Here is SCOH report:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/SCOH%20Report%2011-16-2012.pdf
Some interstate actions:
Immediate signage of I-22 in Alabama conditionally approved pending Mississippi application.
US 83 action in south Texas disapproved because no number requested
I-369 approved for Texarkana.
I-69C official designation for US 281.
US 311 is now a multi-state route again.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 28, 2012, 10:50:42 AM
Here is SCOH report:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/SCOH%20Report%2011-16-2012.pdf
Some interstate actions:
Immediate signage of I-22 in Alabama conditionally approved pending Mississippi application.
US 83 action in south Texas disapproved because no number requested
I-369 approved for Texarkana.
I-69C official designation for US 281.
I was going to send a message asking if you had information regarding this. I had tweeted to @aashtospeaks and never got a response!
Thanks for sharing!
If WisDOT wrote the proposals, they need a proof reader. It is Fond du Lac, not Fon du Lac. And is Zoo Interchange, not Zoon Interchange (error done on 2 separate entities). And Illinois actually submitted the I-41 proposal for the short segment of US 41 concurrent with I-94 in Illinois?
This is very interesting. The designation of the I-69 branches in Texas has been discussed and speculated about quite a bit. It's also very interesting to me to find out that this information is available.
I-69C??? Cause why have numbering rules, guys???
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 28, 2012, 11:21:56 AM
I-69C??? Cause why have numbering rules, guys???
Clearly the folks who were anti-suffix in 1980 aren't around anymore!
Quote from: TheStranger on November 28, 2012, 11:22:57 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 28, 2012, 11:21:56 AM
I-69C??? Cause why have numbering rules, guys???
Clearly the folks who were anti-suffix in 1980 aren't around anymore!
I think a lot of the old concerns were about suffixes like N, S, E, and W, that could cause traveler confusion, e.g., unclear to the most clueless of travelers whether I-80N refers to a northern branch from I-80 (as it did, until it was renumbered as western I-84), or to northbound or north-side lanes on mainline I-80. I read, in AASHTO files, that the old US 99W and 99E in California caused heartburn for that very reason.
Suffixes like A, B, and C still suck (IMO), but don't suck in that way.
Well, AASHTO just jumped the shark. I-69C? I guess we don't have numbering rules any more. Let's build the rooftop highway as I-400!
What is the purpose of AASHTO anymore, then, if they won't enforce the numbering system? Why not just put the damn signs up? Worked well for ODOT...
Quote from: Big John on November 28, 2012, 11:13:53 AM
If WisDOT wrote the proposals, they need a proof reader. It is Fond du Lac, not Fon du Lac. And is Zoo Interchange, not Zoon Interchange (error done on 2 separate entities). And Illinois actually submitted the I-41 proposal for the short segment of US 41 concurrent with I-94 in Illinois?
Don't know if the misspellings come from the agency applications, or the person putting them together at AASHTO. There typically are a few errors every time and its never from just one state. You would think in either case the SCOH Committee could afford to have an editor look at the document before its published. Hopefully it was corrected before any press release was sent to the mayor of Fond du Loc.
Perhaps the C stands for "Central" as it would be the central of the three branches?
Quote from: InterstateNG on November 28, 2012, 12:21:35 PM
Perhaps the C stands for "Central" as it would be the central of the three branches?
That's exactly what it stands for, but that's not the issue. The issue is that no new suffixed routes are supposed to be created any more.
All as the Mayans foresaw, obviously.
Which suffixed routes were created and approved by AASHTO if I may ask?
Quote from: Grzrd on August 02, 2012, 01:27:14 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 15, 2012, 06:54:29 PM
Michigan and Illinois are probably breaking Federal law by not posting I-69 signs on those portions of I-94 east of Chicago that are up to Interstate standards :pan:
GREAT observation. A couple of months ago, I took the liberty of running your observation by FHWA ... FHWA expects to give me their position on the mandatory signage in the near future. I will post as soon as I receive an answer.
Quote from: deanej on August 03, 2012, 11:36:06 AM
If this results in I-69 insanity up there, I'm blaming you, on the ground that the signs wouldn't go up if they don't find out about the issue.
(above 2 quotes from AASHTO and I-69 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5862.msg165622#msg165622) thread)
Quote from: deanej on November 28, 2012, 11:41:46 AM
Well, AASHTO just jumped the shark. I-69C? I guess we don't have numbering rules any more.
I still have not received a reply from FHWA regarding NE2's issue of mandatory dual I-69/ I-94 signage. I think they cannot come up with an artful dodge from NE2's observation. From my end, I'm just allowing them to stonewall and have it disappear.
Above said, wouldn't I-69W in Michigan and Illinois be a wonderful bookend to I-69C in Texas? :happy:
I thought there was to be a decision made for Arkansas regarding redesignating Interstate 540 north from I-40 as I-49. Did not see that covered in the notes document.
Was it postponed for a future meeting?
So is the Wisconsin proposal for US 41 taking it off the potential co-routing with I-41?
Quote from: Alex on November 28, 2012, 01:38:18 PM
I thought there was to be a decision made for Arkansas regarding redesignating Interstate 540 north from I-40 as I-49. Did not see that covered in the notes document.
Was it postponed for a future meeting?
I received an early August email from AHTD (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg166650#msg166650) to that effect. I was surprised that it was not included in the notes document. I will follow up with AHTD.
edit
I recently received an email reply from AHTD (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg188629#msg188629). Part of the reply:
Quote
... we can't apply for I-49 designation unless we can get some kind of exceptions ...
For Arkansas to be able to rename I-540 to I-49 (and Arkansas Highway 549 to I‑49), US 49 will have to be either renumbered or changed from a US Highway to a State Highway.
Can somebody post the PDF on another site? For some odd reason, I can't get onto the AASHTO website. :(
EDIT: Never mind, I found an online proxy browser that let me load it. Really weird that I can't get it to open on my normal connection. :(
Quote from: hbelkins on November 28, 2012, 01:41:44 PMSo is the Wisconsin proposal for US 41 taking it off the potential co-routing with I-41?
It's putting it onto I-41's route.
Very surprised to see IL having their I-94/US41 multiplex as I-41. I'm guessing that from there to Green Bay, US41 will not be signed, effectively making I-41 simply an interstate section of US41.
Has anybody found the PDF that gives the links to all proposals individual PDFs?
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 28, 2012, 03:01:55 PM
Has anybody found the PDF that gives the links to all proposals individual PDFs?
Yeah, what the fuck.
Going down the list:
AZ US 95 Truck already exists. Not sure if they're rerouting it.
AZ US 93 already bypasses Kingman.
AZ US 89-180 already goes as described.
MD I-370 is a truncation, not a relocation.
Minnesota's new BL I-35 at Pine City is not on state trunk highways. The routes which it covers are all county state-aid highways. This would not be unique (see I-90 Business at Fairmont) but I wonder if those other routes were AASHTO-approved.
Quote from: NE2 on November 28, 2012, 05:15:18 PM
AZ US 95 Truck already exists. Not sure if they're rerouting it.
Maybe they wanted to make it the second official AASHTO approved Truck route behind US 19 Truck here in Pittsburgh? :bigass:
That I69C should be an X69 or is that too obvious?
Quote from: Pilgrimway on December 02, 2012, 09:18:15 AM
That I69C should be an X69 or is that too obvious?
It's would be odd for such a long and mostly rural interstate to be a 3di, IMO. It should really have its own number. Unfortunately, it would have to violate the grid, as it's mostly between I-35 and I-37 and strangely, there are no available odd numbers between those! :confused: I-33 or I-47 would be the closest available numbers, since it looks like I-41 is going to Wisconsin.
But I also understand their desire to designate the branches as all being part of the I-69 system. Really, suffixed routes of 69 would be the best solution, although I think the "69C" is a little silly, as no one has ever used that suffix to mean "Central.".
But I also think AASHTO should follow its own guidelines, and that means no more suffixed interstates. So I'm pretty divided on what these branches should be numbered.
I-69 could be assigned to the easternmost branch, then the other two could be assigned unused odd 2di numbers between 35 and 69, given that 69's extension will already be bending the grid out of shape in south Texas. 61 and 63 are available (ignoring for now possible conflicts with Texas state route numbers), with no competing claims for those numbers like with 67. 47, 51, and 53 could work as well.
Quote from: oscar on December 02, 2012, 11:49:43 AM
I-69 could be assigned to the easternmost branch, then the other two could be assigned unused odd 2di numbers between 35 and 69, given that 69's extension will already be bending the grid out of shape in south Texas. 61 and 63 are available (ignoring for now possible conflicts with Texas state route numbers), with no competing claims for those numbers like with 67. 47, 51, and 53 could work as well.
That's probably the best solution, Oscar. Besides, we Road Enthusiasts are the only ones who care about the sanctity of the grid.
Texas probably isn't concerned about duplicate numbers; in fact, I think every mainline interstate there has a corresponding state route somewhere.
Quote from: xonhulu on December 02, 2012, 01:33:01 PM
Texas probably isn't concerned about duplicate numbers; in fact, I think every mainline interstate there has a corresponding state route somewhere.
Maryland sure as Hades does not care. Here are some overlapping state and Interstate route numbers:
68
70
83 (the state route has been decommissioned)
95 (state route also decommissioned)
97 (the state route is
much longer than the Interstate, and unlike the Interstate, crosses three counties)
195
270
295
370
395 (state route also decommissioned)
495
795 (state route unsigned)
895 (state route also decommissioned)
Texas 70 crosses US 70. Georgia 27 crosses US 27. This, while unusual, isn't unheard of.
Quote from: xonhulu on December 02, 2012, 11:02:36 AM
Quote from: Pilgrimway on December 02, 2012, 09:18:15 AM
That I69C should be an X69 or is that too obvious?
It's would be odd for such a long and mostly rural interstate to be a 3di, IMO.
I-135?
Quote from: bugo on December 02, 2012, 10:38:33 PM
Texas 70 crosses US 70. Georgia 27 intersects US 27. This, while unusual, isn't unheard of.
Georgia 23
multiplexes with US 23.
Quote from: Steve on December 03, 2012, 06:31:19 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 02, 2012, 10:38:33 PM
Texas 70 crosses US 70. Georgia 27 multiplexes with US 27. This, while unusual, isn't unheard of.
FTFY.
US 27 multiplexes with GA 1 through the state and intersects GA 27 in Lumpkin. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=ga+27&hl=en&ll=32.050389,-84.800377&spn=0.027717,0.038323
Quote from: Big John on December 03, 2012, 06:52:27 PM
Quote from: Steve on December 03, 2012, 06:31:19 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 02, 2012, 10:38:33 PM
Texas 70 crosses US 70. Georgia 27 multiplexes with US 27. This, while unusual, isn't unheard of.
FTFY.
US 27 multiplexes with GA 1 through the state and intersects GA 27 in Lumpkin. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=ga+27&hl=en&ll=32.050389,-84.800377&spn=0.027717,0.038323
Yeah, 23 and 27 are like, the same number, from an astronomical scale, or something.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2F20-29%2F025%2Fend025s-1.jpg&hash=5c86519f3eb6fd84bd06a906adb798bdcd74c858)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2F20-29%2F025%2Fbegin025s_nb2.jpg&hash=0dbb4091338e81c9ab5e97d77e3dfbb731024c89)
from http://www.usends.com/20-29/025/025.html
They need to pick one of the branches to be I-69 and the other branches to be x69 3dis or different numbers altogether. So they'd be the longest 3dis around, some route has to be longest, and it makes sense for it to be a big, spread out state like Texas. If they want them to be part of the I-69 "family," that's the way to do it. Suffixed routes are confusing in speech and AASHTO was right to remove most of them and ban new ones.
Give them the option: either be 3dis or leave them as state/US route freeways.
Quoteor leave them as state/US route freeways.
Holy shit
It would be fun to be on this committee (or at least attend their meetings). :D
The mayors of Dallas and Ft. Worth should play a game of poker for the right to I-35. Winner at the end of the evening gets I-35 through his or her city, the other one gets I-435.
Quote from: kkt on December 03, 2012, 07:48:03 PM
They need to pick one of the branches to be I-69 and the other branches to be x69 3dis or different numbers altogether. So they'd be the longest 3dis around, some route has to be longest, and it makes sense for it to be a big, spread out state like Texas. If they want them to be part of the I-69 "family," that's the way to do it. Suffixed routes are confusing in speech and AASHTO was right to remove most of them and ban new ones.
Nah, I'd go with I-1 and I-3.
Quote from: kkt on December 04, 2012, 01:13:26 PM
The mayors of Dallas and Ft. Worth should play a game of poker for the right to I-35. Winner at the end of the evening gets I-35 through his or her city, the other one gets I-435.
Or southern I-99.
Quote from: kkt on December 04, 2012, 01:13:26 PM
The mayors of Dallas and Ft. Worth should play a game of poker for the right to I-35. Winner at the end of the evening gets I-35 through his or her city, the other one gets I-435.
I'd prefer 835. It would go nicely with Ft. Worth's 820.
I-862. It's 35E (hex) in decimal.
and I-3464 (35W in base 33)
I-10011 (35 in binary) or I-1000101 (69 in binary)
I like the idea of long rural 3dIs instead of short rural 2dIs (suffixed or not). In my mind, this is what numbers of the form I-1xx should be reserved for. But doesn't federal law specify the number 69 for all three branches? I think AASHTO is trying to break the law as little as possible without literally calling all three branches I-69. And unlike the 69/94 situation in MI, they can't just ignore this problem without non-roadgeeks noticing something's wrong.
As much as I hate it, I think vtk hit the nail on the head here.
Which is precisely why numbers should not be written into law.
Quote from: vtk on December 04, 2012, 10:42:40 PM
I like the idea of long rural 3dIs instead of short rural 2dIs (suffixed or not). In my mind, this is what numbers of the form I-1xx should be reserved for. But doesn't federal law specify the number 69 for all three branches? I think AASHTO is trying to break the law as little as possible without literally calling all three branches I-69. And unlike the 69/94 situation in MI, they can't just ignore this problem without non-roadgeeks noticing something's wrong.
Maybe this is the problem. Legislators should not specify route numbers. Maybe this is one case in which AASHTO should fudge on the law and claim numbering the branches as 3di off 69 counts as numbering them 69. I would think they would count as much as numbering them I-69C or whatever. If Texas thinks I-69, I-169, I-369 is not good enough, they could also name the roads. And see if anyone really cares enough to sue.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 05, 2012, 09:51:25 AM
Quote from: vtk on December 04, 2012, 10:42:40 PM
the 69/94 situation in MI
what is this situation?
The I-69 law designates a portion of I-94 between if I remember correctly Chicago and current I-69 as being part of I-69.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 05, 2012, 10:34:57 AM
The I-69 law designates a portion of I-94 between if I remember correctly Chicago and current I-69 as being part of I-69.
the Hell? that's not even contiguous with the signed I-69. is it intended to remain unsigned I-69W or what have you?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 05, 2012, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 05, 2012, 10:34:57 AM
The I-69 law designates a portion of I-94 between if I remember correctly Chicago and current I-69 as being part of I-69.
the Hell? that's not even contiguous with the signed I-69. is it intended to remain unsigned I-69W or what have you?
Who the hell knows? Congress emanated it.
Maybe it's supposed to make a U-turn in Sarina and absorb all of I-94 until Chicago. Thus, I-69 has a wrong-way multiplex with itself!
If I were TXDOT, I would have picked a branch, said "this will be I-69" and left the rest as US/state highways if they were even improved at all. My guess is that, rather than having a branching route, Congress couldn't make up their mind and expected the DOTs to pick for them, rather than build everything.
Congress designated I-94 east of Chicago as part of the I-69 corridor for funding purposes. But they also passed a law saying that any segment of Corridors 18 and 20 that is built to Interstate standards and connects to another Interstate *must* be signed as I-69. Whoops.
Imagine if the ridiculous happened and I-69 replaced I-94 in Michigan and Indiana. Both states could have exit numbers going the wrong way. Of course, Indiana would just add 400 to existing exit numbers instead.
Quote from: mukade on December 05, 2012, 07:33:49 PM
Imagine if the ridiculous happened and I-69 replaced I-94 in Michigan and Indiana. Both states could have exit numbers going the wrong way. Of course, Indiana would just add 400 to existing exit numbers instead.
To be fair, though, the adding 200 thing is not incompetence--it's practicality on two counts (1. ease of conversion, and 2. the final routing from Bloomington to 465 isn't precisely known and renumbering now and again when it's finally done, if it ever does get done, is simply a waste). Renumbering an entirely built highway with known distances is another beast entirely.
Quote from: PurdueBill on December 05, 2012, 08:05:00 PM
To be fair, though, the adding 200 thing is not incompetence--it's practicality on two counts (1. ease of conversion, and 2. the final routing from Bloomington to 465 isn't precisely known and renumbering now and again when it's finally done, if it ever does get done, is simply a waste).
I agree. The comment was only made in jest.
Quote from: NE2 on December 05, 2012, 06:38:11 PM
Congress designated I-94 east of Chicago as part of the I-69 corridor for funding purposes. But they also passed a law saying that any segment of Corridors 18 and 20 that is built to Interstate standards and connects to another Interstate *must* be signed as I-69. Whoops.
There's a simple solution: don't build the other segments to interstate standards and leave them as US routes. I think that's what Congress intended. Leave it to TX to screw that up.
You know what? I'll be that guy--I actually don't mind the idea of suffixed routes. As long as they're not going in a completely different direction (Idaho's I-15W) and serving equally important areas, they're OK (I-35W/I-35E).
However:
(A) The portion of I-69 going to Laredo should be a 3di, with the US-281 and US-77 corridors becoming I-69W and I-69E, respectively (an I-69C shouldn't be part of anything), or
(B) The US-59 corridor becomes I-69 with US-77 and US-281 becoming one form of I-x69 or another (or even 2dis, like I-41 and I-47, ala I-19).
Of course, if I'm not mistaken, the new I-69C designation has only been tenuously approved by AASHTO-it hasn't yet gotten through to the FHWA yet.
Another interesting thing to see is if TxDOT pursues an Interstate designation for US-83--what number would that become? I'm feeling an I-x69 right now, but is there a chance that it turns out to be something like I-2 or I-6 and eventually goes up to I-69 (whatever branch) at Laredo? Is there a chance that TX-44 becomes an Interstate, as well (looking at this map (http://www.road-scholar.org/graphics/I69TTC_20080611_MAP_1600.jpg))?
EDIT: Realized the out-of-placedness of I-31 and I-33. Might have to make a southern I-41 (provided that that's the number US-41 in Wisconsin gets) and I-47.
Quote from: Rover_0 on December 10, 2012, 08:48:48 PM
(looking at this map (http://www.road-scholar.org/graphics/I69TTC_20080611_MAP_1600.jpg))?
I didn't know US-5 was in Louisiana now.
The most sensible way of handling the I-69 conundrum, in my opinion, would be:
- Assign I-69 to the branch ending in Laredo.
- Extend I-37 along US 77 south of Corpus Christi.
- Old I-37 becomes I-137.
- US 77 north of I-37 becomes I-237.
- TX 44 becomes I-269.
- Leave US 281 as is.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2012, 12:43:15 AM
The most sensible way of handling the I-69 conundrum, in my opinion, would be:
- Assign I-69 to the branch ending in Laredo.
- Extend I-37 along US 77 south of Corpus Christi.
- Old I-37 becomes I-137.
- US 77 north of I-37 becomes I-237.
- TX 44 becomes I-269.
- Leave US 281 as is.
Well what fun would that be.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2012, 12:43:15 AM
The most sensible way of handling the I-69 conundrum, in my opinion, would be:
- Assign I-69 to the branch ending in Laredo.
- Extend US-77 along US 77 south of Corpus Christi.
- Old I-37 remains I-37.
- US 77 north of I-37 remains US 77.
- TX 44 remains TX 44.
- Leave US 281 as is.
fixed that for ya.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 28, 2012, 10:50:42 AM
US 83 action in south Texas disapproved because no number requested
Quote from: Steve on November 28, 2012, 09:12:38 PM
I want I-287 to be renumbered I-0, just so I live next to the coolest Interstate ever.
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg187504#msg187504) thread)
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2012, 12:43:15 AM
The most sensible way of handling the I-69 conundrum, in my opinion
Quote from: CanesFan27 on December 11, 2012, 08:09:30 AM
Well what fun would that be.
I'm still mourning AASHTO's killing of TxDOT's brilliant stroke of having an interstate with no number. Much as the Beatles'
White Album (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_(album)) merely had "The BEATLES" in small text on a plain white background, US 83 could have simply been "INTERSTATE", and be commonly referred to as "the Interstate". Now, THAT would have been both cool and fun.
Maybe AASHTO shot it down for political reasons, since it
is on the path of the proposed Immigration Freedomway ... :spin:
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 11, 2012, 10:46:58 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 11, 2012, 10:26:43 AM
an interstate with no number
What? :-o
Like in Madison, WI?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4032%2F4524557785_4acee79f25.jpg&hash=8992886fd90f9ec46f7e82fcaf5509f7779c6547)
Quote from: Big John on December 11, 2012, 11:15:04 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 11, 2012, 10:46:58 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 11, 2012, 10:26:43 AM
an interstate with no number
What? :-o
Like in Madison, WI?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4032%2F4524557785_4acee79f25.jpg&hash=8992886fd90f9ec46f7e82fcaf5509f7779c6547)
That's just because the City of Madison was too lazy to sign I-39-90-94. There are others like that around the East Towne area, as well as various signs for the beltline that are empty US shields.
Quote from: DaBigE on December 11, 2012, 01:37:07 PM
Quote from: Big John on December 11, 2012, 11:15:04 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 11, 2012, 10:46:58 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 11, 2012, 10:26:43 AM
an interstate with no number
What? :-o
Like in Madison, WI?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4032%2F4524557785_4acee79f25.jpg&hash=8992886fd90f9ec46f7e82fcaf5509f7779c6547)
That's just because the City of Madison was too lazy to sign I-39-90-94. There are others like that around the East Towne area, as well as various signs for the beltline that are empty US shields.
That's real? I figured it must have been photoshopped, because no real city would be so lazy...
So have the actual documents been posted anywhere?
Quote from: kkt on December 11, 2012, 04:47:18 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on December 11, 2012, 01:37:07 PM
Quote from: Big John on December 11, 2012, 11:15:04 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 11, 2012, 10:46:58 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 11, 2012, 10:26:43 AM
an interstate with no number
What? :-o
Like in Madison, WI?
[Image removed to save space]
That's just because the City of Madison was too lazy to sign I-39-90-94. There are others like that around the East Towne area, as well as various signs for the beltline that are empty US shields.
That's real? I figured it must have been photoshopped, because no real city would be so lazy...
Yep, totally real. No photoshopping. Creating signs like this is nothing new for Madison.
StreetView of above photo (http://goo.gl/maps/drDrX)
StreetView of one further down the street (http://goo.gl/maps/Vv09M)
StreetView of blank US shield for Madison beltline (http://goo.gl/maps/ZXf5H)
StreetView of another blank US shield (http://goo.gl/maps/CHmuh)
Part of the Madison beltline is multiplexed as US 12, 14, 18, & 151, not to mention, also leading to the Interstate, so I can't blame them for "abbreviating".
Madison is being SOOOOO lazy. :D If Indy can do it with two numbers (with directional letters added, even) and St. Louis can do it with three and even FOUR....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org%2F03%2F6%2F1%2F9%2F10690730643297.gif&hash=de65b1dec874461e7a62abde7d9fb6ebf332e070)
Quote from: NE2 on December 11, 2012, 06:01:39 PM
So have the actual documents been posted anywhere?
They may be posted in one to two weeks. From an email reply I received today (Feb. 22):
Quote
When I checked with my colleague in engineering about those items, she was out of the office at a conference. She acknowledged, however, that others had also asked her about those applications and that she was planning to post those online soon after she returned here. From what I can tell, those applications aren't available there yet. I would recommend that you give it another week to see if that information is online by that time. If not, I will check again on the status and get a timeframe. AASHTO does have its annual legislative briefing here in Washington, DC, early next week, and my sense is that she and others on the engineering staff have their hands full right now helping to get ready for that.
Sweet, thanks.
Quote from: PurdueBill on December 11, 2012, 09:56:51 PM
Madison is being SOOOOO lazy. :D If Indy can do it with two numbers (with directional letters added, even) and St. Louis can do it with three and even FOUR....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org%2F03%2F6%2F1%2F9%2F10690730643297.gif&hash=de65b1dec874461e7a62abde7d9fb6ebf332e070)
Shouldn't that shield read "INTERSTATES" instead?
Quote from: roadman on February 22, 2013, 06:48:45 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on December 11, 2012, 09:56:51 PM
Madison is being SOOOOO lazy. :D If Indy can do it with two numbers (with directional letters added, even) and St. Louis can do it with three and even FOUR....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org%2F03%2F6%2F1%2F9%2F10690730643297.gif&hash=de65b1dec874461e7a62abde7d9fb6ebf332e070)
Shouldn't that shield read "INTERSTATES" instead?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fwi%2Fi-90%2Fblank.jpg&hash=4e70776eb49a18c72342a5e3a0b5c649241cc16a) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fva%2Fus_250%2Farrow.jpg&hash=262a024e9f80a7843d26600e38962e213095dc07)
Quote from: Grzrd on February 22, 2013, 05:23:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 11, 2012, 06:01:39 PM
So have the actual documents been posted anywhere?
They may be posted in one to two weeks.
The applications have been posted (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx).
:thumbsup:
Interesting bits:
QuoteThe TRUCK designation and auxiliary plaque has existed in the MUTCD since 1971; however, the current Purpose and Policy statement on US Numbered Highways does not yet recognize a TRUCK designation at this time. Arizona believes that a TRUCK designation should be allowed and recognized for US Highways where appropriate, and formally requests that this segment of highway be officially recognized and approved as US 95 Truck.
I-370 now officially ends where the mainline becomes MD 200, rather than at the park & ride.
Why isn't the entire road I-370 (or MD 200?)
Where is the park and ride? It's not obvious on the aerial view.
It says "we don't do truck routes" re: Truck US 95 in AZ then it says "approved."
Quote from: Stalin on February 25, 2013, 02:50:19 PM
Why isn't the entire road I-370 (or MD 200?)
Where is the park and ride? It's not obvious on the aerial view.
If I understand correctly, I-370 formerly ended here (http://goo.gl/maps/b31jM) at the Shady Grove Metro station park-and-ride, and it now ends here (http://goo.gl/maps/QT1DZ) at the trumpet interchange where MD 200 begins.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 25, 2013, 03:04:21 PM
If I understand correctly, I-370 formerly ended here (http://goo.gl/maps/b31jM) at the Shady Grove Metro station park-and-ride, and it now ends here (http://goo.gl/maps/QT1DZ) at the trumpet interchange where MD 200 begins.
What the Goog calls (probably incorrectly) "Redland Extension" is old I-370.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 25, 2013, 03:04:21 PM
Quote from: Stalin on February 25, 2013, 02:50:19 PM
Why isn't the entire road I-370 (or MD 200?)
Where is the park and ride? It's not obvious on the aerial view.
If I understand correctly, I-370 formerly ended here (http://goo.gl/maps/b31jM) at the Shady Grove Metro station park-and-ride, and it now ends here (http://goo.gl/maps/QT1DZ) at the trumpet interchange where MD 200 begins.
This is correct. That short segment of (what was) I-370 from the present-day trumpet interchange of 370 and Md. 200 past the Shady Grove Road interchange and to the Shady Grove Metrorail station is now designated as Md. 200A (according to the 2011 Highway Location Reference, it is 0.515 miles long and known officially as the "Metro Access Road").
If a state submits an application for an Interstate route with the number "to be determined", I think the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering should assign a number, rather than disapproving the application outright. Then again, maybe they would have done that had Texas included a map "to show Interstate routes are interconnected"?
Also, disappointed not to see an application from Ohio about relocating US 33 around Nelsonville. Maybe in the next round...
Quote from: NE2 on February 25, 2013, 02:43:36 PM
Interesting bits:
QuoteThe TRUCK designation and auxiliary plaque has existed in the MUTCD since 1971; however, the current Purpose and Policy statement on US Numbered Highways does not yet recognize a TRUCK designation at this time. Arizona believes that a TRUCK designation should be allowed and recognized for US Highways where appropriate, and formally requests that this segment of highway be officially recognized and approved as US 95 Truck.
AZ then needs to come back at them and ask them why they officially approved Truck US-19 here in Pittsburgh.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 27, 2013, 08:27:29 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 25, 2013, 02:43:36 PM
Interesting bits:
QuoteThe TRUCK designation and auxiliary plaque has existed in the MUTCD since 1971; however, the current Purpose and Policy statement on US Numbered Highways does not yet recognize a TRUCK designation at this time. Arizona believes that a TRUCK designation should be allowed and recognized for US Highways where appropriate, and formally requests that this segment of highway be officially recognized and approved as US 95 Truck.
AZ then needs to come back at them and ask them why they officially approved Truck US-19 here in Pittsburgh.
I was down in San Luis AZ yesterday. Truck US 95 signage is already up there.
I think on that one, AZ was asking AASHTO to ratify what was already on the ground. Arizona's other applications in this batch (reroutings of US 93 in Wickenburg and Kingman and US 180 in Flagstaff, short truncation of US 89 in Flagstaff) similarly asked for approval of what the state had already done.
BTW, one of the contact persons on the Arizona applications is Richard Moeur. He once made occasional appearances on misc.transport.road, most famously in a rant about people who wanted to slap Interstate shields on Phoenix's loop freeways.
Quote from: oscar on February 27, 2013, 09:29:50 AM
BTW, one of the contact persons on the Arizona applications is Richard Moeur. He once made occasional appearances on misc.transport.road, most famously in a rant about people who wanted to slap Interstate shields on Phoenix's loop freeways.
I'm pretty sure I've seen him active recently. Isn't he on the forum? I'm pretty sure I follow him on Twitter, too.
Quote from: oscar on February 27, 2013, 09:29:50 AM
BTW, one of the contact persons on the Arizona applications is Richard Moeur. He once made occasional appearances on misc.transport.road, most famously in a rant about people who wanted to slap Interstate shields on Phoenix's loop freeways.
I have met him at least once at annual meetings of TRB, though not especially recently.
Quote
I think on that one, AZ was asking AASHTO to ratify what was already on the ground.
That's correct: Truck 95 signs have been there since at least 2000, probably longer:
http://usends.com/90-99/095/095.html