AARoads Forum

As WashuOtaku mentioned in the North Carolina (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg2420840#msg2420840) thread, the final report from the Special Committee on U. S. Route Numbering meeting has been posted.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/3/31/31119030d9a75754/Final_Report_to_CHS_USRN_Application_Results_Spring_2019.original.1558475352.pdf?1558475353

Interstate items approved in this meeting:
I-265 (IN and KY)
I-49 LA
I-274 NC
I-285 NC
I-169 TX

Yeay! Louisville I-265 is finally, officially unified!

Still no I-210 mention.  Oh heck, just call it state route 30 again...LOL!

Rick

NC's dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 04, 2019, 02:11:04 PM
NC's dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

As an NC resident, I ask myself that question every single day, in far more facets than just Road numbering.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 04, 2019, 02:11:04 PM
NC’s dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

73 and 74 definitely need to get lost from central North Carolina. There's very little chance the gap through West Virginia will be filled on its own (there isn't even a corridor being defined or suitable for it) - I certainly can't see I-74 ever making it past southern Ohio, while there is a much better route for I-73 on its own. 73 and 74 would just create a 4-route multiplex on the WV Turnpike.

The only thing is that number from the Northeast will need to be duplicated, as it needs to fall between 81 and 95 (ideally between 85 and 95). Forgetting the out of place I-87, I-89 would probably be the number best suited for the north-south section of I-74 (and 73/74) between Mount Airy and Rockingham. The east-west section would be best numbered as I-38. With that, 274 could become 289, while I-73 to Greensboro could (for now) be I-189, while options through Virginia are considered.

I-38 would be extendable in both directions: west through Charlotte to I-26 in Columbus (via US 74; most of it is already a freeway) and east to Whiteville or Wilmington (depending on if I-20 is extended). While I-89 could be extended south, there seems to be no push from the Palmetto State.

TX I-169 extension approved. No surprise to me, but at some point I'll have to make it back down to far southern Texas. That's far from my normal travel patterns.

Item 8 confusingly refers to existing I-55 Business in Springfield IL (which will be rerouted at least a little) as "U.S. 55 Bus". One side note: the route relocation description says the realigned route will include some locally-maintained roads.

All the materials from the meeting are located at: https://route.transportation.org/committee-notices-actions-and-approvals/past-meetings/

Applications from the states:
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2019/06/003_USRN-Applications-Spring-Meeting-2019_AR-GA_Part-1.pdf
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2019/06/004_USRN-Applications-Spring-Meeting-2019_IL-KY-Part-2.pdf
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2019/06/005_USRN-Applications-Spring-Meeting_LA-MO_Part-3.pdf
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2019/06/006_USRN-Applications-Spring-Meeting_-NC-VA_Part-4.pdf

Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 04, 2019, 02:42:50 PM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 04, 2019, 02:11:04 PM
NC’s dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

73 and 74 definitely need to get lost from central North Carolina. There's very little chance the gap through West Virginia will be filled on its own (there isn't even a corridor being defined or suitable for it) - I certainly can't see I-74 ever making it past southern Ohio, while there is a much better route for I-73 on its own. 73 and 74 would just create a 4-route multiplex on the WV Turnpike.

I still say 73 should become 79-upgrade U.S. 19 from Sutton to Beckley, have it multiplex with 77 to Princeton, then upgrade 460 from Princeton to the WV/VA line, and in turn, make 79 from Sutton to Charleston into I-73. It'd be a lot quicker than carving out a whole new path through western WV (which TBH, really doesn't need an interstate). 74 shouldn't extend farther east or south than Cincinnati IMO.

The AR US63 reroute had been on my own personal Fictional list for a while, but I'd never really considered that one day it might actually happen. Good to see.

Quote from: nexus73 on June 04, 2019, 02:08:26 PM
Still no I-210 mention.  Oh heck, just call it state route 30 again...LOL!

Regarding 210, I remember seeing on Cahighways.org a link to a 2018 article that noted there were still some final projects remaining on the road before the Interstate designation for the eastern segment was sought again.  I posted about it in one of the threads in the Pacific Southwest board but forgot where.  Lemme find it:

https://cahighways.org/209-216.html#210

"In September 2018, an explanation was given for why the portion E of Route 57 was still not signed as an interstate route. Joy Schneider from Caltrans District 8 (Riverside and San Bernardino counties), said state legislation authorizing number changes for Route 210 construction project was complex because the entire route for the highway was considered, beginning with Los Angeles County communities all the way east through Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Interstate status was more directly tied Route 210 Freeway construction projects, she said, explaining that interstate status was initiated, then partially rescinded to coincide with construction limits. Schneider said all highway signs should all be updated to reflect the name of I-210 once pending freeway upgrade construction through to I-10 is completed. More work on Route 210 is expected to begin in the fall of 2019 and updated interstate signs will follow."

https://www.pe.com/2018/09/16/why-isnt-the-new-section-of-the-210-freeway-called-interstate-210/

At the turn of the century there were three I-265s. Now only one remains. The Southernmost one was deleted by a I-65 reroute. Now the other two have merged into a single designation.

I-274, really? It is known North Carolina's I-74 will never connect to the Quad Cities to Cincinnati I-74, so it needs to be changed to I-38 or something like that. I-274 would therefore become, you guessed it, I-238 :bigass:.

No new US routes have been approved. There is only one meeting remaining before the 2010s becomes the first decade with no new US routes since they were first introduced.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 04, 2019, 02:11:04 PM
NC's dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

It makes sense that the remaining half of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway become an interstate. As for I-74 itself, you might want to direct that hate towards Congress, since they're the ones responsible for it.

As for the AASHTO meeting, I was hoping that NCDOT would ask that the eastern end of the Wilmington Bypass become part of I-140, but no dice. :no:

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 05, 2019, 03:41:06 AM
At the turn of the century there were three I-265s. Now only one remains. The Southernmost one was deleted by a I-65 reroute. Now the other two have merged into a single designation.

KY/IN new segment and bridge?  Isn't that still a state primary route?

Quote from: LM117 on June 05, 2019, 05:29:16 AM

As for the AASHTO meeting, I was hoping that NCDOT would ask that the eastern end of the Wilmington Bypass become part of I-140, but no dice. :no:

What's the reason that that segment isn't already an interstate? Does it need to be upgraded or something before getting the designation?

Quote from: mvak36 on June 05, 2019, 08:04:52 AM

Quote from: LM117 on June 05, 2019, 05:29:16 AM

As for the AASHTO meeting, I was hoping that NCDOT would ask that the eastern end of the Wilmington Bypass become part of I-140, but no dice. :no:

What's the reason that that segment isn't already an interstate? Does it need to be upgraded or something before getting the designation?

I don't know what the issue is, because it currently meets interstate standards and ends at a US route, so there's technically no reason it can be denied.

Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 07:42:30 AM

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 05, 2019, 03:41:06 AM
At the turn of the century there were three I-265s. Now only one remains. The Southernmost one was deleted by a I-65 reroute. Now the other two have merged into a single designation.

KY/IN new segment and bridge?  Isn't that still a state primary route?

That's what was approved in this batch as part of a unified I-265 designation (since the East End Bridge first opened it was IN 265 on the west part of it and KY 841 east of the state line).

QuoteItem No. 28 - State: Texas Route: US 175
Action: Relocation of a U.S. Route between: 0.5 mile
west of Farm To Market (FM) 315 to approximately
0.5 mile east of FM 315 (US 175).
Description: In the City of Poynor, Henderson
County, Texas, the Texas Transportation Commission
approved the designation of US 175 along a new
location from approximately 0.5 mile west of FM
315 to approximately 0.5 mile east of FM 315, a
distance of approximately 1.0 mile.

QuoteItem No. 29 - State: Texas Route: US 175 BUS
Action: Recognition of a Business Route between:
0.5 mile west of FM 315 to approximately 0.5 mile
east of FM 315.
Description: In the City of Poynor, Henderson
County, Texas, the Texas Transportation Commission
approved the redesignation of US 175 as BU 175-H
from approximately 0.5 mile west of FM 315 to
approximately 0.5 mile east of FM 315, a distance of
approximately 1.0 mile.

I had wondered about this.  So far, in the initial widening work between Baxter and Frankston, a new bypass of Poynor came together as part of the 2nd of the 3 phases of construction, and signage was limited to
TO
FM 315
<<==
(or, ==>>)
on each end of the short bypass.  I didn't hear whether there would be any designation change for the old in-town route, or not.  Good to know that something besides go-that-way-to-get-to-that-FM-crossroad-over-there will be signed/designated.  Bus US 175-H will be the shortest of the business routes along the highway.

Just checked earlier, and haven't found any posted meeting minutes or minute orders regarding the new designation, yet.

ETA:::: Found a GSV of the signage treatment up to now at the west-side intersection...
(for some reason, in this part of the phase 2 construction, all the turnoff assemblies and reassurance signage have what I call "large print" shields, that are oversized for what is necessary along there.  IMO, save the "large print" for the Dallas-area freeways; the smaller towns are fine without the super-sizing.)
(https://i.ibb.co/ydJ2GCT/Screenshot-11.png)

Quote from: oscar on June 04, 2019, 02:45:14 PM
Item 8 confusingly refers to existing I-55 Business in Springfield IL (which will be rerouted at least a little) as "U.S. 55 Bus". One side note: the route relocation description says the realigned route will include some locally-maintained roads.

Maybe AASHTO was confused, and really meant relocating US 66  :D

"Would we really have a business route on Interstate? Or would we just delete the business route at the control points coincident to the Interstate?"
-the Colorado representative, of course

Simple list of changes:
AR US 63 realigned along US 49 between Brinkley and Jonesboro
AR US 63B (Jonesboro) deleted (presumably becoming AR 463)
AR US 63B (Marked Tree) deleted
AR US 82B (Magnolia) deleted
AR US 278 By-pass (Monticello) created
GA USBR 1 created (FL to SC, mostly along a combination of existing state bike route 95 and the East Coast Greenway)
IA US 30 realigned around Mt. Vernon and Lisbon
IA US 52 realigned around Dubuque
IL I-55 Business (Springfield) realigned
IN/KY I-265 extended
KY USBR 21 created (TN to OH), USBR 23 created (TN to USBR 76), USBR 76 realigned through Paint Lick
LA I-49 extended and looped along I-220
LA US 61 Business (Baton Rouge) realigned
MA USBR 7 realigned in Adams
MI I-94 Business (Kalamazoo) truncated west of M-96, becoming a business spur
MI US 131 Business (Kalamazoo) truncated south of Dunkley Street
MO US 61 realigned around Kelso
MO US 61 Business (Kelso) created
MO US 67 Business (Cherokee Pass) truncated at both ends
MO US 65 Business (Carrollton) deleted
MO US 65 Business (Trenton) deleted
NC Future I-274 created
NC Future I-285 created extending I-285 north of I-40
TX I-169 extended
TX US 62/US 85 realigned in El Paso (removal of one-way pair; no indication of whether traffic on the bridge into El Paso will be directed east on 6th)
TX US 79 Business (Taylor) deleted
TX US 175 realigned around Poynor
TX US 175 Business (Poynor) created
VA USBR 76 realigned in Rutland

US 85 should really be truncated. It should start where it splits from I-76 Northeast of Denver. It's clear New Mexico and Colorado don't want it South of Denver, but it is still in the log as running to El Paso because Texas still fully signs it.

Quote from: LM117 on June 05, 2019, 05:29:16 AM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 04, 2019, 02:11:04 PM
NC's dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

It makes sense that the remaining half of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway become an interstate. As for I-74 itself, you might want to direct that hate towards Congress, since they're the ones responsible for it.

Hey -- even orphans can have kids!  Until the folks who instigated the 73/74 proposal stop acting like Monty Python's Black Knight: ".....your arm's off!" -- "It's only a scratch" and realize they've lost their lifeline to Cincinnati, this sort of thing can and will happen!   

Quote from: LM117 on June 05, 2019, 05:29:16 AM
As for the AASHTO meeting, I was hoping that NCDOT would ask that the eastern end of the Wilmington Bypass become part of I-140, but no dice. :no:

I'd like to see I-140 routed east of I-40, then follow the Hampstead Bypass back to US-17. But I suppose that's too fictional.

Arkansas does something not-awful to US 63! Two cheers for that. (I'm waiting for I-49 to be finished before I go after the southern half of US 63. It may sound weird but there's a plan.)

US 52 in IA is based on Dubuque's Southwest Connector which may or may not open this calendar year. US 30 is a bypass.

Anything related to x73 or x74 in North Carolina - heck, about 3/4 of the interstate things in North Carolina, period - just make me angry. :banghead:

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 04, 2019, 02:11:04 PM
NC's dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

Let me guess....  Asheboro?  I see a partial beltway under construction there.

The I-265 and US63 rerouting are the most logical ones on this list. Good for AR and IL/KY for making sense of their little issues.

Quote from: DJ Particle on June 06, 2019, 03:37:41 AM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 04, 2019, 02:11:04 PM
NC's dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

Let me guess....  Asheboro?  I see a partial beltway under construction there.

That's just for US 64. (Maybe if they ever complete the loop one day, it could become an x73 or x74 3di.) The new Future I-274 is for the western half of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway.

Quote from: NE2 on June 05, 2019, 02:16:27 PM
KY USBR 21 created (TN to OH), USBR 23 created (TN to USBR 76), USBR 76 realigned through Paint Lick

I didn't see the proposal on this. I wonder if it has to do with the recent widening/relocation of KY 52 in that area?

IIRC, previously USBR 76 followed KY 595 out of Berea, including a short concurrency with KY 52, and then turned from KY 595 to KY 1295 in Kirksville.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 06, 2019, 05:40:08 AM
The I-265 and US63 rerouting are the most logical ones on this list. Good for AR and IL/KY for making sense of their little issues.

This also makes me wonder if US 63 along what is now I-555 was always intended to be temporary in much the same way the second US 48 was a placeholder for I-68.

^ I doubt that.  US 63 had followed the Jonesboro-Turrell corridor since the start of the U.S. route system in the '20s.

Quote from: froggie on June 06, 2019, 12:48:17 PM
^ I doubt that.  US 63 had followed the Jonesboro-Turrell corridor since the start of the U.S. route system in the '20s.

Ahh alright.  So it's mostly the alignment along I-55 and I-40 etc. that was newer but not necessarily direct.

Quote from: hbelkins on June 06, 2019, 12:19:28 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 05, 2019, 02:16:27 PM
KY USBR 21 created (TN to OH), USBR 23 created (TN to USBR 76), USBR 76 realigned through Paint Lick

I didn't see the proposal on this. I wonder if it has to do with the recent widening/relocation of KY 52 in that area?

IIRC, previously USBR 76 followed KY 595 out of Berea, including a short concurrency with KY 52, and then turned from KY 595 to KY 1295 in Kirksville.

Actually, after reading the proposal, it looks like a bike-friendly business got them to move it off state routes onto county routes to send bicyclists through "downtown" Paint Lick. I can't say that this is a bad idea, since KY 1295 is a fairly heavily-used shortcut between Richmond and Lancaster, and will continue to be until the new alignment of KY 52 is completed.

So when might we reasonably see the signage change for US 63 in Arkansas?

I don't really understand adding I-49 shields to I-220 and I-20 other than continuity. I don't know anyone who would go that far out of the way just to stay on an interstate. Guaranteed everyone trying to stay on the through route goes LA-3132/I-220 or I-49 north to I-20 to US 71 north.

At this point the Inner City Connector through Shreveport is inevitable, especially as funds became available just this week so you know the 3 mile connection is finally within sight.


iPhone

Quote from: TheStranger on June 06, 2019, 12:35:25 PM

Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 06, 2019, 05:40:08 AM
The I-265 and US63 rerouting are the most logical ones on this list. Good for AR and IL/KY for making sense of their little issues.

This also makes me wonder if US 63 along what is now I-555 was always intended to be temporary in much the same way the second US 48 was a placeholder for I-68.

was it really a placeholder? I thought it was always meant to be US48...then they decided that an interstate designation would be a good idea, and honestly it fit into the system as a good connector between 70 and 79 without using the turnpike. Even though imho it could be I70, with the 70 to breezewood being a 3di, but that is a discussion for fictional highways i did a while back.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 06, 2019, 11:42:24 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on June 06, 2019, 12:35:25 PM
This also makes me wonder if US 63 along what is now I-555 was always intended to be temporary in much the same way the second US 48 was a placeholder for I-68.

was it really a placeholder? I thought it was always meant to be US48...then they decided that an interstate designation would be a good idea, and honestly it fit into the system as a good connector between 70 and 79 without using the turnpike. Even though imho it could be I70, with the 70 to breezewood being a 3di, but that is a discussion for fictional highways i did a while back.

The Interstate designation was not planned for this highway until it was nearly completed.  The Interstate I-68 designation was planned for the reconstructed US-50 John Hanson Highway from the Capital Beltway to Annapolis, and that highway was approved for Interstate construction as I-68, in the mid-1980s, and construction, involving widening to three lanes each way, and new interchanges, ran from 1990 to 1995.  When the National Freeway in Western Maryland was completed in 1991, it was given the I-68 designation, and US-50 was given I-595 (never posted).

Quote from: bassoon1986 on June 06, 2019, 07:37:43 PM
I don't really understand adding I-49 shields to I-220 and I-20 other than continuity. I don't know anyone who would go that far out of the way just to stay on an interstate. Guaranteed everyone trying to stay on the through route goes LA-3132/I-220 or I-49 north to I-20 to US 71 north.

At this point the Inner City Connector through Shreveport is inevitable, especially as funds became available just this week so you know the 3 mile connection is finally within sight.


iPhone

The application cited continuity as the primary reason for signing I-49 over I-20 & I-220; while the funds may be available, it'll likely be the mid-2020's before the inner connector is opened to traffic.  It's likely LADOT, by applying for this particular temporary I-49 route utilizing part of I-20 as well as I-220 is avoiding having to temporarily re-designate the existing I-49 between Loop 3132 and I-20 as something else pending completion of the inner-city connection.  Obviously, the logical extension for NB traffic coming into the area on I-49 would be simply to exit to WB 3132, which segues seamlessly into EB I-220 and thence to the newly-completed I-49 north of town. 

Question:  I haven't been on 3132 since the early '90's; is the portion between I-49 (south) and I-20/220 fully up to Interstate standards?  It might be a reasonable candidate for an I-220 extension.

Quote from: sparker on June 07, 2019, 04:07:56 AM

Quote from: bassoon1986 on June 06, 2019, 07:37:43 PM
I don't really understand adding I-49 shields to I-220 and I-20 other than continuity. I don't know anyone who would go that far out of the way just to stay on an interstate. Guaranteed everyone trying to stay on the through route goes LA-3132/I-220 or I-49 north to I-20 to US 71 north.

At this point the Inner City Connector through Shreveport is inevitable, especially as funds became available just this week so you know the 3 mile connection is finally within sight.


iPhone

The application cited continuity as the primary reason for signing I-49 over I-20 & I-220; while the funds may be available, it'll likely be the mid-2020's before the inner connector is opened to traffic.  It's likely LADOT, by applying for this particular temporary I-49 route utilizing part of I-20 as well as I-220 is avoiding having to temporarily re-designate the existing I-49 between Loop 3132 and I-20 as something else pending completion of the inner-city connection.  Obviously, the logical extension for NB traffic coming into the area on I-49 would be simply to exit to WB 3132, which segues seamlessly into EB I-220 and thence to the newly-completed I-49 north of town. 

Question:  I haven't been on 3132 since the early '90's; is the portion between I-49 (south) and I-20/220 fully up to Interstate standards?  It might be a reasonable candidate for an I-220 extension.

Since I haven't been on LA 3132 ever (last time I was in Shreveport was 1978), I'm sure I would take I-220 and Loop 3132 around the city to continue on I-49 if I ever needed to go from north of Shreveport to south.  I also don't understand why that wasn't used as a temporary I-49 designation as long as it's limited access. It's not like there aren't other old interstates that are less in standards compliance.

Quote from: TheStranger on June 06, 2019, 01:02:26 PM

Quote from: froggie on June 06, 2019, 12:48:17 PM
^ I doubt that.  US 63 had followed the Jonesboro-Turrell corridor since the start of the U.S. route system in the '20s.

Ahh alright.  So it's mostly the alignment along I-55 and I-40 etc. that was newer but not necessarily direct.

US 63 signs were few and far between anyway in that section.  The route made sense when it went from Jonesboro to Memphis.  After the realignment not so much.

Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 04, 2019, 02:42:50 PM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 04, 2019, 02:11:04 PM
NC's dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

73 and 74 definitely need to get lost from central North Carolina. There's very little chance the gap through West Virginia will be filled on its own (there isn't even a corridor being defined or suitable for it) - I certainly can't see I-74 ever making it past southern Ohio, while there is a much better route for I-73 on its own. 73 and 74 would just create a 4-route multiplex on the WV Turnpike.

The only thing is that number from the Northeast will need to be duplicated, as it needs to fall between 81 and 95 (ideally between 85 and 95). Forgetting the out of place I-87, I-89 would probably be the number best suited for the north-south section of I-74 (and 73/74) between Mount Airy and Rockingham. The east-west section would be best numbered as I-38. With that, 274 could become 289, while I-73 to Greensboro could (for now) be I-189, while options through Virginia are considered.

I-38 would be extendable in both directions: west through Charlotte to I-26 in Columbus (via US 74; most of it is already a freeway) and east to Whiteville or Wilmington (depending on if I-20 is extended). While I-89 could be extended south, there seems to be no push from the Palmetto State.

Why on Earth do they want to have that stupid hook once I-74 reaches the ILM/Grand Strand area, a la I-64 in the Hampton Roads, as well? It ought to be an auxiliary, seems like it would make a lot more sense from a navigational standpoint.

Quote from: Roadsguy on June 06, 2019, 06:07:55 AM

Quote from: DJ Particle on June 06, 2019, 03:37:41 AM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 04, 2019, 02:11:04 PM
NC's dead end 74 extension now has a child. WTF is wrong with that state?

Let me guess....  Asheboro?  I see a partial beltway under construction there.

That's just for US 64. (Maybe if they ever complete the loop one day, it could become an x73 or x74 3di.) The new Future I-274 is for the western half of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway.

Seeing as its primary purpose is for people wanting to continue on 64 or get to other points that mainline 64 serves, while avoiding Asheboro, it would probably make sense to keep it as a special route of US 64 in some way, shape, or form. You'd have to be nuts to build a beltway for a town of like, what, 20,000 people? But knowing NC, anything is possible.

Quote from: NE2 on June 05, 2019, 02:16:27 PM
TX US 62/US 85 realigned in El Paso (removal of one-way pair; no indication of whether traffic on the bridge into El Paso will be directed east on 6th)

Quote from: USRN application
Prior to this application. US 62/US 85 existed on two separate roads in El Paso near the Mexico border: El Paso Street (one-way) and Stanton Street (two-way): the Texas Transportation Commission approved the removal of US 62/US 85 from the state highway system along El Paso Street from Paisano Street south to 6th Avenue: and that jurisdiction. control and maintenance be transferred to the City of  El Paso. The path of US62/US 85 still remains along Stanton Street. which is a two-way roadway.

OK, this one's a head-scratcher. Stanton St, two-way? Uhh, no! Maybe they're referring to just the very beginning of the route on the Good Neighbor bridge, until northbound traffic is looped back south thru the customs facility to Mesa & 9th?
62/85 was removed "along El Paso Street from Paisano Street south to 6th Avenue". All right, but what about the route south of there?
Designation files are no help here, listing the terminus only as a vague "El Paso". (I have yet to look up what AASHTO says about the end.)
In the shapefiles, When a route is on a split alignment, there are three arcs marked as that route: One on the EB or NB roadway itself, one on the WB or SB roadway itself, and another splitting the difference on the "center line", much as we do on the TravelMapping project. This "center line" for 62/85 only goes as far as 6th Ave.

(We see a similar line on the grid map, but continuing one block farther south to 7th. Oh boy, and the Statewide Planning Map shows it to around 8th...)
Can this be considered, in some regard, the S/W end of the route? Was it just the most reasonable place TXDOT thought they could continue to represent a center line between the 2 alignments/bridges? Alanland?
In that regard, if we consider 6th to be the "official" S end, then only mentioning decommissioning it that far down makes sense in a way.
Right now, signage at and south of Paisano is rather lacking. No signage at Stanton to direct either route southward. Only an EAST 62 on EB Paisano. ON NB Santa Fe, there's just a NORTH 85, and nothing for 62.
Is this even going to change, or remain poorly signed?...

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 05, 2019, 03:07:11 PM
US 85 should really be truncated. It should start where it splits from I-76 Northeast of Denver. It's clear New Mexico and Colorado don't want it South of Denver, but it is still in the log as running to El Paso because Texas still fully signs it.

Fictional:
Hey, if TX doesn't wanna sign it south of Paisano, why not just extend US62 westward as one thru route along Paisano until I-10, removing US85? We can get rid of the 10/85 concurrency and make NM & CO happy.

^ This all perplexes me, too. (Except for the reason behind the change, which is that TxDOT wasn't sure it really owned El Paso St. north of 6th Ave., and thought the best way to resolve the land dispute was to give the city of El Paso whatever claim the state had to that 0.2 mile segment).

In 2017, I drove both directions of US 62/85 between Paisano Dr. and Ciudad Juarez. I don't recall any specifics of the signage. At the time, Stanton St. was definitely one-way southbound, but the Good Neighbor Bridge across the Rio Grande was two-way, with I think one bus-only lane northbound. Certainly most northbound traffic across the river takes the Santa Fe St. Bridge, which is northbound-only and has a much larger port of entry facility than for northbound Good Neighbor Bridge traffic.

My other take is that my border-to-border clinch of US 85 from my very painful (truck broke down on the Santa Fe St. Bridge) 2017 border crossing is not undone by all this. There is another US 85 project on the west side of El Paso that might affect my clinch, but at least I won't have to re-cross the border to fix that if necessary.

Quote from: sparker on June 07, 2019, 04:07:56 AM

Quote from: bassoon1986 on June 06, 2019, 07:37:43 PM
I don't really understand adding I-49 shields to I-220 and I-20 other than continuity. I don't know anyone who would go that far out of the way just to stay on an interstate. Guaranteed everyone trying to stay on the through route goes LA-3132/I-220 or I-49 north to I-20 to US 71 north.

At this point the Inner City Connector through Shreveport is inevitable, especially as funds became available just this week so you know the 3 mile connection is finally within sight.


iPhone

The application cited continuity as the primary reason for signing I-49 over I-20 & I-220; while the funds may be available, it'll likely be the mid-2020's before the inner connector is opened to traffic.  It's likely LADOT, by applying for this particular temporary I-49 route utilizing part of I-20 as well as I-220 is avoiding having to temporarily re-designate the existing I-49 between Loop 3132 and I-20 as something else pending completion of the inner-city connection.  Obviously, the logical extension for NB traffic coming into the area on I-49 would be simply to exit to WB 3132, which segues seamlessly into EB I-220 and thence to the newly-completed I-49 north of town. 

Question:  I haven't been on 3132 since the early '90's; is the portion between I-49 (south) and I-20/220 fully up to Interstate standards?  It might be a reasonable candidate for an I-220 extension.

LA 3132 does have standard width outer shoulders and the requisite lane and median width, and a cable barrier was recently installed in the median; but good chunks of the road surface are in terrible condition even with it being concrete. The interchanges appear up to standard except for a short merging area between I-49 ramps and Linwood Avenue to the west. The inner shoulders are probably not to current standard but likely were standard width for the era when the freeway was constructed (late 70s-early 80s I gather).

What will happen to old US 63B in Marked Tree? Will it become a state route or will it just be turned over to the city? It would make a dandy of a BL 555 but Arkansas hasn't used business interstate highways since at least the 1980s

I just looked it up. Part of the old business route is AR 75 and the other part is AR 149. Old US 63B in Jonesboro is indeed AR 463

Quote from: yakra on June 07, 2019, 03:02:36 PM
Stanton St, two-way? Uhh, no!

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/NPyHgTkMStCXC/200.gif)
I've just checked out every block of Stanton in GMSV, in every year available, and it's clearly a two-way.
Why in tarnation did I say that? Yet...

Quote from: oscar on June 07, 2019, 04:08:20 PM
In 2017, ... Stanton St. was definitely one-way southbound

Mandela Effect?

I would have asked for the existing US 63 to be numbered US 63E and the new route request to numbered as US 63W.

^ Goes against long-standing AASHTO policy.

Quote from: froggie on November 22, 2020, 10:57:24 PM
^ Goes against long-standing AASHTO policy.

So does US 412, US 400, and US 425.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 23, 2020, 09:37:44 PM

Quote from: froggie on November 22, 2020, 10:57:24 PM
^ Goes against long-standing AASHTO policy.

So does US 412, US 400, and US 425.

I believe those three were a special case and originally intended to be temporary numbers, although the actual evidence of that has proven to be somewhat sparse.

Quote from: kphoger on November 24, 2020, 09:53:08 AM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 23, 2020, 09:37:44 PM

Quote from: froggie on November 22, 2020, 10:57:24 PM
^ Goes against long-standing AASHTO policy.

So does US 412, US 400, and US 425.

I believe those three were a special case and originally intended to be temporary numbers, although the actual evidence of that has proven to be somewhat sparse.

412 and 425 were not likely meant to be temporary, as 427 was also requested (but approved as 371).  Can't speak to 400 though...

Nothing in AASHTO's US route numbering policy implies that 400, 412, and 425 are bad numbers or against policy.  The policy clearly stipulates, though, that no new split routes shall be approved and existing routes shall be eliminated as soon as they can come to agreement with the respective state DOT's.

Quote from: froggie on November 24, 2020, 10:10:30 AM
Nothing in AASHTO's US route numbering policy implies that 400, 412, and 425 are bad numbers or against policy.  The policy clearly stipulates, though, that no new split routes shall be approved and existing routes shall be eliminated as soon as they can come to agreement with the respective state DOT's.

I wonder if costs for changes (public costs such as signage, private costs such as address changes on promotional materials, etc.) make it unlikely that any of the split routes now in existence will ever be eliminated.

^ It would make it unlikely, yes.  But not impossible.  Similar "costs for changes" arguments have been made in several states regarding changing exit numbers from sequential to milepost-based and it hasn't stopped some DOTs from proceeding.

So how is the signage on the new US 63?  Did they take all of the old ones down on the former section?