AASHTO Spring 2019

[SteveG1988]

The I-265 and US63 rerouting are the most logical ones on this list. Good for AR and IL/KY for making sense of their little issues.

[Roadsguy]

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.

That's just for US 64. (Maybe if they ever complete the loop one day, it could become an x73 or x74 3di.) The new Future I-274 is for the western half of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway.

[hbelkins]

KY USBR 21 created (TN to OH), USBR 23 created (TN to USBR 76), USBR 76 realigned through Paint Lick

I didn't see the proposal on this. I wonder if it has to do with the recent widening/relocation of KY 52 in that area?

IIRC, previously USBR 76 followed KY 595 out of Berea, including a short concurrency with KY 52, and then turned from KY 595 to KY 1295 in Kirksville.

[TheStranger]

The I-265 and US63 rerouting are the most logical ones on this list. Good for AR and IL/KY for making sense of their little issues.

This also makes me wonder if US 63 along what is now I-555 was always intended to be temporary in much the same way the second US 48 was a placeholder for I-68.

[froggie]

^ I doubt that.  US 63 had followed the Jonesboro-Turrell corridor since the start of the U.S. route system in the '20s.

[TheStranger]

^ I doubt that.  US 63 had followed the Jonesboro-Turrell corridor since the start of the U.S. route system in the '20s.

Ahh alright.  So it's mostly the alignment along I-55 and I-40 etc. that was newer but not necessarily direct.

[hbelkins]

KY USBR 21 created (TN to OH), USBR 23 created (TN to USBR 76), USBR 76 realigned through Paint Lick

I didn't see the proposal on this. I wonder if it has to do with the recent widening/relocation of KY 52 in that area?

IIRC, previously USBR 76 followed KY 595 out of Berea, including a short concurrency with KY 52, and then turned from KY 595 to KY 1295 in Kirksville.

Actually, after reading the proposal, it looks like a bike-friendly business got them to move it off state routes onto county routes to send bicyclists through "downtown" Paint Lick. I can't say that this is a bad idea, since KY 1295 is a fairly heavily-used shortcut between Richmond and Lancaster, and will continue to be until the new alignment of KY 52 is completed.

[chays]

So when might we reasonably see the signage change for US 63 in Arkansas?

[bassoon1986]

I don't really understand adding I-49 shields to I-220 and I-20 other than continuity. I don't know anyone who would go that far out of the way just to stay on an interstate. Guaranteed everyone trying to stay on the through route goes LA-3132/I-220 or I-49 north to I-20 to US 71 north.

At this point the Inner City Connector through Shreveport is inevitable, especially as funds became available just this week so you know the 3 mile connection is finally within sight.


iPhone

[SteveG1988]

The I-265 and US63 rerouting are the most logical ones on this list. Good for AR and IL/KY for making sense of their little issues.

This also makes me wonder if US 63 along what is now I-555 was always intended to be temporary in much the same way the second US 48 was a placeholder for I-68.

was it really a placeholder? I thought it was always meant to be US48...then they decided that an interstate designation would be a good idea, and honestly it fit into the system as a good connector between 70 and 79 without using the turnpike. Even though imho it could be I70, with the 70 to breezewood being a 3di, but that is a discussion for fictional highways i did a while back.

[Beltway]

This also makes me wonder if US 63 along what is now I-555 was always intended to be temporary in much the same way the second US 48 was a placeholder for I-68.

was it really a placeholder? I thought it was always meant to be US48...then they decided that an interstate designation would be a good idea, and honestly it fit into the system as a good connector between 70 and 79 without using the turnpike. Even though imho it could be I70, with the 70 to breezewood being a 3di, but that is a discussion for fictional highways i did a while back.

The Interstate designation was not planned for this highway until it was nearly completed.  The Interstate I-68 designation was planned for the reconstructed US-50 John Hanson Highway from the Capital Beltway to Annapolis, and that highway was approved for Interstate construction as I-68, in the mid-1980s, and construction, involving widening to three lanes each way, and new interchanges, ran from 1990 to 1995.  When the National Freeway in Western Maryland was completed in 1991, it was given the I-68 designation, and US-50 was given I-595 (never posted).

[sparker]

I don't really understand adding I-49 shields to I-220 and I-20 other than continuity. I don't know anyone who would go that far out of the way just to stay on an interstate. Guaranteed everyone trying to stay on the through route goes LA-3132/I-220 or I-49 north to I-20 to US 71 north.

At this point the Inner City Connector through Shreveport is inevitable, especially as funds became available just this week so you know the 3 mile connection is finally within sight.


iPhone

The application cited continuity as the primary reason for signing I-49 over I-20 & I-220; while the funds may be available, it'll likely be the mid-2020's before the inner connector is opened to traffic.  It's likely LADOT, by applying for this particular temporary I-49 route utilizing part of I-20 as well as I-220 is avoiding having to temporarily re-designate the existing I-49 between Loop 3132 and I-20 as something else pending completion of the inner-city connection.  Obviously, the logical extension for NB traffic coming into the area on I-49 would be simply to exit to WB 3132, which segues seamlessly into EB I-220 and thence to the newly-completed I-49 north of town. 

Question:  I haven't been on 3132 since the early '90's; is the portion between I-49 (south) and I-20/220 fully up to Interstate standards?  It might be a reasonable candidate for an I-220 extension.

[skluth]

I don't really understand adding I-49 shields to I-220 and I-20 other than continuity. I don't know anyone who would go that far out of the way just to stay on an interstate. Guaranteed everyone trying to stay on the through route goes LA-3132/I-220 or I-49 north to I-20 to US 71 north.

At this point the Inner City Connector through Shreveport is inevitable, especially as funds became available just this week so you know the 3 mile connection is finally within sight.


iPhone

The application cited continuity as the primary reason for signing I-49 over I-20 & I-220; while the funds may be available, it'll likely be the mid-2020's before the inner connector is opened to traffic.  It's likely LADOT, by applying for this particular temporary I-49 route utilizing part of I-20 as well as I-220 is avoiding having to temporarily re-designate the existing I-49 between Loop 3132 and I-20 as something else pending completion of the inner-city connection.  Obviously, the logical extension for NB traffic coming into the area on I-49 would be simply to exit to WB 3132, which segues seamlessly into EB I-220 and thence to the newly-completed I-49 north of town. 

Question:  I haven't been on 3132 since the early '90's; is the portion between I-49 (south) and I-20/220 fully up to Interstate standards?  It might be a reasonable candidate for an I-220 extension.

Since I haven't been on LA 3132 ever (last time I was in Shreveport was 1978), I'm sure I would take I-220 and Loop 3132 around the city to continue on I-49 if I ever needed to go from north of Shreveport to south.  I also don't understand why that wasn't used as a temporary I-49 designation as long as it's limited access. It's not like there aren't other old interstates that are less in standards compliance.

[Avalanchez71]

^ I doubt that.  US 63 had followed the Jonesboro-Turrell corridor since the start of the U.S. route system in the '20s.

Ahh alright.  So it's mostly the alignment along I-55 and I-40 etc. that was newer but not necessarily direct.

US 63 signs were few and far between anyway in that section.  The route made sense when it went from Jonesboro to Memphis.  After the realignment not so much.

[index]

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.

Why on Earth do they want to have that stupid hook once I-74 reaches the ILM/Grand Strand area, a la I-64 in the Hampton Roads, as well? It ought to be an auxiliary, seems like it would make a lot more sense from a navigational standpoint.

[index]

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.

That's just for US 64. (Maybe if they ever complete the loop one day, it could become an x73 or x74 3di.) The new Future I-274 is for the western half of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway.

Seeing as its primary purpose is for people wanting to continue on 64 or get to other points that mainline 64 serves, while avoiding Asheboro, it would probably make sense to keep it as a special route of US 64 in some way, shape, or form. You'd have to be nuts to build a beltway for a town of like, what, 20,000 people? But knowing NC, anything is possible.

[yakra]

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)

Prior to this application. US 62/US 85 existed on two separate roads in El Paso near the Mexico border: El Paso Street (one-way) and Stanton Street (two-way): the Texas Transportation Commission approved the removal of US 62/US 85 from the state highway system along El Paso Street from Paisano Street south to 6th Avenue: and that jurisdiction. control and maintenance be transferred to the City of  El Paso. The path of US62/US 85 still remains along Stanton Street. which is a two-way roadway.

OK, this one's a head-scratcher. Stanton St, two-way? Uhh, no! Maybe they're referring to just the very beginning of the route on the Good Neighbor bridge, until northbound traffic is looped back south thru the customs facility to Mesa & 9th?
62/85 was removed "along El Paso Street from Paisano Street south to 6th Avenue". All right, but what about the route south of there?
Designation files are no help here, listing the terminus only as a vague "El Paso". (I have yet to look up what AASHTO says about the end.)
In the shapefiles, When a route is on a split alignment, there are three arcs marked as that route: One on the EB or NB roadway itself, one on the WB or SB roadway itself, and another splitting the difference on the "center line", much as we do on the TravelMapping project. This "center line" for 62/85 only goes as far as 6th Ave.

(We see a similar line on the grid map, but continuing one block farther south to 7th. Oh boy, and the Statewide Planning Map shows it to around 8th...)
Can this be considered, in some regard, the S/W end of the route? Was it just the most reasonable place TXDOT thought they could continue to represent a center line between the 2 alignments/bridges? Alanland?
In that regard, if we consider 6th to be the "official" S end, then only mentioning decommissioning it that far down makes sense in a way.
Right now, signage at and south of Paisano is rather lacking. No signage at Stanton to direct either route southward. Only an EAST 62 on EB Paisano. ON NB Santa Fe, there's just a NORTH 85, and nothing for 62.
Is this even going to change, or remain poorly signed?...

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.

Fictional:
Hey, if TX doesn't wanna sign it south of Paisano, why not just extend US62 westward as one thru route along Paisano until I-10, removing US85? We can get rid of the 10/85 concurrency and make NM & CO happy.

[oscar]

^ This all perplexes me, too. (Except for the reason behind the change, which is that TxDOT wasn't sure it really owned El Paso St. north of 6th Ave., and thought the best way to resolve the land dispute was to give the city of El Paso whatever claim the state had to that 0.2 mile segment).

In 2017, I drove both directions of US 62/85 between Paisano Dr. and Ciudad Juarez. I don't recall any specifics of the signage. At the time, Stanton St. was definitely one-way southbound, but the Good Neighbor Bridge across the Rio Grande was two-way, with I think one bus-only lane northbound. Certainly most northbound traffic across the river takes the Santa Fe St. Bridge, which is northbound-only and has a much larger port of entry facility than for northbound Good Neighbor Bridge traffic.

My other take is that my border-to-border clinch of US 85 from my very painful (truck broke down on the Santa Fe St. Bridge) 2017 border crossing is not undone by all this. There is another US 85 project on the west side of El Paso that might affect my clinch, but at least I won't have to re-cross the border to fix that if necessary.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

I don't really understand adding I-49 shields to I-220 and I-20 other than continuity. I don't know anyone who would go that far out of the way just to stay on an interstate. Guaranteed everyone trying to stay on the through route goes LA-3132/I-220 or I-49 north to I-20 to US 71 north.

At this point the Inner City Connector through Shreveport is inevitable, especially as funds became available just this week so you know the 3 mile connection is finally within sight.


iPhone

The application cited continuity as the primary reason for signing I-49 over I-20 & I-220; while the funds may be available, it'll likely be the mid-2020's before the inner connector is opened to traffic.  It's likely LADOT, by applying for this particular temporary I-49 route utilizing part of I-20 as well as I-220 is avoiding having to temporarily re-designate the existing I-49 between Loop 3132 and I-20 as something else pending completion of the inner-city connection.  Obviously, the logical extension for NB traffic coming into the area on I-49 would be simply to exit to WB 3132, which segues seamlessly into EB I-220 and thence to the newly-completed I-49 north of town. 

Question:  I haven't been on 3132 since the early '90's; is the portion between I-49 (south) and I-20/220 fully up to Interstate standards?  It might be a reasonable candidate for an I-220 extension.

LA 3132 does have standard width outer shoulders and the requisite lane and median width, and a cable barrier was recently installed in the median; but good chunks of the road surface are in terrible condition even with it being concrete. The interchanges appear up to standard except for a short merging area between I-49 ramps and Linwood Avenue to the west. The inner shoulders are probably not to current standard but likely were standard width for the era when the freeway was constructed (late 70s-early 80s I gather).

[bugo]

What will happen to old US 63B in Marked Tree? Will it become a state route or will it just be turned over to the city? It would make a dandy of a BL 555 but Arkansas hasn't used business interstate highways since at least the 1980s

[bugo]

I just looked it up. Part of the old business route is AR 75 and the other part is AR 149. Old US 63B in Jonesboro is indeed AR 463

[yakra]

Stanton St, two-way? Uhh, no!

I've just checked out every block of Stanton in GMSV, in every year available, and it's clearly a two-way.
Why in tarnation did I say that? Yet...

In 2017, ... Stanton St. was definitely one-way southbound

Mandela Effect?

[Avalanchez71]

I would have asked for the existing US 63 to be numbered US 63E and the new route request to numbered as US 63W.

[froggie]

^ Goes against long-standing AASHTO policy.

[Avalanchez71]

^ Goes against long-standing AASHTO policy.

So does US 412, US 400, and US 425.