AASHTO meeting May 2, 2011

[NE2]

Thanks to froggie for drawing attention to this.
Some of the submissions have been posted here: http://cms.transportation.org/?siteid=68&c=downloads but others are only deep-linked in the PDF. Here's a full list:
ALABAMA for Relocation of US 29 (Flomaton)
ALABAMA for Relocation of US 31 (Flomaton)
ALABAMA for Relocation of US 80 (Montgomery)
ALABAMA Interstate FHWA Decision Letter (I-85 extension)
DELAWARE Elimination US 301
DELAWARE US 301 Relocation
ILLINOIS Elimination of Business Route US 51 (Decatur)
INDIANA Relocation of U.S. Route 31 (Kokomo)
INDIANA Relocation of a U.S. 231 (I-64 to Ohio River)
IOWA US 61 (Fort Madison)
IOWA US 61 BUSINESS (Fort Madison)
KENTUCKY Establishment of U.S. Route 68 (Glasgow)
KENTUCKY Recognition of a U.S. Business Route on U.S. 68 (Glasgow)
MAINE Establish new US Bicycle Route USBR 1
MAINE Establishment of new U.S. Bicycle Route USBR 1A
MICHIGAN Elimination of Business US 12 (Niles)
MICHIGAN Establishment of a new U.S. Bicycle Route 20
NEW HAMPSHIRE Establish new U.S. Bicycle Route 1
NORTH CAROLINA Relocation of U.S. 17 (New Bern)
NORTH CAROLINA Recognition of US 17 Business (New Bern)
NORTH CAROLINA Relocation of U.S. Route 311 (High Point)
SOUTH CAROLINA Relocation of U.S. Route 21 (Beaufort-Port Royal)
SOUTH CAROLINA Extension of U.S. Route 21 Business (Beaufort)
SOUTH CAROLINA Establishment of Interstate I-520: AASHTO Letter to FHWA dated April 6, 2011
TENNESSEE Relocation of U.S. Route 421 (Bristol)
TEXAS Relocation of U.S. Route 79 Business (Williamson)
TEXAS Elimination of US 87 Business (Lubbock)
TEXAS Recognition of a Business Route on US 190 Business [sic] (Heidenheimer)
TEXAS Relocation of a U.S Route 287 Business (Fort Worth)
TEXAS Relocation of a U.S. Route 380 Business (Floyd)
VIRGINIA Relocation of U.S. 421 (Bristol)
VIRGINIA Realignment of an existing U.S. Bicycle Route USBR 1 (Independent Hill)
VIRGINIA Realignment of an existing U.S. Bicycle Route USBR 76 (Charlottesville)
WISCONSIN Relocation of a U.S. Route 18 (Prairie du Chien)

[Duke87]

Wait, why is Delaware submitting two separate applications for elimination and relocation? Shouldn't just the relocation application suffice?

[NE2]

Wait, why is Delaware submitting two separate applications for elimination and relocation? Shouldn't just the relocation application suffice?

Perhaps it's because the entire length of US 301 in Delaware is being relocated.

[Revive 755]

Love how Business 51 in Decatur, IL, may be decommissioned to reduce truck traffic on the route.  Never mind the number of industries near downtown Decatur. 

[elsmere241]

So . . . Delaware is going to call the new tollway US 301, and call the existing US 301 simply DE 299, DE 71, and/or DE 896.  (And apparently part of Middletown Warwick Road won't carry a state shield at all.)  Does anyone see anything about what they're going to call the spur to Summit Bridge?

[Alex]

So . . . Delaware is going to call the new tollway US 301, and call the existing US 301 simply DE 299, DE 71, and/or DE 896.  (And apparently part of Middletown Warwick Road won't carry a state shield at all.)  Does anyone see anything about what they're going to call the spur to Summit Bridge?

The 57-page document to AASHTO indicates that the Spur will not be a part of the National Highway System. It appears that the spur road will not even be numbered, perhaps the way the Puncheon Run Connector is unnumbered.

I read through the document last night and their main pitch to get around the "moving a US highway to a tolled facility without a viable toll free alternate" is that if there was an alternate, the funding mechanism for building the new road (tolling it) would fail. They propose a toll booth just east of the state line without any possibility of getting off US 301 ahead of it. There is even a quip in there about adding a toll booth to Maryland 282 to prevent autos from bypassing it (they will levy truck restrictions on every non-state road to prevent trucks from dodging it).

This all was countered in a News Journal article recently that questioned whether it could ever get funded and if DelDOT should rethink the entire road (i.e. build something less).

I also found it interesting that the 1992 request to relocate US 301 from DE 896 east to US 13 north to DE 896 north to US 40 was included. I had wondered about that for years, because signage was never made consistent to show the shift (especially the guide signs added in the mid-1990s at Glasgow).

As for the Middletown Warwick Road section that will be unnumbered, I bet they will shift DE-71 from Broad Street onto it when all is said and done.

[mightyace]

The following links do not work:

url=http://highways.transportation.org/Documents/USRN Application for Relocation of US 29 on 2-3-11.pdf]ALABAMA for Relocation of US 29[/url] (Flomaton)
ALABAMA for Relocation of US 31 (Flomaton)
ALABAMA for Relocation of US 80 (Montgomery)

Fortunately, you can reach tem this way:

Some of the submissions have been posted here: http://cms.transportation.org/?siteid=68&c=downloads but others are only deep-linked in the PDF.

[NE2]

Hmmm. They did work yesterday. Any other bad links?

[mightyace]

Not that I know of, but I haven't tried all links.

[NE2]

Looks like everything's linked here: http://cms.transportation.org/?siteid=68&pageid=3213
All requests were approved.