AASHTO Spring 2024 Meeting Minutes

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Molandfreak

#75
Quote from: froggie on November 23, 2024, 02:28:24 PM
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.
Forgot about that. But I-40 could have also been skipped or ended in West Virginia.
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.


Bickendan

But does that even matter now with the states that have duplicate Interstate and US numbers (not counting I/US 41 in Wisconsin, as that's really the same route)?

TheStranger

Quote from: Bickendan on November 25, 2024, 02:07:58 AMBut does that even matter now with the states that have duplicate Interstate and US numbers (not counting I/US 41 in Wisconsin, as that's really the same route)?

Wasn't the US 24 and I-24 duplication in Illinois allowed very early on in the history of the system?


The 41 saga actually unintentionally echoes the UK limited access route numbering scheme (A designations usually retaining the number as a M designation when upgraded to motorway)
Chris Sampang

kkt

Quote from: Quillz on November 23, 2024, 08:32:19 AM
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.

Yes, I-238 to I-880 is the preferred truck route for trucks from Altamont Pass to Oakland and it's easier to encourage that with an interstate shield.  But I'm sure interstate funding was also a consideration.

California had leftover interstate money from the cancellation of I-80 west of US 101 and the cancellation of I-480, so they applied it to a bunch of smaller road projects which then needed interstate numbers.

TheStranger

#79
Quote from: kkt on November 25, 2024, 01:00:37 PMCalifornia had leftover interstate money from the cancellation of I-80 west of US 101 and the cancellation of I-480, so they applied it to a bunch of smaller road projects which then needed interstate numbers.


IIRC, the chargeable mileage for the two SF cancellations you listed went directly to the I-105/Century Freeway project.  (This is also how the I-80 segment between US 101 and the Bay Bridge - the 1950s US 40/50 San Francisco Skyway - ended up not being officially part of the Interstate system after the 1960s)

I mentioned it in another thread, but the later-day interstate submissions in California go chronologically like this:

1976: I-780 replacing former I-680 after 680 was rerouted to the east to fully take over former Route 21

1981: I-980 along planned Route 24 extension, modern I-110 along the Harbor Freeway

1982: Decommissioning of I-880 in Sacramento as part of the nixing of the I-80 realignment near Arden.  80 moved to 880, hidden 305 taking over former I-80 from West Sacramento to E Street, while the portion that was built as US 99E in the 1940s-1950s from E Street to old I-880 being removed from the Interstate system permanently

1983-1984: I-880 along Nimitz Freeway/middle segment of Route 17, I-238 on the San Lorenzo connector between the MacArthur and Nimitz, I-580 west extension (incorporating existing I-80/former I-5W, and the then-north segment of Route 17/proposed I-180), and I-710.  ALSO - state route 15 south of I-8 was submitted and approved by AASHTO as a future Interstate, though still unclear when signage for this will occur.

1986: Creation of Future I-905 (not sure when this will actually be signed as such) along former southern segment of Route 75/former Route 117/former southernmost portion of Route 125.

1999: AASHTO nixing California's submission at that time of State Route 210/former Route 30 as an extension of I-210.
Chris Sampang

SEWIGuy

Quote from: Bickendan on November 25, 2024, 02:07:58 AMBut does that even matter now with the states that have duplicate Interstate and US numbers (not counting I/US 41 in Wisconsin, as that's really the same route)?

I think the issue is how close are they and could they be confused for one another. No one is getting confused between I-24 and US-24 in Illinois because they are no where close.

Quillz

Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 26, 2024, 09:20:41 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on November 25, 2024, 02:07:58 AMBut does that even matter now with the states that have duplicate Interstate and US numbers (not counting I/US 41 in Wisconsin, as that's really the same route)?

I think the issue is how close are they and could they be confused for one another. No one is getting confused between I-24 and US-24 in Illinois because they are no where close.
That could have worked for California. The odds of anyone confusing US-80 and I-80 are minimal. Same with US-40 and I-40.

I still think what could have worked with modern hindsight was not having an interstate grid at all, but rather just upgrading portions of US highways and giving them interstate badges. Which is not to far off from what Australia does. So instead of I-80, it would just be US-40 and then the "old" alignments could have been renumbered to auxiliaries. Or suffixed spurs. I dunno.

TheStranger

Quote from: Quillz on November 27, 2024, 05:56:33 AMI still think what could have worked with modern hindsight was not having an interstate grid at all, but rather just upgrading portions of US highways and giving them interstate badges. Which is not to far off from what Australia does. So instead of I-80, it would just be US-40 and then the "old" alignments could have been renumbered to auxiliaries. Or suffixed spurs. I dunno.

The UK also uses this with the AxxxM numbers, right?

The challenge is when one gets to the truly new terrain Interstates, what would have happened then (specifically I-80 in PA, maybe I-70 west of US 6 in Utah). 

On the other hand, imagine I-59/I-81 only being just Upgraded US 11 of some sort...

Chris Sampang

english si

Quote from: TheStranger on November 27, 2024, 06:10:37 AMThe UK also uses this with the AxxxM numbers, right?
Yes, but Axxx(M) numbers can also be spurs of the main A road (A3(M), A8(M) (GB), A48(M), A308(M), A329(M)), as well as being in the middle (A38(M), A57(M), A58(M), A66(M), A627(M)) or end (A8(M) (NI), A64(M), A74(M), A194(M), A404(M), A823(M), A1077(M)) of the route.

A better analogy would be countries like Ireland, or Poland, where the route has one number and then sections are motorway or not and have different prefix (M vs N in Ireland, A or S vs no signed prefix in Poland).

ClassicHasClass

That would be the Australia approach as well (letter prefix indicating road class, from M to A/B/C and Detour).



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.