Documents now up http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx
Approved if not otherwise stated, details via the document.
AL US278 relocation (Cullman area) - conditionally approved:Need to know disposition of existing route
AL US331 relocation (Montgomery)
AR US49B recognition (Brookland)
AR US49 relocation (Brookland)
AR US63B recognise (Bono)
AR US63 relocation (Bono)
AR US167B recognition (Sheridan)
AR US167 relocation (Sheridan)
LA I-49 extension (I-220 - Arkansas)
MD I-70 elimination (inside Baltimore Belt)
MN US14 relocation (Owatonna, Waseca and Janesville bypass) - conditionally approved: log required
NE US34 relocation (over US75 and new alignment)
NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed
NC US401 relocation (Rolesville)
NC US401 Business recognition (Rolesville)
ND US85 relocation (Alexander)
ND US85 Business addition (Alexander)
ND US85 relocation (Watford City)
ND US85 Business addition (Watford City)
TN US70/11 relocation (Knoxville) - conditionally approved (log required)
TX I-69 extension (inside I-610) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69C extension (Edinburg) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69E extension (Robstown) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69W extension (Laredo) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX US59 relocation (Laredo) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX US59 Business recognition (Laredo)
NV Future I-11 establish (AZ to I-215) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
Bicycle routes
DC USBR50 establish
IL USBR37 establish
IL USBR36 establish
MA USBR1 establish
OH USBR50 establish
WA USBR10 establish
Nothing from California, again.
Quote from: rschen7754 on May 30, 2014, 11:37:55 AM
Nothing from California, again.
This makes me wonder: has California ever signed any Interstate/US route without seeking AASHTO permission? Technically I-80 between US 101 and the Bay Bridge has qualified for that status since 1968, but that HAD been previously approved and signed from the late 50s onward so that has always struck me as more of a bizarre FHWA technicality, as opposed to say Oklahoma's initiative in signing US 377 despite initial AASHTO disapproval.
15 between 8 and 805 is complete (though the 15/94 interchange hasn't been upgraded yet) and 210 has been completed for some time, save finishing touches to the 210/215 junction. (And hey, with the fourth Caldecott Tunnel bore open, I wonder how much longer 24 and 980 will remain as two numbers for the same corridor)
So, how long does it usually take FHWA to approve a routing or change that AASHTO conditionally approves?
Quote from: english si on May 30, 2014, 10:56:54 AM
NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed
I find that approval interesting since normally the AASHTO balks at requests that don't have a companion request from the other state (PA in this case) and will not approve till they have it.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 30, 2014, 11:47:12 AM
This makes me wonder: has California ever signed any Interstate/US route without seeking AASHTO permission?
I-905 for a brief while? was that done without permission?
also what about such goofery as co-signing I-5 on the southernmost segment of US-101, or cosigning I-405 on the northernmost segment of CA-73? those could be made explicitly correct with the addition of "TO" banners, but honestly I don't find them all that confusing so they can stay as is.
Quote from: txstateends on May 30, 2014, 11:55:52 AM
So, how long does it usually take FHWA to approve a routing or change that AASHTO conditionally approves?
Depends on how long it takes the DOT to ask for it, I guess!
I think it is only due to the FHWA's trademark on the interstate shield that they need approval from the FHWA. The new interstate routes put forward this time are all interstate-by-law, and IIRC the number is written into law, so the FHWA can't actually do anything and even submitting to AASHTO is a mere courtesy.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on May 30, 2014, 12:41:37 PMI find that approval interesting since normally the AASHTO balks at requests that don't have a companion request from the other state (PA in this case) and will not approve till they have it.
True, ditto the AR request done last time that this LA request is the compliment to. Probably the guys there realised that I-99 and I-49 (and Fut-11) requests can't be denied without opening a big can of worms.
NY I-99 joins NC I-74 and MS I-69 as interstates that end at a state line.
Quote from: english si on May 30, 2014, 10:56:54 AM
MD I-70 elimination (inside Baltimore Belt)
Wow, took MD this long to finally smell the roses. Reading up on the reason for them doing this now (rebuilding the park & ride and eliminating the MD 122 interchange), I'm surprised there was never any discussion or inkling of this project on this board.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 30, 2014, 12:58:29 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 30, 2014, 11:47:12 AM
This makes me wonder: has California ever signed any Interstate/US route without seeking AASHTO permission?
I-905 for a brief while? was that done without permission?
Have any interstate shields gone up there? I've never seen one in the few times I've been around the 5/905 junction.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 30, 2014, 12:58:29 PM
also what about such goofery as co-signing I-5 on the southernmost segment of US-101, or cosigning I-405 on the northernmost segment of CA-73? those could be made explicitly correct with the addition of "TO" banners, but honestly I don't find them all that confusing so they can stay as is.
A couple of much older (long gone) cases that also fit this:
80/101 cosigned on the westbound San Francisco Skyway in the 1980s: reference to a concurrency (80/101 on the Central Freeway) that existed 1956-1968. I guess to an extent that's very similar to the 5/101 south signage in the downtown slot, when 5/101 did continue together until 1968 past the East Los Angeles Interchange.
US 70 signed from southbound 101 at the Four-Level ca. 1959-1960: would that be like our Route 73 example? Another active implied-TO sign in that vein is the 238/580 stuff along the Nimitz Freeway (in comparison to the 380 TO 280 signage on 101 near SFO).
Quote from: TheStranger on May 30, 2014, 01:28:07 PM
Have any interstate shields gone up there? I've never seen one in the few times I've been around the 5/905 junction.
I think there are some photos on AARoads that Andy Field took, but I cannot seem to find them offhand. the signs were taken down by the early 2000s.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 30, 2014, 02:09:00 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 30, 2014, 01:28:07 PM
Have any interstate shields gone up there? I've never seen one in the few times I've been around the 5/905 junction.
I think there are some photos on AARoads that Andy Field took, but I cannot seem to find them offhand. the signs were taken down by the early 2000s.
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_002_05a.jpg)
2003 photo from the main guide for I-5: https://www.aaroads.com/california/i-005na_ca.html
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on May 30, 2014, 12:41:37 PM
Quote from: english si on May 30, 2014, 10:56:54 AM
NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed
I find that approval interesting since normally the AASHTO balks at requests that don't have a companion request from the other state (PA in this case) and will not approve till they have it.
That applies to the US 34 realignment in Nebraska too- I'm surprised AASHTO approved it without Iowa submitting their side of the new bridge too.
Shame about I-70. It's a reasonable thing to do, but the I-70 Park & Ride has to be the most unique Interstate terminus in the system.
I-49 in LA wasn't already approved?
I-11 now has official status!
Quote from: english si on May 30, 2014, 10:56:54 AM
NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed
Does this mean US 15 reverts back on its old alignment or will it stay on the freeway? I don't recall US 15 officially approved on this route.
As for it being established in NY while PA still has to wait till sections are done, I don't have an issue with this. NY got it done.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 30, 2014, 05:26:55 PM
Quote from: english si on May 30, 2014, 10:56:54 AM
NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed
Does this mean US 15 reverts back on its old alignment or will it stay on the freeway? I don't recall US 15 officially approved on this route.
As for it being established in NY while PA still has to wait till sections are done, I don't have an issue with this. NY got it done.
...does anyone know what sections of future I-99 in PA are not eligible yet, and why?
Quote from: USRN Report May 29 2014- Arkansas: Re-designation of 1-540 from 1-40 to U.S. 62 as 1-49, and Designation of U.S. 71 from U.S. 62 to U.S. 71 Business as 1-49 (file is bennet.pdf)
(emphasis added)
I've heard of the public getting confused on the whole I- version 1xx, but it is extremely surprising to find it in an AASHTO document.
US 11 and US 70 in Knoxville -- put on a new route, or being relocated from one existing route to another?
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 30, 2014, 05:26:55 PM
Quote from: english si on May 30, 2014, 10:56:54 AM
NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed
Does this mean US 15 reverts back on its old alignment or will it stay on the freeway? I don't recall US 15 officially approved on this route.
As for it being established in NY while PA still has to wait till sections are done, I don't have an issue with this. NY got it done.
Given that there are no interchanges between the PA line and Presho, and that both of those freeway segments were US 15 before the new freeway was built, I'm not sure that official approval would have been needed to move it.
As for what happens, it's a question of where you're looking:
-Officially (Federal): Unless AASHTO suddenly decides to change their minds about US highways ending at state lines, US 15 will overlap with I-99 until the end of time as PennDOT has no desire to decommission it even after they finish their segment of I-99.
-Signage: Co-signed for a little while, then eased out to I-99 as signage gets replaced.
-Officially (NYSDOT): It's essentially I-99 only already
Either way, old US 15 is being transferred to Steuben County.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 30, 2014, 09:21:46 PM
US 11 and US 70 in Knoxville -- put on a new route, or being relocated from one existing route to another?
TN 158 along the river plus Hall of Fame Dr IIRC...
Mapmikey
Quote from: english si on May 30, 2014, 01:03:57 PM
I think it is only due to the FHWA's trademark on the interstate shield that they need approval from the FHWA. The new interstate routes put forward this time are all interstate-by-law, and IIRC the number is written into law, so the FHWA can't actually do anything and even submitting to AASHTO is a mere courtesy.
Actually, the trademark is held by AASHTO, not FHWA.
Did OH ever submit the US 33 relocation at Nelsonville? I don't recall seeing the paperwork for that one...
I may be incorrect, but FHWA's approval is mostly certification that the route meets the Interstate highway standards, correct?
That's part of it, but FHWA also decides if the route is a logical addition (or elimination as the case may be) to (from) the Interstate system...Congressional action notwithstanding. Case-in-point: I-495 NC. Eliminating I-70 between I-695 and the park-and-ride would be an example of the logical elimination.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 30, 2014, 05:26:55 PM
Quote from: english si on May 30, 2014, 10:56:54 AM
NY I-99 establish (PA to I-86) - conditionally approved: FHWA approval needed
As for it being established in NY while PA still has to wait till sections are done, I don't have an issue with this. NY got it done.
IMO, it should just go all the way down to I-180 for now rather than just disappear at the state line.
Of course, once NY signs their section, I could easily see the politicians of the counties & communities along the US-15 / Future I-99 corridor putting pressure on the state to get PennDOT to get it signed (for all the economic benefits and stuff politicians like to tout) down to I-180.
Unfortunately, PennDOT forgot to cross every t and dot every i, and some ramps on the road north of Williamsport don't actually meet interstate standards.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 30, 2014, 11:47:12 AM
Quote from: rschen7754 on May 30, 2014, 11:37:55 AM
Nothing from California, again.
This makes me wonder: has California ever signed any Interstate/US route without seeking AASHTO permission? Technically I-80 between US 101 and the Bay Bridge has qualified for that status since 1968, but that HAD been previously approved and signed from the late 50s onward so that has always struck me as more of a bizarre FHWA technicality, as opposed to say Oklahoma's initiative in signing US 377 despite initial AASHTO disapproval.
15 between 8 and 805 is complete (though the 15/94 interchange hasn't been upgraded yet) and 210 has been completed for some time, save finishing touches to the 210/215 junction. (And hey, with the fourth Caldecott Tunnel bore open, I wonder how much longer 24 and 980 will remain as two numbers for the same corridor)
I wonder if Caltrans considers AASHTO approval a priority? It seems like it's just as good to them to sign would-be Interstate highways as state routes (e.g., 15, 210, 905, etc.) and not go through the AASHTO and/or FHWA process to obtain approval and get certain segments such as those described above as Interstate highways. I had asked a Caltrans official a while ago about plans to convert SR 15 to I-15, and she told me that there were no such plans, that SR 15 is fine. Who knows if there are plans for converting SR 15 to I-15 now, if they are waiting until SR 15/94 interchange is upgraded, or if there are no foreseeable plans (and SR 15 will remain SR 15 forevermore)?
Quote from: andy3175 on June 01, 2014, 03:42:40 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 30, 2014, 11:47:12 AM
Quote from: rschen7754 on May 30, 2014, 11:37:55 AM
Nothing from California, again.
This makes me wonder: has California ever signed any Interstate/US route without seeking AASHTO permission? Technically I-80 between US 101 and the Bay Bridge has qualified for that status since 1968, but that HAD been previously approved and signed from the late 50s onward so that has always struck me as more of a bizarre FHWA technicality, as opposed to say Oklahoma's initiative in signing US 377 despite initial AASHTO disapproval.
15 between 8 and 805 is complete (though the 15/94 interchange hasn't been upgraded yet) and 210 has been completed for some time, save finishing touches to the 210/215 junction. (And hey, with the fourth Caldecott Tunnel bore open, I wonder how much longer 24 and 980 will remain as two numbers for the same corridor)
I wonder if Caltrans considers AASHTO approval a priority? It seems like it's just as good to them to sign would-be Interstate highways as state routes (e.g., 15, 210, 905, etc.) and not go through the AASHTO and/or FHWA process to obtain approval and get certain segments such as those described above as Interstate highways. I had asked a Caltrans official a while ago about plans to convert SR 15 to I-15, and she told me that there were no such plans, that SR 15 is fine. Who knows if there are plans for converting SR 15 to I-15 now, if they are waiting until SR 15/94 interchange is upgraded, or if there are no foreseeable plans (and SR 15 will remain SR 15 forevermore)?
I know (based on Faigin's page) that 210 east of 57 was submitted in the past to (and rejected by) AASHTO; 15 and 905 were supposed to be "pending" based on previously approved submissions.
NJDOT still hasn't applied for the re-routing of US-9 onto the GSP at Great Egg Harbor (the Beesley's Point Bridge is being demolished). They also haven't applied to re-route US-322 along the new Mullica Hill bypass (county maintained).
Quote from: TheStranger on June 01, 2014, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on June 01, 2014, 03:42:40 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 30, 2014, 11:47:12 AM
Quote from: rschen7754 on May 30, 2014, 11:37:55 AM
Nothing from California, again.
This makes me wonder: has California ever signed any Interstate/US route without seeking AASHTO permission? Technically I-80 between US 101 and the Bay Bridge has qualified for that status since 1968, but that HAD been previously approved and signed from the late 50s onward so that has always struck me as more of a bizarre FHWA technicality, as opposed to say Oklahoma's initiative in signing US 377 despite initial AASHTO disapproval.
15 between 8 and 805 is complete (though the 15/94 interchange hasn't been upgraded yet) and 210 has been completed for some time, save finishing touches to the 210/215 junction. (And hey, with the fourth Caldecott Tunnel bore open, I wonder how much longer 24 and 980 will remain as two numbers for the same corridor)
I wonder if Caltrans considers AASHTO approval a priority? It seems like it's just as good to them to sign would-be Interstate highways as state routes (e.g., 15, 210, 905, etc.) and not go through the AASHTO and/or FHWA process to obtain approval and get certain segments such as those described above as Interstate highways. I had asked a Caltrans official a while ago about plans to convert SR 15 to I-15, and she told me that there were no such plans, that SR 15 is fine. Who knows if there are plans for converting SR 15 to I-15 now, if they are waiting until SR 15/94 interchange is upgraded, or if there are no foreseeable plans (and SR 15 will remain SR 15 forevermore)?
I know (based on Faigin's page) that 210 east of 57 was submitted in the past to (and rejected by) AASHTO; 15 and 905 were supposed to be "pending" based on previously approved submissions.
The only reference I could find for California entering any sort of application to AASHTO for route numbering within the last 20 years was in 1998 and 1999, when the minutes noted an application submitted by California that was pulled back before AASHTO took any action on it. Unfortunately, there is no on-line copy of the California application from that year. Faigin's site supports this as related to I-210.
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/1999-USRN_Cmte.pdf
QuoteThe application from California was withdrawn by the California DOT and therefore not considered by the Committee.
http://www.cahighways.org/itypes.html
QuoteNovember 6, 1998
Route, Description, Status
I-210
Eliminate I-210 from (former) Route 30 to I-10 (Pomona); New routing of I-210 along (former) Route 30 to I-15 to I-10, San Dimas to Redlands, 42.5 mi
Submitted, but deferred
April 16, 1999
Route, Description, Status
I-210
Eliminate I-210 from (former) Route 30 to I-10 (Pomona); New routing of I-210 along (former) Route 30 to I-15 to I-10, San Dimas to Redlands, 42.5 mi
Submitted, then withdrawn
As for SR 905, I wonder if AASHTO approval is needed given the 1984 FHWA approval that both my site and Faigin's site reference as a future I-905 (non-chargeable interstate highway). My site has a couple of relevant quotes, as does a San Diego Union Tribune article from 2010:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/04/us-grants-202m-otay-mesa-interchange-improvements/
QuoteJust to the east of the 805/905 interchange a $432 million construction project is turning the final 6.4 miles of SR 905 into a major thoroughfare all the way to the border. The work is expected to be finished by 2012. The entire east-west highway will eventually be dedesignate (I think they mean "redesignated as") Interstate 905, from its connection at I-5 to the border, only the second U.S. interstate to be linked to Mexico.
"Through this Recovery grant, we are helping to improve the safety and efficiency of one of America's largest ports of entry," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in a prepared statement.
Not to be Joe-topic-change here, but why the hell wasn't this released in a PDF format?
Quote from: Mr. Matté on May 30, 2014, 01:23:56 PM
Quote from: english si on May 30, 2014, 10:56:54 AM
MD I-70 elimination (inside Baltimore Belt)
Wow, took MD this long to finally smell the roses. Reading up on the reason for them doing this now (rebuilding the park & ride and eliminating the MD 122 interchange), I'm surprised there was never any discussion or inkling of this project on this board.
MD doesn't really bother to do much with its abandoned highway stubs until another project comes along. The very western end of I-170 was demolished with the expansion of the MARC train parking lot. The old BGS for the unbuilt Windlass Freeway stayed in place until construction and resigning occured in that area. As for I-70, this reconstruction incentive is so that the red line light rail can use part of the road right of way. However, since the MTA missed the most recent budget deadline for the red line, its future is questionable (or will at least be severely delayed).