AASHTO Spring 2019

[mvak36]

As WashuOtaku mentioned in the North Carolina thread, the final report from the Special Committee on U. S. Route Numbering meeting has been posted.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/3/31/31119030d9a75754/Final_Report_to_CHS_USRN_Application_Results_Spring_2019.original.1558475352.pdf?1558475353

Interstate items approved in this meeting:
I-265 (IN and KY)
I-49 LA
I-274 NC
I-285 NC
I-169 TX

[ilpt4u]

Yeay! Louisville I-265 is finally, officially unified!

[nexus73]

Still no I-210 mention.  Oh heck, just call it state route 30 again...LOL!

Rick

[TheHighwayMan3561]

NC's dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

[planxtymcgillicuddy]

NC's dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

As an NC resident, I ask myself that question every single day, in far more facets than just Road numbering.

[RoadMaster09]

NC’s dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

73 and 74 definitely need to get lost from central North Carolina. There's very little chance the gap through West Virginia will be filled on its own (there isn't even a corridor being defined or suitable for it) - I certainly can't see I-74 ever making it past southern Ohio, while there is a much better route for I-73 on its own. 73 and 74 would just create a 4-route multiplex on the WV Turnpike.

The only thing is that number from the Northeast will need to be duplicated, as it needs to fall between 81 and 95 (ideally between 85 and 95). Forgetting the out of place I-87, I-89 would probably be the number best suited for the north-south section of I-74 (and 73/74) between Mount Airy and Rockingham. The east-west section would be best numbered as I-38. With that, 274 could become 289, while I-73 to Greensboro could (for now) be I-189, while options through Virginia are considered.

I-38 would be extendable in both directions: west through Charlotte to I-26 in Columbus (via US 74; most of it is already a freeway) and east to Whiteville or Wilmington (depending on if I-20 is extended). While I-89 could be extended south, there seems to be no push from the Palmetto State.

[oscar]

TX I-169 extension approved. No surprise to me, but at some point I'll have to make it back down to far southern Texas. That's far from my normal travel patterns.

Item 8 confusingly refers to existing I-55 Business in Springfield IL (which will be rerouted at least a little) as "U.S. 55 Bus". One side note: the route relocation description says the realigned route will include some locally-maintained roads.

[mvak36]

All the materials from the meeting are located at: https://route.transportation.org/committee-notices-actions-and-approvals/past-meetings/

Applications from the states:
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2019/06/003_USRN-Applications-Spring-Meeting-2019_AR-GA_Part-1.pdf
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2019/06/004_USRN-Applications-Spring-Meeting-2019_IL-KY-Part-2.pdf
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2019/06/005_USRN-Applications-Spring-Meeting_LA-MO_Part-3.pdf
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2019/06/006_USRN-Applications-Spring-Meeting_-NC-VA_Part-4.pdf

[planxtymcgillicuddy]

NC’s dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

73 and 74 definitely need to get lost from central North Carolina. There's very little chance the gap through West Virginia will be filled on its own (there isn't even a corridor being defined or suitable for it) - I certainly can't see I-74 ever making it past southern Ohio, while there is a much better route for I-73 on its own. 73 and 74 would just create a 4-route multiplex on the WV Turnpike.

I still say 73 should become 79-upgrade U.S. 19 from Sutton to Beckley, have it multiplex with 77 to Princeton, then upgrade 460 from Princeton to the WV/VA line, and in turn, make 79 from Sutton to Charleston into I-73. It'd be a lot quicker than carving out a whole new path through western WV (which TBH, really doesn't need an interstate). 74 shouldn't extend farther east or south than Cincinnati IMO.

[yakra]

The AR US63 reroute had been on my own personal Fictional list for a while, but I'd never really considered that one day it might actually happen. Good to see.

[TheStranger]

Still no I-210 mention.  Oh heck, just call it state route 30 again...LOL!

Regarding 210, I remember seeing on Cahighways.org a link to a 2018 article that noted there were still some final projects remaining on the road before the Interstate designation for the eastern segment was sought again.  I posted about it in one of the threads in the Pacific Southwest board but forgot where.  Lemme find it:

https://cahighways.org/209-216.html#210

"In September 2018, an explanation was given for why the portion E of Route 57 was still not signed as an interstate route. Joy Schneider from Caltrans District 8 (Riverside and San Bernardino counties), said state legislation authorizing number changes for Route 210 construction project was complex because the entire route for the highway was considered, beginning with Los Angeles County communities all the way east through Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Interstate status was more directly tied Route 210 Freeway construction projects, she said, explaining that interstate status was initiated, then partially rescinded to coincide with construction limits. Schneider said all highway signs should all be updated to reflect the name of I-210 once pending freeway upgrade construction through to I-10 is completed. More work on Route 210 is expected to begin in the fall of 2019 and updated interstate signs will follow."

https://www.pe.com/2018/09/16/why-isnt-the-new-section-of-the-210-freeway-called-interstate-210/

[CNGL-Leudimin]

At the turn of the century there were three I-265s. Now only one remains. The Southernmost one was deleted by a I-65 reroute. Now the other two have merged into a single designation.

I-274, really? It is known North Carolina's I-74 will never connect to the Quad Cities to Cincinnati I-74, so it needs to be changed to I-38 or something like that. I-274 would therefore become, you guessed it, I-238 .

No new US routes have been approved. There is only one meeting remaining before the 2010s becomes the first decade with no new US routes since they were first introduced.

[LM117]

NC's dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

It makes sense that the remaining half of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway become an interstate. As for I-74 itself, you might want to direct that hate towards Congress, since they're the ones responsible for it.

As for the AASHTO meeting, I was hoping that NCDOT would ask that the eastern end of the Wilmington Bypass become part of I-140, but no dice.

[Beltway]

At the turn of the century there were three I-265s. Now only one remains. The Southernmost one was deleted by a I-65 reroute. Now the other two have merged into a single designation.

KY/IN new segment and bridge?  Isn't that still a state primary route?

[mvak36]

As for the AASHTO meeting, I was hoping that NCDOT would ask that the eastern end of the Wilmington Bypass become part of I-140, but no dice.

What's the reason that that segment isn't already an interstate? Does it need to be upgraded or something before getting the designation?

[LM117]

As for the AASHTO meeting, I was hoping that NCDOT would ask that the eastern end of the Wilmington Bypass become part of I-140, but no dice.

What's the reason that that segment isn't already an interstate? Does it need to be upgraded or something before getting the designation?

I don't know what the issue is, because it currently meets interstate standards and ends at a US route, so there's technically no reason it can be denied.

[TheStranger]

At the turn of the century there were three I-265s. Now only one remains. The Southernmost one was deleted by a I-65 reroute. Now the other two have merged into a single designation.

KY/IN new segment and bridge?  Isn't that still a state primary route?

That's what was approved in this batch as part of a unified I-265 designation (since the East End Bridge first opened it was IN 265 on the west part of it and KY 841 east of the state line).

[-- US 175 --]

Item No. 28 - State: Texas Route: US 175
Action: Relocation of a U.S. Route between: 0.5 mile
west of Farm To Market (FM) 315 to approximately
0.5 mile east of FM 315 (US 175).
Description: In the City of Poynor, Henderson
County, Texas, the Texas Transportation Commission
approved the designation of US 175 along a new
location from approximately 0.5 mile west of FM
315 to approximately 0.5 mile east of FM 315, a
distance of approximately 1.0 mile.

Item No. 29 - State: Texas Route: US 175 BUS
Action: Recognition of a Business Route between:
0.5 mile west of FM 315 to approximately 0.5 mile
east of FM 315.
Description: In the City of Poynor, Henderson
County, Texas, the Texas Transportation Commission
approved the redesignation of US 175 as BU 175-H
from approximately 0.5 mile west of FM 315 to
approximately 0.5 mile east of FM 315, a distance of
approximately 1.0 mile.

I had wondered about this.  So far, in the initial widening work between Baxter and Frankston, a new bypass of Poynor came together as part of the 2nd of the 3 phases of construction, and signage was limited to
TO
FM 315
<<==
(or, ==>>)
on each end of the short bypass.  I didn't hear whether there would be any designation change for the old in-town route, or not.  Good to know that something besides go-that-way-to-get-to-that-FM-crossroad-over-there will be signed/designated.  Bus US 175-H will be the shortest of the business routes along the highway.

Just checked earlier, and haven't found any posted meeting minutes or minute orders regarding the new designation, yet.

ETA:::: Found a GSV of the signage treatment up to now at the west-side intersection...
(for some reason, in this part of the phase 2 construction, all the turnoff assemblies and reassurance signage have what I call "large print" shields, that are oversized for what is necessary along there.  IMO, save the "large print" for the Dallas-area freeways; the smaller towns are fine without the super-sizing.)

[ilpt4u]

Item 8 confusingly refers to existing I-55 Business in Springfield IL (which will be rerouted at least a little) as "U.S. 55 Bus". One side note: the route relocation description says the realigned route will include some locally-maintained roads.

Maybe AASHTO was confused, and really meant relocating US 66 

[NE2]

"Would we really have a business route on Interstate? Or would we just delete the business route at the control points coincident to the Interstate?"
-the Colorado representative, of course

Simple list of changes:
AR US 63 realigned along US 49 between Brinkley and Jonesboro
AR US 63B (Jonesboro) deleted (presumably becoming AR 463)
AR US 63B (Marked Tree) deleted
AR US 82B (Magnolia) deleted
AR US 278 By-pass (Monticello) created
GA USBR 1 created (FL to SC, mostly along a combination of existing state bike route 95 and the East Coast Greenway)
IA US 30 realigned around Mt. Vernon and Lisbon
IA US 52 realigned around Dubuque
IL I-55 Business (Springfield) realigned
IN/KY I-265 extended
KY USBR 21 created (TN to OH), USBR 23 created (TN to USBR 76), USBR 76 realigned through Paint Lick
LA I-49 extended and looped along I-220
LA US 61 Business (Baton Rouge) realigned
MA USBR 7 realigned in Adams
MI I-94 Business (Kalamazoo) truncated west of M-96, becoming a business spur
MI US 131 Business (Kalamazoo) truncated south of Dunkley Street
MO US 61 realigned around Kelso
MO US 61 Business (Kelso) created
MO US 67 Business (Cherokee Pass) truncated at both ends
MO US 65 Business (Carrollton) deleted
MO US 65 Business (Trenton) deleted
NC Future I-274 created
NC Future I-285 created extending I-285 north of I-40
TX I-169 extended
TX US 62/US 85 realigned in El Paso (removal of one-way pair; no indication of whether traffic on the bridge into El Paso will be directed east on 6th)
TX US 79 Business (Taylor) deleted
TX US 175 realigned around Poynor
TX US 175 Business (Poynor) created
VA USBR 76 realigned in Rutland

[CNGL-Leudimin]

US 85 should really be truncated. It should start where it splits from I-76 Northeast of Denver. It's clear New Mexico and Colorado don't want it South of Denver, but it is still in the log as running to El Paso because Texas still fully signs it.

[sparker]

NC's dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

It makes sense that the remaining half of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway become an interstate. As for I-74 itself, you might want to direct that hate towards Congress, since they're the ones responsible for it.

Hey -- even orphans can have kids!  Until the folks who instigated the 73/74 proposal stop acting like Monty Python's Black Knight: ".....your arm's off!" -- "It's only a scratch" and realize they've lost their lifeline to Cincinnati, this sort of thing can and will happen!   

[sprjus4]

As for the AASHTO meeting, I was hoping that NCDOT would ask that the eastern end of the Wilmington Bypass become part of I-140, but no dice.

I'd like to see I-140 routed east of I-40, then follow the Hampstead Bypass back to US-17. But I suppose that's too fictional.

[Highway63]

Arkansas does something not-awful to US 63! Two cheers for that. (I'm waiting for I-49 to be finished before I go after the southern half of US 63. It may sound weird but there's a plan.)

US 52 in IA is based on Dubuque's Southwest Connector which may or may not open this calendar year. US 30 is a bypass.

Anything related to x73 or x74 in North Carolina - heck, about 3/4 of the interstate things in North Carolina, period - just make me angry.

[DJ Particle]

NC's dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

Let me guess....  Asheboro?  I see a partial beltway under construction there.