AASHTO Fall 2023 Meeting

[Rover_0]

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.

[mvak36]

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:

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

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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.

[US 89]

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.

[Scott5114]

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?

[formulanone]

Does Memphis gets the first five-way US route overlap in recent memory? (61-64-70-78-79)

[US 89]

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...

[froggie]

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...

[formulanone]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

Signage of US routes in TN is abysmal.  You can; however, contact TDOT and ask them to put up signs.  They will do it.

[Avalanchez71]

Looks like a rubber stamp committee.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

Did they include maps?

[kenarmy]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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?

[freebrickproductions]

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).

[ericlipford]

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?

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...





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.

[ericlipford]

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.

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.

[froggie]

^ Yet they can't show US 64 there...

[MikieTimT]

^ Yet they can't show US 64 there...

Or US-61.

[SEWIGuy]

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?

[Scott5114]

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?

The shield isn't pointy enough.

[SEWIGuy]

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?

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.

[Big John]

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?

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?

[hbelkins]

In all honesty -- and I've said this before -- an extension of US 68 would make more sense than the US 78 extension did.