AASHTO Fall 2024 Meeting Minutes

[SEWIGuy]

A great many in this hobby have instilled in me the virtues of non-grid and non-pattern based numerical chaos.  Disorder is so much more interesting than order.

It's not so much that it is more interesting. It's that it has no material impact on navigation.

[Max Rockatansky]

A great many in this hobby have instilled in me the virtues of non-grid and non-pattern based numerical chaos.  Disorder is so much more interesting than order.

It's not so much that it is more interesting. It's that it has no material impact on navigation.

Trying to decipher what is going on sometimes yields an interesting historical analysis.  That and it is fun to throw a wrench into the vanilla "I hate I-238, I-99 and US 163" grid perfection conversations. 

[SD Mapman]

The old section of 14/83 to 1804 will become SD 1889 (would have preferred SD 199 but that's my own personal preference)

1889 is when South Dakota became a state, for anyone else who was wondering what the rationale was.

Yup, I understand the rationale but I'm a grid purist...

Don't be. Grids are useless.

Most of the cities and towns in this country disagree.

A numerical grid of a state highway system is useless.

I mean we've had a grid for both the 2-digit and 3-digit highways for a long time, as well as a statewide rural road grid since E911 was introduced. The only cities in the state without a grid are Lead, Deadwood, and Keystone due to the mountains. It does help with organization.

[SEWIGuy]

The old section of 14/83 to 1804 will become SD 1889 (would have preferred SD 199 but that's my own personal preference)

1889 is when South Dakota became a state, for anyone else who was wondering what the rationale was.

Yup, I understand the rationale but I'm a grid purist...

Don't be. Grids are useless.

Most of the cities and towns in this country disagree.

A numerical grid of a state highway system is useless.

I mean we've had a grid for both the 2-digit and 3-digit highways for a long time, as well as a statewide rural road grid since E911 was introduced. The only cities in the state without a grid are Lead, Deadwood, and Keystone due to the mountains. It does help with organization.

State highways? Not really.

[kurumi]

Trying to decipher what is going on sometimes yields an interesting historical analysis. 

+1; I prefer a system (but exceptions are OK and make it interesting) over no system at all:
* sequential exit numbering gave us "missing" exit numbers that were clues to earlier plans
* geographic numbering systems: hey, was there going to be a route N here? what might have happened?
* chronological numbering systems: knowing dates for route N-a and route N+b can help you pin down route N

Even knowing when and why a department started a numbering policy then abandoned it (CA, CT, etc.) can help narrow things down for certain routes. Or give you a clue of what to look for.

[Quillz]

A great many in this hobby have instilled in me the virtues of non-grid and non-pattern based numerical chaos.  Disorder is so much more interesting than order.

I don't mind if there was never a pattern to begin with. If a state just assigned route numbers as needed, fine. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Trying to decipher what is going on sometimes yields an interesting historical analysis. 

+1; I prefer a system (but exceptions are OK and make it interesting) over no system at all:
* sequential exit numbering gave us "missing" exit numbers that were clues to earlier plans
* geographic numbering systems: hey, was there going to be a route N here? what might have happened?
* chronological numbering systems: knowing dates for route N-a and route N+b can help you pin down route N

Even knowing when and why a department started a numbering policy then abandoned it (CA, CT, etc.) can help narrow things down for certain routes. Or give you a clue of what to look for.

Cracking the early Arizona highway system code was interesting (even though it wasn't a grid).

[freebrickproductions]

A great many in this hobby have instilled in me the virtues of non-grid and non-pattern based numerical chaos.  Disorder is so much more interesting than order.

If disorder doesn't have order to be disordered against, is it really all that interesting?

[Max Rockatansky]

A great many in this hobby have instilled in me the virtues of non-grid and non-pattern based numerical chaos.  Disorder is so much more interesting than order.

If disorder doesn't have order to be disordered against, is it really all that interesting?

I suppose not.  But there is several cliche west coast road opinions around driving me to a mad embrace of chaos:

1.  I-238 hate.
2.  The assumption that I-40 west of Barstow is necessary. 
3.  CA 99 should be I-7 or I-9.
4.  The Interstates in Hawaii should be numbered 1, 2 and 3 for grid perfection.

I'd argue I-11 being "out of grid" was also a thing.  Amusingly now that it has been extended to NV 157 nobody really has complained about how it is placed in the grid.

[SEWIGuy]

To me, growing up in Wisconsin with no real system to its state highways (other than 2dwis are more major than 3dwis), I realized that there is no need for any sort of grid. Even in states with grids, I fail to see how it helps with navigation these days. Most of the travelling public likely has only a passing knowledge that it even exists.

[GaryV]

Wisconsin with no real system to its state highways

Wisconsin (followed shortly thereafter by Michigan) numbered it's original routes in decreasing order of length. 10 was the longest, 11 next, etc.

[SEWIGuy]

Wisconsin with no real system to its state highways

Wisconsin (followed shortly thereafter by Michigan) numbered it's original routes in decreasing order of length. 10 was the longest, 11 next, etc.

Yes I know. But that quickly became obsolete and has had no relevance to the system for decades.

[Quillz]

Trying to decipher what is going on sometimes yields an interesting historical analysis. 

+1; I prefer a system (but exceptions are OK and make it interesting) over no system at all:
* sequential exit numbering gave us "missing" exit numbers that were clues to earlier plans
* geographic numbering systems: hey, was there going to be a route N here? what might have happened?
* chronological numbering systems: knowing dates for route N-a and route N+b can help you pin down route N

Even knowing when and why a department started a numbering policy then abandoned it (CA, CT, etc.) can help narrow things down for certain routes. Or give you a clue of what to look for.

I agree. It was interesting for me to learn why California numbered their highways the way they did. When I was young, I always noticed how 23 and 27 were close together, but never knew why. Then I found this forum and learned about the original 1934 pattern. And came to like it a lot. Did some theory crafting about what numbers new routes would be assigned had the pattern been more closely maintained.

[Quillz]

A great many in this hobby have instilled in me the virtues of non-grid and non-pattern based numerical chaos.  Disorder is so much more interesting than order.

If disorder doesn't have order to be disordered against, is it really all that interesting?

I suppose not.  But there is several cliche west coast road opinions around driving me to a mad embrace of chaos:

1.  I-238 hate.
2.  The assumption that I-40 west of Barstow is necessary. 
3.  CA 99 should be I-7 or I-9.
4.  The Interstates in Hawaii should be numbered 1, 2 and 3 for grid perfection.

I'd argue I-11 being "out of grid" was also a thing.  Amusingly now that it has been extended to NV 157 nobody really has complained about how it is placed in the grid.

I didn't like I-11 if it was strictly between Vegas and Phoenix. Any kind of extension (especially if it ever reached Reno in the future), would "fix" it and I'd be fine with it.

But over the years, I've also been kind of a fan of just upgrading US highways to interstate standards and leaving the original number. I don't see the issue with US-93 just being US-93.

[Max Rockatansky]

A great many in this hobby have instilled in me the virtues of non-grid and non-pattern based numerical chaos.  Disorder is so much more interesting than order.

If disorder doesn't have order to be disordered against, is it really all that interesting?

I suppose not.  But there is several cliche west coast road opinions around driving me to a mad embrace of chaos:

1.  I-238 hate.
2.  The assumption that I-40 west of Barstow is necessary. 
3.  CA 99 should be I-7 or I-9.
4.  The Interstates in Hawaii should be numbered 1, 2 and 3 for grid perfection.

I'd argue I-11 being "out of grid" was also a thing.  Amusingly now that it has been extended to NV 157 nobody really has complained about how it is placed in the grid.

I didn't like I-11 if it was strictly between Vegas and Phoenix. Any kind of extension (especially if it ever reached Reno in the future), would "fix" it and I'd be fine with it.

But over the years, I've also been kind of a fan of just upgrading US highways to interstate standards and leaving the original number. I don't see the issue with US-93 just being US-93.

I look to US 101 between SF and LA has how a non-Interstate corridor should be upgraded.  There aren't traffic lights but the corridor is mostly only full limited access where it needs to be.  There isn't much in Arizona that US 93 presently uses that couldn't get by as four lane expressway. 

[TheStranger]

I look to US 101 between SF and LA has how a non-Interstate corridor should be upgraded.  There aren't traffic lights but the corridor is mostly only full limited access where it needs to be.  There isn't much in Arizona that US 93 presently uses that couldn't get by as four lane expressway. 

I remember taking a Disneyland trip in November 1992 where my family used 101 through Santa Barbara...I missed out on the infamous "Turn Engine Off" signs at the downtown stoplights that were there just months earlier!

[Scott5114]

To me, growing up in Wisconsin with no real system to its state highways (other than 2dwis are more major than 3dwis), I realized that there is no need for any sort of grid. Even in states with grids, I fail to see how it helps with navigation these days. Most of the travelling public likely has only a passing knowledge that it even exists.

Nevada's numbering system is done by importance of highway and then by the county the route is in. Of course this isn't useful at all for navigation because Nevada's counties are so large you basically never end up in one without realizing it. And then you realize that numbering systems are done to make the system easy for the DOT to navigate, and with this realization you achieve enlightenment.

[TheStranger]

IMO, the most important aspect of navigation is...

...making sure a route is signed at all.

(sideyeing Caltrans relinquishment policies + the "let's hide a US route for 300 miles" thing that happens elsewhere)

I do fully understand not wanting excessive concurrencies, etc.  I do get the idea of simplifying signage so that we don't have message overload.

I definitely understand the "why sign a short Interstate route that is in the middle of a longer US route freeway" thing, i.e. I-124 and I-296 being hidden.  Sure.

California's "signing a route is done to show that CalTrans maintains the road" approach though is very far removed from the original CSAA/ACSC 1930s campaign of "sign roads so people know where they are going".

If municipalities already see value in making sure streets have names and regular street blade signage, then that philosophy is also what determines the success of any route numbering practice.  It's very amusing in this regard that Historic US 40 in Fairfield is signed infinitely better (almost excessively so) than the entirety of some actual, non-hidden California state routes like 221 and the Palmdale-Victorville stretch of 18!

[Max Rockatansky]

I get why designating "new" US Routes under 300 miles in a single state is undesirable.  I don't get the rationale behind deleting those routes when they existed prior to the edict.  A lot of states ask for deletions and turn around only to use the same highway number (see US 299 becoming CA 299).

[TheStranger]

I get why designating "new" US Routes under 300 miles in a single state is undesirable.  I don't get the rationale behind deleting those routes when they existed prior to the edict.  A lot of states ask for deletions and turn around only to use the same highway number (see US 299 becoming CA 299).

I get the sense the states assumed that AASHO/AASHTO would be mandating changes...

Only to find that that they don't really have the power to do that in the present day, thus the US 377 extension, I-99, I-69C/E/W, I-27N.

Like functionally, California could have done nothing with US 399, 299, and the Morro Bay-Barstow part of US 466 after 1963 had they realized this (and they might not have at the time, given how many Interstate number suggestions from CA like I-76 and I-30 were being rejected in that era) - with something like US 46 in New Jersey continuing to survive to this day!

(That being said, not sure if 399 and 466 truly reflected commute/driving patterns that are still in place now, given that both were replaced with multiple designations)

I've always been of the mindset that 46 is a number derived from the previous 466 designation, though don't have paper proof of that. 

IIRC there was that one CHPW article from the early sixties that I've cited here before, but can't remember it, where one of the rationales to switch US 99 to CA 99 was to "use the more visible white-on-green shield."

[Max Rockatansky]

The January/February 1964 CHPw volume noted the green shield tested better for visibility.  I don't recall it saying anything about US 99 though.  The Division of Highways didn't ask AASHO for a deletion until June 1965.

[TheStranger]

The January/February 1964 CHPw volume noted the green shield tested better for visibility.  I don't recall it saying anything about US 99 though.  The Division of Highways didn't ask AASHO for a deletion until June 1965.

In that vein:

It's fascinating to look back at the 1964 renumbering with the hindsight of the currently neutered AASHTO and the reality that numerous intrastate US routes have survived for 6 decades since that time period:

- 99 easily could have stayed as an independent route from Wheeler Ridge to Portland, given not only the significant length of CA 99, but also the OR 99E/W segments.  Would CA 86 have stayed part of 99 or would that have been fated to be an separate route, given the significant distance from Los Angeles?

- 299 as a US route probably would still end at 395, with maybe CA 299 using that segment that goes into the desert void in Nevada east of 395.

- IIRC, today's 33 freeway in Ventura was explicitly proposed as a US 399 upgrade.

- 466 is interesting because of how 58 has become the more important routing west of Bakersfield, to Buttonwillow and I-5.  Would 466 have followed that, then continued onto 46 and 41?  No way of knowing, though the 58 (former 466) and Westside Parkway (new 58) corridor were submitted as interstate then rejected ca. 1968 if I am not mistaken.

- Would 60 have survived, given the length of the independent CA 60?  Roadgeeks have oft-suggested using CA 62 as a way to join US 60 and CA 60; I'm reminded of how Michigan went the path of moving US 12 away from I-94 and towards US 112 rather than truncating 12 (but then went the other way for US 27/127).

- 395 survived post-1964 and wasn't slated to be cut back until 1969 anyway when I-15/Route 15 was extended from the then-Colton terminus to Barrio Logan.

- DEFINITELY fictional: Kinda surprised that unlike the canceled Beverly Hills Freeway or the iconic Arroyo Seco Parkway (Pasadena Freeway) that the planned CA 30 was never viewed as a potential US 66 realignment. Arguably with National Old Trails Highway, old 66 is somewhat more independent of the nearby interstates in a surprising amount of its run in CA.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't envision a scenario in which US 66 doesn't get truncated out of the western states.  There just wasn't enough non-Interstate surface mileage worth keeping to justify it remaining. 

Interestingly US 99 was truncated to Los Angeles in 1963.  That huge multiplex on I-10 just wasn't going to cut it for the Division of Highways.

US 60 technically ended in Blythe until someone realized the oversight in the 1980s.  That was well onto the era when modern CA 62 had been established.

US 399 briefly was a more modern highway than US 99 until Ridge Route Alternate got built.  After that the Maricopa Highway didn't have much use.  It should have been deleted prior to 1963 IMO.

US 299 is one of those roads you just don't realize how regionally important it is until you've been on it.  Having it stay as a US Route would have been fine. 

US 466 would have made for a fine highway if it was just a standalone west of Barstow.  I don't think people would be asking for I-40 if the corridor had US Route shields on it.

US 70 shouldn't have made it to California in the first place.  There was plenty of opportunities to get it onto an independent routing in the 1930s (like CA 74 and 740).

US 40 and US 80 like 66 were just straight replaced by Interstates.  US 6 should have gone over Tioga Pass instead of south along US 395 in the late 1930s.  The current end of US 50 is fine and where it should be near Sacramento.

[Quillz]

IMO, the most important aspect of navigation is...

...making sure a route is signed at all.

Yes, this is what I have long believed. Routes are first and foremost for navigation. They should be signed. Period. The average motorist does not know and does not care that CA-2 is maintained by Santa Monica within the city limits. What they probably do care about is why it's not signed, especially if they are trying to navigate without GPS (which can still happen today, especially with older boomers like my parents). Concepts like relinquishment are perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the routes are signed. This is supposed to happen, but never does.

I'm actually okay with California's idea of not having concurrencies when they are clearly redundant. I used to not like it, but I realized it's actually not a bad idea. Since you can't be on CA-1 without being on US-101 at times, just signing the more important route makes sense. It's when you have actual equal-level concurrencies (say, CA-44 and CA-89), that you need concurrent signage. Especially when they ultimately go in different directions.

It goes both ways. I don't think states that sign every single state route to the point you'll have 5-6 concurrencies is necessary, but I can appreciate they are at least signed. Doing the extreme in the other direction isn't any more useful, either. (Looking at you, CA-190 which clearly goes across the Sierra but can't technically be signed because not state maintained).

[Max Rockatansky]

Heh, now I'm reminded of when I proposed Sequoia National Forest Route 190 on one of these Fictional threads for Sherman Pass Road. 

The thing that gets me with CA 190 is that got built all the way to Horseshoe Meadows (over 10,000 feet).  That super cool road was relinquished in favor of an expressway alignment that never got built through the Kern River Fault.