Will US 69 be renumbered when I-69 comes through Texas?

[Rothman]

There is no real fancy funding for interstates any longer, except for the 90% match utilizing NHPP funds.  It still comes out of a state's NHPP apportionment and is not "extra" or separate funding, like a special program code, however.

[vdeane]

There is no real fancy funding for interstates any longer, except for the 90% match utilizing NHPP funds.  It still comes out of a state's NHPP apportionment and is not "extra" or separate funding, like a special program code, however.

Not what I was talking about.  Surprised you don't know about the performance targets and the penalties for failing to achieve them, given how long you were in Program Management.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/faq.cfm

Q. When is a State DOT subject to the penalties for not maintaining minimum Interstate System pavement conditions?
A: The following circumstances will result in penalties:

When FHWA determines that the lane miles of the Interstate System in Poor condition extracted from HPMS no earlier than 11:59pm on June 15th exceed 5.0 percent (or 10.0 percent in Alaska), less the sections specifically excluded by regulation [23 CFR 490.317(a) and (b)].
When FHWA determines that the total main-line lane miles of missing, invalid or unresolved data extracted from HPMS no earlier than 11:59pm on June 15th is more than 5.0 percent of the total lanes miles for the Interstate System, less the sections specifically excluded by regulation [23 CFR 490.313(b)(4)(i)]. The determination of having missing, invalid or unresolved data occurs when data is not submitted at all or not submitted to HPMS in accordance with the HPMS Field Manual (dated December 2016) [23 CFR 490.313(b)(4)(ii)] and the FHWA Computation Procedure for the Pavement Condition Measures dated April 2018, FHWA-HIF-18-022, which can be accessed at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pub_details.cfm?id=1055. Refer to preceding Question & Answer regarding the submission for pavement condition-related data for the Interstate System that details the April 15th data submission requirement.
Q. What happens if FHWA determines a State's Interstate pavement condition falls below the minimum level for any given year?
A. The State DOT must obligate a portion of the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and transfer a portion of its Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to address Interstate pavement conditions. The required obligation and transfer are in legislation and repeated in the published rule.

[Thegeet]

There are no US routes that could really be extended over it unless they extended US 169 south from Tulsa.  AASHTO wouldn't allow a single state US highway.

US-271 From Tyler.
US-175 from Jacksonville,
Even really looking to the future: US-75 from Denison if I-45 numbering were extended.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645

By the way, in Texas we already have US-175, US-96, and I-45 as single state federal routes.

Also, I-37 Corpus to SA. But I think they should look into reassignment of US-181 as a state route. Just a minor pet peeve.

[kenarmy]

Or we could just get US 96 to replace it  .

[kphoger]

Aren't there also design standards that must be met for US Routes that don't apply to other state routes?  When the Skaggs roundabout was constructed in Branson (MO), I was told that the US-65-Business designation was removed from that portion of the road and transferred to local control because the hill at the southbound approach was too steep to allow a roundabout on a US-shielded route.  This was said to me by someone directly related to the person who designed the roundabout.

[yakra]

Or we could just get US 96 to replace it  .

Just replace it with a new 4DRM.

[Henry]

I don't see US 41 and US 74 going away anytime soon, so I don't expect US 69 to be eliminated either. Plus, unlike CA and a few other states, TX doesn't care about number duplication.

[vdeane]

Aren't there also design standards that must be met for US Routes that don't apply to other state routes?  When the Skaggs roundabout was constructed in Branson (MO), I was told that the US-65-Business designation was removed from that portion of the road and transferred to local control because the hill at the southbound approach was too steep to allow a roundabout on a US-shielded route.  This was said to me by someone directly related to the person who designed the roundabout.

I believe those would be the AASHTO Green Book standards.

[Avalanchez71]

There are no US routes that could really be extended over it unless they extended US 169 south from Tulsa.  AASHTO wouldn't allow a single state US highway. 

The US 169 option could work, however it's like how US 127 replaced old US 27 in Michigan because of I-69.

Given that North Carolina has not had to renumber or decommission US 74 and US 41 will likely not be truncated for a possible I-41 in Wisconsin, I'd say US 69 will remain in Texas.

I believe that 'I-74' should really be, in fact, numbered I-32. No need to have two 74s to confuse everybody, and there is no way it will be connected to Cincinnati.
I-41 in Wisconsin should really be an extension of I-57 from Chicago, with or/without utilization of WI 57.

There are no US routes that could really be extended over it unless they extended US 169 south from Tulsa.  AASHTO wouldn't allow a single state US highway. 

It could revert to US 73. Renumbering would have the benefit of reducing 69 sign theft too.

But I don't think it's going to happen.

That could also potentially work, but at the expense of US 69. But US 73 is very short anyway.

I think I-41 should have been I-65.