May 2016 AASHTO SCOURN Meeting

[Revive 755]

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

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).

[Mapmikey]

There is a Bike US 176 in Virginia in there.  Is this the first 3-digit USBR?

[Bruce]

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.

[Bitmapped]

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.

[CanesFan27]

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

[CNGL-Leudimin]

If I was NCDOT I would have submitted I-38 instead of I-36 to force Caltrans to take action on I-238 .

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.

[CanesFan27]

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.

[US71]

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.

[PHLBOS]

* Iowa moves almost all of US 6 in Council Bluffs onto the interstate system

Why?

* 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.

[CanesFan27]

* Iowa moves almost all of US 6 in Council Bluffs onto the interstate system

Why?

Why not?

* 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.
.

[PHLBOS]

* 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.

AASHTO 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.

[lordsutch]

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.

[CanesFan27]

* 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.

AASHTO 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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

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.

[CanesFan27]

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.

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.

[mvak36]

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

[iowahighways]

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

[rschen7754]

Surprising that they put up the documents before the meeting this time, rather than 2 weeks after...

[WashuOtaku]

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

[US71]

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

42! And on Towel Day

[oscar]

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

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.

[WashuOtaku]

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

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.

[froggie]

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.

[US71]

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.

[Grzrd]

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