I figured that I'd start this thread, as the meeting is occuring tomorrow. Do we know of any changes yet?
Probably more Interstate Oinky-nine in Texas.
AASHTO never put what they are discussing until after the meeting - expect something Friday morning at the earliest (IIRC from last time).
I'd imagine AZ future I-11 (in a similar form to NV's spring application) would be in there.
Is it too early for NC I-885 to be applied for? Then again, they like future designations.
I-69 in downtown Houston is pretty much a certainty. And perhaps more, though I'm not sure what is built and not designated.
Perhaps LA's application for I-49 north has helped them see that they could probably successfully apply for completed portions of I-49 south, especially the renumbering of I-910.
On top of that there will be the usual minor tweaks to US routes and something surprising (there typically is), though that might be I-885 or I-49 South.
Raise your hand if you think and/or fear we're getting more suffixed numbers...
Quote from: formulanone on November 19, 2014, 11:31:59 AM
Raise your hand if you think and/or fear we're getting more suffixed numbers...
Raising it, and thanks TxDOT for adding more suffixed numbers.
Quote from: english si on November 19, 2014, 11:05:42 AM
AASHTO never put what they are discussing until after the meeting - expect something Friday morning at the earliest (IIRC from last time) ...
I-69 in downtown Houston is pretty much a certainty. And perhaps more, though I'm not sure what is built and not designated.
AASHTO granted conditional approval pending FHWA approval for the I-69 in downtown Houston segment at the May 29 meeting (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx). Simply waiting on FHWA ......................
Interestingly, FHWA has approved the I-69E and I-69C segments that AASHTO approved on May 29 and the Texas Transportation Commission will probably approve those two segments on November 20 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2021238#msg2021238).
FHWA and the Texas Transportation Commission have both approved the May 29 I-69W segment.
Regarding new Texas I-69 approvals, if anything, maybe AASHTO will approve part of I-69E south of and/or in Kenedy County.
I wonder if NY will finally get around to submitting a request for I-86 from NY 17K to I-84 where the signs are covered up.
Interested to see what will come out of the meeting.
Also, I actually think suffixed US Highways are kinda cool (for example: US 11W & 11E in northeast Tennessee), but I'm not as huge of a fan of suffixed interstates. I hope this trend I-69 started doesn't continue. Or at least don't do something like I-69C. If we're gonna do suffixed interstates why not just leave it with just "W" and "E" (or "N and "S").
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on November 19, 2014, 02:58:57 PM
Interested to see what will come out of the meeting.
Also, I actually think suffixed US Highways are kinda cool (for example: US 11W & 11E in northeast Tennessee), but I'm not as huge of a fan of suffixed interstates. I hope this trend I-69 started doesn't continue. Or at least don't do something like I-69C. If we're gonna do suffixed interstates why not just leave it with just "W" and "E" (or "N and "S").
I think you're going to be disappointed when you see the approval for the new I-99Q in downtown Altoona. Just kidding.
Interstate auxiliaries of I-69 coming soon in Texas:
I-69U
I-69EIEIO
-69+I
For North Carolina, likely the following:
- US 74 Bypass - Shelby
- US 74 Bypass - Monroe (Toll)
- US 158 Reroute south around Riedsville
- I-485 (northeast section, opening next year)
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2014, 03:30:02 PM
Interstate auxiliaries of I-69 coming soon in Texas:
I-69U
I-69EIEIO
-69+I
Add I-sqrt69 and I-log69 to that :sombrero:.
Personally I see something about I-11 in this meeting. This appears to go ahead, unlike the central section of I-74.
BTW, I've witnessed some renumbering in my part of the world lately...
I'm curious when I-95 north of Trenton and I-295 north of Exit 60 are renumbered to I-195. I'd probably assume that'll happen in... 5 years at the rate of progress shown by PennDOT (or was it the PTC?).
Quote from: Zeffy on November 19, 2014, 05:27:21 PM
I'm curious when I-95 north of Trenton and I-295 north of Exit 60 are renumbered to I-195. I'd probably assume that'll happen in... 5 years at the rate of progress shown by PennDOT (or was it the PTC?).
In the year 2525
Quote from: Zeffy on November 19, 2014, 05:27:21 PM
I'm curious when I-95 north of Trenton and I-295 north of Exit 60 are renumbered to I-195. I'd probably assume that'll happen in... 5 years at the rate of progress shown by PennDOT (or was it the PTC?).
It was approved in 2007...
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN_Report_May42007_mv.pdf
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/PA_NJ_RelocateI-95_FHWA_Decision.pdf
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on November 19, 2014, 05:14:58 PM
Personally I see something about I-11 in this meeting. This appears to go ahead, unlike the central section of I-74.
They don't need AASHTO approval for I-74; it's future designation already exist thanks to Congress... if states approve of it or not.
They got the Spring meeting up the next day, it's now the third working day afterwards and still nothing.
Not up yet, but:
QuoteWe apologize for any inconvenience, but we've made the site read only while we're making some improvements.
http://route.transportation.org/
Now up http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20Report%20to%20SCOH%20AM2014.pdf
AR US62 BUS - new route in Prarie Grove, and relocation of US62
AR US63 BUS - new route in Hardy, and relocation of US63
AR US63 BUS - route eliminated in Jonesboro
GA US19/129 - relocated around Blairsville
IL I-490 - (conditional approval, not yet built)
NJ/PA I-95 - withdrawn
TN US641 - extended from I-40 to US64 (45 miles)
Business US 1 in Massachusetts?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2014, 11:49:34 AM
Business US 1 in Massachusetts?
No, it's US Bike Route 1 in Massachusetts that was approved.
Ah, I see.
Yay. Now we wait for the detailed applications.
Also, I could see a future continuation of US 641 to Florence.
In the meantime, if anyone besides me cares how they routed USBR 1 and USBR 90 in Florida (it's pretty boring): http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/usbr/
USBR 1 is essentially A1A where possible, except that it avoids Cocoa Beach via SR 404 and sticks to US 1 between Fort Pierce and West Palm.
USBR 90 is US 90 except east of Lake City, where it follows SR 100-207-206 to the coast. USBR 90A follows US 90 through Pensacola, with USBR 90 on US 90A.
Quote from: english si on December 02, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
Now up http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20Report%20to%20SCOH%20AM2014.pdf
AR US62 BUS - new route in Prarie Grove, and relocation of US62
AR US63 BUS - new route in Hardy, and relocation of US63
AR US63 BUS - route eliminated in Jonesboro
GA US19/129 - relocated around Blairsville
IL I-490 - (conditional approval, not yet built)
NJ/PA I-95 - withdrawn
TN US641 - extended from I-40 to US64 (45 miles)
Not a whole lot here, a bit of a let-down. :-/
Regarding the NJ/PA 95 - Withdrawn - What was actually withdrawn?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2014, 01:27:04 PM
Regarding the NJ/PA 95 - Withdrawn - What was actually withdrawn?
We don't know.
Quote from: english si on December 02, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
TN US641 - extended from I-40 to US64 (45 miles)
Gag. At least perhaps it makes this highway more relevant, but I've always been in favor of doing away with it entirely. I've called it USeless 641 for years.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 02, 2014, 02:00:11 PM
Quote from: english si on December 02, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
TN US641 - extended from I-40 to US64 (45 miles)
Gag. At least perhaps it makes this highway more relevant, but I've always been in favor of doing away with it entirely. I've called it USeless 641 for years.
Maybe it would make more sense on SR 22 south of Paris, but it's a reasonable corridor heading south from Paducah and Evansville through some mid-sized towns in Tennessee and past some recreational areas. It's certainly less useless than US 62 or US 460 in eastern Kentucky.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2014, 01:27:04 PM
Regarding the NJ/PA 95 - Withdrawn - What was actually withdrawn?
I went to the Spring Meeting for other purposes. Rumor has it that NJDOT and PennDOT want to essentially change their minds. I don't know for what reason exactly, but the new application i think carries 295 all the way up around to 276. I also think that the new appplciation could have taken 295 up to US 1 and then a new Interstate will be designated from US 1 to 276. I don't know though. i couldn't pinpoint the exact problem or the exact solution with who I talked to.
Regardless, the problem with AASHTO allowing them to even consider changing their minds was suspect. The original approval was conditionally approved on the basis that it get built, not conditional on the possibility of NJ and PA changing their minds. Some discussion in my group of peers wondered why the Renumbering Committee even exists.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on December 02, 2014, 03:03:52 PM
Some discussion in my group of peers wondered why the Renumbering Committee even exists.
To approve US 400 and deny the relocation of US 49W between Yazoo City and Silver City.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on December 02, 2014, 03:03:52 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2014, 01:27:04 PM
Regarding the NJ/PA 95 - Withdrawn - What was actually withdrawn?
I went to the Spring Meeting for other purposes. Rumor has it that NJDOT and PennDOT want to essentially change their minds. I don't know for what reason exactly, but the new application i think carries 295 all the way up around to 276. I also think that the new appplciation could have taken 295 up to US 1 and then a new Interstate will be designated from US 1 to 276. I don't know though. i couldn't pinpoint the exact problem or the exact solution with who I talked to.
Regardless, the problem with AASHTO allowing them to even consider changing their minds was suspect. The original approval was conditionally approved on the basis that it get built, not conditional on the possibility of NJ and PA changing their minds. Some discussion in my group of peers wondered why the Renumbering Committee even exists.
I figured it probably had something to do with the numbering situation between 295's Exit 60 & I-276, but couldn't find anything in print.
I've also heard - mostly thru forum posts - that this particular stretch could become 395.
I'm fine with AASHTO changing their minds...after all, it's a rubber stamp approval for a number change years down the road. Nothing is set in stone. People, things and thoughts change, and after considering the possible alternatives, 195 may not be the best routing number for the route.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on December 02, 2014, 03:03:52 PM
Some discussion in my group of peers wondered why the Renumbering Committee even exists.
For a more serious answer, it makes sense to have a "gatekeeper" that ensures that changes are well-defined and don't result in discontinuous routes. Unfortunately this doesn't actually happen (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1681).
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on December 02, 2014, 03:03:52 PM
Some discussion in my group of peers wondered why the Renumbering Committee even exists.
Allow me to be more clear. Let FHWA serve that function for Interstates and remove AASHTO as the middle man for that. Let AASHTO rubber stamp the States' decisions for US Routes. I mean, for something like US 9, why can't NJDOT and NYSDOT just get together and do anything they wanted to do (I'm ignoring DelDOT sicne they (not the road) don't count in my mind) without AASHTO. Or, if NJDOT wanted to do something with US 46, why does AASHTO need to be involved at all? It appears to be a more useless than more useful committee.
The continuation of the I-295 designation around to the I-276 (which would also be to the I-95) is most logical. It also solves any potential redesignation concerns as the I-295 would actually return to its parent.
Meanwhile, NJDOT still hasn't submitting anything regarding re-routing US-9 over the GSP across Great Egg Harbor Bay.
Curious what the USBR 1 realignment in Virginia entails, as well as the routing of USBR 11 in Maryland.
Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2014, 04:46:16 PM
Curious what the USBR 1 realignment in Virginia entails
http://www.virginiadot.org/programs/united_states_bicycle_route_1_and_76_in_virginia.asp
In addition to the obvious new route around Fort Belvoir, there's a realignment between Independent Hill and Occoquan that includes a stretch on Prince William Parkway. It's possible the 'bypass' away from the Alexandria waterfront was also included. (Also note that officially, according to what was initially approved, USBR 1 followed SR 400.)
Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2014, 04:46:16 PM
as well as the routing of USBR 11 in Maryland.
http://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/local/new-national-bicycle-route-to-coming-to-washington-county/article_e2a226fe-5fb7-52ce-ad1b-674aaf79957b.html
It's already been added to OSM (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=10/39.4728/-77.8381&layers=C).
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on December 02, 2014, 04:14:35 PM
The continuation of the I-295 designation around to the I-276 (which would also be to the I-95) is most logical. It also solves any potential redesignation concerns as the I-295 would actually return to its parent.
IIRC, when it was decided that I-95 would use the PA Turnpike & Connector after the interchange was constructed; that was indeed the original redesignation plan.
However, in 2007, it was decided that I-95/295 would ultimately become an extension of I-195. The reasoning likely stemmed from issues associated with a north-south route becoming a south-north route and making I-295 an east-west route between I-195 and the PA State line was probably viewed as a non-starter.
The
rumor that I-95/295 would now ultimately become I-395 is more logical and involves making less changes to mile markers & exit numbers (particularly along I-195 in NJ). Nonetheless, I would've chosen I-695 instead; but the same basic principle still applies.
Quote from: english si on December 02, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
Now up http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20Report%20to%20SCOH%20AM2014.pdf
AR US63 BUS - new route in Hardy, and relocation of US63
AGAIN?
Quote from: US71 on December 02, 2014, 05:13:45 PM
Quote from: english si on December 02, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
Now up http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20Report%20to%20SCOH%20AM2014.pdf
AR US63 BUS - new route in Hardy, and relocation of US63
AGAIN?
Why again? This is the first time that's being submitted to AASHTO.
The US 19/129 Relocation in Georgia...
Quote from: AASHTOIt begins at the intersection of State Route 11/U.S
19/129 and State Route 515/U.S. 76, southwest of the
city of Blairsville traveling southeast of the city of
Blairsville on an existing roadway beginning southwest
in the city traveling northeast, bypassing the town
square and then proceeding southeast. The focal point
city is Blairsville and the route is 1.13 miles ending at
the intersection of State Route 11/U.S. 19/129 and the
Glenn Gooch Bypass southeast of the city.
...makes no sense to me, and I've traveled through Blairsville plenty of times, and within the last couple of years. If I had to guess, I'd say that
this is what they're trying to describe.
Yeah, the directions are all cocked up. But what the Goog calls Industrial Boulevard is in fact the Gooch Bypass.
Looking at that map of Blairsville, I'm a bit surprised that the new bypass routing for 19/129 doesn't include Pat Haralson Memorial Drive (which reduces the slight go-south-to-go-north segment in the western part of town that is created by the current reroute).
Quote from: NE2 on December 02, 2014, 05:26:49 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 02, 2014, 05:13:45 PM
Quote from: english si on December 02, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
Now up http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20Report%20to%20SCOH%20AM2014.pdf
AR US63 BUS - new route in Hardy, and relocation of US63
AGAIN?
Why again? This is the first time that's being submitted to AASHTO.
It's at least 5 years late, then. There has been a Hardy Bypass for several years, unless AHTD has bypassed the Bypass?
Quote from: TheStranger on December 02, 2014, 07:58:27 PM
Looking at that map of Blairsville, I'm a bit surprised that the new bypass routing for 19/129 doesn't include Pat Haralson Memorial Drive (which reduces the slight go-south-to-go-north segment in the western part of town that is created by the current reroute).
That would save only 1/10 mi and probably require improvements.
Why has SR 210 not been renumbered as I-210 in California?
Rick
Quote from: US71 on December 02, 2014, 08:04:11 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 02, 2014, 05:26:49 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 02, 2014, 05:13:45 PM
Quote from: english si on December 02, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
Now up http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20Report%20to%20SCOH%20AM2014.pdf
AR US63 BUS - new route in Hardy, and relocation of US63
AGAIN?
Why again? This is the first time that's being submitted to AASHTO.
It's at least 5 years late, then. There has been a Hardy Bypass for several years, unless AHTD has bypassed the Bypass?
I drove it in 2007, so at least 7 years late.
Nice rock cuts.
Quote from: english si on December 02, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
AR US63 BUS - route eliminated in Jonesboro
I wonder if the road is being decommissioned or renumbered as a state highway? It would make a dandy AR 463 extension (the goog shows it as 463).
Quote from: english si on December 02, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
TN US641 - extended from I-40 to US64 (45 miles)
Funny, but I was looking at a Tennessee map a couple of days ago and thinking it should be extended to at least US 412.
HB: Is US 641 a little bit less "useless" now?
Maybe a little bit less useless, but I'm still not convinced it's a major enough route on the national scale to warrant inclusion in a national interstate (little i) system.
Quote from: nexus73 on December 02, 2014, 09:04:56 PM
Why has SR 210 not been renumbered as I-210 in California?
Rick
Or I-15, I-905...
Quote from: rschen7754 on December 02, 2014, 11:02:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on December 02, 2014, 09:04:56 PM
Why has SR 210 not been renumbered as I-210 in California?
Rick
Or I-15, I-905...
Especially I-905 since it was previously approved by AASHTO on December 7, 1984 (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AASHTO_USRN_1984-12-07.pdf)
I-490 around O'Hare airport caught me. I didn't knew they are going to make a full beltway around ORD...
PS:
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2014, 03:30:02 PMI-69EIEIO
Quote from: english si on SkyscraperCityThat's an upgrade to Farm to Market Road 3043 (http://mapq.st/1F3EtIy)
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=119241358&postcount=10125
:sombrero:
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2014, 09:38:54 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 02, 2014, 08:04:11 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 02, 2014, 05:26:49 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 02, 2014, 05:13:45 PM
Quote from: english si on December 02, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
Now up http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20Report%20to%20SCOH%20AM2014.pdf
AR US63 BUS - new route in Hardy, and relocation of US63
AGAIN?
Why again? This is the first time that's being submitted to AASHTO.
It's at least 5 years late, then. There has been a Hardy Bypass for several years, unless AHTD has bypassed the Bypass?
I drove it in 2007, so at least 7 years late.
Nice rock cuts.
I think it boils down to that some DOTs are proactive and some are reactive. It also might be that the DOT didn't realize they forgot to make it official; sometimes new administration doesn't know or its simply overlooked and assumed.
Quote from: english si on December 02, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
AR US63 BUS - new route in Hardy, and relocation of US63
They're just now getting around to rerouting US 63 around Hardy and establishing US 63B? What about US 62 and US 412 which also follow the bypass? Or is there another bypass that I'm not aware of?
Quote from: NE2 on December 02, 2014, 12:22:30 PMAlso, I could see a future continuation of US 641 to Florence.
I could see it extended to Cullman.
Quote from: english si on December 02, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
Now up http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20Report%20to%20SCOH%20AM2014.pdf
AR US63 BUS - new route in Hardy, and relocation of US63
The Link does not work for me.
BTW US-63 in Hardy, AR was already realigned. There was still no designation for Bus-US-63 trough town on the old Route. I have been on this alignment a few times both on the Bypass and the old route. It is a nice stop on the way between Kansas City and Memphis, TN. I can Tell you that the Bypass is very easy to miss as there's not much advanced warning for the turn off, so when you miss the turn you end up on the old route.
Quote from: bugo on December 04, 2014, 03:20:58 AM
Quote from: english si on December 02, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
AR US63 BUS - new route in Hardy, and relocation of US63
They're just now getting around to rerouting US 63 around Hardy and establishing US 63B? What about US 62 and US 412 which also follow the bypass? Or is there another bypass that I'm not aware of?
The signage has been up for US 63 around Hardy and US 63B through Hardy for quite some time now. I believe US 62/412 follow the bypass.
Quote from: bugo on December 04, 2014, 03:30:20 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 02, 2014, 12:22:30 PMAlso, I could see a future continuation of US 641 to Florence.
I could see it extended to Cullman.
It would make a lot of sense replacing AL 157, since it is an important route between the Shoals and Cullman. Unfortunately, it looks like US 641's extension puts it ending right in the middle of nowhere along US 64, which means a multiplex going either east or west along US 64 would be required in order to reach a state highway that goes to Florence.
I could see it multiplexing with US 64 between TN 114 and TN 13 at Waynesboro, then following TN 13/AL 17 south to Florence to US 43/72, then it would pick up AL 157 to cross the Patton Island Bridge and then continue along AL 157 south to Cullman.
Why was US 63B dropped?
Quote from: rschen7754 on December 02, 2014, 11:02:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on December 02, 2014, 09:04:56 PM
Why has SR 210 not been renumbered as I-210 in California?
Rick
Or I-15, I-905...
There's still some work needed on CA-15 near CA-94 to bring it to Interstate standards. I'm not sure that the planning people at Caltrans Districts 7 and 11 are all that interested in getting CA-210 and CA-905 designated as Interstate routes. There's no reason why they couldn't be.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 28, 2014, 09:00:40 PM
Why was US 63B dropped?
It's AHTD, so there's no telling why. It didn't connect back to 63 on the north side anyway. I would renumber it as AR 463 if it were my choice.
Quote from: jrouse on December 28, 2014, 09:50:30 PM
Quote from: rschen7754 on December 02, 2014, 11:02:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on December 02, 2014, 09:04:56 PM
Why has SR 210 not been renumbered as I-210 in California?
Rick
Or I-15, I-905...
There's still some work needed on CA-15 near CA-94 to bring it to Interstate standards. I'm not sure that the planning people at Caltrans Districts 7 and 11 are all that interested in getting CA-210 and CA-905 designated as Interstate routes. There's no reason why they couldn't be.
I spoke with the director of Caltrans District 11, and she acted surprised when I asked her whether SR 15 would become I-15. I don't think a change in status is in the minds of the local maintenance/operational folks. I emailed SANBAG, the local association of governments in San Bernardino to ask about 210, and they never responded, which led me to think that neither Caltrans nor the local planning organization is interested in seeing the designation change from SR to I. With that in mind, I don't know when, if ever, SR 15, SR 210, and SR 905 will be upgraded to Interstate status. I guess someone will have to legislate the Interstate designation into existence. This same reason is why I think SR 58 will remain SR 58 indefinitely, even if it is completed as an Interstate-grade freeway between I-5 and I-15. If that occurs, I think it should be I-40, but ...
Perhaps no one cares because it's SoCal and everyone there refers to them as "the 15", "the 210", and "the 905" anyway. Putting up a different colored sign isn't going to change that.
Quote from: dfwmapper on December 29, 2014, 12:37:22 AM
Perhaps no one cares because it's SoCal and everyone there refers to them as "the 15", "the 210", and "the 905" anyway. Putting up a different colored sign isn't going to change that.
And not only that but CA is very good about not repeating numbers. So 15 is really one roadway, regardless of its designation.
FWIW, I prefer seeing the interstate shield for 15 and 210 since most of the length of highway has a designation and I know that if I were following directions that said take the 15 to the 210, I might miss a CA-210, because I'm "programmed" to look for the Interstate designation as well, when referring to this highway. (I grew up in LA and there was only I-210 until recently, so seeing CA-210 is a little jarring to me.)
Quote from: bugo on December 28, 2014, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 28, 2014, 09:00:40 PM
Why was US 63B dropped?
It's AHTD, so there's no telling why. It didn't connect back to 63 on the north side anyway. I would renumber it as AR 463 if it were my choice.
When was it truncated on the north end?
AHTD does odd things. I would much rather see AR 60 removed at Rudy.
Quote from: andy3175 on December 29, 2014, 12:17:25 AM
Quote from: jrouse on December 28, 2014, 09:50:30 PM
Quote from: rschen7754 on December 02, 2014, 11:02:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on December 02, 2014, 09:04:56 PM
Why has SR 210 not been renumbered as I-210 in California?
Rick
Or I-15, I-905...
There's still some work needed on CA-15 near CA-94 to bring it to Interstate standards. I'm not sure that the planning people at Caltrans Districts 7 and 11 are all that interested in getting CA-210 and CA-905 designated as Interstate routes. There's no reason why they couldn't be.
I spoke with the director of Caltrans District 11, and she acted surprised when I asked her whether SR 15 would become I-15. I don't think a change in status is in the minds of the local maintenance/operational folks. I emailed SANBAG, the local association of governments in San Bernardino to ask about 210, and they never responded, which led me to think that neither Caltrans nor the local planning organization is interested in seeing the designation change from SR to I. With that in mind, I don't know when, if ever, SR 15, SR 210, and SR 905 will be upgraded to Interstate status. I guess someone will have to legislate the Interstate designation into existence. This same reason is why I think SR 58 will remain SR 58 indefinitely, even if it is completed as an Interstate-grade freeway between I-5 and I-15. If that occurs, I think it should be I-40, but ...
When you are travelling west on I-10 before the CA-210 exit there is new secondary signage for I-210 and Pasadena posted, but I believe the actual exit has CA-210 shields.
Quote from: US71 on December 29, 2014, 09:21:16 AM
Quote from: bugo on December 28, 2014, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 28, 2014, 09:00:40 PM
Why was US 63B dropped?
It's AHTD, so there's no telling why. It didn't connect back to 63 on the north side anyway. I would renumber it as AR 463 if it were my choice.
When was it truncated on the north end?
Maybe 10 years ago, after the route through downtown was decommed and AR 91 was extended to US 49.
Have the PDFs for the applications themselves ever been posted?
Quote from: bugo on December 29, 2014, 07:23:55 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 29, 2014, 09:21:16 AM
Quote from: bugo on December 28, 2014, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 28, 2014, 09:00:40 PM
Why was US 63B dropped?
It's AHTD, so there's no telling why. It didn't connect back to 63 on the north side anyway. I would renumber it as AR 463 if it were my choice.
When was it truncated on the north end?
Maybe 10 years ago, after the route through downtown was decommed and AR 91 was extended to US 49.
They should decommission 64B in Alma. AHTD still hasn't corrected the junction sign on the east end.
Quote from: robbones on December 30, 2014, 09:40:03 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 29, 2014, 07:23:55 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 29, 2014, 09:21:16 AM
Quote from: bugo on December 28, 2014, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 28, 2014, 09:00:40 PM
Why was US 63B dropped?
It's AHTD, so there's no telling why. It didn't connect back to 63 on the north side anyway. I would renumber it as AR 463 if it were my choice.
When was it truncated on the north end?
Maybe 10 years ago, after the route through downtown was decommed and AR 91 was extended to US 49.
They should decommission 64B in Alma. AHTD still hasn't corrected the junction sign on the east end.
Why? It's no less important than a lot of other business routes.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 29, 2014, 10:30:27 PM
Have the PDFs for the applications themselves ever been posted?
They have just been posted:
http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx
I like that FL's new USBR 1 codifies 90% of FL A1A into the US (Bike) Highway system.
Speaking of, are there any nationwide maps of the USBRS as approved by AASHTO yet? I think this is NE2's area of expertise.
Quote from: Bickendan on January 14, 2015, 02:39:46 PM
Speaking of, are there any nationwide maps of the USBRS as approved by AASHTO yet? I think this is NE2's area of expertise.
Small-scale version: http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-corridor-plan/
I think they've been working with OSM, so you can see the details there (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=6/37.099/-81.870&layers=C). (Note that the East Coast Greenway and Mississippi River Trail are also mapped as national routes.)
Quote from: Grzrd on January 14, 2015, 12:10:01 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 29, 2014, 10:30:27 PM
Have the PDFs for the applications themselves ever been posted?
They have just been posted:
http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx
Sweet. I wonder why the LA US 371 "extension" (recognition of the route to I-49) isn't in the main document.
Massachusetts appears to misunderstand the purpose of the USBRS, in that they're adding disconnected segments of trail rather than a continuous route.