AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents  (Read 92512 times)

usends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 769
  • usends.com

  • Location: Headwaters Hill, CO
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:24:32 PM
    • US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #25 on: September 23, 2020, 10:23:51 AM »

Logged
usends.com - US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history

zzcarp

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 662
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Westminster, CO
  • Last Login: March 14, 2024, 10:10:00 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #26 on: September 23, 2020, 10:32:58 AM »

One interesting thing I found was Ohio asked that US 20A be eliminated entirely in Ohio (from west of Ohio 15 to Maumee) in 1973. This was found to be "favorable" by AASHTO. Yet in 2020, US 20A is still field signed.

I'm going to have to block that website or I'll never get work done again...
Logged
So many miles and so many roads

Alex

  • Webmaster
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5186
  • Location: Tampa, FL
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 02:36:56 PM
    • AARoads
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #27 on: September 23, 2020, 10:50:46 AM »

Denver Colorado's Interstate numbering had a number of changes in the beginning.

I-225 between I-25 and I-70 was initially proposed as part of Route A25, as was I-270 west from I-70 to I-25. Both were proposed to be renumbered as Route 25E in a letter dated April 3, 1958.

A letter from July 31, 1958 to AASHO outlined renumbering both sections of Route A25 as I-225. A November 10, 1958 AASHO responded with the suggestion that I-225 between I-25 and I-70 to the north be renumbered as I-425.

AASHO satisfactory replied with the Colorado request to renumber I-425 to I-270 on February 26, 1959. This was because the location of I-80S changed to end at I-25 north of Denver, overlapping with one mile of the proposed I-425. So with the north end of I-425 being at I-80S and not I-25, Colorado proposed changing it to I-270.

Funny enough AASHO suggested that I-270 and I-80S might be overlapped west to I-25 (meaning they could have just left it as I-425):

Quote
For actual accounting and record purposes 270 would have to terminate with its intersection with Route 70 and 80S. However, I suggest that you probably will have to extend the route numbering for the convenience of the travelling public from Route 70 to Route 25 and that you make a short section dually marked as 270 and 80s.

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4353
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 08:31:54 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #28 on: September 23, 2020, 11:02:20 AM »

Denver Colorado's Interstate numbering had a number of changes in the beginning.

I-225 between I-25 and I-70 was initially proposed as part of Route A25, as was I-270 west from I-70 to I-25. Both were proposed to be renumbered as Route 25E in a letter dated April 3, 1958.

A letter from July 31, 1958 to AASHO outlined renumbering both sections of Route A25 as I-225. A November 10, 1958 AASHO responded with the suggestion that I-225 between I-25 and I-70 to the north be renumbered as I-425.


It appears some states had placeholder letter designations for the urban interstate segments.  Alabama (which had one make it to the RMcN) and Tennessee had them in the same format as Colorado, with letters at the front that did not start over if the mainline interstate number was different.  Virginia did a slightly different method by numbering theirs U1, U2, etc. until they ran through their entire urban inventory.
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5933
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 01:10:29 AM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #29 on: September 23, 2020, 11:26:42 AM »

Minnesota items some might find of interest

The infamous decommissioning of US 61 finally has an explanation: cost savings, the belief that US 61 was superfluous, and apparently an edict from FHWA about cleaning up unneeded duplexes.

There’s a piece of correspondence from 1979 (with nothing else) stating that I-35E and I-35W should be kept “for now”  citing a discussion about developments in the EIS study on I-35E and the state legislature. My interpretation of this is AASHTO was possibly pressing for I-35W to be renumbered as I-35 due to the difficulties the state was having in getting 35E built through St. Paul.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2020, 03:48:34 PM by TheHighwayMan394 »
Logged
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8478
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:22:35 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #30 on: September 23, 2020, 11:32:28 AM »

I found some cool stuff for my birth state of IL! Among the following are:

The 1966 relocation of I-494 from Lake Shore Drive to the Crosstown Expressway, with full freeway interchanges at the Kennedy-Edens split, Eisenhower, Southwest (Stevenson) and Dan Ryan Expressways; half-diamonds at Belmont Avenue (southbound), Diversey Avenue (northbound), Washington Street (southbound), Madison Street (northbound), Kedzie Avenue (westbound), Columbus Blvd (eastbound) and Halsted Street (eastbound); and full diamonds at Milwaukee Avenue, North Avenue, Chicago Avenue, 16th Street, 31st Street, Archer Avenue, 63rd Street, Pulaski Road and Ashland Avenue. Also, the orientation would change from N-S to E-W between Archer Avenue and 63rd Street.

Various 1950s applications for US 58 that would've run along parts of US 460 and US 51.

A 1974 application for I-53 that would've run from I-55 to I-80 and included what is now I-180.

A 1981 application for US 251 that would replace US 51, which was being relocated to a new freeway (now I-39). This route was eventually given an IL state route designation of the same number.

A 1990 application for I-37 that would run from I-55 at Lincoln to I-74 at Morton; it is now I-155.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

sturmde

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 163
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Bangor, Maine, USA
  • Last Login: March 13, 2024, 01:00:09 AM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #31 on: September 23, 2020, 12:56:50 PM »

Now if only we'd come across this in the early days of the pandemic shutdowns, time would have flown like an arrow!
.
Wow!!  This is an amazing treasure.  So many maps, and things way beyond what the AASHTO site SCORN Excel files had!!
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19278
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 62
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 04:15:45 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #32 on: September 23, 2020, 02:09:30 PM »

Several attempts before Kentucky finally got US 127, and the first two tries had it running concurrently with US 25 and KY 22 to Owenton, instead of the current routing over what was a 2xx-series state route and KY 35 and a concurrency with US 42.
Logged


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

cl94

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6650
  • Helping to break everyone's Sierra clinches

  • Age: 29
  • Location: Northern Nevada
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 06:05:12 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2020, 03:56:37 PM »

Denver Colorado's Interstate numbering had a number of changes in the beginning.

I-225 between I-25 and I-70 was initially proposed as part of Route A25, as was I-270 west from I-70 to I-25. Both were proposed to be renumbered as Route 25E in a letter dated April 3, 1958.

A letter from July 31, 1958 to AASHO outlined renumbering both sections of Route A25 as I-225. A November 10, 1958 AASHO responded with the suggestion that I-225 between I-25 and I-70 to the north be renumbered as I-425.


It appears some states had placeholder letter designations for the urban interstate segments.  Alabama (which had one make it to the RMcN) and Tennessee had them in the same format as Colorado, with letters at the front that did not start over if the mainline interstate number was different.  Virginia did a slightly different method by numbering theirs U1, U2, etc. until they ran through their entire urban inventory.

One of the NY documents actually has an illustration of an "A" shield.

Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

corco

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5186
  • Just Livin' the Dream

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Wethersfield, Connecticut
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:47:40 AM
    • Corcohighways.org
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2020, 04:16:33 PM »

I never realized how much of a mess it was to renumber I-80N/I-15W to I-84 and I-86- looking at the general timeline in a few different applications (a lot of the later drama is actually buried in the I-705 Washington application for some reason):

1. AASHTO recommends dumping suffixed interstates
2. Idaho takes the lead and recommends that all of I-80N from Echo to Portland is renumbered as I-82, never mind that I-82 in OR/WA already existed. They also recommend that I-15W (today's I-86) becomes I-84 and I-82 becomes I-84, but that the two I-84s do not run concurrent.
3. Utah writes a letter supporting this.
4. Oregon suggests this is insane and I-80N is working perfectly fine
5. Washington suggests that renumbering I-82 is insane
6. AASHTO hates the idea of having two I-84s and recommends I-15W becomes I-215 and I-82 is left as-is, with I-80N becoming I-84 or I-86.
7. Utah says "Okay we don't care what you call I-80N, but I-15W can't be I-215, that's the number of the SLC belt route, what about calling it I-115"
8. Idaho says "no, we are working on phasing out all three digit routes of all types in Idaho. Three digit route markers are more expensive and are more difficult to put on printed materials, so we insist on a two digit number"  (this is apparently the actual reason for I-86 in Idaho!)
9. Oregon again suggests renumbering I-80N is a terrible idea because it will confuse everybody and cost businesses money, recommends renumbering I-80N only once the entire interstate system is built out.
10. Idaho and Utah think Oregon is being dumb, think it's better just to get the renumbering out of the way now.
11. Oregon gets the sense that AASHTO will approve the change, sends another letter stating they are withholding their presence from that year's AASHTO conference because of it.
12. AASHTO approves over the objections of Oregon and designates the interstates we know them today.

Also interesting to note that Idaho's application to renumber I-180 to I-184 only refers to it as I-180, not "I-180N" as has long been road enthusiast lore (though nobody has ever seen a sign in the field). The application even explicitly notes that there are several other I-180s. 

« Last Edit: September 23, 2020, 04:32:53 PM by corco »
Logged

SectorZ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3162
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 06:05:46 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2020, 04:34:59 PM »

Massachusetts confirming that the re-routed US 44 in Carver and Plymouth was supposed to be numbered as MA 44A (it's currently not numbered - outside of erroneous new signage calling it US 44 because Massachusetts).
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14423
  • fuck

  • Age: 1
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: March 11, 2024, 12:16:05 AM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2020, 05:02:09 PM »

From the file Other_CA_1926__.pdf (which includes some 1927 correspondence):

California says "According to our records, Route No. 66 ends at San Fernando and does not directly enter into Los Angeles." "Also the route does not enter the City of Los Angeles, the termination being at San Fernando which is north of Los Angeles... Route 66 passes through Pasadena, and it might be appropriate to mention that town." But then "Route 99, therefore, would extend south to Los Angeles and continue to follow Route 66 to San Bernardino..."

AASHO replies "I note that you do not seem to desire Route No. 66 as shown reaching Los Angeles, but we have had such a string of protests from the Automobile Club of Los Angeles and the people of the East are advertising No. 66 as a through route from Chicago to Los Angeles that I think we had better leave the description stand, although of course Los Angeles would be the next to last named city. You could erect a sign at the nearest point to the city limits of Los Angeles as you pass by."

So it seems both parties agreed the original terminus of 66 was in San Fernando (which actually matches the 1930 official! That would probably be the intersection of Maclay and San Fernando (not Truman).

Other_CA_1928__.pdf talks about moving 99 off 66 between SBD and LA.

Other_CA_1931__.pdf states that 66 had been signed to 101 in LA and then beyond to Santa Monica despite not having been approved by AASHO.

Other_CA_1936__ (2) has a very nice state map.
Logged
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14423
  • fuck

  • Age: 1
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: March 11, 2024, 12:16:05 AM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2020, 05:04:08 PM »

Colored signs: https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=244fde34-4de6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
The link returns a 404 error.  Do you remember where you found the document?

   Correspondence (23)   US   1   FL   1956   Correspondence   1956
Logged
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24921
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2020, 05:16:54 PM »

From the file Other_CA_1926__.pdf (which includes some 1927 correspondence):

California says "According to our records, Route No. 66 ends at San Fernando and does not directly enter into Los Angeles." "Also the route does not enter the City of Los Angeles, the termination being at San Fernando which is north of Los Angeles... Route 66 passes through Pasadena, and it might be appropriate to mention that town." But then "Route 99, therefore, would extend south to Los Angeles and continue to follow Route 66 to San Bernardino..."

AASHO replies "I note that you do not seem to desire Route No. 66 as shown reaching Los Angeles, but we have had such a string of protests from the Automobile Club of Los Angeles and the people of the East are advertising No. 66 as a through route from Chicago to Los Angeles that I think we had better leave the description stand, although of course Los Angeles would be the next to last named city. You could erect a sign at the nearest point to the city limits of Los Angeles as you pass by."

So it seems both parties agreed the original terminus of 66 was in San Fernando (which actually matches the 1930 official! That would probably be the intersection of Maclay and San Fernando (not Truman).

Other_CA_1928__.pdf talks about moving 99 off 66 between SBD and LA.

Other_CA_1931__.pdf states that 66 had been signed to 101 in LA and then beyond to Santa Monica despite not having been approved by AASHO.

Other_CA_1936__ (2) has a very nice state map.

Regarding that 1930 Division of Highways Map I always wondered what was up with that and I guess that’s the answer I’ve been looking for.  That’s still a clunky terminus given it essentially was carried to a San Fernando via a long multiplex of US 99 from San Bernardino.   
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14423
  • fuck

  • Age: 1
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: March 11, 2024, 12:16:05 AM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #39 on: September 23, 2020, 05:26:11 PM »

Regarding that 1930 Division of Highways Map I always wondered what was up with that and I guess that’s the answer I’ve been looking for.  That’s still a clunky terminus given it essentially was carried to a San Fernando via a long multiplex of US 99 from San Bernardino.   
Except it appears that US 99 went via city streets from Pasadena to LA and then Route 4 to San Fernando.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2020, 05:37:38 PM by NE2 »
Logged
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24921
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #40 on: September 23, 2020, 05:58:29 PM »

Regarding that 1930 Division of Highways Map I always wondered what was up with that and I guess that’s the answer I’ve been looking for.  That’s still a clunky terminus given it essentially was carried to a San Fernando via a long multiplex of US 99 from San Bernardino.   
Except it appears that US 99 went via city streets from Pasadena to LA and then Route 4 to San Fernando.

I had a thought that maybe 99 was intended to go to downtown Los Angeles via San Fernando Road given that was direct line to Legislative Route 4.  From there I have no idea how it would get East towards San Bernardino given most of that infrastructure was built up post 1933 when the DOH could maintain roads in cities.  If that were the case it would make a lot more sense to have 66 end at 99 in San Fernando.  Really a signed highway could have been anywhere in those incorporated cities back then, it would just largely depend on where the ACSC wanted to sign them.
Logged

Dougtone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1652
  • I'm Doug and I approve this message.

  • Age: -6865
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 04:18:44 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #41 on: September 23, 2020, 06:12:37 PM »

I've been pouring over the database and found that there's even average people who suggested ideas for highways back then. There's correspondence in 1951 and 1953 between a gentleman in Spokane, Washington and AASHO, where the resident of Spokane wrote to suggest an extension of US 8 between Minneapolis and Spokane.

https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=0f5003d8-c5d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=1a602b0e-c6d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true

corco

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5186
  • Just Livin' the Dream

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Wethersfield, Connecticut
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:47:40 AM
    • Corcohighways.org
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #42 on: September 23, 2020, 06:14:25 PM »

Speaking of that, check out the letter from the guy who wanted to extend US 136 (!) to Eugene, Oregon! It's in the Oregon file under 136.

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4353
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 08:31:54 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #43 on: September 23, 2020, 07:41:17 PM »

I've also run across some route enthusiasts...

Other tidbits:

US 55 and US 155 requested by Kansas (eventually became US 56 and 156)
New corridor Panama City FL to Richmond VA using nearly all of MSR 49 in VA-NC-SC (no number floated)
MSR 121 was attempted to become a US route in 1964, but only south of Augusta.  No number floated.
US 378 extension to Scottsboro AL denied
US 276 extension denial in 1941 was through GSMNP to Knoxville
New corridor Carthage MO to Pueblo Co (1962, no number floated)
Louisiana tried to extend US 98 to Monroe 3 times: 1955 and 1968 rejected; 1956 was told they could have US 265, then Louisiana said no
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6250
  • Your friendly neighborhood meteorologist

  • Location: Tallahassee, FL
  • Last Login: February 23, 2024, 09:23:28 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #44 on: September 23, 2020, 08:15:41 PM »

In 1930, when US 60 still ended in Springfield MO, there was apparently an effort by Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and Utah to extend US 60 west to Cortez, Colorado (presumably along US 160), and northwest to Monticello, Utah. It was understood at the time that it would be impossible to route a US highway southwest from Monticello because of poor road quality - but future extensions would route it down the corridors of what is now US 191 to Bluff, US 163 to Kayenta, US 160 to Tuba City, US 89 north to Mt Carmel, Utah 9 west through Zion National Park to La Verkin, and Utah 17 north to US 91 (now I-15) at Anderson Junction.

https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=a28f3cc4-52e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
« Last Edit: September 24, 2020, 08:22:20 AM by US 89 »
Logged

formulanone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13229
  • latest clinch

  • Location: HSV
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:14:36 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2020, 08:27:12 PM »

In the 1950 extension of US 441 to Miami, the Pahokee Lions' Club, Pahokee Rotary Club, Belle Glade Chamber of Commerce, and a lawyer made sure to have their say to Governor Spessard Holland, since US 441 would have turned south on the diagonal route of "mid-modern-era" SR 716 (later US 98, now just SR 700) which would have bypassed Pahokee and Belle Glade, instead of taking SR 15. So they proposed an "Alternate US 441" from Canal Point to Twenty Mile Bend, but that 19.3 mile option was rejected.

...and there's a telegram enclosed.

Originally, it was going to overlap US 1 from SR 80 in Palm Beach, but with US 94's "merger" to US 41, suddenly positioning it to US 441 along SR 7 made more sense. The north part of the state wanted it to go as far west as Perry, but Georgia wanted it from Baldwin/Cornelia and then to points south as we see it today. So Perry was rejected in 1948 in favor of High Springs.
Logged

kurumi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2583
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:06:26 PM
    • kurumi.com
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #46 on: September 23, 2020, 11:09:42 PM »

Arkansas wanted a US 427 (Application_AR_1994_427_US) -- approved, but numbered US 371
Logged
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

corco

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5186
  • Just Livin' the Dream

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Wethersfield, Connecticut
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:47:40 AM
    • Corcohighways.org
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #47 on: September 23, 2020, 11:22:23 PM »

Apparently in 1963 WA/ID/MT/ND/MN came back after "US 200" was rejected on MSR 200 and suggested a slightly different routing...asking for it to be an extension of US 8!

https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=85da96cb-4ee6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true

Also at least somebody wanted US 789 to be numbered US 777
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=96fa72b3-c5d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true

It looks like the extension of US 16 to Yellowstone over what was then US 14/20 was due to some businessowner strongarming the Wyoming Congressman
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=6fdf62ad-c5d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
« Last Edit: September 23, 2020, 11:39:00 PM by corco »
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1865
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 02:24:12 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #48 on: September 24, 2020, 12:15:09 AM »


Louisiana tried to extend US 98 to Monroe 3 times: 1955 and 1968 rejected; 1956 was told they could have US 265, then Louisiana said no

While it runs some differently, US-425 is pretty much this route (It followed an existing route through Rayville a little over 20 miles further east.). This was finally done in the late 1980's. While the north south route of 425 is proper, it is over 600 miles to US 25. Clearly US 98 would have fit better than 425 in spite of the change of direction.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6250
  • Your friendly neighborhood meteorologist

  • Location: Tallahassee, FL
  • Last Login: February 23, 2024, 09:23:28 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #49 on: September 24, 2020, 12:30:49 AM »

New Mexico and Texas proposed a US 114 in 1975, which would have run from Dallas to US 70 at Elida, NM along the existing TX/NM 114. AASHTO denied it because of low traffic, poor geometry, and "overconcentration of US Routes".

https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=520d71cb-54e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.