May 2016 AASHTO SCOURN Meeting

[wxfree]

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.

[kinupanda]

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). 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.

[wxfree]

There's a TTC meeting scheduled for tomorrow (full schedule here). 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.

[mvak36]

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.

[kinupanda]

There's a TTC meeting scheduled for tomorrow (full schedule here). 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.

[Duke87]

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.

[lordsutch]

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...

[US71]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[froggie]

I haven't seen a link to the actual applications,

Did you check the committee website?  They're there.

[ssummers72]

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

[Rover_0]

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?

[WashuOtaku]

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.

[Grzrd]

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

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[sparker]

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!     

[Rover_0]

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>

[US71]

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

[AMLNet49]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[vdeane]

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!

[Avalanchez71]

True but the Hampton Roads region of Virginia is north of the Raliegh/Durham/Chapel Hill region of North Carolina.

[hotdogPi]

Their reasoning is probably "it roughly parallels north-south I-85".