AASHTO Spring 2024 Meeting Minutes

Started by ericlipford, June 01, 2024, 08:13:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

mvak36

Honestly I think it's AASHTO's own fault for changing NC's application for I-36 to I-42 back in 2016. So now we'll have to live with the two I-42's.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary


bob7374

Quote from: mvak36 on June 26, 2024, 10:58:48 AMHonestly I think it's AASHTO's own fault for changing NC's application for I-36 to I-42 back in 2016. So now we'll have to live with the two I-42's.
Perhaps NCDOT, since they've said they don't plan to sign I-42 until this fall, should go back to AASHTO and suggest it would be best for all if they were granted permission to use the I-36 number from their original application. Both to prevent duplication with OK and to not have to spend the money needed to create the NC 36 route.

WillWeaverRVA

Quote from: bob7374 on June 26, 2024, 12:16:10 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on June 26, 2024, 10:58:48 AMHonestly I think it's AASHTO's own fault for changing NC's application for I-36 to I-42 back in 2016. So now we'll have to live with the two I-42's.
Perhaps NCDOT, since they've said they don't plan to sign I-42 until this fall, should go back to AASHTO and suggest it would be best for all if they were granted permission to use the I-36 number from their original application. Both to prevent duplication with OK and to not have to spend the money needed to create the NC 36 route.

Someone should really reach out to NCDOT and ask them to do just that.
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

froggie

Or maybe...just maybe...someone should tell Olkahoma, Arkansas, and hell AASHTO too, that I-42 is already taken (NC did beat them to the punch, after all) and to pick a different number...

hbelkins

Quote from: froggie on June 27, 2024, 04:46:01 AMOr maybe...just maybe...someone should tell Olkahoma, Arkansas, and hell AASHTO too, that I-42 is already taken (NC did beat them to the punch, after all) and to pick a different number...

Given all the duplicate numbers already in use, I don't think a different number would make any difference or eliminate any confusion for anyone.
Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: hbelkins on June 27, 2024, 01:22:04 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 27, 2024, 04:46:01 AMOr maybe...just maybe...someone should tell Olkahoma, Arkansas, and hell AASHTO too, that I-42 is already taken (NC did beat them to the punch, after all) and to pick a different number...

Given all the duplicate numbers already in use, I don't think a different number would make any difference or eliminate any confusion for anyone.


I'm not sure about that. I drive on I-74 every day and wonder how I got to North Carolina.

bugo

Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 01, 2024, 10:35:53 PMWhy??? They already establish I-42 in North Carolina. Could they not pick another number, they have in the past despite state suggestions.

It's karma for NC stealing I-540 from Arkansas. Couldn't NC have picked another number?

bob7374

Quote from: bugo on October 07, 2024, 12:40:37 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 01, 2024, 10:35:53 PMWhy??? They already establish I-42 in North Carolina. Could they not pick another number, they have in the past despite state suggestions.

It's karma for NC stealing I-540 from Arkansas. Couldn't NC have picked another number?
As discussed above, NCDOT wanted I-36, but AASHTO would only approve I-42. Perhaps the OK I-42 issue will be discussed at the upcoming AASHTO meeting from October 29 to November 1.

vdeane

Quote from: bugo on October 07, 2024, 12:40:37 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 01, 2024, 10:35:53 PMWhy??? They already establish I-42 in North Carolina. Could they not pick another number, they have in the past despite state suggestions.

It's karma for NC stealing I-540 from Arkansas. Couldn't NC have picked another number?
3di duplication is fine.  2dis aren't supposed to, however.  Unfortunately, what started as a weird anomaly from the elimination of the suffixes (although IMO they could have confined the issue to I-76 with some renumbering and using 3dis for some) has spread over the years, sometimes intentionally (I-87, I-42), sometimes not (I-74, I-69).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

mvak36

Looks like they posted the results from the annual meeting at https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default. Like the OP said, you just have to search by year.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

Quillz

You know, I feel in the modern days of GPS, that having suffixed numbers wouldn't be an issue. I question how many people would have confused 80S for 80, or 80N for 80. Especially when they ultimately veered off and had considerably different alignments.

Same thing here... If there are multiple 42s spread across the country, would something like 42W and 42E really cause major confusion? Or keep one 42 and the other 40N.

Molandfreak

Quote from: Quillz on November 17, 2024, 07:26:00 PMYou know, I feel in the modern days of GPS, that having suffixed numbers wouldn't be an issue. I question how many people would have confused 80S for 80, or 80N for 80. Especially when they ultimately veered off and had considerably different alignments.

Same thing here... If there are multiple 42s spread across the country, would something like 42W and 42E really cause major confusion? Or keep one 42 and the other 40N.
Or, you know, numbers that haven't been taken. This isn't like the other cases of duplicates where there were really no better options. Plus it encourages the delusion of grandeur that forum members determine the "need/desire" for a particular number...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PMAASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

Quillz

Quote from: Molandfreak on November 17, 2024, 09:52:23 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 17, 2024, 07:26:00 PMYou know, I feel in the modern days of GPS, that having suffixed numbers wouldn't be an issue. I question how many people would have confused 80S for 80, or 80N for 80. Especially when they ultimately veered off and had considerably different alignments.

Same thing here... If there are multiple 42s spread across the country, would something like 42W and 42E really cause major confusion? Or keep one 42 and the other 40N.
Or, you know, numbers that haven't been taken. This isn't like the other cases of duplicates where there were really no better options. Plus it encourages the delusion of grandeur that forum members determine the "need/desire" for a particular number...
Not against it being I-36. But more in general, when duplicates do arise, seems like using a suffix isn't a big deal. How many motorists are confused by 35W and 35W?

kkt

It's not so much that state route numbers should be supreme and interstate numbers should bend to them, but that route numbers created later should try to minimize the renumbering of existing routes.


TheStranger

Quote from: Molandfreak on November 17, 2024, 09:52:23 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 17, 2024, 07:26:00 PMYou know, I feel in the modern days of GPS, that having suffixed numbers wouldn't be an issue. I question how many people would have confused 80S for 80, or 80N for 80. Especially when they ultimately veered off and had considerably different alignments.

Same thing here... If there are multiple 42s spread across the country, would something like 42W and 42E really cause major confusion? Or keep one 42 and the other 40N.
Or, you know, numbers that haven't been taken. This isn't like the other cases of duplicates where there were really no better options. Plus it encourages the delusion of grandeur that forum members determine the "need/desire" for a particular number...


After reading that post you linked, I can't help but feel:

A lot of today's issues regarding the Interstate grid - and going even as far back as the 1960s-1980s suffixed spur era (i.e. I-80N and I-80S)...

Are a direct result of the number allocation being:

1. tilted towards the east-of-the-Mississippi area, before large population centers emerged in the west
2. applied differently than the US system (which is fine to a degree) which used 2dus routes in a fill-in basis in some areas, completely off-grid (i.e. US 44, US 46, the current US 96) - not that that's the most logical use of a grid, but it seems AASHO at the time thought of "Hey, we have these spare numbers, let's just use them"
3. overly focused towards defining what is a "major" route with no regard as to the effects on the future grid (I-45 and I-30).

Not that "the freeways paralleling US 11 need to be one number" given 11's diagonal route from upstate New York to New Orleans, BUT using 2 different Interstate numbers (I-59, I-81) as a whole to follow most of 11 probably wasn't efficient.

I-45 being intrastate wasn't a great use of that number allocation, as isn't I-12 and the western I-86.

I get the whole "don't want duplicate Interstate and US numbers in same state" rule, but even early on this was already broken with I-24 and US 24 in Illinois. (Wonder if being less strict on this might have significantly altered California's 1964 renumbering - and with that, the fates of several US routes from that era)

This is not to say I am one of those folks that thinks about "how should the system be changed to be more logical?" now - younger me might have thought up of this - but more just to see how we ended up with the I-42s, the southern I-87, the suffixed I-69 spurs in Texas, etc. Arguably Bud Shuster's I-99 is also a side effect of the way the original Interstate grid was laid out, with zero free north-south numbers at the time between I-75 and I-97.

In that vein, I've always been in favor of suffixed loop routes (i.e. the I-35 pairs and the old I-15E in Riverside/San Bernardino and I-5W in Oakland) given their long-established use in the US route system (US 31W/31E the one I'm most familiar with), and in particular I-5W would have been useful in the Bay Area long-term for a few key reasons:
- would have saved I-580 usage (and had 5 stayed on the 99 corridor, also would have probably supplanted today's I-205, as instead the Route 132 expressway in Modesto would be part of the I-5W routing as likely planned originally)
- would have also allowed for the usage of I-305/I-705 in the Bay Area to add two more possible 3di routings, and the aforementioned 205 even
- would have made it more obvious that 5 is the high-speed Bay Area to LA route, instead of the "take 580 if you're going to Los Angeles" signs that very occasionally show up near the MacArthur Maze.
Chris Sampang

Scott5114

The problem with suffixed routes is that if you tell a normal person "get on I-35W south" it causes their brain to explode because they cannot comprehend whether you're telling them to go west or south. Sat-nav devices don't fix this.

If you have to use letter suffixes, the thing to do is to start at A and go in order, skipping E/N/S/W (and of course I/O). Not only is this less confusing, but you have 20 suffixes available, rather than just two (or three if you think 69C isn't a case of highway dumbering).
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

TheStranger

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 18, 2024, 05:30:13 AMThe problem with suffixed routes is that if you tell a normal person "get on I-35W south" it causes their brain to explode because they cannot comprehend whether you're telling them to go west or south. Sat-nav devices don't fix this.

If you have to use letter suffixes, the thing to do is to start at A and go in order, skipping E/N/S/W (and of course I/O). Not only is this less confusing, but you have 20 suffixes available, rather than just two (or three if you think 69C isn't a case of highway dumbering).

I can see New York's state highway logic with this.

This does make me wonder though: in the places where the suffixed routes are established (i.e. 99E/99W near Portland, 31E/31W in Louisville/Nashville), are the locals just used to them and aren't as confused by the route designations?
Chris Sampang

Scott5114

Quote from: TheStranger on November 18, 2024, 06:24:36 AMThis does make me wonder though: in the places where the suffixed routes are established (i.e. 99E/99W near Portland, 31E/31W in Louisville/Nashville), are the locals just used to them and aren't as confused by the route designations?

From what I can tell from DFW, yes. It also helps that there it's pronounced "35-dubya" and "35-eee" since they know they go north/south and saying east/west is liable to be confusing. But those from elsewhere won't necessarily know that.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

74/171FAN

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 18, 2024, 07:52:23 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 18, 2024, 06:24:36 AMThis does make me wonder though: in the places where the suffixed routes are established (i.e. 99E/99W near Portland, 31E/31W in Louisville/Nashville), are the locals just used to them and aren't as confused by the route designations?

From what I can tell from DFW, yes. It also helps that there it's pronounced "35-dubya" and "35-eee" since they know they go north/south and saying east/west is liable to be confusing. But those from elsewhere won't necessarily know that.


I have thought about trying to create tons of NC suffixed routes in a fictional setting, but I never got beyond the brainstorming these of it.
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?units=miles&u=markkos1992
Mob-Rule:  https://mob-rule.com/user/markkos1992

SEWIGuy

I've said this before, but the interstate system should have treated 3dis like 3dus routes. There are numerous short interstates that would be just fine as 3dis, but since it was always implied that they be loops or short spurs, many of those numbers just aren't used.

For instance, I-39 in Wisconsin could be I-194. I-88 in Illinois could be I-380. Etc.

vdeane

I'd be fine with suffixes if they were treated more like NY's system.  What I hate about them is how they cause the route to split.  As long as there's a mainline that is clearly the "real" route, they can go wild as far as I'm concerned (just look at NY 9N... and then there's the interesting case of NY 12E being entirely west of NY 12).

Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2024, 09:36:17 AMI've said this before, but the interstate system should have treated 3dis like 3dus routes. There are numerous short interstates that would be just fine as 3dis, but since it was always implied that they be loops or short spurs, many of those numbers just aren't used.

For instance, I-39 in Wisconsin could be I-194. I-88 in Illinois could be I-380. Etc.
I could see a case where 3di numbers were used for longer spurs and suffixes for loops.  Not sure how shorter spurs would be handled in that system, though.  As long as it doesn't devolve like the 3dus routes did, with few of them bearing any relationship at all to their "parent".
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

74/171FAN

Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2024, 12:46:43 PMI'd be fine with suffixes if they were treated more like NY's system.  What I hate about them is how they cause the route to split.  As long as there's a mainline that is clearly the "real" route, they can go wild as far as I'm concerned (just look at NY 9N... and then there's the interesting case of NY 12E being entirely west of NY 12).

So are you completely fine with US 70N, US 70, and US 70S in Central TN?
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?units=miles&u=markkos1992
Mob-Rule:  https://mob-rule.com/user/markkos1992

SEWIGuy

Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2024, 12:46:43 PMI'd be fine with suffixes if they were treated more like NY's system.  What I hate about them is how they cause the route to split.  As long as there's a mainline that is clearly the "real" route, they can go wild as far as I'm concerned (just look at NY 9N... and then there's the interesting case of NY 12E being entirely west of NY 12).

Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2024, 09:36:17 AMI've said this before, but the interstate system should have treated 3dis like 3dus routes. There are numerous short interstates that would be just fine as 3dis, but since it was always implied that they be loops or short spurs, many of those numbers just aren't used.

For instance, I-39 in Wisconsin could be I-194. I-88 in Illinois could be I-380. Etc.
I could see a case where 3di numbers were used for longer spurs and suffixes for loops.  Not sure how shorter spurs would be handled in that system, though.  As long as it doesn't devolve like the 3dus routes did, with few of them bearing any relationship at all to their "parent".


But is that necessarily a problem? If the interstate system was similar to the US system, and Wisconsin's I-39 was actually something like I-742, I don't see much of a problem.

vdeane

Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 18, 2024, 01:18:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2024, 12:46:43 PMI'd be fine with suffixes if they were treated more like NY's system.  What I hate about them is how they cause the route to split.  As long as there's a mainline that is clearly the "real" route, they can go wild as far as I'm concerned (just look at NY 9N... and then there's the interesting case of NY 12E being entirely west of NY 12).

So are you completely fine with US 70N, US 70, and US 70S in Central TN?
Having looked at that, I am.  Certainly much better than full splits like US 11E and US 11W which leave interesting questions about what, exactly, one needs to do to clinch US 11.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

webny99

Quote from: Quillz on November 17, 2024, 07:26:00 PMYou know, I feel in the modern days of GPS, that having suffixed numbers wouldn't be an issue. I question how many people would have confused 80S for 80, or 80N for 80. Especially when they ultimately veered off and had considerably different alignments.

Arguably the reverse is also true. Why not just use another number when no one but roadgeeks pays attention to the numbering scheme or where the route originated or where it goes anyways? It's not like the old days where it was important for motorists to know that 80N and 80S were alternates of the same route. If anything, these days suffixes create more confusion than they solve.



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.