News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting

Started by LM117, October 03, 2019, 07:38:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

LM117

I figured I'd go ahead and get a thread ready since AASHTO's fall meeting in St. Louis starts this Saturday and ends next Wednesday.

https://route.transportation.org
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette


nexus73

Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

LM117

#2
I'm hoping that US-70 Bypass in Goldsboro, NC goes bye-bye, since FHWA has already given NCDOT permission to sign it as I-42.  There's no reason for the US-70 Bypass designation to exist anymore.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

sparker

Quote from: nexus73 on October 04, 2019, 12:41:17 AM
Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick

Only if Caltrans requests it.  Considering their recent abandonment of the HDC freeway/tollway under pressure from urbanist-RE/T groups, calling attention to a freeway in any form might not be high on their priority list.  Since those groups seem to become apoplectic at the mention of the term "Interstate", Caltrans might simply wish to avoid their incessant nagging if nothing else!

oscar

Quote from: sparker on October 06, 2019, 01:59:12 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on October 04, 2019, 12:41:17 AM
Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick

Only if Caltrans requests it.  Considering their recent abandonment of the HDC freeway/tollway under pressure from urbanist-RE/T groups, calling attention to a freeway in any form might not be high on their priority list.  Since those groups seem to become apoplectic at the mention of the term "Interstate", Caltrans might simply wish to avoid their incessant nagging if nothing else!

New Interstate designations, even for uncontroversial already-built freeway corridors, have long been low on Caltrans' priority list. CA 15 and CA 905 also languish in the potential Interstate designation queue.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Roadsguy

Quote from: oscar on October 06, 2019, 04:04:39 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 06, 2019, 01:59:12 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on October 04, 2019, 12:41:17 AM
Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick

Only if Caltrans requests it.  Considering their recent abandonment of the HDC freeway/tollway under pressure from urbanist-RE/T groups, calling attention to a freeway in any form might not be high on their priority list.  Since those groups seem to become apoplectic at the mention of the term "Interstate", Caltrans might simply wish to avoid their incessant nagging if nothing else!

New Interstate designations, even for uncontroversial already-built freeway corridors, have long been low on Caltrans' priority list. CA 15 and CA 905 also languish in the potential Interstate designation queue.

Isn't CA 15 still waiting on some upgrades to bring it fully to Interstate standards?
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

Beltway

Quote from: Roadsguy on October 06, 2019, 09:20:13 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 06, 2019, 04:04:39 AM
New Interstate designations, even for uncontroversial already-built freeway corridors, have long been low on Caltrans' priority list. CA 15 and CA 905 also languish in the potential Interstate designation queue.
Isn't CA 15 still waiting on some upgrades to bring it fully to Interstate standards?
How about VA-895, VA-288 and VA-164?   I provided pages of advocacy documentation 2 years ago to VDOT upper management about getting these incorporated into the Interstate system, and they weren't interested, even claimed that the first two are not built to full Interstate standards, which I disputed using AASHTO documents.

They did make the valid statement that there would be higher internal as well as FHWA responsibilities and policies associated having a route in a higher system.  More to it than just replacing the route signs.  Still, get it done and it is done once and for all.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

vdeane

CA 210 and CA 905 (I think CA 15 as well, but am not 100% positive) were originally built with the intention of adding them to the interstate system.  I don't think the VA examples were.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

US 89

Quote from: nexus73 on October 04, 2019, 12:41:17 AM
Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

If wikipoo is right, the section east of SR 259 is still not up to interstate standards.

Beltway

Quote from: vdeane on October 06, 2019, 08:46:51 PM
I don't think the VA examples were.

VA-895 was, that is where the number came from, why it was lifted out of the secondary system scheme (6xx and above) for use on that highway.  An Interstate connector between I-95 and I-295.

VA-288 and VA-164 were not, but at least in the case of VA-288 it conceptually is part of the same outer loop system as I-295.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

mgk920


NWI_Irish96

Wondering if IN and KY will ever get around to getting IN 265/KY 841 designated as I-265 to get the two sections connected.
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

LM117

Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2019, 02:49:14 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 06, 2019, 09:20:13 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 06, 2019, 04:04:39 AM
New Interstate designations, even for uncontroversial already-built freeway corridors, have long been low on Caltrans' priority list. CA 15 and CA 905 also languish in the potential Interstate designation queue.
Isn't CA 15 still waiting on some upgrades to bring it fully to Interstate standards?
How about VA-895, VA-288 and VA-164?   I provided pages of advocacy documentation 2 years ago to VDOT upper management about getting these incorporated into the Interstate system, and they weren't interested, even claimed that the first two are not built to full Interstate standards, which I disputed using AASHTO documents.

They did make the valid statement that there would be higher internal as well as FHWA responsibilities and policies associated having a route in a higher system.  More to it than just replacing the route signs.  Still, get it done and it is done once and for all.

Virginia's aversion to adding new interstates never really made sense to me. Having VA-288 become I-695 would be ideal.

I know people like to drop a deuce on NC for their pursuit of new interstates, but the majority of their recent additions makes sense.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

Alex

Quote from: cabiness42 on October 07, 2019, 07:46:55 AM
Wondering if IN and KY will ever get around to getting IN 265/KY 841 designated as I-265 to get the two sections connected.

AASHTO approved the redesignation of them at the Spring 2019 meeting:

QuoteItem No. 9 - State: Indiana Route: I-265 Action:
Extension of an Interstate Route Between I-65 and I-71
Description: To connect routing of two lengths of freeway in Indiana and Kentucky that are currently routed as I-265. The segment in question is currently routed as Indiana State Road 265 in Indiana and Kentucky State Road 841 in Kentucky. The roadway serves as a beltway around the north, east, and south sides of Louisville.

Item No. 12 - State: Kentucky Route: I-265
Action: Extension of an Interstate Route Between I-65 and I-71
Description: To connect routing of two freeways in Kentucky and Indiana that are currently routed as 1-265. The extension in question is currently routed as Indiana State Road 265 and Kentucky State Highway 841 (Gene Snyder Freeway). The roadway serves as a Bypass around the north, east, and south sides of Louisville, Kentucky.

There have been no sign changes yet?

NWI_Irish96

Quote from: Alex on October 07, 2019, 10:54:41 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 07, 2019, 07:46:55 AM
Wondering if IN and KY will ever get around to getting IN 265/KY 841 designated as I-265 to get the two sections connected.

AASHTO approved the redesignation of them at the Spring 2019 meeting:

QuoteItem No. 9 - State: Indiana Route: I-265 Action:
Extension of an Interstate Route Between I-65 and I-71
Description: To connect routing of two lengths of freeway in Indiana and Kentucky that are currently routed as I-265. The segment in question is currently routed as Indiana State Road 265 in Indiana and Kentucky State Road 841 in Kentucky. The roadway serves as a beltway around the north, east, and south sides of Louisville.

Item No. 12 - State: Kentucky Route: I-265
Action: Extension of an Interstate Route Between I-65 and I-71
Description: To connect routing of two freeways in Kentucky and Indiana that are currently routed as 1-265. The extension in question is currently routed as Indiana State Road 265 and Kentucky State Highway 841 (Gene Snyder Freeway). The roadway serves as a Bypass around the north, east, and south sides of Louisville, Kentucky.

There have been no sign changes yet?

As of 2 weeks ago, there were no sign changes on the Indiana side.  Haven't been on the Kentucky side in a while. 
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

CNGL-Leudimin

If there are no new US Routes approved on this meeting, then the 2010s will become the first decade not to see any. I'm pretty sure this will happen.
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

US71

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 07, 2019, 02:20:36 PM
If there are no new US Routes approved on this meeting, then the 2010s will become the first decade not to see any. I'm pretty sure this will happen.

Doesn't matter. States will do what they want, anyway.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

ClassicHasClass

Quote from: Roadsguy on October 06, 2019, 09:20:13 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 06, 2019, 04:04:39 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 06, 2019, 01:59:12 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on October 04, 2019, 12:41:17 AM
Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick

Only if Caltrans requests it.  Considering their recent abandonment of the HDC freeway/tollway under pressure from urbanist-RE/T groups, calling attention to a freeway in any form might not be high on their priority list.  Since those groups seem to become apoplectic at the mention of the term "Interstate", Caltrans might simply wish to avoid their incessant nagging if nothing else!

New Interstate designations, even for uncontroversial already-built freeway corridors, have long been low on Caltrans' priority list. CA 15 and CA 905 also languish in the potential Interstate designation queue.

Isn't CA 15 still waiting on some upgrades to bring it fully to Interstate standards?

Yes, I think the CA 15-CA 94 interchange is still subpar. I also STR that there are some substandard sections of CA 210 on the old CA 30 Crosstown Fwy alignment.

Scott5114

Quote from: US71 on October 08, 2019, 10:21:32 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 07, 2019, 02:20:36 PM
If there are no new US Routes approved on this meeting, then the 2010s will become the first decade not to see any. I'm pretty sure this will happen.

Doesn't matter. States will do what they want, anyway.

Most of US-377 in Oklahoma is still "illegal"...
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

US 89

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 08, 2019, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: US71 on October 08, 2019, 10:21:32 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 07, 2019, 02:20:36 PM
If there are no new US Routes approved on this meeting, then the 2010s will become the first decade not to see any. I'm pretty sure this will happen.

Doesn't matter. States will do what they want, anyway.

Most of US-377 in Oklahoma is still "illegal"...

Is there any particular reason AASHTO wouldn't approve that? Makes perfect sense to me, and I wouldn't mind seeing it extended further up MSR 99 either.

usends

Quote from: US 89 on October 08, 2019, 03:57:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 08, 2019, 03:14:08 PM
Most of US-377 in Oklahoma is still "illegal"...
Is there any particular reason AASHTO wouldn't approve that? Makes perfect sense to me, and I wouldn't mind seeing it extended further up MSR 99 either.

See the last paragraph on this page for a couple reasons AASHO/AASHTO gave for rejecting the US 377 extension.
Quote from: https://www.usends.com/377.html
"...a few documents related to this: one stated that an extension was not approved because the road in question needed improvements in order to be considered compliant with standards for a primary route.  But another stated that the amount of US routes in that part of Oklahoma was too dense."
usends.com - US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history

Revive 755

Quote from: usends on October 08, 2019, 05:02:15 PM
See the last paragraph on this page for a couple reasons AASHO/AASHTO gave for rejecting the US 377 extension.
Quote from: https://www.usends.com/377.html
"...a few documents related to this: one stated that an extension was not approved because the road in question needed improvements in order to be considered compliant with standards for a primary route.  But another stated that the amount of US routes in that part of Oklahoma was too dense."

Considering the quality of some of the other US routes out there . . .

And if density is a concern, why were so many US routes allowed around Kansas City and Chicago?  With the latter, there is US 6, US 52, US 34, and US 30 going basically east-west in an ~35 mile stretch.

I think this qualifies as another fine example of AASHTO hypocrisy.

Bickendan

Will US 87 in Wyoming be rerouted to eliminate the gap?

rickmastfan67


vdeane

Quote from: Bickendan on October 08, 2019, 06:19:10 PM
Will US 87 in Wyoming be rerouted to eliminate the gap?
Only if the stalemate can be broken.  Wyoming wants it to go on WY 193, which AASHTO says doesn't meet standards.  AASHTO wants it to go on I-90.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.



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.