The Special Committee on US Route Numbering is meeting on September 24 in Phoenix. The annual AASHTO meeting will last from September 25-28. The deadline for applications was August 25.
https://route.transportation.org/ (https://route.transportation.org/)
https://meetings.transportation.org/overview/ (https://meetings.transportation.org/overview/)
Results are posted...
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2017/06/USRN-01-Minutes-and-Application-results_-AM-Phoenix-2017.pdf
Highlights:
Future I-57 added to US 67
I-165 from Owensboro to Bowling Green, KY
I-895 in New York decommissioned to NY 895
I-840 in NC extended from both sides towards each other (gap remains between US 220 and US 29)
New term for an overlay, duplex. multiplex is in here: double banding (referring to I-785 and I-840)
Complete list:
AR I-57, I-40 to US 412
AR US 71B (Waldron): approved by state in 1973
AR US 64/US 64B (Crawfordsville): approved by state in 1963
AR US 64/US 64B (Earle): approved by state in 1963
AR US 64/US 64B (Patterson): approved by state in 1967
AR US 64/US 64B (Parkin): approved by state in 1962
AR US 64/US 64B (Wynne): approved by state in 1955
FL US 319 (minor intersection relocation)
KY I-165
MI USBR 35 realignment
NY I-895 elimination
NC I-840 extension onto portions being built
VA USBR 1 realignment
VA USBR 76 realignment
WA USBR 87
WA USBR 95
WA USBR 97
WV USBR 50
I-165 will be longer than several 2dis :sombrero:. Also, I've spotted an error on the minutes, it seems they have copy-pasted the description for USBR 97 in WA into the USBR 50 in WV section and forgot to change it.
I'm surprised NC didn't request that the US-70 bypasses in Clayton and Goldsboro be added to the interstate system as I-42. They already have the first section of I-87 signed since it meets interstate standards. I figured they'd do the same with I-42. Oh well.
I'm kinda curious why IN and KY haven't applied to have I-265 applied on the new Freeway constructed to bridge the gap between the existing IN I-265 and KY I-265 in Metro Louisville, from I-65 in IN to I-71 in KY. The Interstate Gap is presently signed IN 265 and KY 841
Or perhaps they have, and it simply has yet to be approved? Seems like a no brainer on the designation
IIRC, the "demotion" of I-895 in NY is in preparation for the conversion of that freeway into a boulevard or parkway, along with the "straightlining" of I-278 at the (now former) I-895 interchange.
I'd imagine all the ancient Arkansas ones are due to someone checking (the new person in charge of the SCRN?) and the Arkansas delegate being on the committee this time.
Quote from: NE2 on October 10, 2017, 05:03:32 PM
AR US 64/US 64B (Patterson): approved by state in 1967
AR US 64/US 64B (Parkin): approved by state in 1962
AR US 64/US 64B (Wynne): approved by state in 1955
Oh, sure. If you're submitting an application to AASHTO,
*THEN* pretend they connect to the parent route at both ends. :banghead:
WRT NY I-895, just build a pedestrian overpass already, you savages! What a waste...
Why do away with I-895?
Three traffic lights will be added in the middle to facilitate pedestrian crossings.
Quote from: english si on October 11, 2017, 12:52:37 PM
I'd imagine all the ancient Arkansas ones are due to someone checking (the new person in charge of the SCRN?) and the Arkansas delegate being on the committee this time.
If someone at AASHTO is checking, I expect we'd have heard about hassles for states that make US route changes without AASHTO approval. CA (US 101 bypass of Willits) and NM (US 64 bypass of Farmington) come to mind. More likely the Arkansas delegate, and/or someone in the Arkansas bureaucracy, conscientiously trying to get that state right with AASHTO.
Quote from: longhorn on October 12, 2017, 12:35:24 PM
Why do away with I-895?
The stated reasons are that it is relatively not a well-used freeway and having a boulevard would improve the surrounding community.
Plus isn't a mile or so long connection of 95 and 278?
Quote from: oscar on October 12, 2017, 01:17:41 PM
Quote from: english si on October 11, 2017, 12:52:37 PM
I'd imagine all the ancient Arkansas ones are due to someone checking (the new person in charge of the SCRN?) and the Arkansas delegate being on the committee this time.
If someone at AASHTO is checking, I expect we'd have heard about hassles for states that make US route changes without AASHTO approval. CA (US 101 bypass of Willits) and NM (US 64 bypass of Farmington) come to mind. More likely the Arkansas delegate, and/or someone in the Arkansas bureaucracy, conscientiously trying to get that state right with AASHTO.
US 26 around downtown Portland comes to mind.
Quote from: vdeane on October 12, 2017, 12:54:47 PM
Three traffic lights will be added in the middle to facilitate pedestrian crossings.
So we can have issues with new collisions induced by the signals and pedestrians being run over by semis who aren't allowed on the nearby parkway? :banghead:
More documents: http://route.transportation.org/committee-notices-actions-and-approvals/past-meetings/
USBR 50: first USBR on a freeway?
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 14, 2017, 10:51:57 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 12, 2017, 12:54:47 PM
Three traffic lights will be added in the middle to facilitate pedestrian crossings.
So we can have issues with new collisions induced by the signals and pedestrians being run over by semis who aren't allowed on the nearby parkway? :banghead:
Like allowing women into the workforce results in sexual harassment issues.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 10, 2017, 09:17:07 PM
I'm kinda curious why IN and KY haven't applied to have I-265 applied on the new Freeway constructed to bridge the gap between the existing IN I-265 and KY I-265 in Metro Louisville, from I-65 in IN to I-71 in KY. The Interstate Gap is presently signed IN 265 and KY 841
Or perhaps they have, and it simply has yet to be approved? Seems like a no brainer on the designation
IIRC, this one was already approved in a previous year.
Quote from: Revive 755So we can have issues with new collisions induced by the signals and pedestrians being run over by semis who aren't allowed on the nearby parkway?
Semis aren't the issue here. For starters, trucks to/from the east are already using the Bruckner (I-278) because there is no access between I-95 towards the east and I-895. Second, part of the plan (admittedly not fully funded yet) is to improve truck access between the Bruckner and Hunts Point. Third, trucks from the west (i.e. GWB) can also use the Major Deegan (I-87) to the Bruckner.
Quote from: NE2USBR 50: first USBR on a freeway?
Depends how one defines USBR 45 through the I-90/US 14/US 61 interchange.
Quote from: froggie on October 15, 2017, 08:56:02 AM
Depends how one defines USBR 45 through the I-90/US 14/US 61 interchange.
What's US BR45 do here?
Quote from: oscar on October 12, 2017, 01:17:41 PM
Quote from: english si on October 11, 2017, 12:52:37 PM
I'd imagine all the ancient Arkansas ones are due to someone checking (the new person in charge of the SCRN?) and the Arkansas delegate being on the committee this time.
If someone at AASHTO is checking, I expect we'd have heard about hassles for states that make US route changes without AASHTO approval. CA (US 101 bypass of Willits) and NM (US 64 bypass of Farmington) come to mind. More likely the Arkansas delegate, and/or someone in the Arkansas bureaucracy, conscientiously trying to get that state right with AASHTO.
Don't forget about the time OK signed about a hundred miles of fake US route (which they are still doing to this day).
Quote from: NE2 on October 10, 2017, 05:03:32 PM
FL US 319 (minor intersection relocation)
I'm amused to realise that this means that, between March and September, US-319 officially 1. jogged off of its new routing onto the old one and 2. more to the amusing point, had a discontinuity northbound (the old routing, northbound, has a No Left Turn where it joins the new roadway).
...although while detailing this, I had an even more amusing realisation: the exact wording of the re-routing creates a gap in US-319.
(https://i.imgur.com/0VSratN.png)
Red: old US-319 routing
Blue: New US-319 routing (Crawfordville Highway)
Pink: Old Crawfordville Highway (former 319; NB Old CH has no movement to NB (new) CH, signed NLT and no median gap (NB (new) CH to SB Old CH likewise))
Yellow: US-98
Green: Existing US-98/US-319 multiplex
...and the discontinuity: the orange should be 'new US-98/US-319 multiplex', but the wording - "Between SR30/US98 and Alaska Way" - only covers the blue leg of the route. No mention is made of the required new section of multiplex.
(That said, the fact they mention it as the "southern termius" of US-319 is in error as well...)
Quote from: NE2 on October 14, 2017, 06:18:46 PM
More documents: http://route.transportation.org/committee-notices-actions-and-approvals/past-meetings/
USBR 50: first USBR on a freeway?
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 14, 2017, 10:51:57 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 12, 2017, 12:54:47 PM
Three traffic lights will be added in the middle to facilitate pedestrian crossings.
So we can have issues with new collisions induced by the signals and pedestrians being run over by semis who aren't allowed on the nearby parkway? :banghead:
Like allowing women into the workforce results in sexual harassment issues.
What the fuck does that have to do with separating traffic streams? Unless you're comparing keeping the semis off the parkway as equivalent of the sexual harassment issues.
Quote from: yakra on October 15, 2017, 01:46:52 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 15, 2017, 08:56:02 AM
Depends how one defines USBR 45 through the I-90/US 14/US 61 interchange.
What's US BR45 do here?
Pre-Dresbach Bridge replacement, it followed some of the ramps at the interchange. I believe the reconstruction gave each direction of USBR 45 a separate path, but I'm not 100% on that.
Also, technically, just north of I-90, the leg of USBR 45 that follows US 14/61 from the CR 101 interchange ramps to the northwest is controlled-access for about a mile.
Quote from: vdeane on October 12, 2017, 12:54:47 PM
Three traffic lights will be added in the middle to facilitate pedestrian crossings.
That does not stop I-180 in Wyoming.