They posted the list of applications early this year, so here we go: https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/09/000_USRN-List-of-Applications_-AM-AtlantaGA-2018.pdf
https://route.transportation.org/committee-notices-actions-and-approvals/past-meetings/ for the applications.
Quote from: rschen7754 on September 19, 2018, 09:35:10 PM
They posted the list of applications early this year, so here we go: https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/09/000_USRN-List-of-Applications_-AM-AtlantaGA-2018.pdf
https://route.transportation.org/committee-notices-actions-and-approvals/past-meetings/ for the applications.
This is the most distinct "yawner" of the last several SCOURN meetings; essentially the equivalent of "no shit, Sherlock" to anyone regularly following the forum's topics. NC's attempt to get the north side of I-295 established by not even mentioning the substandard features is a little humorous; I predict a "fail" on this one. The rest, including labeling the Monroe toll bypass as "Bypass US 74" (again, N.S., S!) is pretty straightforward; no surprises. Move along; nothing to see here, folks! :-/
I'm waiting for WSDOT to try and submit a new USBR. Perhaps the USBR 14 corridor, which lines up nicely with the newly-renamed Cascades to Palouse Trail.
I'd like to see ODOT get some USBR's up. Or, you know, making the US 26 move from Market/Clay and Front (Naito) onto Broadway/5th/Sheridan, 3rd, and Arthur official.
Quote from: sparker on September 21, 2018, 01:08:32 AMThis is the most distinct "yawner" of the last several SCOURN meetings; essentially the equivalent of "no shit, Sherlock" to anyone regularly following the forum's topics.
The submissions are pretty much yawn-fest (US24 the only one with some vague interest). But there's a high number of likely rejections for what is very few applications.
AR US167 Bus - rejected, same as last time. Hopefully SCOURN will just scornfully copy-paste their rejection and change one sentence, like what happened with the application.
NC - some possibly rejected if SCOURN see past the wool. Can you put a US bannered highway on a toll facility outside of special cases like bridges/tunnels?
There was always a US 167B in Thorton. I haven't been through there in awhile, so I don't know what "new route" they are referring to.
Quote from: english si on September 24, 2018, 05:14:46 AM
Can you put a US bannered highway on a toll facility outside of special cases like bridges/tunnels?
US 51 is on a toll road by Rockford IL.
Are Indiana and Kentucky going to apply for the I-265 designation for that new segment they built a couple of years ago? Or are they just planning on leaving it the way it is?
Quote from: cjk374 on September 24, 2018, 06:42:44 AMThere was always a US 167B in Thorton. I haven't been through there in awhile, so I don't know what "new route" they are referring to.
Last time around, Arkansas had a load of entries to update stuff from the 50s and 60s that was
de facto the routes of US highways, but not
de jure. US176B was rejected as it didn't meet its parent at both ends.
Quote from: mvak36 on September 24, 2018, 12:08:12 PM
Are Indiana and Kentucky going to apply for the I-265 designation for that new segment they built a couple of years ago? Or are they just planning on leaving it the way it is?
That's a real good question. Either it's not deemed terribly important to either DOT, or there's some sort of possible jurisdictional dispute happening here; can't imagine any other explanation for lack of action re an I-designation for a short corridor section connecting two identically-numbered 3di's.
Quote from: sparker on September 24, 2018, 02:57:55 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on September 24, 2018, 12:08:12 PM
Are Indiana and Kentucky going to apply for the I-265 designation for that new segment they built a couple of years ago? Or are they just planning on leaving it the way it is?
That's a real good question. Either it's not deemed terribly important to either DOT, or there's some sort of possible jurisdictional dispute happening here; can't imagine any other explanation for lack of action re an I-designation for a short corridor section connecting two identically-numbered 3di's.
Ask here...
https://bpm.kytc.ky.gov/ApplicationBuilder/eFormRender.html?code=810A005056A2147711773738BD5BE87C&Process=PA-DV-ContactUs
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2018, 03:46:48 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 24, 2018, 02:57:55 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on September 24, 2018, 12:08:12 PM
Are Indiana and Kentucky going to apply for the I-265 designation for that new segment they built a couple of years ago? Or are they just planning on leaving it the way it is?
That's a real good question. Either it's not deemed terribly important to either DOT, or there's some sort of possible jurisdictional dispute happening here; can't imagine any other explanation for lack of action re an I-designation for a short corridor section connecting two identically-numbered 3di's.
Ask here...
https://bpm.kytc.ky.gov/ApplicationBuilder/eFormRender.html?code=810A005056A2147711773738BD5BE87C&Process=PA-DV-ContactUs
The link didn't work. It's asking me to log in.
EDIT: Never mind. I was able to get to the page by going through the KYTC home page. I asked them about the designation. I will post on here if I hear anything back from them.
Quote from: mvak36 on September 24, 2018, 12:08:12 PM
Are Indiana and Kentucky going to apply for the I-265 designation for that new segment they built a couple of years ago? Or are they just planning on leaving it the way it is?
Is there some type of Signage issue, like not wanting to renumber Exits and Mile Markers? If the segments become 1 I-265, does I-265 need a bi-state continuous Mileage and Exit numbers? It is basically a 2 State 3/4 Beltway now...Is there precedent for Mile Markers resetting at the state line vs continous in this case? Full Multistate beltways (thinking I-275/Cincy) have continuous Mileage, not resetting, I believe. Not sure about the DC Beltway, and also not sure about the now 3-State I-295 in DE, NJ, and now PA
Would the I-Shield not be approved, until some of the Cloverleaves are removed/improved? Thinking I-265/I-65 IN, I-265/I-71, and I-265/I-64 KY (tho that one is fully on the existing KY I-265, the new segment with the Bridge and Tunnel makes I-265 a legit Suburban Bypass of the Downtown I-64 Thru Route, that could use some Flyovers for I-64 West to I-265 North/West and I-265 South/East to I-64 East)...
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 24, 2018, 09:13:24 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on September 24, 2018, 12:08:12 PM
Are Indiana and Kentucky going to apply for the I-265 designation for that new segment they built a couple of years ago? Or are they just planning on leaving it the way it is?
Is there some type of Signage issue, like not wanting to renumber Exits and Mile Markers? If the segments become 1 I-265, does I-265 need a bi-state continuous Mileage and Exit numbers? It is basically a 2 State 3/4 Beltway now...Is there precedent for Mile Markers resetting at the state line vs continous in this case? Full Multistate beltways (thinking I-275/Cincy) have continuous Mileage, not resetting, I believe. Not sure about the DC Beltway, and also not sure about the now 3-State I-295 in DE, NJ, and now PA
Would the I-Shield not be approved, until some of the Cloverleaves are removed/improved? Thinking I-265/I-65 IN, I-265/I-71, and I-265/I-64 KY (tho that one is fully on the existing KY I-265, the new segment with the Bridge and Tunnel makes I-265 a legit Suburban Bypass of the Downtown I-64 Thru Route, that could use some Flyovers for I-64 West to I-265 North/West and I-265 South/East to I-64 East)...
Usually they are continuous. The only example I can think of where they reset is I-270 when it crosses over from Missouri into Illinois so I guess it's not unprecedented. I emailed KYTC. We'll see what they say.
Any word on I-210 replacing SR 210 in SoCal?
Rick
I-680 resets at the Missouri River between Nebraska and Iowa
I-155 resets at the Mississippi between Tennessee and Missouri
I-395 resets between Connecticut and Massachusetts
I-295 resets between Rhode Island and Massachusetts
I-470 resets at the Ohio between Ohio and West Virginia
Totally forgot about I-270 resetting across the Mississippi...Of course, what makes that even weirder...is that I-255/the other part of the STL Beltway does NOT reset when it crosses the Mississippi
The other Multi-State 3DIs I checked (205 OR/WA, 435 MO/KS, 280 IL/IA, 520 GA/SC, 287 NY/NJ, as well as 495 MD/VA and 275 OH/KY/IN) are Continuous
So I guess there is precedent for both Continuous and Resetting
Quote from: nexus73 on September 24, 2018, 10:40:34 PM
Any word on I-210 replacing SR 210 in SoCal?
Rick
As long as you're at it, ask about I-905 replacing CA 905 -- or about progress extending I-15 south over CA 15 to I-5. So far, there doesn't seem to be any impetus coming from Caltrans or its individual districts regarding these issues (BTW, CA 15
does meet all Interstate standards down to the I-805 interchange, so signage shouldn't be an issue for the northern 2/3 of that corridor). They just don't seem to have any enthusiasm for this sort of thing these days.
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 24, 2018, 11:06:00 PM
I-680 resets at the Missouri River between Nebraska and Iowa
I-155 resets at the Mississippi between Tennessee and Missouri
I-395 resets between Connecticut and Massachusetts
I-295 resets between Rhode Island and Massachusetts
I-470 resets at the Ohio between Ohio and West Virginia
Totally forgot about I-270 resetting across the Mississippi...Of course, what makes that even weirder...is that I-255/the other part of the STL Beltway does NOT reset when it crosses the Mississippi
The other Multi-State 3DIs I checked (205 OR/WA, 435 MO/KS, 280 IL/IA, 520 GA/SC, 287 NY/NJ, as well as 495 MD/VA and 275 OH/KY/IN) are Continuous
So I guess there is precedent for both Continuous and Resetting
I had forgotten about 680. Considering that I used to drive it quite a bit.
Quote from: sparker on September 25, 2018, 02:23:38 AM
As long as you're at it, ask about I-905 replacing CA 905 -- or about progress extending I-15 south over CA 15 to I-5. So far, there doesn't seem to be any impetus coming from Caltrans or its individual districts regarding these issues (BTW, CA 15 does meet all Interstate standards down to the I-805 interchange, so signage shouldn't be an issue for the northern 2/3 of that corridor). They just don't seem to have any enthusiasm for this sort of thing these days.
I noticed that Google started showing all of CA-15/I-15 as I-15. I don't know if this has any sort of accuracy or not.
Here's the reply I got from KYTC this morning regarding the I-265 designation.
QuoteDiscussions have begun between the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC), the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on the possibility of adding KY 841/IN 265 to the interstate highway system. No decision has been made yet.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 25, 2018, 09:46:39 AM
Quote from: sparker on September 25, 2018, 02:23:38 AM
As long as you're at it, ask about I-905 replacing CA 905 -- or about progress extending I-15 south over CA 15 to I-5. So far, there doesn't seem to be any impetus coming from Caltrans or its individual districts regarding these issues (BTW, CA 15 does meet all Interstate standards down to the I-805 interchange, so signage shouldn't be an issue for the northern 2/3 of that corridor). They just don't seem to have any enthusiasm for this sort of thing these days.
I noticed that Google started showing all of CA-15/I-15 as I-15. I don't know if this has any sort of accuracy or not.
None whatsoever at this point. Officially, I-15 ends at the I-8 junction as it has since its commissioning in 1969, despite the upgrades to Interstate status south of that point. The stumbling block is some LH ramps at the CA 94 interchange plus some line-of-sight issues in that area -- as well as Caltrans' record of procrastination about such matters. Again, Google, or the contributors to that database, is jumping the gun -- like with I-11 replacing I-515 in Las Vegas.
Quote from: mvak36 on September 24, 2018, 12:08:12 PM
Are Indiana and Kentucky going to apply for the I-265 designation for that new segment they built a couple of years ago? Or are they just planning on leaving it the way it is?
I don't know why you would build a road/bridge connecting two sections of I-265 and then not call it I-265.
Quote from: Big John on September 24, 2018, 09:52:07 AM
Quote from: english si on September 24, 2018, 05:14:46 AM
Can you put a US bannered highway on a toll facility outside of special cases like bridges/tunnels?
US 51 is on a toll road by Rockford IL.
Does not fit the criteria described.
Quote from: kphoger on September 25, 2018, 07:00:52 PM
Quote from: Big John on September 24, 2018, 09:52:07 AM
Quote from: english si on September 24, 2018, 05:14:46 AM
Can you put a US bannered highway on a toll facility outside of special cases like bridges/tunnels?
US 51 is on a toll road by Rockford IL.
Does not fit the criteria described.
Long time ago, but the Tri-State Tollway (present I-294 and I-94) and East-West/Reagan Tollway (present I-88) in IL were once known as Toll US 41 and Toll US 30, respectively
"Toll" was the banner for the banner route, as US 41 and US 30 were still on their (mostly) non-freeway, and toll free segments (US 41 and freeway portions of Lake Shore Drive aside)
Quote from: kphoger on September 25, 2018, 07:00:52 PMDoes not fit the criteria described.
Indeed, but it is of relevance. If there's a violation of the principle that US Routes ought to be non-tolled unless there are special circumstances, then there can be a violation of the principle that bannered US routes are likewise to be free roads.
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 26, 2018, 12:49:10 AM"Toll" was the banner for the banner route, as US 41 and US 30 were still on their (mostly) non-freeway, and toll free segments (US 41 and freeway portions of Lake Shore Drive aside)
I did think of that, but with "Toll" as the banner, it's not quite the same.
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 24, 2018, 09:13:24 PMIs there precedent for Mile Markers resetting at the state line vs continous in this case? Full Multistate beltways (thinking I-275/Cincy) have continuous Mileage, not resetting, I believe. Not sure about the DC Beltway, and also not sure about the now 3-State I-295 in DE, NJ, and now PA
The VA portion of the Capital Beltway that is both I-95/495 continues with the VA I-95 mileage. It resets after crossing the Potomac into MD and continues all the way around to the Springfield, VA I-95/395/495 interchange. Despite the reset(s), the numbering still runs in a counter-clockwise direction.
I-295 in DE/NJ & now PA is as follows: All mile makers reset at each state border, but 295's interchanges in DE are not numbered.
The change in PA is more drastic because not only do the numbers reset; the numbering order changes direction (the numbers decrease one moves further from the Scudder Falls Bridge regardless; Exit 10 in PA/Exit 76 in NJ). Another reason, IMHO, why it would've been better to redesignate the 16-mile stretch of "former I-95" as I-395 or 695 rather than making such a continuation of I-295 (though reset, the order would've continued in the same direction until the I-295/US 1 interchange in Lawrence Township); but such is another topic for another thread.
I wonder if the committee knows that the "fix" North Carolina did at the interchange is a U-turn from northbound I-95 onto southbound Future I-295. There is still also an at-grade cross-over from southbound I-95 onto northbound Future I-295/US 13.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on September 27, 2018, 12:09:31 PM
I wonder if the committee knows that the "fix" North Carolina did at the interchange is a U-turn from northbound I-95 onto southbound Future I-295.
Do you have any photos of this? It's too new for the Goog.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on September 27, 2018, 12:09:31 PM
There is still also an at-grade cross-over from southbound I-95 onto northbound Future I-295/US 13.
That's only US 13. No I-295 east of I-95.
Quote from: WashuOtakuI wonder if the committee knows that the "fix" North Carolina did at the interchange is a U-turn from northbound I-95 onto southbound Future I-295.
IIRC, the "fix" you're referring to wasn't an attempt at Interstate designation but was done in response to crashes at the intersection with the northbound 95 ramps.
QuoteThere is still also an at-grade cross-over from southbound I-95 onto northbound Future I-295/US 13.
Fixing this isn't necessary for Interstate designation, though.
Quote from: NE2Do you have any photos of this? It's too new for the Goog.
Imagery exists in Google Earth.
Quote from: froggie on September 27, 2018, 02:06:03 PM
QuoteThere is still also an at-grade cross-over from southbound I-95 onto northbound Future I-295/US 13.
Fixing this isn't necessary for Interstate designation, though.
Agreed. 3/4 of the movements are freeway-freeway, and the one that isn't is a major one. This will basically come down to whether AASHTO and FHWA care enough about that last movement not being freeway-freeway to delay designation.
Quote from: vdeane on September 27, 2018, 02:30:53 PMAgreed. 3/4 of the movements are freeway-freeway, and the one that isn't is a major one. This will basically come down to whether AASHTO and FHWA care enough about that last movement not being freeway-freeway to delay designation.
Given that it's NC, and they sign it like this (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.1249169,-78.7546116,3a,75y,237.1h,83.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqomCtzipz4H6i1028MErfw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), the question is also whether they reckon they'd be able to force the construction of a free-flow link. I mean NC really want those interstate designations, but it already has the blue-and-red signs and so the branding job is done...
Since the primary movements involved in Interstate function -- SB 95 to SB 295 and NB 295 to NB 95 -- are free-flowing -- and there's ample precedent for not providing such movements in a "counterflow" or "oblique" direction ( e.g. I-5/I-710 in CA), then FHWA might just approve the configuration. I don't think they'll get particularly uptight about the lack of a freeflowing NB 95>SB 295 connection.
Even if the interchange isn't a problem, there's still the issue of the two sets of bridges on Future I-295 crossing the Cape Fear River and Carvers Creek. A quick glance on Google Streetview shows that the outside shoulders do not meet interstate standards, despite what NCDOT wants AASHTO to believe.
FWIW, the Google Maps satellite image shows the current interchange configuration on my iPhone.
And as always I-515 isn't being changed to I-11. :sleep:
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on September 28, 2018, 03:27:56 AM
And as always I-515 isn't being changed to I-11. :sleep:
NDOT's still slogging along with their study re the I-11 routing through Las Vegas; a decision expected sometime next year. Any SCOURN petitions won't be forthcoming until that study is completed and acted upon by NDOT.
Quote from: english si on September 27, 2018, 03:22:15 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 27, 2018, 02:30:53 PMAgreed. 3/4 of the movements are freeway-freeway, and the one that isn't is a major one. This will basically come down to whether AASHTO and FHWA care enough about that last movement not being freeway-freeway to delay designation.
Given that it's NC, and they sign it like this (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.1249169,-78.7546116,3a,75y,237.1h,83.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqomCtzipz4H6i1028MErfw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), the question is also whether they reckon they'd be able to force the construction of a free-flow link. I mean NC really want those interstate designations, but it already has the blue-and-red signs and so the branding job is done...
Except NCDOT replaced all the Future I-295 signage with NC 295 in 2015 when the Bragg Blvd—Murchison Road section opened. Even the sign you linked was changed, which you can barely tell from the 2015 Street View (https://goo.gl/maps/uZC85915qxR2) from I-95.
Quote from: sparker on September 28, 2018, 12:23:17 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on September 28, 2018, 03:27:56 AM
And as always I-515 isn't being changed to I-11. :sleep:
NDOT's still slogging along with their study re the I-11 routing through Las Vegas; a decision expected sometime next year. Any SCOURN petitions won't be forthcoming until that study is completed and acted upon by NDOT.
My understanding is that they already got AASHTO and/or FHWA approval to renumber south of I-215 and even had a contract for it, but decided to hold off until it was studied because the eastern bypass option wouldn't use this section.
Quote from: vdeane on September 28, 2018, 07:51:09 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 28, 2018, 12:23:17 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on September 28, 2018, 03:27:56 AM
And as always I-515 isn't being changed to I-11. :sleep:
NDOT's still slogging along with their study re the I-11 routing through Las Vegas; a decision expected sometime next year. Any SCOURN petitions won't be forthcoming until that study is completed and acted upon by NDOT.
My understanding is that they already got AASHTO and/or FHWA approval to renumber south of I-215 and even had a contract for it, but decided to hold off until it was studied because the eastern bypass option wouldn't use this section.
That is correct. Nevertheless, the chances for an eastern option that would out of necessity encroach on NPS territory (Lake Mead Nat'l Recreational Area) are relatively slim. I-11 will in all likelihood subsume the remainder of I-515 then utilize US 95 for the remainder of the mileage in LV, or be routed over the west side of the multi-designation 215 loop, possibly with a connector north from the loop's NW corner directly to US 95.
Quote from: english si on September 24, 2018, 01:16:26 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on September 24, 2018, 06:42:44 AMThere was always a US 167B in Thorton. I haven't been through there in awhile, so I don't know what "new route" they are referring to.
Last time around, Arkansas had a load of entries to update stuff from the 50s and 60s that was de facto the routes of US highways, but not de jure. US176B was rejected as it didn't meet its parent at both ends.
Half of Arkansas's business routes don't meet the parent at both ends. Damn you ARDOT!! :pan: :banghead:
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 25, 2018, 04:23:50 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on September 24, 2018, 12:08:12 PM
Are Indiana and Kentucky going to apply for the I-265 designation for that new segment they built a couple of years ago? Or are they just planning on leaving it the way it is?
I don't know why you would build a road/bridge connecting two sections of I-265 and then not call it I-265.
Gotta remember which two states you're dealing with here (and as a native Hoosier, I can say that).
Quote from: SSR_317 on October 02, 2018, 04:47:51 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 25, 2018, 04:23:50 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on September 24, 2018, 12:08:12 PM
Are Indiana and Kentucky going to apply for the I-265 designation for that new segment they built a couple of years ago? Or are they just planning on leaving it the way it is?
I don't know why you would build a road/bridge connecting two sections of I-265 and then not call it I-265.
Gotta remember which two states you're dealing with here (and as a native Hoosier, I can say that).
So -- who's going to have to blink before something is done re a continuous I-265 designation? IN or KY? :confused:
The report of the meeting is up now: https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/10/018_Report-to-CHS_USRN-Application-Results-AM-2018.pdf
AR US167 Bus is conditionally approved - needs to be double posted with 79 to return to 167.
MO US24 relocation is conditionally approved - they need to dual-sign it with I-70
everything else approved.
So, how is US 24 in Kansas City going to be rerouted? Along I-70 east of downtown, then what?
Quote from: txstateends on October 04, 2018, 07:01:17 PM
So, how is US 24 in Kansas City going to be rerouted? Along I-70 east of downtown, then what?
From what I understand, it'll follow I-70 east to I-435, where it will head north to its current alignment.
I'm not a fan of this reroute, but whatever. It does mean I get a few extra miles on US 24, though.