:19 PM »

Is cool   :) to see scans of old documents and explanations with approvals, etc. As someone posted "like Christmas".  :popcorn:

I-90 re-routing in Chicago made sense, to make more direct. And remove superfluous route numbers, like IL-194.
Logged

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 235
  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: October 28, 2021, 10:21:17 AM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #180 on: September 21, 2021, 11:03:35 AM »

Merry Christmas, everyone!

I found an early NY 3DI numbering plan. This has some stuff we never knew existed.


Very Interesting that I-87 was planned to end at a 2di instead of its current 3di, i've always made ideas to make I-87 end at a 2di
Logged
This is all of My Interstate Idea Together
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1js50Yo56A24RvpQNunLdwGMlFyVw5Ot_&usp=sharing
Places I've Lived in: Albany/Latham/Bronx, NY-Columbia-Blythewood, SC

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3881
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 52
  • Last Login: Today at 04:46:43 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #181 on: February 25, 2022, 09:47:31 PM »

There is a 1973 document discussing the elimination of (most of them are in here) suffixed interstates.  Some stuff floated in here that was news to me.

Apologies if this is on the forum elsewhere...

Some nuggets...
I-80N out west was supposed to become I-86 (I-11 and I-13 were floated if duplication was not desired)
I-80S to Denver was supposed to be I-78 (or I-23)
I-275 tampa area was supposed to be I-75W or I-175
I-57 to Green Bay was supposed to become I-39
I-30 was supposed to replace I-35E southwest; I-645 was supposed to come into existence...

Go to the AASHO database - https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default
 search "other" and 1973 (don't select a state).  2 items appear...it is the one that is NOT the DC one. 
Logged

CNGL-Leudimin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3840
  • When in doubt, US 41

  • Age: 29
  • Location: Across the pond
  • Last Login: Today at 06:09:43 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #182 on: February 26, 2022, 07:32:40 AM »

Also I-31 and I-231 were to be things.

And I-94 on the Crosstown? No way!
Logged
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

kurumi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2181
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:53:11 PM
    • kurumi.com
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #183 on: February 26, 2022, 01:33:18 PM »

There is a 1973 document discussing the elimination of (most of them are in here) suffixed interstates.  Some stuff floated in here that was news to me.

This was a neat find. Other new numbers proposed in the doc:

I-216 Macon, GA
I-230, I-245 Dallas
I-31, I-231 Wichita
I-274 Quad Cities
I-215 Pocatello
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4845
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 06:31:34 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #184 on: February 27, 2022, 04:11:22 AM »

One of the suggestions to go in tandem with renumbering 35E/W in the Twin Cities was making 494/694 into one number, possibly as a navigation aid but doesn't specify a reason (something Beltway often complained about when he posted here was its alleged uselessness for I-35 traffic).
Logged

route56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1124
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Northeast Kansas
  • Last Login: May 08, 2022, 05:04:35 PM
    • route56.com
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #185 on: May 08, 2022, 04:57:04 PM »

I have to wonder if the SHC/KDOT had objections to the proposed I-31/I-231. Had this proposal been implemented, K-31 would need to be renumbered (the change of I-35W to I-135 did result in K-135 being redesignated K-152)
Logged
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

 


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.