AASHTO Numbering Committee Spring '14 Meeting

[andy3175]

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)

I wonder if Caltrans considers AASHTO approval a priority? It seems like it's just as good to them to sign would-be Interstate highways as state routes (e.g., 15, 210, 905, etc.) and not go through the AASHTO and/or FHWA process to obtain approval and get certain segments such as those described above as Interstate highways. I had asked a Caltrans official a while ago about plans to convert SR 15 to I-15, and she told me that there were no such plans, that SR 15 is fine. Who knows if there are plans for converting SR 15 to I-15 now, if they are waiting until SR 15/94 interchange is upgraded, or if there are no foreseeable plans (and SR 15 will remain SR 15 forevermore)?

[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)

I wonder if Caltrans considers AASHTO approval a priority? It seems like it's just as good to them to sign would-be Interstate highways as state routes (e.g., 15, 210, 905, etc.) and not go through the AASHTO and/or FHWA process to obtain approval and get certain segments such as those described above as Interstate highways. I had asked a Caltrans official a while ago about plans to convert SR 15 to I-15, and she told me that there were no such plans, that SR 15 is fine. Who knows if there are plans for converting SR 15 to I-15 now, if they are waiting until SR 15/94 interchange is upgraded, or if there are no foreseeable plans (and SR 15 will remain SR 15 forevermore)?

I know (based on Faigin's page) that 210 east of 57 was submitted in the past to (and rejected by) AASHTO; 15 and 905 were supposed to be "pending" based on previously approved submissions. 

[NJRoadfan]

NJDOT still hasn't applied for the re-routing of US-9 onto the GSP at Great Egg Harbor (the Beesley's Point Bridge is being demolished). They also haven't applied to re-route US-322 along the new Mullica Hill bypass (county maintained).

[andy3175]

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)

I wonder if Caltrans considers AASHTO approval a priority? It seems like it's just as good to them to sign would-be Interstate highways as state routes (e.g., 15, 210, 905, etc.) and not go through the AASHTO and/or FHWA process to obtain approval and get certain segments such as those described above as Interstate highways. I had asked a Caltrans official a while ago about plans to convert SR 15 to I-15, and she told me that there were no such plans, that SR 15 is fine. Who knows if there are plans for converting SR 15 to I-15 now, if they are waiting until SR 15/94 interchange is upgraded, or if there are no foreseeable plans (and SR 15 will remain SR 15 forevermore)?

I know (based on Faigin's page) that 210 east of 57 was submitted in the past to (and rejected by) AASHTO; 15 and 905 were supposed to be "pending" based on previously approved submissions. 

The only reference I could find for California entering any sort of application to AASHTO for route numbering within the last 20 years was in 1998 and 1999, when the minutes noted an application submitted by California that was pulled back before AASHTO took any action on it. Unfortunately, there is no on-line copy of the California application from that year. Faigin's site supports this as related to I-210.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/1999-USRN_Cmte.pdf

The application from California was withdrawn by the California DOT and therefore not considered by the Committee.

http://www.cahighways.org/itypes.html

November 6, 1998
Route, Description, Status
I-210   
Eliminate I-210 from (former) Route 30 to I-10 (Pomona); New routing of I-210 along (former) Route 30 to I-15 to I-10, San Dimas to Redlands, 42.5 mi   
Submitted, but deferred

April 16, 1999
Route, Description, Status
I-210   
Eliminate I-210 from (former) Route 30 to I-10 (Pomona); New routing of I-210 along (former) Route 30 to I-15 to I-10, San Dimas to Redlands, 42.5 mi   
Submitted, then withdrawn

As for SR 905, I wonder if AASHTO approval is needed given the 1984 FHWA approval that both my site and Faigin's site reference as a future I-905 (non-chargeable interstate highway). My site has a couple of relevant quotes, as does a San Diego Union Tribune article from 2010:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/04/us-grants-202m-otay-mesa-interchange-improvements/

Just to the east of the 805/905 interchange a $432 million construction project is turning the final 6.4 miles of SR 905 into a major thoroughfare all the way to the border. The work is expected to be finished by 2012. The entire east-west highway will eventually be dedesignate (I think they mean "redesignated as") Interstate 905, from its connection at I-5 to the border, only the second U.S. interstate to be linked to Mexico.

"Through this Recovery grant, we are helping to improve the safety and efficiency of one of America's largest ports of entry," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in a prepared statement.

[Molandfreak]

Not to be Joe-topic-change here, but why the hell wasn't this released in a PDF format?

[Laura]

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.

MD doesn't really bother to do much with its abandoned highway stubs until another project comes along. The very western end of I-170 was demolished with the expansion of the MARC train parking lot. The old BGS for the unbuilt Windlass Freeway stayed in place until construction and resigning occured in that area. As for I-70, this reconstruction incentive is so that the red line light rail can use part of the road right of way. However, since the MTA missed the most recent budget deadline for the red line, its future is questionable (or will at least be severely delayed).