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.
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.
Texas numbers its roads under multiple shields and numbers are often duplicated. There will be an I-69, a US 69, a Spur 69 and an FM 69. I don't think there's a SH 69 but it's certainly possible to have one.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/sh0069.htm
QuoteAdm. Auth., dated 09/14/1992; Adm. Ltr. 003-1992, dated 09/14/1992
Cancelled. (Eastland County) As requested by District, this mileage transferred to SH 112. (This is due to numerous thefts of the popular SH 69 signs.)
If I-69 follows the US 59 bypass/loop in Lufkin it will definitely share with US 69 for a few of those miles. Wonder if TX will keep Loop 287 with it too.....I-69+US 59+US 69+Loop 287. Texas has other highways with 4+ highway numbers but still.
Quote from: bassoon1986 on August 05, 2012, 09:25:00 PM
If I-69 follows the US 59 bypass/loop in Lufkin it will definitely share with US 69 for a few of those miles. Wonder if TX will keep Loop 287 with it too.....I-69+US 59+US 69+Loop 287. Texas has other highways with 4+ highway numbers but still.
The initial layouts of the path in the Lufkin and Nacogdoches areas show a bypass to the east of Lufkin and to the west of Nacogdoches. There will be a crossing somewhere of I-69 and US 69, but I doubt that I-69 would be able to use the path of the east loop in Lufkin. Too narrow and developed, plus there are still some at-grade situations along the way also.
Quote from: txstateends on August 06, 2012, 05:04:33 PM
I doubt that I-69 would be able to use the path of the east loop in Lufkin. Too narrow and developed, plus there are still some at-grade situations along the way also.
There seems to be enough room, looking at aerials, and they just built a couple flyovers at the south end of the loop.
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
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.
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 30, 2012, 11:21:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 10, 2012, 11:41:08 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
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.
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 24, 2012, 10:04:39 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 10, 2012, 11:41:08 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
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.
69 south of Kansas City was at one point at least theoretically numbered 73 (this was in the first few years of the US highway system's existence so the 73 numbering may well have been confined to maps). It was truncated to Kansas City in favor of 69.
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
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.
Quote from: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 08:30:25 AM
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.
Add also US-181 to the list. https://www.usends.com/181.html
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 19, 2021, 09:37:24 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 08:30:25 AM
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.
Add also US-181 to the list. https://www.usends.com/181.html
As far as that goes, I-2 & I-14. I really did not check to see if there were any more... The point was, that giving US-69 a different US Highway number that was solely in Texas is not without precedence. I would say though that an orphaned segment of US-73 (or even a renumber from Kansas City) is NOT a solution.
US 69 will continue to co-exist with Interstate 69 in Texas permanently. If US 69 was going to be renumbered, it likely would have happened when Interstate 69 was first designated in Texas in 2011. That was how Wisconsin handled renumbering state highways when US Highways of the same number were designated, and renumbering state highways when Interstate Highways of the same number were designated from the 1920s to the 1970s. The state has eased up on that since the designation of Interstate 39 in 1992. Of course, US 41 and Interstate 41 are co-designated, and STH-794 continues off the end of Interstate 794.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2021, 01:13:29 PM
US 69 will continue to co-exist with Interstate 69 in Texas permanently. If US 69 was going to be renumbered, it likely would have happened when Interstate 69 was first designated in Texas in 2011. That was how Wisconsin handled renumbering state highways when US Highways of the same number were designated, and renumbering state highways when Interstate Highways of the same number were designated from the 1920s to the 1970s. The state has eased up on that since the designation of Interstate 39 in 1992. Of course, US 41 and Interstate 41 are co-designated, and STH-794 continues off the end of Interstate 794.
The weird part is TxDOT has ignored it when asked. It would seem there is someone who has an iron in this fire outside of TxDOT or there is one cog at TxDOT that doesn't want the change. There is not a definitive answer about what they plan on doing. If they just said they are going to leave it like it is, that would be that. They say NOTHING about it. My thinking is some regional politician or donor wants US-69 to continue to go to Beaumont. Absent that there is someone fairly high up the chain of command who doesn't want change of ANY sort and this is change. I will discuss TxDOT on another string...
Quote from: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2021, 01:13:29 PM
US 69 will continue to co-exist with Interstate 69 in Texas permanently. If US 69 was going to be renumbered, it likely would have happened when Interstate 69 was first designated in Texas in 2011. That was how Wisconsin handled renumbering state highways when US Highways of the same number were designated, and renumbering state highways when Interstate Highways of the same number were designated from the 1920s to the 1970s. The state has eased up on that since the designation of Interstate 39 in 1992. Of course, US 41 and Interstate 41 are co-designated, and STH-794 continues off the end of Interstate 794.
The weird part is TxDOT has ignored it when asked. It would seem there is someone who has an iron in this fire outside of TxDOT or there is one cog at TxDOT that doesn't want the change. There is not a definitive answer about what they plan on doing. If they just said they are going to leave it like it is, that would be that. They say NOTHING about it. My thinking is some regional politician or donor wants US-69 to continue to go to Beaumont. Absent that there is someone fairly high up the chain of command who doesn't want change of ANY sort and this is change. I will discuss TxDOT on another string...
who knows at this point TXDOT might not even be on a spree to truncate. At this for all we know I345 in Dallas would just revert to being I45 and US75 and have dual shielding into Oklahoma to not have to deal with truncating arguing with Oklahoma. I think the itch to remove dual signing is long gone. After how bad they felt after destroying US66 towns the itch to truncate has worn off. Haven't seen a truncation since the 1990s for interstates in Texas have we not?. Same with a US69 and I69 overlap these days with GPS number snafus aren't as an issue as when we had to use only a paper map. Quite frankly I think just extending US75 back down to I30 in Dallas and updating the overhead signs would be better as the signs already mention 75 and 45.
Quote from: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 08:30:25 AM
By the way, in Texas we already have US-175, US-96, and I-45 as single state federal routes.
Ok Calrog
US Interstate 69-dub! Border-bound traffic near a little green shrub!
Quote from: US 89 on April 19, 2021, 11:37:35 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 08:30:25 AM
By the way, in Texas we already have US-175, US-96, and I-45 as single state federal routes.
Ok Calrog
I went and looked up CalRog. He apparently was gone from this forum way before I got here.
There were two points..... 1) There are existing US routes to subsume US-69 in Texas so that I-69 and US-69 would not meet. Routes that end in a city or town where US-69 already runs. Someone suggested US-73???
2) That someone said AASHTO would not approve single state US-routes. I pointed out that they already were some in Texas (Then someone else started telling the list was incomplete.) My point was that it has happened and more than once. I was not wanting to get into a listing competition.
I don't know who CalRog was. I definitely am not him or hopefully his evil spawn. (If I have done something particularly egregious, pm me and tell me what etiquette I defiled. )
Carl Rogers is a guy who used to spam the hell out of misc.transport.road with links to his site. His posts (and his site) were always very pretentious. He referred to road enthusiasm with the made-up term "viatology", which he desperately tried to get other people to use, to no avail. He always called US highways "federal routes", which drove people up the wall, because the federal government doesn't have anything to do with US routes (they're owned and maintained by the states, and numbering is coordinated by AASHTO, which isn't a government agency).
He often posted videos, featuring cringeworthy narration, sometimes with him badly speaking other languages. One time he accidentally recorded a banana in his car instead of the road, but still posted it to MTR, referring to it as a video of a "potassium-rich snack". One time he sang an out-of-key ode to US-31W, with incredibly lame lyrics.
He wasn't ever on this forum, mercifully. And if he tried he would have got banned long ago.
That said, judging by his Instagram account, he's chilled out a lot, and his photography has gotten much better.
Don't forget him standing in gores in his videos, too.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2021, 02:54:44 AM
Carl Rogers is a guy who used to spam the hell out of misc.transport.road with links to his site. His posts (and his site) were always very pretentious. He referred to road enthusiasm with the made-up term "viatology", which he desperately tried to get other people to use, to no avail. He always called US highways "federal routes", which drove people up the wall, because the federal government doesn't have anything to do with US routes (they're owned and maintained by the states, and numbering is coordinated by AASHTO, which isn't a government agency).
He often posted videos, featuring cringeworthy narration, sometimes with him badly speaking other languages. One time he accidentally recorded a banana in his car instead of the road, but still posted it to MTR, referring to it as a video of a "potassium-rich snack". One time he sang an out-of-key ode to US-31W, with incredibly lame lyrics.
He wasn't ever on this forum, mercifully. And if he tried he would have got banned long ago.
That said, judging by his Instagram account, he's chilled out a lot, and his photography has gotten much better.
Federal routes include the interstates.. For me it was just a shortening of the phrase US numbered routes or Interstate highways.
I can get on mu soap box at times. Sorry of the term FEDERAL Routes triggered something unpleasant. I find myself admonished.
Bottom line: US Routes are state routes.
This is unlike in Mexico, where the nationwide-numbered routes are actually administered by a federal agency (except the ones that aren't).
Quote from: bwana39 on April 20, 2021, 10:38:09 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2021, 02:54:44 AM
Carl Rogers is a guy who used to spam the hell out of misc.transport.road with links to his site. His posts (and his site) were always very pretentious. He referred to road enthusiasm with the made-up term "viatology", which he desperately tried to get other people to use, to no avail. He always called US highways "federal routes", which drove people up the wall, because the federal government doesn't have anything to do with US routes (they're owned and maintained by the states, and numbering is coordinated by AASHTO, which isn't a government agency).
He often posted videos, featuring cringeworthy narration, sometimes with him badly speaking other languages. One time he accidentally recorded a banana in his car instead of the road, but still posted it to MTR, referring to it as a video of a "potassium-rich snack". One time he sang an out-of-key ode to US-31W, with incredibly lame lyrics.
He wasn't ever on this forum, mercifully. And if he tried he would have got banned long ago.
That said, judging by his Instagram account, he's chilled out a lot, and his photography has gotten much better.
Federal routes include the interstates.. For me it was just a shortening of the phrase US numbered routes or Interstate highways.
I can get on mu soap box at times. Sorry of the term FEDERAL Routes triggered something unpleasant. I find myself admonished.
Interstates are state owned and maintained too. Some of them just get special funding from the federal government, and their designation requires both FHWA and AASHTO to sign off.
Really, there's no such thing as a "federal route". If you want to group Interstates and US routes together, something like "national-system routes" would be more accurate.
I personally don't really care one way or the other (it would be nice to have an unambiguous term that means "Interstate and US routes"). But a lot of people associate that specific term with Carl. I wonder, in a universe where Carl was a chill enough guy back in the day that MTR didn't hate his guts, if people would have gotten as pedantic about it.
Probably.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 21, 2021, 08:05:58 PM
Interstates are state owned and maintained too. Some of them just get special funding from the federal government, and their designation requires both FHWA and AASHTO to sign off.
But FHWA is involved with designation, which is not the case with US routes. A US route means nothing to FHWA - to them, it's just a state route with a fancy shield (many US routes aren't even on the NHS). That's not the case with interstates - not only is it its own functional classification, they even have their own performance targets which, if not met, can trigger FHWA forcing states to spend some of their federal money on them!
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.
Quote from: Rothman on April 21, 2021, 09:29:34 PM
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
Quote
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.
Quote from: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 08:30:25 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
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.
Or we could just get US 96 to replace it :bigass:.
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.
Quote from: kenarmy on April 22, 2021, 12:11:39 AM
Or we could just get US 96 to replace it :bigass:.
Just replace it with a new 4DRM.
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.
Quote from: kphoger on April 22, 2021, 11:23:12 AM
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.
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 24, 2012, 10:04:39 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 30, 2012, 11:21:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 10, 2012, 11:41:08 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
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.