Looks like the results from the Fall 2023 Meeting have been posted already...and it appears that Arkansas and Oklahoma did indeed submit I-42 for consideration, but later withdrew their applications.
https://transportation.org/route/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2023/12/Final_Report_USRN_Fall_2023_R_1.pdf
Uh, they approved US 78 in Arkansas...
QuoteItem 10: Arkansas, US 78
Action: Extension of US route
Extension of US Highway 78 into Arkansas to connect to future I-57 through the major cities in Northeast Arkansas. Starting on US Highway 67 (Future I-57) South of Walnut Ridge/Hoxie, AR on highway 226 for 12.5 miles, continue onto US Highway 49 for 6.5 miles before turning south onto I-555 in Jonesboro, AR. Continues on I-555 for 5.25 miles before exiting on Highway 18 Spur in Jonesboro, AR. Travel north on Highway 18 Spur for 0.5 miles to Highway 18 eastward for 50 miles to I-55 in Blytheville, AR, then turning south on I-55 for 60 miles to the interchange with I-40. Travel 2.5 miles on Interstate 40/55 through West Memphis, AR before diverging south onto I-55 heading southeastward for 4.0 miles to Tennessee State Line.
Quote
Item 21: Tennessee, US 78
Action: Extension of US route
Description: Extension US Highway 78 onto Interstate 55 and into Arkansas. Starting at the Arkansas state line head southeastward on Interstate 55 for approximately 0.6 miles to the Interchange of I-55 and E.E.H. Crump Blvd in Memphis, TN. Then, continue eastward along E.E.H. Crump Blvd for another 1.1 mile to the Intersection of E.E.H. Crump Blvd and S Danny Thomas Blvd
Quote
Item 22: Tennessee, US 78
Action: Relocation of an existing route
Description: Relocate of a portion of US Highway 78 along E.E.H. Crump Blvd in Memphis, TN to remove truck traffic from downtown as part of the extension of US Highway 78 into Arkansas. Starting at the intersection E.E.H. Crump Blvd and S Danny Thomas Blvd head eastward along E.E.H. Crump Blvd for 1.4 miles to Intersection of E.E.H. Crump Blvd and Martin Luther King Blvd in Memphis, TN where route 78 continues eastward
QuoteItem 23: Tennessee, US 78
Action: Deletion of route
Description: Starting at S 2nd Street in Memphis, TN travel 2.5 miles eastward along Martin Luther King Blvd to the intersection with E.E.H. Crump Blvd. Removing of a portion of US Highway 78 that is to be relocated along E.E.H. Crump Blvd in Memphis, TN as part of the extension of US highway 78 into Arkansas
And I-335, despite that said route doesn't even touch I-35 or any I-x35 routes. And they would have approved I-42 were the application not withdrawn. Clearly they've just become a rubber-stamp of every harebrained idea some dump politician conceives. Why even have an AASHTO route numbering committee if this is how it's going to be?
Clearly they've jumped the shark.
I wonder why the application for I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas was withdrawn...
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2023, 08:22:05 PM
Uh, they approved US 78 in Arkansas...
QuoteItem 10: Arkansas, US 78
Action: Extension of US route
Extension of US Highway 78 into Arkansas to connect to future I-57 through the major cities in Northeast Arkansas. Starting on US Highway 67 (Future I-57) South of Walnut Ridge/Hoxie, AR on highway 226 for 12.5 miles, continue onto US Highway 49 for 6.5 miles before turning south onto I-555 in Jonesboro, AR. Continues on I-555 for 5.25 miles before exiting on Highway 18 Spur in Jonesboro, AR. Travel north on Highway 18 Spur for 0.5 miles to Highway 18 eastward for 50 miles to I-55 in Blytheville, AR, then turning south on I-55 for 60 miles to the interchange with I-40. Travel 2.5 miles on Interstate 40/55 through West Memphis, AR before diverging south onto I-55 heading southeastward for 4.0 miles to Tennessee State Line.
Quote
Item 21: Tennessee, US 78
Action: Extension of US route
Description: Extension US Highway 78 onto Interstate 55 and into Arkansas. Starting at the Arkansas state line head southeastward on Interstate 55 for approximately 0.6 miles to the Interchange of I-55 and E.E.H. Crump Blvd in Memphis, TN. Then, continue eastward along E.E.H. Crump Blvd for another 1.1 mile to the Intersection of E.E.H. Crump Blvd and S Danny Thomas Blvd
Quote
Item 22: Tennessee, US 78
Action: Relocation of an existing route
Description: Relocate of a portion of US Highway 78 along E.E.H. Crump Blvd in Memphis, TN to remove truck traffic from downtown as part of the extension of US Highway 78 into Arkansas. Starting at the intersection E.E.H. Crump Blvd and S Danny Thomas Blvd head eastward along E.E.H. Crump Blvd for 1.4 miles to Intersection of E.E.H. Crump Blvd and Martin Luther King Blvd in Memphis, TN where route 78 continues eastward
QuoteItem 23: Tennessee, US 78
Action: Deletion of route
Description: Starting at S 2nd Street in Memphis, TN travel 2.5 miles eastward along Martin Luther King Blvd to the intersection with E.E.H. Crump Blvd. Removing of a portion of US Highway 78 that is to be relocated along E.E.H. Crump Blvd in Memphis, TN as part of the extension of US highway 78 into Arkansas
This is definitely showing my age and probably gonna be an incredibly hot take but I'm actually kinda looking forward to this. It's gonna be different having a new highway in the state but it'll be very interesting. That route is pretty wild though.
Are I-335 and I-344 the successor pieces to the withdrawn attempts to designate I-240 into a full beltway?
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 04, 2023, 09:04:09 PM
Are I-335 and I-344 the successor pieces to the withdrawn attempts to designate I-240 into a full beltway?
My thought on the 335 designation...Is there a grand plan to extend 335/Kickapoo Turnpike to south of OKC somewhere and meet its current estranged parent?
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2023, 08:41:22 PM
And I-335, despite that said route doesn't even touch I-35 or any I-x35 routes. And they would have approved I-42 were the application not withdrawn. Clearly they've just become a rubber-stamp of every harebrained idea some dump politician conceives. Why even have an AASHTO route numbering committee if this is how it's going to be?
Clearly they've jumped the shark.
I-335 should have been either an x44 or I-238.
Quote from: ilpt4u on December 04, 2023, 09:25:13 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 04, 2023, 09:04:09 PM
Are I-335 and I-344 the successor pieces to the withdrawn attempts to designate I-240 into a full beltway?
My thought on the 335 designation...Is there a grand plan to extend 335/Kickapoo Turnpike to south of OKC somewhere and meet its current estranged parent?
Yes.
I'm intrigued by the extension of I-27 to the south by several miles. It seems that all of a sudden TxDOT has decided they want to extend that route as fast as they can.
The US 78 extension is weird. I like the concept of elevating AR 226 to a US Route, but couldn't they have just followed I-555 back to Memphis? Now there's this wonky Z-shaped route instead.
Quote from: Rover_0 on December 04, 2023, 08:54:08 PM
I wonder why the application for I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas was withdrawn...
Hopefully they discovered that there was another I-42 already present and decided to rescind their application temporarily to remediate that?
And they have approved an extension of I-27 south from its current terminus (4.2 miles along US 87)...
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 04, 2023, 09:47:31 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on December 04, 2023, 08:54:08 PM
I wonder why the application for I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas was withdrawn...
Hopefully they discovered that there was another I-42 already present and decided to rescind their application temporarily to remediate that?
Time for I-38 to finally make its debut? The Grid is more Guidelines, anyway. at this point
I for one welcome the chaos of the new US 78 extension. It has been a good while since something US Route oriented came along that upset so many road fan types.
Quote from: ilpt4u on December 04, 2023, 10:10:36 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 04, 2023, 09:47:31 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on December 04, 2023, 08:54:08 PM
I wonder why the application for I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas was withdrawn...
Hopefully they discovered that there was another I-42 already present and decided to rescind their application temporarily to remediate that?
Time for I-38 to finally make its debut? The Grid is more Guidelines, anyway. at this point
Good! Maybe there's still hope for I-50, after all.
Isn't the Kickapoo supposed to be extended south to a junction with I-35? An x35 number would make more sense than x40 or x44 if that's the plan. I'm not going to get annoyed over 335 if that's the case.
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 04, 2023, 09:47:31 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on December 04, 2023, 08:54:08 PM
I wonder why the application for I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas was withdrawn...
Hopefully they discovered that there was another I-42 already present and decided to rescind their application temporarily to remediate that?
It's entirely possible that's what the "approve with condition" was—the approval was perhaps conditional on picking another number?
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2023, 10:46:03 PM
Isn't the Kickapoo supposed to be extended south to a junction with I-35? An x35 number would make more sense than x40 or x44 if that's the plan. I'm not going to get annoyed over 335 if that's the case.
Correct—the Kickapoo is supposed to connect to I-35 at about MP 96 or so, just north of Purcell.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2023, 09:49:44 PM
And they have approved an extension of I-27 south from its current terminus (4.2 miles along US 87)...
So do they renumber all I-27 exits?
Quote from: rschen7754 on December 04, 2023, 11:38:58 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2023, 09:49:44 PM
And they have approved an extension of I-27 south from its current terminus (4.2 miles along US 87)...
So do they renumber all I-27 exits?
All new exit numbers will have a negative in front counting up again. :bigass:
Quote from: WashuOtaku on December 04, 2023, 11:53:43 PM
Quote from: rschen7754 on December 04, 2023, 11:38:58 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2023, 09:49:44 PM
And they have approved an extension of I-27 south from its current terminus (4.2 miles along US 87)...
So do they renumber all I-27 exits?
All new exit numbers will have a negative in front counting up again. :bigass:
Is it too much to hope for internal exit tabs for TXDOT to say they are that way for wind loading?
Quote from: rschen7754 on December 04, 2023, 11:38:58 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2023, 09:49:44 PM
And they have approved an extension of I-27 south from its current terminus (4.2 miles along US 87)...
So do they renumber all I-27 exits?
I would guess Texas would leave all the exit numbers as is, at least for a little while. They didn't start changing the exit numbers for I-69 in Houston until it was signed for several years.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2023, 09:49:44 PM
And they have approved an extension of I-27 south from its current terminus (4.2 miles along US 87)...
Would the I-27 extension cover the distance between the south Loop 289 interchange and the future south Loop 88 interchange?
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2023, 09:49:44 PM
And they have approved an extension of I-27 south from its current terminus (4.2 miles along US 87)...
This extension will bring I-27 to a junction with the future Loop 88.
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2023, 08:41:22 PM
And I-335, despite that said route doesn't even touch I-35 or any I-x35 routes. And they would have approved I-42 were the application not withdrawn. Clearly they've just become a rubber-stamp of every harebrained idea some dump politician conceives. Why even have an AASHTO route numbering committee if this is how it's going to be?
Clearly they've jumped the shark.
They previously approved the belt buckle beltway for IH 240 around OKC which included three overlaps. If it's a dumb idea, it's definitely approved.
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2023, 08:22:05 PM
Uh, they approved US 78 in Arkansas...
QuoteMembers:
• Region 1 – Vacant
• Region 2 – Rex Vines, Arkansas DOT
• Region 3 – Lyndsay Quist, Indiana DOT
• Region 4 – Dwane Kailey, Montana DOT (Chair)
• AASHTO – Jim McDonnell
• AASHTO – Kimberly Floyd
With Rex on the committee, it was a no brainer :coffee:
QuoteItem 13: Florida, Business Route US 98B
Action: Deletion of a route Vote: Approve
Description: Proposing to remove the US Route designation on USB-98/SR30/Beck Avenue at beginning mile point 2.962 to US-231/SR-75/Harrison Avenue
at ending mile point 6.362, which is 3.400 miles long. Route is bi-directional.
So US 98 Business in Panama City will overlap with US 231 north, or will US 231 be truncated north? Sounds like a good question for FDOT District 2.
I'm so glad they started to put those decisions on the site again. Saves us the time of having to bug them to get the information.
Looks like Oklahoma has gone the North Carolina way requesting new Interstate designations. Down to duplicating one of the numbers, even though that hasn't happened (yet).
So I-344 starts at I-44 and then ends at it?
Why not a loop number?
Quote from: mvak36 on December 05, 2023, 10:24:46 AM
I'm so glad they started to put those decisions on the site again. Saves us the time of having to bug them to get the information.
Where are they posted? I'm checking the AASHTO website and not finding anything.
Quote from: Rover_0 on December 05, 2023, 06:02:49 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on December 05, 2023, 10:24:46 AM
I'm so glad they started to put those decisions on the site again. Saves us the time of having to bug them to get the information.
Where are they posted? I'm checking the AASHTO website and not finding anything.
From the opening post of this thread:
Quote from: Crown Victoria on December 04, 2023, 08:15:16 PM
Looks like the results from the Fall 2023 Meeting have been posted already...and it appears that Arkansas and Oklahoma did indeed submit I-42 for consideration, but later withdrew their applications.
https://transportation.org/route/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2023/12/Final_Report_USRN_Fall_2023_R_1.pdf
Quote from: SectorZ on December 05, 2023, 03:59:45 PM
So I-344 starts at I-44 and then ends at it?
Why not a loop number?
144, 244, and 444 are already in use in Oklahoma. Probably just picked the first number that made sense.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 05, 2023, 08:43:31 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 05, 2023, 03:59:45 PM
So I-344 starts at I-44 and then ends at it?
Why not a loop number?
144, 244, and 444 are already in use in Oklahoma. Probably just picked the first number that made sense.
Probably influenced by the fact that Oklahoma uses 3xx state highway numbers on most of its non-interstate toll roads. Notice both the Kilpatrick and Kickapoo Turnpikes got I-3xx numbers.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on December 05, 2023, 03:49:35 PM
Looks like Oklahoma has gone the North Carolina way requesting new Interstate designations. Down to duplicating one of the numbers, even though that hasn't happened (yet).
How do you figure? The last new Interstate mileage approved in Oklahoma was in 1982. One of the turnpikes I-42 is designated along was built in the 60s and they're just now getting around to requesting an Interstate shield for it. None of that strikes me as being particularly North Carolina-like—NC gets numbers first and builds roads for them later.
ODOT Director Tim Gatz said that the reason they're applying numbers to turnpikes now after decades of them being named-only is because numbers work better with satnav devices than names only. If you've got a bunch of existing freeways that need numbers, why not ask for Interstate designations if they meet the standard?
Does Memphis gets the first five-way US route overlap in recent memory? (61-64-70-78-79)
Quote from: formulanone on December 06, 2023, 07:17:51 AM
Does Memphis gets the first five-way US route overlap in recent memory? (61-64-70-78-79)
There is already a 5-US overlap in Indianapolis on I-465 between exits 46 and 47 (US 31-36-40-52-421). It's not signed, of course, but don't hold your breath on signage being good in a Tennessee city either...
Quote from: mvak36 on December 05, 2023, 10:24:46 AM
I'm so glad they started to put those decisions on the site again. Saves us the time of having to bug them to get the information.
Now if only they'd put older decisions back on the site and post the actual applications.
Their site has really gone downhill since Marty retired...
Quote from: US 89 on December 06, 2023, 08:08:05 AM
Quote from: formulanone on December 06, 2023, 07:17:51 AM
Does Memphis gets the first five-way US route overlap in recent memory? (61-64-70-78-79)
There is already a 5-US overlap in Indianapolis on I-465 between exits 46 and 47 (US 31-36-40-52-421). It's not signed, of course, but don't hold your breath on signage being good in a Tennessee city either...
I forgot I-465; for some reason I thought it had four USs and four SRs.
My guess is that signage will be sparse; as Memphis, Chattanooga, and Nashville signage is always missing. Slap a singular shield on a BGS and that's about all one can expect.
Signage of US routes in TN is abysmal. You can; however, contact TDOT and ask them to put up signs. They will do it.
Looks like a rubber stamp committee.
Am I the only one not seeing the irony in complaining about "rubber stamping" when AASHTO has been resistant to changes to the US Route System for last couple decades? I see this more as a the Executive Committee is finally willing to actually let additions and changes happen.
Did they include maps?
Well.. it looks like US 78 won't be truncated to Birmingham after all. Not a fan of the ugly routing, but then again that's commonplace in Arkansas. It's nice to see something atypical happen with a US route.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 14, 2024, 02:16:25 PM
Well.. it looks like US 78 won't be truncated to Birmingham after all. Not a fan of the ugly routing, but then again that's commonplace in Arkansas. It's nice to see something atypical happen with a US route.
So when is Google going to get on board with US 78? How is the signage in the field?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 14, 2024, 05:25:23 PM
How is the signage in the field?
It appears to be how it's been for the past several years (on the old alignment in Memphis and lacking, as is typical within Tennessee's cities).
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 14, 2024, 05:25:23 PMQuote from: kenarmy on January 14, 2024, 02:16:25 PMWell.. it looks like US 78 won't be truncated to Birmingham after all. Not a fan of the ugly routing, but then again that's commonplace in Arkansas. It's nice to see something atypical happen with a US route.
So when is Google going to get on board with US 78? How is the signage in the field?
US 78 shields in Memphis have been moved to Crump Blvd. near the Danny Thomas Blvd. intersection. Looks like they're the same shields that were on MLK Ave. until recently. They are not new signs...
(https://i.imgur.com/zeT2Lpb.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/VbXMXeq.jpeg)
I also spotted a dual I-55/US 78 shield assembly just across the river in Arkansas. I'll try to get photos the next time I go that way.
Quote from: ericlipford on March 29, 2024, 02:08:38 AMI also spotted a dual I-55/US 78 shield assembly just across the river in Arkansas. I'll try to get photos the next time I go that way.
As promised, here's one of the dual I-55/US 78 shields in Arkansas. This one is just north of the I-55/I-40 split in West Memphis.
(https://i.imgur.com/45ayU4q.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6VQwVDP.jpeg)
^ Yet they can't show US 64 there...
I really don't understand this routing of US-78 at all. If Arkansas wanted a common route number from Future I-57 through Jonesboro to I-55, why didn't they just extend AR-18 westward?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2024, 08:47:38 AMI really don't understand this routing of US-78 at all. If Arkansas wanted a common route number from Future I-57 through Jonesboro to I-55, why didn't they just extend AR-18 westward?
The shield isn't pointy enough.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2024, 04:28:42 AMQuote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2024, 08:47:38 AMI really don't understand this routing of US-78 at all. If Arkansas wanted a common route number from Future I-57 through Jonesboro to I-55, why didn't they just extend AR-18 westward?
The shield isn't pointy enough.
That probably is it right? This is the exact type of thing AASHTO should have said "no" to. Contorting a route like this just to get a USH onto something because the state DOT thinks that a USH is somehow superior to a state highway is just silliness.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 04, 2024, 08:51:57 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2024, 04:28:42 AMQuote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2024, 08:47:38 AMI really don't understand this routing of US-78 at all. If Arkansas wanted a common route number from Future I-57 through Jonesboro to I-55, why didn't they just extend AR-18 westward?
The shield isn't pointy enough.
That probably is it right? This is the exact type of thing AASHTO should have said "no" to. Contorting a route like this just to get a USH onto something because the state DOT thinks that a USH is somehow superior to a state highway is just silliness.
Does any state besides Wisconsin refer to US highways as USH in internal documents and roadway plans?
In all honesty -- and I've said this before -- an extension of US 68 would make more sense than the US 78 extension did.