May 2016 AASHTO SCOURN Meeting

[sparker]

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.         

[vdeane]

IMO I-85 should be east-west as well.

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[sparker]

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). 

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?     

[Scott5114]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[sparker]

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).   

[Avalanchez71]

Since the designation still is pending approval from FHWA I believe that the disccusion is still on the table.  Do they allow public comment?

[bulldog1979]

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 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.)