News:

why is this up in the corner now

Main Menu

AASHTO Spring 2024 Meeting Minutes

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

Previous topic - Next topic

hbelkins

Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2024, 08:55:11 PM
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.

That's easy. If you're driving south on US 11, once you get to the split in Bristol, you take whatever route you choose (the fastest route would be I-81 and I-40) to Knoxville, where you then resume driving on US 11. There is a gap in the routing, and 11E and 11W are two completely separate routes independent from US 11. Now, if you want to clinch 11, 11E and 11W, you proceed south from Bristol on one of the routes, turn around in Knoxville and proceed north on the other route, then you turn around again and take the interstate back south to Knoxville.
Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.


Scott5114

Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2024, 04:58:13 PMThat's easy. If you're driving south on US 11, once you get to the split in Bristol, you take whatever route you choose (the fastest route would be I-81 and I-40) to Knoxville, where you then resume driving on US 11. There is a gap in the routing, and 11E and 11W are two completely separate routes independent from US 11. Now, if you want to clinch 11, 11E and 11W, you proceed south from Bristol on one of the routes, turn around in Knoxville and proceed north on the other route, then you turn around again and take the interstate back south to Knoxville.

I'd love to know what you'd consider hard, then.  :-D
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Quillz

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.

See, I figured that was normal. I never have once said "35 West" and "35 East," I just say "35 W" and "35 E." So to me, hearing "go north on 35W" wouldn't confuse me. But I guess if most people do actually say "35 West," then hearing "North 35 West" could cause confusion.

Which is probably the reason why I have never had a major issue with suffixed routes. I think when used sparingly, they're fine. The main issue with them is the ambiguity. Why couldn't Ft. Worth and St. Paul just been assigned 3di? Why did Riverside at one point have a 15E only to later be changed to 215? Without any clear guidelines for why they get chosen over auxiliaries, it's always going to be arbitrary.

vdeane

Quote from: Quillz on November 20, 2024, 06:49:39 AMSee, I figured that was normal. I never have once said "35 West" and "35 East," I just say "35 W" and "35 E." So to me, hearing "go north on 35W" wouldn't confuse me. But I guess if most people do actually say "35 West," then hearing "North 35 West" could cause confusion.
I'm not sure if it's people so much as turn by turn directions.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

TheStranger

Quote from: Quillz on November 20, 2024, 06:49:39 AMWhy did Riverside at one point have a 15E only to later be changed to 215? Without any clear guidelines for why they get chosen over auxiliaries, it's always going to be arbitrary.

With regards to I-15E: During the 8 years (1974-1982) it existed, the route had a hidden state route designation of 194, much like how Business 80 in Sacramento has a hidden designation as Route 51 to this day.

But that also begs the question, how is it that defining a route as "15E" is somehow impossible in California's legislative mechanism to number routes?

15E along the US 395 corridor also was originally I-15 straight up, before the state decided to apply Interstate funding to what had been the new-terrain Route 31 freeway project + an upgrade of existing Route 71 (which itself includes a part of former US 395).

Chris Sampang

froggie

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 18, 2024, 07:52:23 AMFrom 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.

Similar vernacular (except we fully pronounce the "double-U") in the Twin Cities.  Similar situation in that the locals get it and it's the out-of-towners that occasionally get confused.

Quote from: Quillz on November 20, 2024, 06:49:39 AMWhy couldn't Ft. Worth and St. Paul just been assigned 3di?

As with most things Interstate, it's a prestige thing.  In both cases (Texas and Minnesota), you have two large cities.  None wanted to be "devalued", so there was never any agreement on how to drop the suffix.

Why is North Carolina so gung-ho on Interstates?  Because they're effectively a brand.  Why did they push for I-87 when I-495 would have worked just fine (and been appropriate) on the busier section between Raleigh and Rocky Mount?  Because 2-digit Interstates have more "prestige" than 3-digit routes.

vdeane

Quote from: froggie on November 21, 2024, 08:25:40 AMAs with most things Interstate, it's a prestige thing.  In both cases (Texas and Minnesota), you have two large cities.  None wanted to be "devalued", so there was never any agreement on how to drop the suffix.

Why is North Carolina so gung-ho on Interstates?  Because they're effectively a brand.  Why did they push for I-87 when I-495 would have worked just fine (and been appropriate) on the busier section between Raleigh and Rocky Mount?  Because 2-digit Interstates have more "prestige" than 3-digit routes.
In the case of DFW, Dallas already had I-45, so allowing Fort Worth to have I-35 and having I-35E to be a mix of I-45 and a 3di would have been a good compromise.  In the case of the Twin Cities, not only is Minneapolis better known to the point where it's basically shorthand for both, I-35E doesn't allow trucks, so that's a good justification for having I-35 follow I-35W and make I-35E a 3di.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Molandfreak

Quote from: vdeane on November 21, 2024, 12:42:50 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 21, 2024, 08:25:40 AMAs with most things Interstate, it's a prestige thing.  In both cases (Texas and Minnesota), you have two large cities.  None wanted to be "devalued", so there was never any agreement on how to drop the suffix.

Why is North Carolina so gung-ho on Interstates?  Because they're effectively a brand.  Why did they push for I-87 when I-495 would have worked just fine (and been appropriate) on the busier section between Raleigh and Rocky Mount?  Because 2-digit Interstates have more "prestige" than 3-digit routes.
In the case of DFW, Dallas already had I-45, so allowing Fort Worth to have I-35 and having I-35E to be a mix of I-45 and a 3di would have been a good compromise.  In the case of the Twin Cities, not only is Minneapolis better known to the point where it's basically shorthand for both, I-35E doesn't allow trucks, so that's a good justification for having I-35 follow I-35W and make I-35E a 3di.
I can't remember who had the idea of "sharing" the main route among both cities, but someone did have the idea to run mainline I-35 along I-94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul, then having the other portions of those routes become 3DIs. It could work along I-30 in DFW, too.
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.

vdeane

Quote from: Molandfreak on November 21, 2024, 02:23:26 PMI can't remember who had the idea of "sharing" the main route among both cities, but someone did have the idea to run mainline I-35 along I-94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul, then having the other portions of those routes become 3DIs. It could work along I-30 in DFW, too.
Brilliant idea for the Twin Cities, but IMO too much backtracking for DFW.  But the Twin Cities doesn't have another x5, while DFW does.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Quillz

It's interesting how the "prestige" idea has never gone away. The US highways were like that, too. US-60 being seen as more prestigious than US-66 (even though history ended up reversing that).

Seems California did that, too. Deliberating assigning lower route numbers in the more populated areas of the state as of 1934. So 1/5/13/21 were all in the Bay Area instead of starting somewhere else, like the northwest corner of the state.

I think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.

Molandfreak

Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMIt's interesting how the "prestige" idea has never gone away. The US highways were like that, too. US-60 being seen as more prestigious than US-66 (even though history ended up reversing that).

Seems California did that, too. Deliberating assigning lower route numbers in the more populated areas of the state as of 1934. So 1/5/13/21 were all in the Bay Area instead of starting somewhere else, like the northwest corner of the state.

I think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.
Which of course begs the question: why haven't the DOTs involved took the opportunities and asked for I-50 and I-60? They wasted huge opportunities. Does Skuluth actually have a say in DOT/FHWA decisions or is it just that they don't know? Is there a moratorium on them we aren't aware of?
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.

wanderer2575

Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMI think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.

* stands clear while grid purists' heads explode *

TheStranger

#62
Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMIt's interesting how the "prestige" idea has never gone away.

One difference is that as the Interstate grid filled up, pretty much "any Interstate number" became the prestige designation, as noticeably seen with North Carolina's freeway expansion rush of the last 25 years, and the general approaches of the I-69 and I-27 extensions of late.

(Probably because the x0/x5 routes are already pretty set in stone!)

This is really where using I-45 on an intrastate route and I-30 on esesntially a US 67 connector between I-20 and I-40 was not great usage of number allocation at all.

For that matter, 1950s California's suggestions of Interstate numbering (i.e. I-76 along the US 40 corridor that is now I-80, I-12 along what is now I-10, and I want to say I-30 for what is now I-40) were designed to try to originally work with the existing US and state route number set in place then; the feds rejecting those number requests indirectly led to the 1964 renumbering.
Chris Sampang

Quillz

Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 22, 2024, 09:45:37 AM
Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMI think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.

* stands clear while grid purists' heads explode *
I don't mind lack of grid if that's how it was from the start. What I hate is when states have an organized system, then later change to "numbers as we need them" (i.e. post-1964 California).

TheStranger

Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 05:20:02 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 22, 2024, 09:45:37 AM
Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMI think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.

* stands clear while grid purists' heads explode *
I don't mind lack of grid if that's how it was from the start. What I hate is when states have an organized system, then later change to "numbers as we need them" (i.e. post-1964 California).

It's weird thinking "I've been in roadgeek circles for 26+ years" but yeah, I step back and look at numbering this way:

- Grids are really nice for organization, but I also can see where you have a ton of similar-sounding numbers nearby that may not be the best for differentiation, I felt this when I drove in Florda in 2021

- That being said, some of the new numbers instituted in California were geographic clusters (different from the every-four system of 1934) -

13 near then-17 and then-21 in the East Bay
31 crossing what was then 30 in Ontario
unsigned 51 adjacent to US 50
52/54/56 in San Diego
57 parallel to 57 in Orange County
62 somewhat close to 60
former 65 becoming 69 briefly
72 and 73 being added near 74
76 near 78 (though that was added in 1952)
82, 84, 85, 87 in the Bay Area
90 adjacent to 91
92 and (unsigned) 93 in the Bay Area
(unsigned) 109, 112 and 114 (and 117) as short Bay Area routes
143 and 148 as planned freeways in metro Sacramento
original 163 and 165 as short routes near LA, not far from unsigned 164

After that, it starts to get a bit more sparse for geographic assignment:
186 and 188 border crossings
202 and 204 both in Kern County
212, 213, 214 in Southern California (along with the original 215)
224 and 225 near 101 in Santa Barbara County
227 and 229 in San Luis Obispo County
unbuilt 230, 1960s 231 in San Francisco
231/241/261 Orange County (are these the newest new-designation state routes in California?)
unbuilt 234/235 in Stockton
236, 237, 238 all along former Route 9
254 and 255 up north near/around US 101
263, 265, 273 along former US 99 routings up north

- More important than "which number" is "how well is the route signed"...which has notably been up and down here, especially with signing being tied to state maintenance rather than marking out a navigational route.  My preferences that numbering should be first and foremost a navigational tool are pretty known here (i.e. the 14 year saga of the Route 1/Rice Avenue realignment in Oxnard).
Chris Sampang

kkt

Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMIt's interesting how the "prestige" idea has never gone away. The US highways were like that, too. US-60 being seen as more prestigious than US-66 (even though history ended up reversing that).

Seems California did that, too. Deliberating assigning lower route numbers in the more populated areas of the state as of 1934. So 1/5/13/21 were all in the Bay Area instead of starting somewhere else, like the northwest corner of the state.

I think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.

Yes.  The San Francisco Bay Area having 8 different interstate routes ending in _80 makes the metropolitan area more confusing to navigate than it had to be.

freebrickproductions

Quote from: TheStranger on November 22, 2024, 02:10:17 PMI-30 on esesntially a US 67 connector between I-20 and I-40 was not great usage of number allocation

IIRC, one of the proposals for the "Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Freeway" in decades past was to be a potential extension of I-30. Don't believe the proposal ever got too far off the drawing board though.
It's all fun & games until someone summons Cthulhu and brings about the end of the world.

I also collect traffic lights, road signs, fans, and railroad crossing equipment.

(They/Them)

Molandfreak

Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 22, 2024, 08:18:51 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 22, 2024, 02:10:17 PMI-30 on esesntially a US 67 connector between I-20 and I-40 was not great usage of number allocation

IIRC, one of the proposals for the "Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Freeway" in decades past was to be a potential extension of I-30. Don't believe the proposal ever got too far off the drawing board though.
Was it on the radar when the original interstates were being planned?
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.

freebrickproductions

Quote from: Molandfreak on November 22, 2024, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 22, 2024, 08:18:51 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 22, 2024, 02:10:17 PMI-30 on esesntially a US 67 connector between I-20 and I-40 was not great usage of number allocation

IIRC, one of the proposals for the "Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Freeway" in decades past was to be a potential extension of I-30. Don't believe the proposal ever got too far off the drawing board though.
Was it on the radar when the original interstates were being planned?

Don't think so? The photos I saw of a local presentation about the proposal I believe were from the 70s, though they may have been from the 60s or 80s. Would have to dig-up the Facebook post about it, it was in a local road group and posted by a local historian.
It's all fun & games until someone summons Cthulhu and brings about the end of the world.

I also collect traffic lights, road signs, fans, and railroad crossing equipment.

(They/Them)

TheStranger

Quote from: kkt on November 22, 2024, 08:03:46 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMIt's interesting how the "prestige" idea has never gone away. The US highways were like that, too. US-60 being seen as more prestigious than US-66 (even though history ended up reversing that).

Seems California did that, too. Deliberating assigning lower route numbers in the more populated areas of the state as of 1934. So 1/5/13/21 were all in the Bay Area instead of starting somewhere else, like the northwest corner of the state.

I think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.

Yes.  The San Francisco Bay Area having 8 different interstate routes ending in _80 makes the metropolitan area more confusing to navigate than it had to be.


At least one would have not existed at all (I-580) had I-5W remained as a designation!

That being said, the only original x80s in the Bay Area as of 1964 were I-280, the former I-480, I-680, and I-80 itself.  The rest all came afterwards:

I-380: Interstate funding for what had been a planned state highway spur, Route 186 to the airport, opened in the 1970s
I-580: former I-5W (and after 1984, also former Route 17 north of Albany), designation started in 1964
I-780: former portion of I-680 that gained its number in 1976
I-880: 1984 designation for former Route 17 from Oakland to San Jose; number had been used in the Sacramento area from the 60s to 1982
I-980: Interstate funding for the final 2 miles of what was planned as Route 24 between the MacArthur and Nimitz freeways

The comparable region to this for same-parent 3dis would be the Newport News area and all the I-64 auxiliary routes.
Chris Sampang

Molandfreak

#70
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 22, 2024, 08:30:15 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 22, 2024, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 22, 2024, 08:18:51 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 22, 2024, 02:10:17 PMI-30 on esesntially a US 67 connector between I-20 and I-40 was not great usage of number allocation

IIRC, one of the proposals for the "Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Freeway" in decades past was to be a potential extension of I-30. Don't believe the proposal ever got too far off the drawing board though.
Was it on the radar when the original interstates were being planned?

Don't think so? The photos I saw of a local presentation about the proposal I believe were from the 70s, though they may have been from the 60s or 80s. Would have to dig-up the Facebook post about it, it was in a local road group and posted by a local historian.
Then how would it have any effect on the original numbering? I-30 was always meant to be a short connector, nothing more. That was a mistake, especially since it was unlikely to be a number that conflicted with US 30.

Actually now that I think about it, sending I-30 to California instead of I-40 might have had the same effect on the 1964 renumbering that the California's proposed changes (I-76 and I-12) did. Now they'd only have to get rid of the conflict with 80, which isn't necessarily impossible.
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: kkt on November 22, 2024, 08:03:46 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMIt's interesting how the "prestige" idea has never gone away. The US highways were like that, too. US-60 being seen as more prestigious than US-66 (even though history ended up reversing that).

Seems California did that, too. Deliberating assigning lower route numbers in the more populated areas of the state as of 1934. So 1/5/13/21 were all in the Bay Area instead of starting somewhere else, like the northwest corner of the state.

I think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.

Yes.  The San Francisco Bay Area having 8 different interstate routes ending in _80 makes the metropolitan area more confusing to navigate than it had to be.

Which I find ironic because Caltrans wanted as many interstates in the area as possible. But I think they were looking at the shield more than the numbers. The "brand name recognition," so to speak. At least that's the logic behind I-238.

TheStranger

Quote from: Molandfreak on November 22, 2024, 08:38:05 PMActually now that I think about it, sending I-30 to California instead of I-40 might have had the same effect on the 1964 renumbering that the California's proposed changes (I-76 and I-12) did. Now they'd only have to get rid of the conflict with 80, which isn't necessarily impossible.

I think I-30 was also a California submission, I mentioned it earlier in the thread but let me find a source:

https://cahighways.org/ROUTE040.html

QuoteApproved as chargeable Interstate on 7/7/1947. In August 1957, this was tentatively approved as I-40; however, in November 1957 the California Department of Highways suggested that it be designated as I-30 to eliminate confusion with the existing US 40 in California. This was rejected by AASHTO, and was probably one of the factors leading to the "great renumbering".
Chris Sampang

Molandfreak

Quote from: TheStranger on November 23, 2024, 01:29:56 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 22, 2024, 08:38:05 PMActually now that I think about it, sending I-30 to California instead of I-40 might have had the same effect on the 1964 renumbering that the California's proposed changes (I-76 and I-12) did. Now they'd only have to get rid of the conflict with 80, which isn't necessarily impossible.

I think I-30 was also a California submission, I mentioned it earlier in the thread but let me find a source:

https://cahighways.org/ROUTE040.html

QuoteApproved as chargeable Interstate on 7/7/1947. In August 1957, this was tentatively approved as I-40; however, in November 1957 the California Department of Highways suggested that it be designated as I-30 to eliminate confusion with the existing US 40 in California. This was rejected by AASHTO, and was probably one of the factors leading to the "great renumbering".
Was someone involved in the planning process from Dallas? The metro just had to collect them all. Having I-30 along IRL I-40 and I-40 on, say, I-44 and I-64 would have been better.
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.

froggie

Quote from: Molandfreak on November 23, 2024, 02:13:56 PMHaving I-30 along IRL I-40 and I-40 on, say, I-44 and I-64 would have been better.

If the intention was to minimize confusion between different highway types having the same route number, this would have made the situation worse, as you'd have had three states (MO/IL/IN) instead of one with both US 40 and "I-40", including having both within the same metropolitan area.



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.