AASHTO Numbering Committee Spring '14 Meeting

[english si]

Documents now up http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx

Approved if not otherwise stated, details via the document.

AL US278 relocation (Cullman area) - conditionally approved:Need to know disposition of existing route
AL US331 relocation (Montgomery)
AR US49B recognition (Brookland)
AR US49 relocation (Brookland)
AR US63B recognise (Bono)
AR US63 relocation (Bono)
AR US167B recognition (Sheridan)
AR US167 relocation (Sheridan)
LA I-49 extension (I-220 - Arkansas)
MD I-70 elimination (inside Baltimore Belt)
MN US14 relocation (Owatonna, Waseca and Janesville bypass) - conditionally approved: log required
NE US34 relocation (over US75 and new alignment)
NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed
NC US401 relocation (Rolesville)
NC US401 Business recognition (Rolesville)
ND US85 relocation (Alexander)
ND US85 Business addition (Alexander)
ND US85 relocation (Watford City)
ND US85 Business addition (Watford City)
TN US70/11 relocation (Knoxville) - conditionally approved (log required)
TX I-69 extension (inside I-610) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69C extension (Edinburg) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69E extension (Robstown) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69W extension (Laredo) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX US59 relocation (Laredo) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX US59 Business recognition (Laredo)
NV Future I-11 establish (AZ to I-215) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed

Bicycle routes
DC USBR50 establish
IL USBR37 establish
IL USBR36 establish
MA USBR1 establish
OH USBR50 establish
WA USBR10 establish

[rschen7754]

Nothing from California, again.

[TheStranger]

Nothing from California, again.

This makes me wonder: has California ever signed any Interstate/US route without seeking AASHTO permission?  Technically I-80 between US 101 and the Bay Bridge has qualified for that status since 1968, but that HAD been previously approved and signed from the late 50s onward so that has always struck me as more of a bizarre FHWA technicality, as opposed to say Oklahoma's initiative in signing US 377 despite initial AASHTO disapproval.

15 between 8 and 805 is complete (though the 15/94 interchange hasn't been upgraded yet) and 210 has been completed for some time, save finishing touches to the 210/215 junction.  (And hey, with the fourth Caldecott Tunnel bore open, I wonder how much longer 24 and 980 will remain as two numbers for the same corridor)

[txstateends]

So, how long does it usually take FHWA to approve a routing or change that AASHTO conditionally approves?

[rickmastfan67]

NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed

I find that approval interesting since normally the AASHTO balks at requests that don't have a companion request from the other state (PA in this case) and will not approve till they have it.

[agentsteel53]

This makes me wonder: has California ever signed any Interstate/US route without seeking AASHTO permission? 

I-905 for a brief while?  was that done without permission?

also what about such goofery as co-signing I-5 on the southernmost segment of US-101, or cosigning I-405 on the northernmost segment of CA-73?  those could be made explicitly correct with the addition of "TO" banners, but honestly I don't find them all that confusing so they can stay as is.

[english si]

So, how long does it usually take FHWA to approve a routing or change that AASHTO conditionally approves?

Depends on how long it takes the DOT to ask for it, I guess!

I think it is only due to the FHWA's trademark on the interstate shield that they need approval from the FHWA. The new interstate routes put forward this time are all interstate-by-law, and IIRC the number is written into law, so the FHWA can't actually do anything and even submitting  to AASHTO is a mere courtesy.

I find that approval interesting since normally the AASHTO balks at requests that don't have a companion request from the other state (PA in this case) and will not approve till they have it.

True, ditto the AR request done last time that this LA request is the compliment to. Probably the guys there realised that I-99 and I-49 (and Fut-11) requests can't be denied without opening a big can of worms.

NY I-99 joins NC I-74 and MS I-69 as interstates that end at a state line.

[Mr. Matté]

MD I-70 elimination (inside Baltimore Belt)

Wow, took MD this long to finally smell the roses. Reading up on the reason for them doing this now (rebuilding the park & ride and eliminating the MD 122 interchange), I'm surprised there was never any discussion or inkling of this project on this board.

[TheStranger]

This makes me wonder: has California ever signed any Interstate/US route without seeking AASHTO permission? 

I-905 for a brief while?  was that done without permission?

Have any interstate shields gone up there?  I've never seen one in the few times I've been around the 5/905 junction.

also what about such goofery as co-signing I-5 on the southernmost segment of US-101, or cosigning I-405 on the northernmost segment of CA-73?  those could be made explicitly correct with the addition of "TO" banners, but honestly I don't find them all that confusing so they can stay as is.

A couple of much older (long gone) cases that also fit this:

80/101 cosigned on the westbound San Francisco Skyway in the 1980s: reference to a concurrency (80/101 on the Central Freeway) that existed 1956-1968.  I guess to an extent that's very similar to the 5/101 south signage in the downtown slot, when 5/101 did continue together until 1968 past the East Los Angeles Interchange.

US 70 signed from southbound 101 at the Four-Level ca. 1959-1960: would that be like our Route 73 example?  Another active implied-TO sign in that vein is the 238/580 stuff along the Nimitz Freeway (in comparison to the 380 TO 280 signage on 101 near SFO).

[agentsteel53]

Have any interstate shields gone up there?  I've never seen one in the few times I've been around the 5/905 junction.

I think there are some photos on AARoads that Andy Field took, but I cannot seem to find them offhand.  the signs were taken down by the early 2000s.

[Alex]

Have any interstate shields gone up there?  I've never seen one in the few times I've been around the 5/905 junction.

I think there are some photos on AARoads that Andy Field took, but I cannot seem to find them offhand.  the signs were taken down by the early 2000s.

2003 photo from the main guide for I-5: https://www.aaroads.com/california/i-005na_ca.html

[corco]

NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed

I find that approval interesting since normally the AASHTO balks at requests that don't have a companion request from the other state (PA in this case) and will not approve till they have it.

That applies to the US 34 realignment in Nebraska too- I'm surprised AASHTO approved it without Iowa submitting their side of the new bridge too.

[Scott5114]

Shame about I-70. It's a reasonable thing to do, but the I-70 Park & Ride has to be the most unique Interstate terminus in the system.

I-49 in LA wasn't already approved?

I-11 now has official status!

[WashuOtaku]

NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed

Does this mean US 15 reverts back on its old alignment or will it stay on the freeway?  I don't recall US 15 officially approved on this route.

As for it being established in NY while PA still has to wait till sections are done, I don't have an issue with this.  NY got it done.

[jemacedo9]

NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed

Does this mean US 15 reverts back on its old alignment or will it stay on the freeway?  I don't recall US 15 officially approved on this route.

As for it being established in NY while PA still has to wait till sections are done, I don't have an issue with this.  NY got it done.

...does anyone know what sections of future I-99 in PA are not eligible yet, and why?

[Revive 755]

-   Arkansas: Re-designation of 1-540 from 1-40 to U.S. 62 as 1-49, and Designation of U.S. 71 from U.S. 62 to U.S. 71 Business as 1-49 (file is bennet.pdf)

(emphasis added)

I've heard of the public getting confused on the whole I- version 1xx, but it is extremely surprising to find it in an AASHTO document.

[hbelkins]

US 11 and US 70 in Knoxville -- put on a new route, or being relocated from one existing route to another?

[vdeane]

NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed

Does this mean US 15 reverts back on its old alignment or will it stay on the freeway?  I don't recall US 15 officially approved on this route.

As for it being established in NY while PA still has to wait till sections are done, I don't have an issue with this.  NY got it done.

Given that there are no interchanges between the PA line and Presho, and that both of those freeway segments were US 15 before the new freeway was built, I'm not sure that official approval would have been needed to move it.

As for what happens, it's a question of where you're looking:
-Officially (Federal): Unless AASHTO suddenly decides to change their minds about US highways ending at state lines, US 15 will overlap with I-99 until the end of time as PennDOT has no desire to decommission it even after they finish their segment of I-99.
-Signage: Co-signed for a little while, then eased out to I-99 as signage gets replaced.
-Officially (NYSDOT): It's essentially I-99 only already

Either way, old US 15 is being transferred to Steuben County.

[Mapmikey]

US 11 and US 70 in Knoxville -- put on a new route, or being relocated from one existing route to another?

TN 158 along the river plus Hall of Fame Dr IIRC...

Mapmikey

[bulldog1979]

I think it is only due to the FHWA's trademark on the interstate shield that they need approval from the FHWA. The new interstate routes put forward this time are all interstate-by-law, and IIRC the number is written into law, so the FHWA can't actually do anything and even submitting  to AASHTO is a mere courtesy.

Actually, the trademark is held by AASHTO, not FHWA.

[vtk]

Did OH ever submit the US 33 relocation at Nelsonville?  I don't recall seeing the paperwork for that one...

[Scott5114]

I may be incorrect, but FHWA's approval is mostly certification that the route meets the Interstate highway standards, correct?

[froggie]

That's part of it, but FHWA also decides if the route is a logical addition (or elimination as the case may be) to (from) the Interstate system...Congressional action notwithstanding.  Case-in-point:  I-495 NC.  Eliminating I-70 between I-695 and the park-and-ride would be an example of the logical elimination.

[Mr_Northside]

NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed

As for it being established in NY while PA still has to wait till sections are done, I don't have an issue with this.  NY got it done.

IMO, it should just go all the way down to I-180 for now rather than just disappear at the state line. 
Of course, once NY signs their section, I could easily see the politicians of the counties & communities along the US-15 / Future I-99 corridor putting pressure on the state to get PennDOT to get it signed (for all the economic benefits and stuff politicians like to tout) down to I-180.

[vdeane]

Unfortunately, PennDOT forgot to cross every t and dot every i, and some ramps on the road north of Williamsport don't actually meet interstate standards.