Since there does not seem to be a general thread for this so far:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2016.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2016.pdf)
Highlights:
* Extension of I-555 in Arkansas
* Iowa moves almost all of US 6 in Council Bluffs onto the interstate system
* Future I-36 and Future I-89 for North Carolina
* I-269 in Tennessee
* Start of I-14 in Texas
* Some sort of relocation for US 18 in Wisconsin around Waukesha, along with there apparently being a US 18 in West Virginia (typo).
There is a Bike US 176 in Virginia in there. Is this the first 3-digit USBR?
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 05, 2016, 10:59:31 PM
There is a Bike US 176 in Virginia in there. Is this the first 3-digit USBR?
Routes 108 and 208 in Alaska were designated in 2011. They're spurs of route 8.
WVDOH is finally filing for approval to relocate US 33 to Corridor H at Elkins. It's been signed along the new route they're seeking approval for since about 2002.
Quote from: Bitmapped on May 06, 2016, 08:39:14 AM
WVDOH is finally filing for approval to relocate US 33 to Corridor H at Elkins. It's been signed along the new route they're seeking approval for since about 2002.
Better late than never
If I was NCDOT I would have submitted I-38 instead of I-36 to force Caltrans to take action on I-238 :sombrero:.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 05, 2016, 10:59:31 PM
There is a Bike US 176 in Virginia in there. Is this the first 3-digit USBR?
There's also a USBR 621 in GA.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 05, 2016, 10:59:31 PM
There is a Bike US 176 in Virginia in there. Is this the first 3-digit USBR?
On the agenda - there is a discussion to set policy on three digit and lettered bike routes.
Quote from: Bitmapped on May 06, 2016, 08:39:14 AM
WVDOH is finally filing for approval to relocate US 33 to Corridor H at Elkins. It's been signed along the new route they're seeking approval for since about 2002.
Sounds like US 79 in Arkansas. Three new routes that have been open for several years and how AHTD is seeking recognition.
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 05, 2016, 10:51:17 PM* Iowa moves almost all of US 6 in Council Bluffs onto the interstate system
Why?
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 05, 2016, 10:51:17 PM
* Future I-36 and Future I-89 for North Carolina
Such was discussed in another thread; IMHO, I-42 and 46 should be used instead, especially if there's no plans for an extension of an I-89 corridor in VA.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 11:14:33 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 05, 2016, 10:51:17 PM* Iowa moves almost all of US 6 in Council Bluffs onto the interstate system
Why?
Why not?
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 05, 2016, 10:51:17 PM
* Future I-36 and Future I-89 for North Carolina
Such was discussed in another thread; IMHO, I-42 and 46 should be used instead, especially if there's no plans for an extension of an I-89 corridor in VA.
There may not be 'plans' but in the text of the 89 application reads, "The State of North
Carolina has coordinated with the Commonwealth of Virginia and they concur with the proposed I-89 route number."
You could argue that NC should have included some form of documentation from Virginia to support it - but just because there are currently no plans for extension of "89" into Virginia does not mean that they are not in favor.
Furthermore - we currently have two instances of an Interstate designation ending at a state line 74 at the NC/VA line and 99 at NY/PA. AASHTO did approve 99 in NY even without a endorsement from PA or even a similar application from PA.
.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 11:45:05 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 11:14:33 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 05, 2016, 10:51:17 PM* Iowa moves almost all of US 6 in Council Bluffs onto the interstate system
Why?
Why not?
Unless there's a legitimate reason for such (example: low height clearances for trucks along the current corridor); such appears to be a needless & pointless multiplexing.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 11:45:05 AMAASHTO did approve 99 in NY even without a endorsement from PA or even a similar application from PA.
You do realize that the selection of the number
99 was Rep. Bud Shuster's doing and he
legislated that I-99 designation in PA into existence. To my knowledge, that was the only case where such a tactic happened.
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 05, 2016, 10:51:17 PM
Highlights:
* I-269 in Tennessee
Seems odd to me that TDOT isn't pushing to designate the east-west segment from I-40 west to Millington at the same time, unless there are some non-obvious design deficiencies that need to be fixed first. Reviving the "bifurcation" of TN 385 just seems strange at this point.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 12:59:36 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 11:45:05 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 11:14:33 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 05, 2016, 10:51:17 PM* Iowa moves almost all of US 6 in Council Bluffs onto the interstate system
Why?
Why not?
Unless there's a legitimate reason for such (example: low height clearances for trucks along the current corridor); such appears to be a needless & pointless multiplexing.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 11:45:05 AMAASHTO did approve 99 in NY even without a endorsement from PA or even a similar application from PA.
You do realize that the selection of the number 99 was Rep. Bud Shuster's doing and he legislated that I-99 designation in PA into existence. To my knowledge, that was the only case where such a tactic happened.
Very aware. my point is that there is precedent of states applying for interstates ending at state lines (NC w/74 and NY w/99) and being approved.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 01:28:40 PMVery aware. my point is that there is precedent of states applying for interstates ending at state lines (NC w/74 and NY w/99) and being approved.
PA's I-99, in some form, was already in existence (i.e. active use) when NY applied to AASHTO for such. It's a reasonable assumption that ASSHTO already knew of PA's plans for extending I-99 further north; when it approved I-99 for NY.
The same can not be said for the Future/duplicate I-89 in VA; at present, no segment of it exists nor is in use.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 01:41:28 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 01:28:40 PMVery aware. my point is that there is precedent of states applying for interstates ending at state lines (NC w/74 and NY w/99) and being approved.
PA's I-99, in some form, was already in existence (i.e. active use) when NY applied to AASHTO for such. It's a reasonable assumption that ASSHTO already knew of PA's plans for extending I-99 further north; when it approved I-99 for NY.
The same can not be said for the Future/duplicate I-89 in VA; at present, no segment of it exists nor is in use.
Yes, however, like I-99 this is a legislatively mandated route. The only difference is there was not a number in the legislation. Furthermore, if NC wanted to they could argue that the segment from I-40 Exit 301 to US 64/264 Exit 429 as ready to be signed as an existing segment as that entire section is to Interstate standards.
Yes, AASHTO can reject it for a variety of reasons - and they could do it for your exact reason. However, needing Virginia to apply at the same time is not necessary (legislatively mandated and Virginia has concurred with the number - again I will concede that NC should have gotten something on VDOT letterhead documenting their concurrence) and there is precedent for it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 12:59:36 PM
Unless there's a legitimate reason for such (example: low height clearances for trucks along the current corridor); such appears to be a needless & pointless multiplexing.
It looks like they want to get commercial traffic off of the existing road and will relinquish a part of it to Council Bluffs. The rest they will have as a temporary state route.
Source is page 88 at the following link:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/US_Routes_Binder_ALtoIA.pdf
Quote from: mvak36 on May 06, 2016, 03:17:12 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 12:59:36 PM
Unless there's a legitimate reason for such (example: low height clearances for trucks along the current corridor); such appears to be a needless & pointless multiplexing.
It looks like they want to get commercial traffic off of the existing road and will relinquish a part of it to Council Bluffs. The rest they will have as a temporary state route.
Source is page 88 at the following link:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/US_Routes_Binder_ALtoIA.pdf
The city of Council Bluffs is taking over the stretch along West Broadway so that they can reconstruct it, hence the reroute.
http://www.nonpareilonline.com/news/local/with-plan-in-place-west-broadway-redevelopment-will-begin-next/article_c0365a17-2e53-55ee-a17e-9d022076e568.html
Surprising that they put up the documents before the meeting this time, rather than 2 weeks after...
For those not in the Southeast board, NCDOT quickly posted the new Interstate numbers decided by AASHTO. Here's the link: https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12558 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12558)
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 25, 2016, 07:55:41 PM
For those not in the Southeast board, NCDOT quickly posted the new Interstate numbers decided by AASHTO. Here's the link: https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12558 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12558)
42! And on Towel Day ;)
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 25, 2016, 07:55:41 PM
For those not in the Southeast board, NCDOT quickly posted the new Interstate numbers decided by AASHTO. Here's the link: https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12558 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12558)
Posted new route markers in the field? The press release indicates the only thing that's been posted so far is that press release, and actual Future I-42, etc. shields await FHWA approval.
I agree that Towel Day is a good day for any news relating to a route 42.
Quote from: oscar on May 25, 2016, 08:19:23 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 25, 2016, 07:55:41 PM
For those not in the Southeast board, NCDOT quickly posted the new Interstate numbers decided by AASHTO. Here's the link: https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12558 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12558)
Posted new route markers in the field? The press release indicates the only thing that's been posted so far is that press release, and actual Future I-42, etc. shields await FHWA approval.
LOL, that would be super fast... find out on Tuesday and signed on Wednesday. No, they just found out by AASHTO, there are no signs yet.
If one digs through the AASHTO app, the meeting minutes are now online (not yet on the route committee's website). Most requests were approved. As noted in this and other threads, AASHTO has approved I-42 instead of I-36 and I-87 instead of I-89, both still subject to FHWA approval.
Two requests were "approved with conditions". The US 441 relocation in Lake City, FL was approved on condition that AASHTO receive documentation where the relocated roadway was transferred from the city to FDOT. The US 6 relocation in Council Bluffs, IA was also approved with conditions, but the meeting minutes do not mention what those conditions are.
Two requests were denied, one of them being "I-14" in Texas. They state that number "is not acceptable", but will work with TxDOT on an appropriate number. The other denied request was the US 83 relocation, BUS 83 extension, and SPUR 83 designation in La Joya and Piñetas, TX. The denial cites "that the next section should be a business route as well" and that there should be a continuous BUSINESS 83 in the area, but as best as I can tell, the TxDOT proposal already had that. Not sure what happened with this one.
Quote from: froggie on May 25, 2016, 08:47:44 PM
If one digs through the AASHTO app, the meeting minutes are now online (not yet on the route committee's website). Most requests were approved. As noted in this and other threads, AASHTO has approved I-42 instead of I-36 and I-87 instead of I-89, both still subject to FHWA approval.
Two requests were "approved with conditions". The US 441 relocation in Lake City, FL was approved on condition that AASHTO receive documentation where the relocated roadway was transferred from the city to FDOT. The US 6 relocation in Council Bluffs, IA was also approved with conditions, but the meeting minutes do not mention what those conditions are.
Two requests were denied, one of them being "I-14" in Texas. They state that number "is not acceptable", but will work with TxDOT on an appropriate number. The other denied request was the US 83 relocation, BUS 83 extension, and SPUR 83 designation in La Joya and Piñetas, TX. The denial cites "that the next section should be a business route as well" and that there should be a continuous BUSINESS 83 in the area, but as best as I can tell, the TxDOT proposal already had that. Not sure what happened with this one.
Must be well hidden: I couldn't find it on the app.
Quote from: US71 on May 25, 2016, 09:33:40 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 25, 2016, 08:47:44 PM
If one digs through the AASHTO app, the meeting minutes are now online (not yet on the route committee's website) .....
Must be well hidden: I couldn't find it on the app.
Here's the link:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/5/5c/5cdc51ea50f12d6f/USRN_Meeting_Minutes_May25_2016.original.1464203915.pdf
Quote from: froggie on May 25, 2016, 08:47:44 PM
If one digs through the AASHTO app, the meeting minutes are now online (not yet on the route committee's website). Most requests were approved. As noted in this and other threads, AASHTO has approved I-42 instead of I-36 and I-87 instead of I-89, both still subject to FHWA approval.
Two requests were "approved with conditions". The US 441 relocation in Lake City, FL was approved on condition that AASHTO receive documentation where the relocated roadway was transferred from the city to FDOT. The US 6 relocation in Council Bluffs, IA was also approved with conditions, but the meeting minutes do not mention what those conditions are.
Two requests were denied, one of them being "I-14" in Texas. They state that number "is not acceptable", but will work with TxDOT on an appropriate number. The other denied request was the US 83 relocation, BUS 83 extension, and SPUR 83 designation in La Joya and Piñetas, TX. The denial cites "that the next section should be a business route as well" and that there should be a continuous BUSINESS 83 in the area, but as best as I can tell, the TxDOT proposal already had that. Not sure what happened with this one.
The US 83 request includes a continuous business route, but the petition doesn't explain that. When I saw the proposal it looked strange, so I looked at a map and saw that the new business route would extend to the existing one, and the spur would connect back to the mainline. The map in the petition doesn't show the existing business route. It gives the impression that the spur designation is just the tail end of the business route for no logical reason. My guess is that someone didn't do their research. This is why it's important to include all relevant information, which is why there's often so much redundancy and obvious stuff included in government papers. If you give someone a chance to misunderstand, someone will.
The I-14 proposal has been derided in the Mid-South forum. A lot of people there are going to be celebrating the decision.
Quote from: wxfree on May 25, 2016, 11:13:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 25, 2016, 08:47:44 PM
If one digs through the AASHTO app, the meeting minutes are now online (not yet on the route committee's website). Most requests were approved. As noted in this and other threads, AASHTO has approved I-42 instead of I-36 and I-87 instead of I-89, both still subject to FHWA approval.
Two requests were "approved with conditions". The US 441 relocation in Lake City, FL was approved on condition that AASHTO receive documentation where the relocated roadway was transferred from the city to FDOT. The US 6 relocation in Council Bluffs, IA was also approved with conditions, but the meeting minutes do not mention what those conditions are.
Two requests were denied, one of them being "I-14" in Texas. They state that number "is not acceptable", but will work with TxDOT on an appropriate number. The other denied request was the US 83 relocation, BUS 83 extension, and SPUR 83 designation in La Joya and Piñetas, TX. The denial cites "that the next section should be a business route as well" and that there should be a continuous BUSINESS 83 in the area, but as best as I can tell, the TxDOT proposal already had that. Not sure what happened with this one.
The US 83 request includes a continuous business route, but the petition doesn't explain that. When I saw the proposal it looked strange, so I looked at a map and saw that the new business route would extend to the existing one, and the spur would connect back to the mainline. The map in the petition doesn't show the existing business route. It gives the impression that the spur designation is just the tail end of the business route for no logical reason. My guess is that someone didn't do their research. This is why it's important to include all relevant information, which is why there's often so much redundancy and obvious stuff included in government papers. If you give someone a chance to misunderstand, someone will.
The I-14 proposal has been derided in the Mid-South forum. A lot of people are going to be celebrating the decision there.
There's a TTC meeting scheduled for tomorrow (full schedule here (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/administration/commission/2016-meetings.html)). I can't see the agenda since their FTP server looks to be offline, but I surmise that the I-14 rejection and next steps will be discussed.
Quote from: kinupanda on May 25, 2016, 11:19:12 PM
There's a TTC meeting scheduled for tomorrow (full schedule here (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/administration/commission/2016-meetings.html)). I can't see the agenda since their FTP server looks to be offline, but I surmise that the I-14 rejection and next steps will be discussed.
I tried it and it didn't work, then a few minutes later it was back. It seems to be fine now. The agenda has nothing about I-14. I rather doubt it'll be discussed. On substantive matters, they pretty much stick to the agenda, probably because of the laws regarding meetings. Also, the commission is mostly made of people who don't really know what they're doing and mostly just act as a rubber stamp for the staff, who are the ones who actually know what they're doing and make the recommendations. I watch all of the meeting videos, though, so if anything worth mentioning is discussed I'll bring it here.
Wasn't I-14 written into the FAST Act though? I was under the assumption that it would be accepted because of that.
It'll be interesting to see what number they choose, hopefully a spur off of I-35.
Quote from: wxfree on May 25, 2016, 11:29:05 PM
Quote from: kinupanda on May 25, 2016, 11:19:12 PM
There's a TTC meeting scheduled for tomorrow (full schedule here (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/administration/commission/2016-meetings.html)). I can't see the agenda since their FTP server looks to be offline, but I surmise that the I-14 rejection and next steps will be discussed.
I tried it and it didn't work, then a few minutes later it was back. It seems to be fine now. The agenda has nothing about I-14. I rather doubt it'll be discussed. On substantive matters, they pretty much stick to the agenda, probably because of the laws regarding meetings. Also, the commission is mostly made of people who don't really know what they're doing and mostly just act as a rubber stamp for the staff, who are the ones who actually know what they're doing and make the recommendations. I watch all of the meeting videos, though, so if anything worth mentioning is discussed I'll bring it here.
Ah, of course, forgot about the Open Meeting Act. But yes, you make a good point, in that these meetings do tend to be rubber-stamping Minute Orders, etc., anyway.
I'm assuming I-14 got rejected because the route as it exists is too short for a 2DI. If more interstate-grade freeway is built we may yet see such a designation someday.
Changing I-36 to I-42 was a good move.
That said, I don't see what AASHTO thinks is the gain in changing NC's I-89 proposal to I-87. Both numbers are equally problematic.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 26, 2016, 01:06:54 AM
That said, I don't see what AASHTO thinks is the gain in changing NC's I-89 proposal to I-87. Both numbers are equally problematic.
There are at least semi-plausible corridors that might lead to a continuous I-87 in the distant future; I-89, on the other hand...
Arkansas was mostly a formality. The Business 79's have been posted for a couple years. I figured the 555 extension would go through since it was originally planned to extend that far, so no big surprises here.
I haven't seen a link to the actual applications, so I share Alps' curiosity posted elsewhere about the US 33 West Virginia change. It has to be either finally seeking approval of the Ohio River crossing and rerouting across the Ravenswood bridge, WV 2 and I-77 to Ripley, or the section north of downtown Elkins that's part of Corridor H, both of which have been signed for years. I'm unaware of any other recent relocations of or new construction along US 33 in West Virginia.
Quote from: hbelkinsI haven't seen a link to the actual applications,
Did you check the committee website? They're there.
I think the I-14 in Texas will be overturned since it was signed into law, see below:
84. The Central Texas Corridor commencing at the logical terminus of Interstate Route 10, generally following portions of United States Route 190 eastward, passing in the vicinity Fort Hood, Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, and Woodville, to the logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing. [I-14]
From:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm
Quote from: ssummers72 on May 26, 2016, 07:06:25 PM
I think the I-14 in Texas will be overturned since it was signed into law, see below:
84. The Central Texas Corridor commencing at the logical terminus of Interstate Route 10, generally following portions of United States Route 190 eastward, passing in the vicinity Fort Hood, Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, and Woodville, to the logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing. [I-14]
From:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm
Wasn't this a similar case with I-2?
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 26, 2016, 09:05:35 PM
Quote from: ssummers72 on May 26, 2016, 07:06:25 PM
I think the I-14 in Texas will be overturned since it was signed into law, see below:
84. The Central Texas Corridor commencing at the logical terminus of Interstate Route 10, generally following portions of United States Route 190 eastward, passing in the vicinity Fort Hood, Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, and Woodville, to the logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing. [I-14]
From:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm
Wasn't this a similar case with I-2?
It was I-69E, I-69C and I-69W. AASHTO said no for obvious reasons, but the FHWA signed-off anyway.
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 26, 2016, 09:05:35 PM
Quote from: ssummers72 on May 26, 2016, 07:06:25 PM
I think the I-14 in Texas will be overturned since it was signed into law, see below:
84. The Central Texas Corridor commencing at the logical terminus of Interstate Route 10, generally following portions of United States Route 190 eastward, passing in the vicinity Fort Hood, Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, and Woodville, to the logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing. [I-14]
From:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm
Wasn't this a similar case with I-2?
I-2 was initially thrown into a lump of denial with two sections of I-69E (the Committee overlooked the I-69E Congressional designation when they said "no suffixes") during the May, 2013 meeting, but that decision was ultimately reversed by the AASHTO Board during the same meeting:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg220296#msg220296
For the record, I-2 is not a Congressionally designated number, and at the preceding November, 2012 meeting, TxDOT had asked AASHTO to assign an interstate route number to sections of US 83; AASHTO denied the request:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg235160#msg235160
The I-14 designation is just Chamber of Commerce style language. No longer do we have build it and they will come, we have put the red, white and blue up and they will come.
Does anyone have a study showing the difference in commerce with a route that was fully controlled and numbered as something other than an interstate and then changed to an interstate? I would assume it would be difficult to study due to all of the variables.
On a strictly anecdotal basis, the only instance I can think of off the top of my head where an Interstate designation purportedly contributed significantly to the establishment or expansion of commercial enterprise was the placement of the Toyota plant outside Tupelo, MS. To the best of my knowledge, the plans for that facility were finalized only after I-22 was legislatively commissioned in early 2004; the location had been one of several contenders. Whether that particular designation was the factor that put Tupelo over the finish line would be difficult to determine -- but it seems, again from anecdotal sources, that location adjacent to an Interstate route -- particularly a trunk route -- is a major factor to overseas entities facing logistic/distribution issues.
Yes, it's an "n" of 1 -- hardly robust data! Personally, I'd like to see some group assemble enough real data on this subject to perform a valid statistical study (preference: multivariant regression analysis, factoring in other enticements aside from egress). There's enough speculation -- both in this forum and within more official transportation circles -- regarding the efficacy of Interstate status to warrant a study in depth -- possibly to either validate or debunk contributory or even causal effect of I-designation and deployment. IMHO, it's long overdue!
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 05, 2016, 03:14:17 PM
The I-14 designation is just Chamber of Commerce style language. No longer do we have build it and they will come, we have put the red, white and blue up and they will come.
Does anyone have a study showing the difference in commerce with a route that was fully controlled and numbered as something other than an interstate and then changed to an interstate? I would assume it would be difficult to study due to all of the variables.
I'd like to know the answer to that question for a US Route as well. </tangent>
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 05, 2016, 03:14:17 PM
The I-14 designation is just Chamber of Commerce style language. No longer do we have build it and they will come, we have put the red, white and blue up and they will come.
Does anyone have a study showing the difference in commerce with a route that was fully controlled and numbered as something other than an interstate and then changed to an interstate? I would assume it would be difficult to study due to all of the variables.
I-555 in Arkansas might serve as an example once AHTD gets a few numbers
Great another duplicate 2 digit number, just what we need. And this one is even worse since you can easily drive both I-87s in a day. I'd almost rather go back to suffices than have two 76, 84, 86, now 87 and 88s.
What other number would you use? I cannot think of one. I am not sure why I-87 in lieu of I-89 unless their is an arguement of some type of I-87 future corridor link up.
I'd use an even number, assuming it HAS to be an interstate. It looks kinda redundant on a map. That extension through Delmarva just isn't something I see happening.
I am with you that NC is over the top with designating interstate highways but the through traffic routing does suggest a N-S destination despite being more E-W. I know that I-24 and I-26 have been designated as such but NC does seem to want a N-S interstate to put themselves on the map, again.
Here's how to figure out if a highway should be N-S or E-W:
-Take the latitude and longitude of each terminus
-If the distance between the longitudes is longer than the distance between the latitudes, the highway is E-W
-If the distance between the latitudes is longer than the distance between the longitudes, the highway is N-S
IMO other concerns should only factor in if the route is a diagonal and the two distances are pretty close.
Let's see... 130 miles vs. 75... yep, NC I-87 is definitely E-W!
True but the Hampton Roads region of Virginia is north of the Raliegh/Durham/Chapel Hill region of North Carolina.
Their reasoning is probably "it roughly parallels north-south I-85".
As 1 cites, the proximity of the similarly-deployed I-85 was the determining factor here. However, I for one would have preferred AASHTO have & use a policy that states that if there is an unused number (or a set of them) available for an Interstate corridor, such a number would be applied to the corridor; the only time a duplicate number would be designated would be if none other were available. Since the HPC 13 corridor could be realistically construed as either east-west or north-south, an even number from 46 to 62, subtracting US-route duplication, would be applied. Period.
The duplications of 76, 84, 86, and 88 wouldn't apply as precedent (even 74, although that's a bit of a stretch), because no unused numbers were available for that area of the overall grid.
Since the original "89" north-south suggested designation was more or less pulled out of a hat to satisfy NC's no-nearby-state-route-duplication internal policy, 89's characteristic as a north-south facility was less a deliberate choice than a number chosen for in-state convenience. In this instance, AASHTO overlooked the obvious and "rubber-stamped" the N-S characterization of this corridor although substituting an odd number more to their liking (maybe their vetting process needs a few adjustments -- or maybe the hotel bar at their meeting place shouldn't be opened that early!).
Perhaps it was just naivete on my part, but prior to this instance I had presumed that there actually was an internal policy with AASHTO (and FHWA, for that matter) that discouraged or even prohibited duplicate trunk Interstate designations unless no other number was available; the fact that the duplicate numbers in the '70's and '80's fit that description exactly -- and had persisted since the demise of single-ended suffixed routes some three dozen years ago -- formed the basis for this assumption. Also, due to the decidedly rectangular physical form of the lower 48, I also thought it would be a cold day in hell before I saw a duplicate odd number. I suppose the corresponding designation of I-42 -- previously unused & grid-appropriate -- serves as something of a Pyrrhic victory re my prior assumptions.
IMO I-85 should be east-west as well.
Why not contact the FHWA and vent the designation consternation out with them? You may be able to persuade someone with your logic on the number choice.
Well, seeing as how one of the jobs I've held in the recent past was writing position papers on transportation issues (to spec for various clients), I suppose I could take a shot at it. I'll try to dash something off in the next week or two -- when I can find time outside my nine-to-five (which regularly expands to nine-to-seven-or-so whether I like it or not! -- got a major project in the works, so usable downtime is pretty rare). :ded:
A question to the troops: aside from those of you working for DOT's or folks moving in DC circles such as CPZ, has any contributor to this site experienced any success at actually prompting any action regarding the various issues that crop up within the forum? A related question would be: is this forum, as far as is known, on the radar of anyone or any entity involved in transportation policy formulation? I.e.: if I engage in direct contact with FHWA -- or any other such agency, for that matter -- what are the chances that I'm just blowing smoke?
I know J.N. Winkler participated in the public comment period for the 2009 MUTCD. If I am remembering correctly, I don't think he got anything changed, but FHWA did at least address his concerns.
AHTD, the Arkansas DOT, actually posts in the Mid-South forum sometimes.
I've contacted KTA and MoDOT before and they were both very helpful. OkDOT doesn't return my emails.
TDOT changed an all text sign that had all shields on it previously back to all shields. They also placed an END US 412 sign and a BEGIN US 412 sign that I mentioned as an aside since the roadway changes designations at I-65 from US 412 to SR 99.
I am curious to see what you folks think is the best odd number to use for this corridor? What is the best even number? If the desire is to force this as a N-S issue what is the best number?
I think using something like I-91 would make better sense since it is so far off and would not connect.
If all parties involved continue to require an odd number, I think 97 would be the best bet, as (1) the larger portion of HPC 13 lies east of I-95, (2) there is a faint chance (percentage wise, likely in the single digits) of ever connecting to the existing I-97; too many "ducks in a row" would have to occur for that happening for any other number at or above 87, (2A) it might, in time, prompt a move to redesignate the existing 17 miles of I-97 in MD to something more appropriate (with any further speculation about this belonging in the fictional board).
Since the designation still is pending approval from FHWA I believe that the disccusion is still on the table. Do they allow public comment?
I've had a few interactions with MDOT. On I-75 just south of Gaylord, there's a sign noting the 45th parallel. I had mentioned once that there was only the sign at the parallel for one direction of traffic, and the next time I was through the area, there was a sign for both directions.
I also queried an office about some information on the designation dates and termini for the various Michigan Heritage Routes (now the Pure Michigan Byways). They put someone on the case for me, and I was given a nice spreadsheet with the missing details, and most importantly, copies of documentation that could be cited to back those details. Now Pure Michigan Byway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Michigan_Byway) is a Featured List on Wikipedia, in part due to their research efforts. (It still boggles me a bit that no one at the department had ever thought to catalog when they were all designated in one place before.)