When is the next meeting? http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx hasn't been updated since the October one.
Quote from: rschen7754 on May 09, 2017, 02:19:39 PM
When is the next meeting? http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx hasn't been updated since the October one.
You spotted that too. From searching the AASHTO site I found that the Meeting is in Portland, ME, May 22-25. According to the agenda, link below, the US Route Numbering Committee is meeting the afternoon of the second day, May 23, at noon to be exact.
https://custom.cvent.com/17BFCB06592A4659A4A929E452988BF8/files/948f75a5b16c417da03b143a85ec0c27.pdf (https://custom.cvent.com/17BFCB06592A4659A4A929E452988BF8/files/948f75a5b16c417da03b143a85ec0c27.pdf)
I believe the meetings are going on, but I don't recall any of the minutes being posted yet.
It's normally a couple of days.
I saw a photo today tweeted from the US Bike Routes account, retweeted by AASHTO, indicating they were reviewing the I-11 proposal.
https://twitter.com/USBicycleRoutes/status/867058941758513152
Learned earlier this month (in inquiring about this week's meeting) that Marty Vitale, longtime secretary and administrative support for the Route Numbering committee, retired back in March. I've followed up with who I think is her temporary replacement, but given the meetings this week will likely not get a response until Friday at the earliest.
That looks like a job I would love to do. Our group would be known as "The Deciders". :nod:
I am not being sarcastic--I would love to do something like this.
I know it's Memorial Day, but is there anything new to report yet?
XT1585
As far as I know, nothing's been anounced yet. However, based on what I read from a local newspaper in North Carolina, there's a good possibility that NCDOT sent an application to AASHTO regarding US-70 in Goldsboro between both ends of US-70 Bypass.
From February 21:
http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/)
QuoteDuring the regular meeting, the council approved:
* A N.C. Department of Transportation request to rename U.S. 70 to U.S. 70 Business and the existing U.S. 70 Business to Ash Street inside the city limits.
Quote from: froggie on May 24, 2017, 11:25:49 AMLearned earlier this month (in inquiring about this week's meeting) that Marty Vitale, longtime secretary and administrative support for the Route Numbering committee, retired back in March. I've followed up with who I think is her temporary replacement, but given the meetings this week will likely not get a response until Friday at the earliest.
At one point it was possible to sign up for the USRN Committee's email distribution list, which included not just committee members and people working for AASHTO member agencies but also mapmakers and members of the general public with an interest in route numbering. I did so and have been receiving USRN materials as email attachments for about a decade. Shortly before Ms. Vitale retired, however, there was a change in procedure to limit email distribution to people with AASHTO accounts (the same type of account that is used to order stuff from the AASHTO Bookstore) that are linked to email addresses belonging to a government agency or a private company working in the transportation field. A Gmail address is not sufficient.
I think this stinks, and I would support lobbying efforts aimed at getting rid of this restriction, or otherwise maintaining the same access to USRN documentation we used to have.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 29, 2017, 11:29:45 PM
At one point it was possible to sign up for the USRN Committee's email distribution list, which included not just committee members and people working for AASHTO member agencies but also mapmakers and members of the general public with an interest in route numbering. I did so and have been receiving USRN materials as email attachments for about a decade. Shortly before Ms. Vitale retired, however, there was a change in procedure to limit email distribution to people with AASHTO accounts (the same type of account that is used to order stuff from the AASHTO Bookstore) that are linked to email addresses belonging to a government agency or a private company working in the transportation field. A Gmail address is not sufficient.
I think this stinks, and I would support lobbying efforts aimed at getting rid of this restriction, or otherwise maintaining the same access to USRN documentation we used to have.
I have one of those said AASHTO accounts, by virtue of being a member of AASHTO's Subcommittee on Transportation Communications. (TransComm). I'd be more than happy to sign up for such emails and to post their content here, if I could be educated on the procedure for doing so.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 30, 2017, 10:47:12 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 29, 2017, 11:29:45 PM
At one point it was possible to sign up for the USRN Committee's email distribution list, which included not just committee members and people working for AASHTO member agencies but also mapmakers and members of the general public with an interest in route numbering. I did so and have been receiving USRN materials as email attachments for about a decade. Shortly before Ms. Vitale retired, however, there was a change in procedure to limit email distribution to people with AASHTO accounts (the same type of account that is used to order stuff from the AASHTO Bookstore) that are linked to email addresses belonging to a government agency or a private company working in the transportation field. A Gmail address is not sufficient.
I think this stinks, and I would support lobbying efforts aimed at getting rid of this restriction, or otherwise maintaining the same access to USRN documentation we used to have.
I have one of those said AASHTO accounts, by virtue of being a member of AASHTO's Subcommittee on Transportation Communications. (TransComm). I'd be more than happy to sign up for such emails and to post their content here, if I could be educated on the procedure for doing so.
You could just upload them to your website and link them here. Of course, that assumes there's nothing that would get you in trouble for "leaking" AASHTO materials.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 30, 2017, 10:47:12 AMI have one of those said AASHTO accounts, by virtue of being a member of AASHTO's Subcommittee on Transportation Communications. (TransComm). I'd be more than happy to sign up for such emails and to post their content here, if I could be educated on the procedure for doing so.
Thank you very much for undertaking to do this.
The first part of the procedure, which you have already completed, is to set up an AASHTO account. The second part is to send an email to the US Route Numbering committee secretary and ask to be added to the email distribution list. I don't know who has replaced Marty Vitale, but apparently the secretary (whoever he or she is) can be reached through a role email address: usroutes@aashto.org.
FWIW, here is the correspondence I had with Ms. Vitale shortly before she retired:
Quote from: Marty Vitale, bulk email, 2017-02-08FYI: I will be retiring March 1, 2017 and would like to set up a distribution list in our AASHTO database so that the person working with U.S. Route Numbering applications will have it ready and handy for them. You are the ones that I do the work with to get these applications processed. Please follow the instructions below and many thanks for helping me out.
Before I can add members to an AASHTO listing I first need for them to register by creating an AASHTO account. I could not find an account registered in your name or email address. In order to place you on a committee, and thus receive all correspondence from the committee, you must first register and create an AASHTO Account at the link below. Please be sure to use your official work email and complete all data fields. Enter telephone numbers in the following format (123) 456-7890.
AASHTO Account Registration<http://register.transportation.org/Login.aspx?RedirURL=%2fdefault.aspx>
Please respond back to me when you have finished creating your AASHTO Account and I will add you to the USRN contact list.
If you believe you already have an AASHTO Account or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you!
Quote from: Jonathan Winkler, 2017-02-09This is just to let you know that I have created an AASHTO account using my email address ([Gmail address, not listed here for spamproofing]), and would like to be added to the USRN notification list.
I would also like to wish you a happy and productive retirement.
Quote from: Marty Vitale, 2017-02-13Thank you for the best wishes.
I cannot use "@gmail.com" accounts as we only recognize government entities or private organizations/associations related to transportation. Please register using a company/organization email address that I can add to the system. Write back and let me know what it is and the address of the organization.
J.N.: Seems like depending on how badly you wanted to get on the list, one could probably create a perfunctory corporate-looking website and use the domain name associated with it to create an email address that redirects to their Gmail account. I doubt SCOURN really checks to see if the "companies" their members are working for are properly registered with the Secretary of State in their respective states.
I would offer the use of an @denexa.com email address, but if they did check, "Denexa Games LLC" is fairly obviously not transportation-related...
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 29, 2017, 11:29:45 PM
At one point it was possible to sign up for the USRN Committee's email distribution list, which included not just committee members and people working for AASHTO member agencies but also mapmakers and members of the general public with an interest in route numbering. I did so and have been receiving USRN materials as email attachments for about a decade. Shortly before Ms. Vitale retired, however, there was a change in procedure to limit email distribution to people with AASHTO accounts (the same type of account that is used to order stuff from the AASHTO Bookstore) that are linked to email addresses belonging to a government agency or a private company working in the transportation field. A Gmail address is not sufficient.
I think this stinks, and I would support lobbying efforts aimed at getting rid of this restriction, or otherwise maintaining the same access to USRN documentation we used to have.
I agree. This stinks. There's no need for it to be secret, and if companies can get the information then individuals should be able to also.
Anybody have experience writing FOIA requests?
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 01, 2017, 06:12:39 PM
Anybody have experience writing FOIA requests?
I've been at the receiving end of many. My agency had people really good at denying requests, but a nice informal inquiry often worked better if the stuff they wanted from me was releaseable (usually it wasn't).
Initial question is, who to send it to? AASHTO probably is not covered by the Federal or any state FOIA law, since it isn't part of any government even though most or all its members are government agencies or their representatives. Do you have in mind sending it to FHWA, or to a friendly state agency with access to the AASHTO info you want?
Quote from: oscar on June 01, 2017, 06:23:42 PM
Initial question is, who to send it to? AASHTO probably is not covered by the Federal or any state FOIA law, since it isn't part of any government even though most or all its members are government agencies or their representatives. Do you have in mind sending it to FHWA, or to a friendly state agency with access to the AASHTO info you want?
Honestly, I'm not sure. I was just tossing the idea out there as a means of addressing future limited access to AASHTO information.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 31, 2017, 10:23:37 PMJ.N.: Seems like depending on how badly you wanted to get on the list, one could probably create a perfunctory corporate-looking website and use the domain name associated with it to create an email address that redirects to their Gmail account. I doubt SCOURN really checks to see if the "companies" their members are working for are properly registered with the Secretary of State in their respective states.
I would offer the use of an @denexa.com email address, but if they did check, "Denexa Games LLC" is fairly obviously not transportation-related...
What I actually should have done is to point out that in the past there was no requirement to be employed either by a state DOT or by a private firm involved in transportation to be on the USRN email list, and ask what had changed.
In any event, I have gone through the list-distributed emails I have received from Marty Vitale since 2006, and it looks like most of the attachments are available for download on the USRN meetings page:
http://route.transportation.org/Pages/Past-Meetings.aspx
However, it is still useful to be on the email list for heads-ups, like the following:
* We had our meeting, and here are the attachments or the links that show what we decided
* We are taking applications for route numbering changes, and here are the instructions you have to follow (e.g. if you want to relocate a US route to a new alignment and keep the old one as a business route, submit one application to move the unbannered route and another to establish a new business route)
* Here is this new page where we are tracking FHWA's Interstate decisions . . .
Since there does not appear (at this point) to be an intention to work in secret, what we have lost are the intangible benefits of being in the loop by having notifications pushed out to us versus relying on WatchThatPage.com or occasional website visits to remain apprised of new documentation.
The whole faff and bother with asking people to get AASHTO accounts seems to have been oriented at populating this list:
http://route.transportation.org/Pages/DOT-Contacts-(US,-USBR,-Maps,-Others).aspx
It is all state DOT employees at their official email addresses, except for three members of the Adventure Cycling Association and one employee of a company called Cogent that does not appear to have a website linked to its email domain (unlike, say, Denexa Games). It does not include longstanding members of the roadgeek community like Chris Bessert and Rich Carlson, both of whom have also been copied on list emails (Ms. Vitale did not always use Bcc: to hide addresses).
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 01, 2017, 06:12:39 PMAnybody have experience writing FOIA requests?
I have some, but only at the state level. My experience is more or less the counterpart to Oscar's--it is easier to get the records you want as an informal courtesy than to go through a formal process where someone (generally a designated records custodian rather than the person who actually works with the records on a daily basis) has to sit down with the request, check that the records involved are releasable, and decide how much to charge for providing them (charges for access are used quite effectively by many states to squelch freedom of information). Nine-tenths of the effort involved in preparing a FOIA request is determining exactly what kinds of records you want, looking up the relevant state statute to verify their releasability, and double-checking that they are not otherwise available.
Randy Hersh was a much heavier user of open-records laws than I was and at times ran into egregious misbehavior, e.g. Utah DOT wanting to charge him $200+ for contract award sheets that they had put on their website in PDF format and then taken down after a year.
Like Oscar, I don't think AASHTO is directly subject to any open-records laws, but any correspondence that AASHTO has with a member agency is in theory retrievable through an open records request to that agency. AASHTO also has an open-door policy for state DOT and FHWA representatives.
We've also created the start of a database on Wikipedia of AASHTO's committee minutes/reports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Resources/AASHTO_minutes) that were released to the public in electronic format a few years ago. Since their website has everything from 1989 on, we link to those, but everything before that wasn't covered by the requisite copyright notices, placing them all in the public domain. We extracted the various scans that were pasted into an Excel spreadsheet (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/USRN-Application-Database-with-Meeting-Minutes-and-Application-Results.aspx) and created separate PDFs of each document hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Ideally, if AASHTO continues to release documents older than 1967, we'd expand the collection.
Quote from: amroad17 on May 25, 2017, 01:47:05 AM
That looks like a job I would love to do. Our group would be known as "The Deciders". :nod:
I am not being sarcastic--I would love to do something like this.
And we'd be better at getting the states to follow the rules too.
Quote from: Jeff Morrison on June 02, 2017, 02:15:45 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on May 25, 2017, 01:47:05 AM
That looks like a job I would love to do. Our group would be known as "The Deciders". :nod:
I am not being sarcastic--I would love to do something like this.
And we'd be better at getting the states to follow the rules too.
Yep!
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on June 02, 2017, 10:11:57 PM
Quote from: Jeff Morrison on June 02, 2017, 02:15:45 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on May 25, 2017, 01:47:05 AM
That looks like a job I would love to do. Our group would be known as "The Deciders". :nod:
I am not being sarcastic--I would love to do something like this.
And we'd be better at getting the states to follow the rules too.
Yep!
Maybe we can collectively convince the posters who are DOT employees to put in applications (or start down the road of whatever process is required) for membership/inclusion on this committee (hell, if I were a DOT employee, I'd jump at the opportunity). It's possible only agency directors or their immediate subordinates would be considered (the DOT'ers among us should have some idea about that); probably why mistakes and miscues happen (layers removed from ground-level observation). Just a thought!
Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2017, 03:04:34 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on June 02, 2017, 10:11:57 PM
Quote from: Jeff Morrison on June 02, 2017, 02:15:45 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on May 25, 2017, 01:47:05 AM
That looks like a job I would love to do. Our group would be known as "The Deciders". :nod:
I am not being sarcastic--I would love to do something like this.
And we'd be better at getting the states to follow the rules too.
Yep!
Maybe we can collectively convince the posters who are DOT employees to put in applications (or start down the road of whatever process is required) for membership/inclusion on this committee (hell, if I were a DOT employee, I'd jump at the opportunity). It's possible only agency directors or their immediate subordinates would be considered (the DOT'ers among us should have some idea about that); probably why mistakes and miscues happen (layers removed from ground-level observation). Just a thought!
I'd say that's WAAAAAY above the pay grade of any DOT employees who are here.
Quote from: oscar on June 01, 2017, 06:23:42 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 01, 2017, 06:12:39 PM
Anybody have experience writing FOIA requests?
I've been at the receiving end of many. My agency had people really good at denying requests, but a nice informal inquiry often worked better if the stuff they wanted from me was releaseable (usually it wasn't).
Initial question is, who to send it to? AASHTO probably is not covered by the Federal or any state FOIA law, since it isn't part of any government even though most or all its members are government agencies or their representatives. Do you have in mind sending it to FHWA, or to a friendly state agency with access to the AASHTO info you want?
In a somewhat similar vein, there was a case working its way through the courts in Illinois regarding the question of if a statewide high school athletics association was covered under the open records act. I don't recall all the details nor recall the final verdict (if it has even been reached yet), but if there is a ruling favorable to the general public it might at least start a precedent for those in Illinois to look into a FOIA for AASHTO business.
Any updates?
Why, yes, there is:
http://route.transportation.org/Pages/Past-Meetings.aspx
Arkansas US 62/US 412 relocation (Cotter) - happened in 1989
Arkansas US 62/US 412 relocation (Mountain Home) - happened in 1998
Arkansas US 62B recognition (Cotter) - happened in 1989
Arkansas US 62B recognition (Mountain Home) - happened in 1998
Arkansas US 70 relocation (De Queen) - happened in 1964
Arkansas US 70B recognition (De Queen) - happened in 1964
Arkansas US 70 relocation (Glenwood) - happened in 1961
Arkansas US 70B recognition (Glenwood) - happened in 1962
Florida US 221 relocation (Perry) - replacing signed county maintained truck route north of US 27
Georgia US 129 relocation (Gray)
Illinois US 12/US 45 relocation (Des Plaines)
Illinois US 45 relocation (Lindenhurst)
Nevada US 50 relocation (Carson City)
Nevada US 93 relocation (Boulder City)
Nevada US 93 Bus. recognition (Boulder City)
Nevada US 95 relocation (Boulder City)
Nevada US 395 relocation (Carson City)
New York US 220 deletion
North Carolina Future I-495 deletion
North Carolina I-495 deletion
Pennsylvania USBR 50
Texas US 87 relocation (Big Spring)
Texas US 87 Bus. extension (Big Spring)
Texas US 90 relocation (Beaumont)
Wisconsin US 12 Bus. recognition (Baraboo)
All were approved.
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 09, 2017, 11:21:47 AM
Why, yes, there is:
http://route.transportation.org/Pages/Past-Meetings.aspx
Thanks.
Quote from: NE2 on June 09, 2017, 12:28:28 PM
New York US 220 deletion
So US 220 gets truncated by a few feet...
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 09, 2017, 03:58:28 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 09, 2017, 12:28:28 PM
New York US 220 deletion
So US 220 gets truncated by a few feet...
So where is it going to end now? At the state line? At NY 17/I-86?
Quote from: NE2 on June 09, 2017, 12:28:28 PM
Arkansas US 62/US 412 relocation (Cotter) - happened in 1989
Arkansas US 62/US 412 relocation (Mountain Home) - happened in 1998
Arkansas US 62B recognition (Cotter) - happened in 1989
Arkansas US 62B recognition (Mountain Home) - happened in 1998
Arkansas US 70 relocation (De Queen) - happened in 1964
Arkansas US 70B recognition (De Queen) - happened in 1964
Arkansas US 70 relocation (Glenwood) - happened in 1961
Arkansas US 70B recognition (Glenwood) - happened in 1962
Obviously someone at Arkansas DOT took notice that things were not done in the past correctly and finally pushed the paperwork through to make things official.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 09, 2017, 08:16:03 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 09, 2017, 03:58:28 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 09, 2017, 12:28:28 PM
New York US 220 deletion
So US 220 gets truncated by a few feet...
So where is it going to end now? At the state line? At NY 17/I-86?
If I'm reading it correctly, it looks like it will end at the state line, which doesn't make any sense (it should end at NY 17/I-86). I guess they figure that PennDOT would be maintaining the few feet of road between that interchange and the state line anyway, so the designation doesn't matter Never mind, can't read. They want to truncate it to the interchange.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 09, 2017, 09:37:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 09, 2017, 08:16:03 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 09, 2017, 03:58:28 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 09, 2017, 12:28:28 PM
New York US 220 deletion
So US 220 gets truncated by a few feet...
So where is it going to end now? At the state line? At NY 17/I-86?
If I'm reading it correctly, it looks like it will end at the state line, which doesn't make any sense (it should end at NY 17/I-86). I guess they figure that PennDOT would be maintaining the few feet of road between that interchange and the state line anyway, so the designation doesn't matter Never mind, can't read. They want to truncate it to the interchange.
What I love about NY's application about US-220 is that they use the defense that Google Maps doesn't show it.
Um, yes they do. lol. You just didn't zoom in enough. If you'd had, you'd see clear as day the US-220 shields on that segment of road. lol.
Quote from: NE2 on June 09, 2017, 12:28:28 PM
North Carolina Future I-495 deletion
North Carolina I-495 deletion
Now gone. It had become redundant to I-87. The I-540 to I-95 section never got to be I-495, despite it was announced to be so. And still no I-894 deletion (redundant to I-41 now).
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 10, 2017, 07:29:05 AM
Quote from: NE2 on June 09, 2017, 12:28:28 PM
North Carolina Future I-495 deletion
North Carolina I-495 deletion
Now gone. It had become redundant to I-87. The I-540 to I-95 section never got to be I-495, despite it was announced to be so. And still no I-894 deletion (redundant to I-41 now).
AR I-130 says hi! lol.
Quote from: NE2 on June 09, 2017, 12:28:28 PM
Nevada US 93 relocation (Boulder City)
Nevada US 93 Bus. recognition (Boulder City)
Nevada US 95 relocation (Boulder City)
I had expected the creation of a business route in Boulder City, but I had thought maybe it would be Business Loop I-11 rather than Business US 93. And the (soon-to-be-signed*) business route follows what was originally a bypass of Boulder City; the original route through town remains as a city-maintained route.
* Of course, since NDOT (and the City of Carson City) barely signed Business US 395 in Carson City and did not sign Business US 50 in Carson City, it's entirely possible that Business US 93 through Boulder City will not be signed.
On another note, Nevada chose to request Interstate 11 southeast to the Nevada 172 interchange. I guess we will wait to see when Nevada and Arizona jointly decide to apply for Interstate status for the Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge and when Arizona decides to apply for Interstate 11 on its section of US 93 that currently meets standards on the east side of the bridge.
Quote from: NE2 on June 09, 2017, 12:28:28 PM
Arkansas US 62/US 412 relocation (Cotter) - happened in 1989
Arkansas US 62/US 412 relocation (Mountain Home) - happened in 1998
Arkansas US 62B recognition (Cotter) - happened in 1989
Arkansas US 62B recognition (Mountain Home) - happened in 1998
Arkansas US 70 relocation (De Queen) - happened in 1964
Arkansas US 70B recognition (De Queen) - happened in 1964
Arkansas US 70 relocation (Glenwood) - happened in 1961
Arkansas US 70B recognition (Glenwood) - happened in 1962
Florida US 221 relocation (Perry) - replacing signed county maintained truck route north of US 27
Georgia US 129 relocation (Gray)
Illinois US 12/US 45 relocation (Des Plaines)
Illinois US 45 relocation (Lindenhurst)
Nevada US 50 relocation (Carson City)
Nevada US 93 relocation (Boulder City)
Nevada US 93 Bus. recognition (Boulder City)
Nevada US 95 relocation (Boulder City)
Nevada US 395 relocation (Carson City)
New York US 220 deletion
North Carolina Future I-495 deletion
North Carolina I-495 deletion
Pennsylvania USBR 50
Texas US 87 relocation (Big Spring)
Texas US 87 Bus. extension (Big Spring)
Texas US 90 relocation (Beaumont)
Wisconsin US 12 Bus. recognition (Baraboo)
All were approved.
I would have denied the FL US 221, US 12/45 and the NY US 220. I would have told AR that they would need to be more timely in filing motions in the future.
I-894 is probably not going anywhere due to local familiarity with the route. It's not like I-495 in NC that had barely even opened before it received a new number (fuck you, NC).
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 27, 2017, 02:38:02 PM
I would have denied the FL US 221, US 12/45 and the NY US 220. I would have told AR that they would need to be more timely in filing motions in the future.
I think truncating US 220 in this case is one that makes sense. Those two blocks north of I-86 don't have much of a purpose. Is the street 220 ended at the old alignment of NY 17?
^ Yes it was. There's just no point in having that tiny bit of US 220 NY.