AASHTO Spring 2022 Meeting

[bob7374]

This year's Spring meeting is to be held in person in New Orleans in less than a month now, on May 9-12. The Special Committee on US Route Numbering is to hold its meeting on May 9 in late afternoon according to the draft agenda (available at:
https://web.cvent.com/event/d7371736-9de3-4b05-8ce4-50219442c661/websitePage:26e3f8d9-07f2-4177-8d0d-c52a8d18c68c )

Hopefully an in-person meeting will encourage a more prompt posting of the committee decisions. They still have not posted the interstate applications from the Fall 2021 meeting on the committee website. I have a funny feeling NCDOT will announce the opening date of I-885 after May 12.

[mvak36]

Nothing on the Spring meeting so far, but it looks like they did post the Fall 2021 results on their site: https://route.transportation.org/past-meetings/

[english si]

The results from the SCOURN meeting are renowned for taking sometime to come through. October's meeting took just over 3 months to arrive in February.

[bob7374]

Some progress. The USRN committee page has been updated with an application for the October 2022 meeting in Orlando. However, they still have not posted the results of the Spring 2022 meeting as of this evening. Perhaps within the next 2 months?

[bob7374]

While the applications for the Spring Meeting still have not been posted, the date and time for the Fall 2022 Meeting in Orlando is available: Wed. Oct. 19, 4:00 to 5:30PM.

[rlb2024]

Any clues as to why no results have been posted, seeing as it is over 6 months since the spring meeting -- and the fall meeting has already occurred?

[mvak36]

I emailed AASHTO about the results. They said they will post the results on the website as soon as possible. Apparently whoever was doing it before had taken another job and they hadn't found a replacement yet, hence the delay. So hopefully soon.

[zzcarp]

I emailed AASHTO about the results. They said they will post the results on the website as soon as possible. Apparently whoever was doing it before had taken another job and they hadn't found a replacement yet, hence the delay. So hopefully soon.

Thanks for reaching out to them. It seems public information like this should be readily searchable and accessible in a reasonable time frame. At least they're working on it.

[mvak36]

I didn't notice it before since I was at work when I got the email but they did send me the pdf's of the decisions. I don't know how to post pdf's here but I was able to copy the text from them. Sorry if they're hard to read.

Spring Results
AASHTO 2022 SPRING MEETING ROUTE NUMBERING APPLICATIONS            
FINAL BALLOT RESULTS            
Ballot Items         Decision   
Item No. 1 - State:  Florida  Route: USB-1 Action: Deletion of a route or segment         Affirmative   
Item No. 2 - State:  Florida  Route: USB-1 Action: Deletion of a route or segment         Affirmative   
"Item No. 3 - State: Indiana  Route: I-69
Action: Extension of a route or segment (Phase 2)"         Affirmative   
"Item No. 4 - State: Indiana  Route: I-69
Action: Extension of a route or segment (Phase 3)"         Affirmative   
Item No. 5 - State: Louisiana  Route: 90 Business Action: Deletion of a route or segment         Affirmative   
Item No. 6 - State: Louisiana  Route: US 167 Action: Relocation/realignment of an existing route         Affirmative   
Item No. 7 - State: Missouri Route: Business Loop I-70 Action: Deletion of a route or segment         Affirmative   
Item No. 8 - State: North Carolina  Route: Future I-685 Action: Establishment of a new route or segment         Affirmative   
Item No. 9 - State: North Carolina  Route: I-885 Action: Establishment of a U.S. (Interstate) Route         Affirmative   
Item No. 10 - State: North Carolina Route: U.S. 70 Bypass Action: Deletion of a route or segment         Affirmative   
"Item No. 11 - State: Texas Route: BU 281
Action: Relocation/realignment of an existing route"         Affirmative   
Item No. 12 - State: Texas  Route: IH 69E Action: Extension of a route or segment         Affirmative   
"Item No. 13 - State: Texas  Route: U.S. 183
Action: Relocation/realignment of an existing route"         Affirmative   
"Item No. 14 - State: Delaware  Route: USBR 201
Action: Establishment of a new U.S. Bicycle Route or segment"         Affirmative   
"Item No. 15 - State: Indiana  Route: USBR 35
Action: Relocation/realignment of an existing U.S. Bicycle Route or segment"         Affirmative with Condition   
"Item No. 16 - State: Michigan  Route: USBR 20 (existing)
Action: Relocation/realignment of an existing U.S. Bicycle Route or segment"         Affirmative   
"Item No. 17 - State: Minnesota  Route: USBR 20
Action: Establishment of a new U.S. Bicycle Route or segment"         Affirmative   
"Item No. 18 - State: Oklahoma  Route: USBR 66
Action: Establishment of a new U.S. Bicycle Route or segment"         Affirmative   

2022 Spring Route Numbering Applications with Contingencies            
Item No.   State & Route No.   Contingencies      
Item No. 3   State: Indiana Route: I-69   Contingent upon approval from FHWA      
Item No. 4   State: Indiana Route: I-69   Contingent upon approval from FHWA      
Item No. 8   State: North Carolina Route: Future I-685   Contingent upon approval from FHWA      
Item No. 9   State: North Carolina Route: I-885   Contingent upon approval from FHWA      
Item No. 12   State: Texas Route: IH 69E   Contingent upon approval from FHWA      
Item No. 15   State: Indiana Route: USBR 35   Contingent upon application signature from CEO      

Fall Results
AASHTO 2022 ANNUAL MEETING ROUTE NUMBERING APPLICATIONS   
FINAL BALLOT RESULTS   
Application   Decision
Item 1: Arkansas, USBR 80   Approved
Action: Establishment of a new U.S. Bicycle Route or segment   
Description: Establish USBR 80 between the Arkansas/Tennessee State Line and North Little Rock, Arkansas, consistent with the support of local road authorities along the route, state and regional planning partners involved in the study of this route, and the Arkansas State Highway Commission.   
Item 2: Minnesota, USBR 41   Approved
Action: Relocation/realignment of U.S. Bicycle Route or segment   
Description: US Bicycle Route 41 was originally designated in 2017. Since that time, local partners have built many miles of new trails that provide a safer and more comfortable experience for bicyclists. MnDOT undertook a stakeholder engagement process to identify new segments constructed and suggestions for routing adjustment. This application includes extensive rerouting along the length of US Bicycle Route 41, and also corrects errors found in the original route log; therefore the route log for the entire length of USBR 41 is being submitted.   
Item 3: Nevada, I-11   Approved
Action: Extension of a route or segment   
Description: The requested Interstate Route contains portions of existing roadways previously designated by legislative action and includes the following: Segment One (currently operating as IR-515) from the IR-215/SR 564 interchange along the IR-515 corridor and terminates at the United States (US) Route US 93/US 95/IR 515/IR-15 interchange.  Segment Two (currently operating as US 95) from US 93/US 95/IR-515/IR-15 interchange along the US 95 corridor to the North ramps of SR 157 (Kyle Canyon) in Clark County, NV.   
Item 4: New York, USBR 11   Approved
Action: Relocation/realignment of U.S. Bicycle Route or segment   
Description: In the fall of 2020, the application for USBR 11 was approved by  AASHTO.  It has come to our attention that a slight realignment/extension of the route at the northern end of the trail in Sodus Point, NY, would be beneficial. The route currently ends in a residential neighborhood and with the realignment the  rider would end at Sodus Point Beach and the Village of Sodus Point.   
Item 5: North Carolina, I-840   Approved
Action: Extension of a route or segment   
"Description: The requested route is a full control access, divided, multi-lane facility with connection to existing I-840 at both ends, between I-840 and US 220 and I-785/I-840 and US
29. The route is 7.28 miles in length and is being built to interstate standards. The requested route is currently under construction with an estimated completion of December 2022. This section was previously approved as Future I-840 by AASHTO on October 29, 2010. The proposed route would allow traffic to bypass Greensboro and improve congestion on existing I-40. It would be a logical addition to the Interstate System and will provide essential freeway connectivity to the existing sections of I-840."   
Item 6: North Carolina, US 258 Business   Approved
Action: Deletion of a route or segment   
Description: US 258 Business is proposed to be eliminated with this request. The eliminated section of US 258 Business is 3.23 miles in length. This route currently runs through the Town of Farmville and has a number of turns that are difficult or unable to be made by large trucks. The Farmville Board of Commissioners passed a resolution on October 4, 2021 supporting this request.   
Item 7: Ohio, USBR 21   Approved
Action: Relocation/realignment of U.S. Bicycle Route or segment   
Description: This realignment request for USBR 21 reflects three recently completed shared use path (SUP) connections. The most significant one is in southeast Cincinnati and now includes the new Beechmont Bridge. This redirects USBR 21 on the eastern side of the Little Miami River and reconnects to the original route near Lunken Airport. The other two are located in Sunbury and include a minor extension of the trail just past Columbus Street and Letts Ave and a larger trail extension leaving Sunbury and heading NE up to the Wyandot Golf Course, replacing an on-road portion entirely with shared use path. One other minor alignment is located in Dalton, to align with the Ohio to Erie Trails preferred routing near E Main St and Shultz Ave.   
Item 8: Ohio, USBR 25   Approved
Action: Relocation/realignment of U.S. Bicycle Route or segment   
Description: This alignment moves the route in Dayton from the west side of the Miami River to the east side.   
Item 9: Ohio, USBR 30   Approved
Action: Relocation/realignment of U.S. Bicycle Route or segment   
Description: Alignment reflects a recently completed segment of the North Coast Inland Trail between Elmore and Genoa. The new alignment replaces an on-road portion with a shared use path.   
Item 10: Ohio, USBR 44   Approved
Action: Relocation/realignment of U.S. Bicycle Route or segment   
Description: One minor alignment is located in Dalton, to align with the Ohio to Erie Trails preferred routing near E Main St and Shultz Ave. This also represents an overlap with USBR 21 and the same edit is noted in the USBR 21 realignment submission.   
Item 11: Ohio, USBR 50   Approved
Action: Deletion of a U.S. Bicycle Route or segment   
Description: This request is to delete a small segment of USBR 50 in Dayton. Previously, USBR 50 designated routes on both sides of the Miami River in Dayton. This proposal deletes the northern route of the river only, leaving one designated route through Dayton along the preferred alignment (the south side of the river).   
Item 12: Ohio, USBR 225   Approved
Action: Deletion of a U.S. Bicycle Route or segment   
Description: This request deletes USBR 225 entirely. This is because a recent bridge project was completed improving accessibility along USBR 25 in Piqua therefore removing the need for an alternate route.   
Item 13: Oklahoma, US 75A   Approved
Action: Relocation/realignment of an existing route   
Description: This realignment is necessary to shift traffic away from the Downtown area of the City of Sapulpa.   
Item 14: Tennessee, USBR 21   Approved
Action: Establishment of a new U.S. Bicycle Route or segment   
Description: TDOT supports the USBR system, and supports this route for USBR 21. This designation would fill in the current gap in designation of USBR 21 across Tennessee. USBR 21, as planned by Adventure Cycling Association, is already designated (north of Tennessee) from Cleveland, Ohio, to the Tennessee-Kentucky border, and already designated (south of Tennessee) from Chattanooga, Tennessee to Atlanta, Georgia. This designation (across Tennessee) would thus complete the planned USBR 21 designation nationally.   
Item 15: Wisconsin, US 151   Approved
Action: Deletion of a route or segment   
Description: The city of Manitowoc (City) has proposed and supports removing USH 151 from the downtown area. This helps balance the overall miles of State and Federal Highways within the community and in fact, results in a reduction of US Highway miles within the city limits.   
Item 16: Wisconsin, USH 10 Addition   Approved
Action: Relocation/realignment of an existing route   
"Description: The city of Manitowoc (City) has proposed and supports rerouting USH 10 to improve circulation and safety in the downtown area. The City has worked closely with WisDOT toward converting the USH 10 one-way pair that exists on 8th Street and 10th/11th Streets back to the original two-way pattern. The proposed relocation and reversion to two- way traffic will: relocate trucks and oversized traffic to streets with fewer conflict points due to fewer residential driveways; help move traffic to the downtown instead of through it; achieve a better balance between development and transportation goals in keeping with
the City's Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Master Plan; help slow traffic and lead to improved safety for bicycles and pedestrians in the downtown area; and provide a more direct route along Quay Street for tourists to get to the Car Ferry."   
Item 17: Wisconsin, USH 10 Deletion   Approved
Action: Deletion of a route or segment   
"Description: The city of Manitowoc (City) has proposed and supports rerouting USH 10 to improve circulation and safety in the downtown area. The City has worked closely with WisDOT toward converting the USH 10 one-way pair that exists on 8th Street and 10th/11th Streets back to the original two-way pattern. The proposed relocation and reversion to two- way traffic will: remove trucks and oversized traffic from residential areas along the existing corridor; move through traffic away from the downtown area; achieve a better balance
between development and transportation goals in keeping with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Master Plan; help slow traffic and lead to improved safety for bicycles and pedestrians; eliminate the confusion created by one-way traffic flow in the growing tourist destination; and eliminate an active railroad track crossing."   

[Max Rockatansky]

Bye, bye I-515.  I-11 isn't ever going to get past NV 157. 

[74/171FAN]

Bye, bye I-515.  I-11 isn't ever going to get past NV 157. 

If they can get it to NV 156.....

Honestly, there is nothing really surprising on here.  I wonder which US 90 BUS in LA is being referred to though.

Also I wonder if NC 121 may be affected by the US 258 BUS Deletion in Farmville.

[Max Rockatansky]

Bye, bye I-515.  I-11 isn't ever going to get past NV 157. 

If they can get it to NV 156.....

Honestly, there is nothing really surprising on here.  I wonder which US 90 BUS in LA is being referred to though.

Funny enough, when I posted this on Gribblenation about an hour ago someone pointed out I-11 now does go west of I-15.  As amusing as that is I'm sure the grid perfectionists would never be happy with NV 157 (or NV 156).

[skluth]

Bye, bye I-515.  I-11 isn't ever going to get past NV 157. 

If they can get it to NV 156.....

Honestly, there is nothing really surprising on here.  I wonder which US 90 BUS in LA is being referred to though.

Also I wonder if NC 121 may be affected by the US 258 BUS Deletion in Farmville.

Fortunately, getting to NV 156 should be easy. It's mostly building an interchange at Corn Creek Rd and a RIRO for that fenced off acre being used for some sort of construction between Corn Creek and NV 157. The easiest thing to do might be building a new SB segment between NV 156 and NV 157, move NB traffic to the SB side, and use the current NB highway as a frontage road to serve both Corn Creek Road and the mystery acre.

[Duke87]

Fortunately, getting to NV 156 should be easy. It's mostly building an interchange at Corn Creek Rd and a RIRO for that fenced off acre being used for some sort of construction between Corn Creek and NV 157. The easiest thing to do might be building a new SB segment between NV 156 and NV 157, move NB traffic to the SB side, and use the current NB highway as a frontage road to serve both Corn Creek Road and the mystery acre.

"Easy" doesn't mean any of it is happening. NV is not going to spend money on doing an either of these things unless safety considerations or traffic counts specifically warrant it; the ability to post a special red white and blue shield is not going to be seen as sufficient justification on its own.

[Scott5114]

Fortunately, getting to NV 156 should be easy. It's mostly building an interchange at Corn Creek Rd and a RIRO for that fenced off acre being used for some sort of construction between Corn Creek and NV 157. The easiest thing to do might be building a new SB segment between NV 156 and NV 157, move NB traffic to the SB side, and use the current NB highway as a frontage road to serve both Corn Creek Road and the mystery acre.

"Easy" doesn't mean any of it is happening. NV is not going to spend money on doing an either of these things unless safety considerations or traffic counts specifically warrant it; the ability to post a special red white and blue shield is not going to be seen as sufficient justification on its own.

As I've pointed out before, Nevada DOT seems to be a lot more interested in extending I-11 to I-80 somehow than people on here think they are.

[Max Rockatansky]

Fortunately, getting to NV 156 should be easy. It's mostly building an interchange at Corn Creek Rd and a RIRO for that fenced off acre being used for some sort of construction between Corn Creek and NV 157. The easiest thing to do might be building a new SB segment between NV 156 and NV 157, move NB traffic to the SB side, and use the current NB highway as a frontage road to serve both Corn Creek Road and the mystery acre.

"Easy" doesn't mean any of it is happening. NV is not going to spend money on doing an either of these things unless safety considerations or traffic counts specifically warrant it; the ability to post a special red white and blue shield is not going to be seen as sufficient justification on its own.

As I've pointed out before, Nevada DOT seems to be a lot more interested in extending I-11 to I-80 somehow than people on here think they are.

Far from pre-ordained though.  At some point reality is probably going to set in and a lot of this far fetched I-11 stuff is likely going to fall to the wayside.  What gets me is how little understanding there really is in the road community on the condition of US 95 between Vegas and Reno.  MMM may have been an exaggeration of this phenomenon but it certainly wasn't unique to him. 

[Scott5114]

Fortunately, getting to NV 156 should be easy. It's mostly building an interchange at Corn Creek Rd and a RIRO for that fenced off acre being used for some sort of construction between Corn Creek and NV 157. The easiest thing to do might be building a new SB segment between NV 156 and NV 157, move NB traffic to the SB side, and use the current NB highway as a frontage road to serve both Corn Creek Road and the mystery acre.

"Easy" doesn't mean any of it is happening. NV is not going to spend money on doing an either of these things unless safety considerations or traffic counts specifically warrant it; the ability to post a special red white and blue shield is not going to be seen as sufficient justification on its own.

As I've pointed out before, Nevada DOT seems to be a lot more interested in extending I-11 to I-80 somehow than people on here think they are.

Far from pre-ordained though.  At some point reality is probably going to set in and a lot of this far fetched I-11 stuff is likely going to fall to the wayside.  What gets me is how little understanding there really is in the road community on the condition of US 95 between Vegas and Reno.  MMM may have been an exaggeration of this phenomenon but it certainly wasn't unique to him. 

I kind of have the opposite opinion. I think a lot of the community, at least around here, recognizes the current state of US-95, but fails to recognize how powerful the allure could be of being the politician to finally get the state's two major metro areas connected by a four-lane highway after 66 years of not having one. And NDOT may well be in possession of a study showing that Nevada stands to benefit from building this even if traffic counts don't warrant it right now.

[rickmastfan67]

I didn't notice it before since I was at work when I got the email but they did send me the pdf's of the decisions. I don't know how to post pdf's here but I was able to copy the text from them. Sorry if they're hard to read.

Try uploading them to Dropbox.  You should be able to then post a link to them here for people to download.

[74/171FAN]

I didn't notice it before since I was at work when I got the email but they did send me the pdf's of the decisions. I don't know how to post pdf's here but I was able to copy the text from them. Sorry if they're hard to read.

Try uploading them to Dropbox.  You should be able to then post a link to them here for people to download.

I have a lot planned for today so if you, yakra, or someone else gets access to the PDF before I do, I have no problem with one of you editing my original post on the TM forum.

[bulldog1979]

We've got them on Dropbox:

• Spring 2022
• Annual 2022

For reference, all but a few known meeting minutes/reports have been indexed on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources/AASHTO minutes. Those remaining documents will hopefully be added to the chart at some point.

[skluth]

Fortunately, getting to NV 156 should be easy. It's mostly building an interchange at Corn Creek Rd and a RIRO for that fenced off acre being used for some sort of construction between Corn Creek and NV 157. The easiest thing to do might be building a new SB segment between NV 156 and NV 157, move NB traffic to the SB side, and use the current NB highway as a frontage road to serve both Corn Creek Road and the mystery acre.

"Easy" doesn't mean any of it is happening. NV is not going to spend money on doing an either of these things unless safety considerations or traffic counts specifically warrant it; the ability to post a special red white and blue shield is not going to be seen as sufficient justification on its own.

As I've pointed out before, Nevada DOT seems to be a lot more interested in extending I-11 to I-80 somehow than people on here think they are.

Far from pre-ordained though.  At some point reality is probably going to set in and a lot of this far fetched I-11 stuff is likely going to fall to the wayside.  What gets me is how little understanding there really is in the road community on the condition of US 95 between Vegas and Reno.  MMM may have been an exaggeration of this phenomenon but it certainly wasn't unique to him. 

I kind of have the opposite opinion. I think a lot of the community, at least around here, recognizes the current state of US-95, but fails to recognize how powerful the allure could be of being the politician to finally get the state's two major metro areas connected by a four-lane highway after 66 years of not having one. And NDOT may well be in possession of a study showing that Nevada stands to benefit from building this even if traffic counts don't warrant it right now.

That's my thinking. I-99 wasn't needed. I-41 wasn't needed. But politicians pushed them through anyway because new infrastructure is something that can get them in the news in a positive light. That more than any real need is going to drive the construction of I-11 because a full freeway connecting Reno and Las Vegas won't be needed any time in the foreseeable future. I can easily see politicians pushing to build this and NVDOT following the path of least resistance and cost, slowly extending I-11 north to Amargosa Valley (like over the next 20 years or more) before making any decision on a corridor from I-80 to Beatty.

[SEWIGuy]

Fortunately, getting to NV 156 should be easy. It's mostly building an interchange at Corn Creek Rd and a RIRO for that fenced off acre being used for some sort of construction between Corn Creek and NV 157. The easiest thing to do might be building a new SB segment between NV 156 and NV 157, move NB traffic to the SB side, and use the current NB highway as a frontage road to serve both Corn Creek Road and the mystery acre.

"Easy" doesn't mean any of it is happening. NV is not going to spend money on doing an either of these things unless safety considerations or traffic counts specifically warrant it; the ability to post a special red white and blue shield is not going to be seen as sufficient justification on its own.

As I've pointed out before, Nevada DOT seems to be a lot more interested in extending I-11 to I-80 somehow than people on here think they are.

Far from pre-ordained though.  At some point reality is probably going to set in and a lot of this far fetched I-11 stuff is likely going to fall to the wayside.  What gets me is how little understanding there really is in the road community on the condition of US 95 between Vegas and Reno.  MMM may have been an exaggeration of this phenomenon but it certainly wasn't unique to him. 

I kind of have the opposite opinion. I think a lot of the community, at least around here, recognizes the current state of US-95, but fails to recognize how powerful the allure could be of being the politician to finally get the state's two major metro areas connected by a four-lane highway after 66 years of not having one. And NDOT may well be in possession of a study showing that Nevada stands to benefit from building this even if traffic counts don't warrant it right now.

That's my thinking. I-99 wasn't needed. I-41 wasn't needed. But politicians pushed them through anyway because new infrastructure is something that can get them in the news in a positive light. That more than any real need is going to drive the construction of I-11 because a full freeway connecting Reno and Las Vegas won't be needed any time in the foreseeable future. I can easily see politicians pushing to build this and NVDOT following the path of least resistance and cost, slowly extending I-11 north to Amargosa Valley (like over the next 20 years or more) before making any decision on a corridor from I-80 to Beatty.

There is a difference between I-41 and what you are suggesting for I-11.  I-41 the designation wasn't needed, but a four lane freeway most certainly was.  It doesn't sound like that's the case for I-11 at this point.  (I don't know the circumstances around I-99.)

[skluth]

Fortunately, getting to NV 156 should be easy. It's mostly building an interchange at Corn Creek Rd and a RIRO for that fenced off acre being used for some sort of construction between Corn Creek and NV 157. The easiest thing to do might be building a new SB segment between NV 156 and NV 157, move NB traffic to the SB side, and use the current NB highway as a frontage road to serve both Corn Creek Road and the mystery acre.

"Easy" doesn't mean any of it is happening. NV is not going to spend money on doing an either of these things unless safety considerations or traffic counts specifically warrant it; the ability to post a special red white and blue shield is not going to be seen as sufficient justification on its own.

As I've pointed out before, Nevada DOT seems to be a lot more interested in extending I-11 to I-80 somehow than people on here think they are.

Far from pre-ordained though.  At some point reality is probably going to set in and a lot of this far fetched I-11 stuff is likely going to fall to the wayside.  What gets me is how little understanding there really is in the road community on the condition of US 95 between Vegas and Reno.  MMM may have been an exaggeration of this phenomenon but it certainly wasn't unique to him. 

I kind of have the opposite opinion. I think a lot of the community, at least around here, recognizes the current state of US-95, but fails to recognize how powerful the allure could be of being the politician to finally get the state's two major metro areas connected by a four-lane highway after 66 years of not having one. And NDOT may well be in possession of a study showing that Nevada stands to benefit from building this even if traffic counts don't warrant it right now.

That's my thinking. I-99 wasn't needed. I-41 wasn't needed. But politicians pushed them through anyway because new infrastructure is something that can get them in the news in a positive light. That more than any real need is going to drive the construction of I-11 because a full freeway connecting Reno and Las Vegas won't be needed any time in the foreseeable future. I can easily see politicians pushing to build this and NVDOT following the path of least resistance and cost, slowly extending I-11 north to Amargosa Valley (like over the next 20 years or more) before making any decision on a corridor from I-80 to Beatty.

There is a difference between I-41 and what you are suggesting for I-11.  I-41 the designation wasn't needed, but a four lane freeway most certainly was.  It doesn't sound like that's the case for I-11 at this point.  (I don't know the circumstances around I-99.)

My family is from Green Bay so I'm very familiar with I-41. Completely agree on the freeway need. My point was neither I-41 or I-99 was needed from a designation viewpoint and the same is true of I-11 (which isn't really even a freeway need, unlike US 41 and US 220).

[CNGL-Leudimin]

Great! I-515 is finally replaced with I-11! Now, if WisDOT ever get to remove I-894...

North Carolina gets yet another Interstate with I-685. They are really crazy with them. I think they are getting a bit overkill.

USBR 225 may be the very first Bicycle Route to be ever deleted, thus joining US 102 and whatever Interstate got removed first (not I-31 because that didn't got signed anywhere before it was absorbed onto I-29).

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

I wonder which US 90 BUS in LA is being referred to though.

US 90B in Lafayette has been deleted from the state highway system.