The 2021 AASHTO Spring Meeting was held virtually this past week from May 10 to 14. Putting this topic up for any news that may have been made at it. Including any decisions by the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering such as, will NCDOT have applied for approval of I-885 in Durham this time?
Bump!
Doesn't look like the documents have been posted to the AASHTO site yet.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 28, 2021, 11:19:53 AM
Doesn't look like the documents have been posted to the AASHTO site yet.
Nor is there anything concerning the latest meeting on Wikipedia. Sometimes this takes a month or two.
Quote from: Crown Victoria on May 28, 2021, 01:48:06 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 28, 2021, 11:19:53 AM
Doesn't look like the documents have been posted to the AASHTO site yet.
Nor is there anything concerning the latest meeting on Wikipedia. Sometimes this takes a month or two.
Where do you think Wikipedia gets the information? :P Their roadgeeks have to wait on AASHTO just like the roadgeeks here...
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 28, 2021, 02:37:41 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on May 28, 2021, 01:48:06 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 28, 2021, 11:19:53 AM
Doesn't look like the documents have been posted to the AASHTO site yet.
Nor is there anything concerning the latest meeting on Wikipedia. Sometimes this takes a month or two.
Where do you think Wikipedia gets the information? :P Their roadgeeks have to wait on AASHTO just like the roadgeeks here...
Ah, but the last time or two, the information was posted on Wikipedia BEFORE it was posted on the AASHTO site. I believe an editor over there obtained the meeting minutes via email.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27090.0
Quote from: bob7374 on January 05, 2021, 11:59:13 AM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on September 20, 2020, 05:45:19 AM
The results have been posted on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources/AASHTO minutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Resources/AASHTO_minutes). Unfortunately, the copy of the minutes obtained by email and used to post those results didn't have any detail on the individual applications.
Results for November 2020 have been posted on the link above, but there's no citation and no links to the applications (just the Wikipedia entries for each route listed). If the results are accurate, NC has applied for a change for US 70 and US 258, but no application for I-885 or any other interstate. There are also entries for an I-195 in DC, along with I-395. There is no updated listing on the AASHTO USRN website.
*The above quote is from the topic I linked to, concerning the 2020 meetings.
Quote from: Crown Victoria on May 28, 2021, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 28, 2021, 02:37:41 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on May 28, 2021, 01:48:06 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 28, 2021, 11:19:53 AM
Doesn't look like the documents have been posted to the AASHTO site yet.
Nor is there anything concerning the latest meeting on Wikipedia. Sometimes this takes a month or two.
Where do you think Wikipedia gets the information? :P Their roadgeeks have to wait on AASHTO just like the roadgeeks here...
Ah, but the last time or two, the information was posted on Wikipedia BEFORE it was posted on the AASHTO site. I believe an editor over there obtained the meeting minutes via email.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27090.0
Quote from: bob7374 on January 05, 2021, 11:59:13 AM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on September 20, 2020, 05:45:19 AM
The results have been posted on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources/AASHTO minutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Resources/AASHTO_minutes). Unfortunately, the copy of the minutes obtained by email and used to post those results didn't have any detail on the individual applications.
Results for November 2020 have been posted on the link above, but there's no citation and no links to the applications (just the Wikipedia entries for each route listed). If the results are accurate, NC has applied for a change for US 70 and US 258, but no application for I-885 or any other interstate. There are also entries for an I-195 in DC, along with I-395. There is no updated listing on the AASHTO USRN website.
*The above quote is from the topic I linked to, concerning the 2020 meetings.
Pffft. That's classic bulldog1979, right there. :P (Wheedling information out of transportation agencies–especially MDOT–is a talent of his.)
Have we heard anything new yet? I thought I recall Adventure Cycling mentioning the release of some decisions on USBR applications come mid- or late June (which I would assume US and Interstate routes being posted wouldn't be too far behind, either.)
In the past sometimes it has been available online before it was posted on the AASHTO site, but without going through the specifics, the virtual format shut that down.
So we are stuck with begging them by email to go ahead and post it. From what I heard, they complained about delays with having to work from home or something like that.
Over the decades it seems like it's going to take a freedom of information Act request to get anything out from the committee. Crazy to think how everything used to get nicely posted and shared by the special committee. Missing those days...
It's pretty inexcusable to not have the report on the website a month after the meeting completed.
^^ Marty Vitale was committee secretary back in those days and was pretty reliable about getting stuff posted. Since then, it's been lackluster.
NC was business happy for a while and now they are getting rid of them.
Two months later, and still we wait...
Quote from: Crown Victoria on July 11, 2021, 01:20:17 PM
Two months later, and still we wait...
The delay kind of reminds me of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQAcBSO5jC8&t=5s).
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 11, 2021, 02:44:09 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on July 11, 2021, 01:20:17 PM
Two months later, and still we wait...
The delay kind of reminds me of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQAcBSO5jC8&t=5s).
Ha! This has been a very long five minutes...
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works. Among the changes confirmed are:
Part of I-430 is being eliminated.
I-375 in Michigan and I-481 in New York have been decommissioned.
I-587 in North Carolina has been conditionally approved.
Various USBRs in California, Ohio, Utah, and Washington have been approved.
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and she said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
Awesome. Any chance they can add in the missing L and M states from the 1920s?
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works. Among the changes confirmed are:
Part of I-430 is being eliminated.
I-375 in Michigan and I-481 in New York have been decommissioned.
I-587 in North Carolina has been conditionally approved.
Various USBRs in California, Ohio, Utah, and Washington have been approved.
Man, some of those changes are a little confusing. Hopefully the PDFs of the actual submissions that have the maps will be posted soon.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 10, 2021, 01:18:51 AM
Man, some of those changes are a little confusing. Hopefully the PDFs of the actual submissions that have the maps will be posted soon.
It's not a submission PDF, but this interactive map should contain all the USBR changes in Utah:
https://parametrix.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=4da4865207404e75ad6e2b3b0132e81b
WSDOT's press release on the four new US Bike Route designations in Washington: https://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2021/08/09/washington-adds-four-new-us-bike-routes-its-system
It's a bit silly to sign a 2-mile section of USBR 40 that basically just gets from one town to Idaho, but most of the remaining corridor is in need of work. It'll be one of the longest USBR sections on exclusive ROW, though, if realized.
I like to see freeway removals in downtown areas. Personally I think downtowns shouldn't be isolated from the nearby areas, through routes should be away.
From now on, I-375 is unambiguously the Northern long ramp from I-275 to Downtown St. Petersburg, Florida.
I am skeptical I-430 is being changed. The descriptions don't actually describe anything other than US 70 old and new routings, the way I read it.
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works. Among the changes confirmed are:
I-587 in North Carolina has been conditionally approved.
No doubt Greenville will be celebrating. They spent the last 10 years been pushing hard for an interstate connection to I-95. However, I can't say I'm looking forward to it because of this steaming pile of crap:
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 02, 2019, 10:47:09 AM
Cross-posting from the main North Carolina thread, I obtained the signing plans for the Greenville Southwest Bypass (R-2250) from a public records request. The plans include future signs that will eventually completely replace existing signs for westbound 264 at the cloverleaf. Not only do the plans confirm again what we already knew about 587 ending at the cloverleaf, but they also reveal that the new Interstate will be signed north-south, with northbound following westbound 264. I don't think I ever saw this mentioned anywhere before. It seems... questionable.
(https://i.imgur.com/xhi970D.png)
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 28, 2021, 02:52:42 PMhttps://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1201971710989414406
On another note, I noticed NCDOT still has not sent a request for I-885 in Durham. The East End Connector is due to open in December.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 10, 2021, 05:19:01 AMFrom now on, I-375 is unambiguously the Northern long ramp from I-275 to Downtown St. Petersburg, Florida.
Only when they demolish the Detroit route in 2027 (or sooner). The clarification AASHTO asked for says that MDOT are getting in the paperwork early with AASHTO/FHWA, but the route won't be eliminated until the roadway is also eliminated as a route you can drive on.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2021, 06:11:37 AMI am skeptical I-430 is being changed. The descriptions don't actually describe anything other than US 70 old and new routings, the way I read it.
Fully concur. Though is it US70, or US70 Business, that's actually being rerouted?
Quote from: english si on August 10, 2021, 08:55:48 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 10, 2021, 05:19:01 AMFrom now on, I-375 is unambiguously the Northern long ramp from I-275 to Downtown St. Petersburg, Florida.
Only when they demolish the Detroit route in 2027 (or sooner). The clarification AASHTO asked for says that MDOT are getting in the paperwork early with AASHTO/FHWA, but the route won't be eliminated until the roadway is also eliminated as a route you can drive on.
MDOT...and Detroit...in FL? :D
Quote from: english si on August 10, 2021, 08:55:48 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 10, 2021, 05:19:01 AMFrom now on, I-375 is unambiguously the Northern long ramp from I-275 to Downtown St. Petersburg, Florida.
Only when they demolish the Detroit route in 2027 (or sooner). The clarification AASHTO asked for says that MDOT are getting in the paperwork early with AASHTO/FHWA, but the route won't be eliminated until the roadway is also eliminated as a route you can drive on.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2021, 06:11:37 AMI am skeptical I-430 is being changed. The descriptions don't actually describe anything other than US 70 old and new routings, the way I read it.
Fully concur. Though is it US70, or US70 Business, that's actually being rerouted?
US 70. US 70 Business has been gone a while in Little Rock.
ARDOT action to do this the current rerouting is on page 11 - https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Admin-Cir.-2021-02-Minutes-of-the-Dec.-9-AHC-Meeting.pdf
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works. Among the changes confirmed are:
Part of I-430 is being eliminated.
I-375 in Michigan and I-481 in New York have been decommissioned.
I-587 in North Carolina has been conditionally approved.
Various USBRs in California, Ohio, Utah, and Washington have been approved.
Thank you for reaching out to them. Hopefully they'll be a little quicker with the fall results.
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I-375 in Michigan and I-481 in New York have been decommissioned.
Why?
Quote from: hbelkins on August 10, 2021, 11:31:10 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I-375 in Michigan and I-481 in New York have been decommissioned.
Why?
So that I-81 can be put on it and so I-81's former routing can be I-81 BL...
The actual report is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0&fbclid=IwAR2rFGGv8FpX2xDmWBFOkuEdvVeDhAuQdBhh5cidRCTs4KoJ3cmb_n_XeaU
I particularly like this proposal:
"Relocation of U.S. 412 between U.S. 412 between U.S. Highway 412 on the west side of the City of Paragould and U.S. Highway 412 on the east side of the City of Paragould."
Quote from: Rothman on August 10, 2021, 09:17:32 AMMDOT...and Detroit...in FL? :D
They are getting rid of the Detroit version, leaving only one I-375 (in Florida), which is what CNGL was talking about. My point was that it is a future change, not a now change and so CNGL's comment was jumping the gun somewhat.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2021, 12:17:11 PMQuote from: hbelkins on August 10, 2021, 11:31:10 AMWhy?
So that I-81 can be put on it and so I-81's former routing can be I-81 BL...
I-481 doesn't need to be decommissioned so that I-81 can use that roadway. It's the other way around - because I-81 has been rerouted onto its route, there's no independent mileage of I-481 and so it might as well be decommissioned.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2021, 09:49:58 AMUS 70 Business has been gone a while in Little Rock.
My confusion comes from mapping sources
still having it as business route (Google, OSM) and Travel Mapping (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=ar.us070buslit) likewise. Oh, and the signs coming off of I-30 onto it, which have US70B according to Mar '20 Streetview.
At least this rerouting will prompt the removal of incorrect references to US70B!
Quote from: english si on August 10, 2021, 01:14:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 10, 2021, 09:17:32 AMMDOT...and Detroit...in FL? :D
They are getting rid of the Detroit version, leaving only one I-375 (in Florida), which is what CNGL was talking about. My point was that it is a future change, not a now change and so CNGL's comment was jumping the gun somewhat.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2021, 12:17:11 PMQuote from: hbelkins on August 10, 2021, 11:31:10 AMWhy?
So that I-81 can be put on it and so I-81's former routing can be I-81 BL...
I-481 doesn't need to be decommissioned so that I-81 can use that roadway. It's the other way around - because I-81 has been rerouted onto its route, there's no independent mileage of I-481 and so it might as well be decommissioned.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2021, 09:49:58 AMUS 70 Business has been gone a while in Little Rock.
My confusion comes from mapping sources
still having it as business route (Google, OSM) and Travel Mapping (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=ar.us070buslit) likewise. Oh, and the signs coming off of I-30 onto it, which have US70B according to Mar '20 Streetview.
At least this rerouting will prompt the removal of incorrect references to US70B!
It looks like a bunch of 70B shields were removed between 2007 and 2008 GMSV throughout Little Rock. I searched ARDOT minutes back to the 1980s and found no evidence of its creation or its revocation.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2021, 03:37:08 PM
Quote from: english si on August 10, 2021, 01:14:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 10, 2021, 09:17:32 AMMDOT...and Detroit...in FL? :D
They are getting rid of the Detroit version, leaving only one I-375 (in Florida), which is what CNGL was talking about. My point was that it is a future change, not a now change and so CNGL's comment was jumping the gun somewhat.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2021, 12:17:11 PMQuote from: hbelkins on August 10, 2021, 11:31:10 AMWhy?
So that I-81 can be put on it and so I-81's former routing can be I-81 BL...
I-481 doesn't need to be decommissioned so that I-81 can use that roadway. It's the other way around - because I-81 has been rerouted onto its route, there's no independent mileage of I-481 and so it might as well be decommissioned.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2021, 09:49:58 AMUS 70 Business has been gone a while in Little Rock.
My confusion comes from mapping sources
still having it as business route (Google, OSM) and Travel Mapping (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=ar.us070buslit) likewise. Oh, and the signs coming off of I-30 onto it, which have US70B according to Mar '20 Streetview.
At least this rerouting will prompt the removal of incorrect references to US70B!
It looks like a bunch of 70B shields were removed between 2007 and 2008 GMSV throughout Little Rock. I searched ARDOT minutes back to the 1980s and found no evidence of its creation or its revocation.
Little Rock or Pulaski County installs?
If I read correctly, two Alt US 301s are going up in Florida. Although per the route descriptions it would make more sense to sign them as Byp US 301 (or even better, as "plain" US 301, with the routes through the towns changed to Bus US 301 or turned back).
Quote from: english si on August 10, 2021, 01:14:07 PMI-481 doesn't need to be decommissioned so that I-81 can use that roadway. It's the other way around - because I-81 has been rerouted onto its route, there's no independent mileage of I-481 and so it might as well be decommissioned.
In that vein, I'm still waiting on WISDOT to send an application asking for the removal of I-894, since it has been redundant to I-41 for a while now.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 10, 2021, 03:42:12 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2021, 03:37:08 PM
Quote from: english si on August 10, 2021, 01:14:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 10, 2021, 09:17:32 AMMDOT...and Detroit...in FL? :D
They are getting rid of the Detroit version, leaving only one I-375 (in Florida), which is what CNGL was talking about. My point was that it is a future change, not a now change and so CNGL's comment was jumping the gun somewhat.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2021, 12:17:11 PMQuote from: hbelkins on August 10, 2021, 11:31:10 AMWhy?
So that I-81 can be put on it and so I-81's former routing can be I-81 BL...
I-481 doesn't need to be decommissioned so that I-81 can use that roadway. It's the other way around - because I-81 has been rerouted onto its route, there's no independent mileage of I-481 and so it might as well be decommissioned.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2021, 09:49:58 AMUS 70 Business has been gone a while in Little Rock.
My confusion comes from mapping sources
still having it as business route (Google, OSM) and Travel Mapping (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=ar.us070buslit) likewise. Oh, and the signs coming off of I-30 onto it, which have US70B according to Mar '20 Streetview.
At least this rerouting will prompt the removal of incorrect references to US70B!
It looks like a bunch of 70B shields were removed between 2007 and 2008 GMSV throughout Little Rock. I searched ARDOT minutes back to the 1980s and found no evidence of its creation or its revocation.
Little Rock or Pulaski County installs?
The entirety of the route is within the city limits per Google maps
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 10, 2021, 03:44:42 PM
In that vein, I'm still waiting on WISDOT to send an application asking for the removal of I-894, since it has been redundant to I-41 for a while now.
Well, you're gonna keep waiting and hoping, as has been explained to you numerous times that WisDOT is on public record saying they are not going to do this and their reasons why.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 10, 2021, 03:44:42 PM
If I read correctly, two Alt US 301s are going up in Florida. Although per the route descriptions it would make more sense to sign them as Byp US 301 (or even better, as "plain" US 301, with the routes through the towns changed to Bus US 301 or turned back).
Signed in 2019, the Starke Truck Route is U.S. 301 ALT (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-301a-fl/). U.S. 301 remains through the city of Starke in an effort to keep some traffic for businesses on the mainline...
Completed in December 2020, the Baldwin Bypass is U.S. 301 By Pass (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-301-bypass-fl/). I noticed the AASHTO item description for it references the generic " U.S. Alternate Route" without 301. I don't know why the U.S. 301 mainline wasn't simply rerouted to avoid the railroad grade crossings there.
Quote from: Alex on August 10, 2021, 06:00:36 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 10, 2021, 03:44:42 PM
If I read correctly, two Alt US 301s are going up in Florida. Although per the route descriptions it would make more sense to sign them as Byp US 301 (or even better, as "plain" US 301, with the routes through the towns changed to Bus US 301 or turned back).
Signed in 2019, the Starke Truck Route is U.S. 301 ALT (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-301a-fl/). U.S. 301 remains through the city of Starke in an effort to keep some traffic for businesses on the mainline...
Completed in December 2020, the Baldwin Bypass is U.S. 301 By Pass (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-301-bypass-fl/). I noticed the AASHTO item description for it references the generic " U.S. Alternate Route" without 301. I don't know why the U.S. 301 mainline wasn't simply rerouted to avoid the railroad grade crossings there.
I would imangine that the BY-PASS signs will stay up. Do you think they will change them to ALT signs?
So the rerouting of I-81 onto the bypass and the demolition of existing I-81 is a done deal?
Can't say I think that decision is a good one. Of course, I quit following the debate on that a long time ago.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 10, 2021, 04:44:22 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 10, 2021, 03:44:42 PM
In that vein, I'm still waiting on WISDOT to send an application asking for the removal of I-894, since it has been redundant to I-41 for a while now.
Well, you're gonna keep waiting and hoping, as has been explained to you numerous times that WisDOT is on public record saying they are not going to do this and their reasons why.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwondermark.com%2Fc%2F2014-09-19-1062sea.png&hash=ec3968cd6eafa6bcc0b09137b0c2ee4ac508f58a)
Quote from: hbelkins on August 10, 2021, 10:39:11 PM
So the rerouting of I-81 onto the bypass and the demolition of existing I-81 is a done deal?
Unless massive political pressure is brought to bear, yes.
Looks like they posted the applications on the site: https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/08/USRN-Applications_Compiled_2021.pdf
Quote from: mvak36 on August 17, 2021, 12:05:14 PM
Looks like they posted the applications on the site: https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/08/USRN-Applications_Compiled_2021.pdf
What a jumble. Here's the rough order of everything:
NY I-481 elimination
FL US 301A establishment (Baldwin)
FL US 301A establishment (Starke)
IA/IL I-74/US 6 relocation (new bridge)
NY BL I-81 establishment
NY I-81 relocation
IN I-69 extension
NY US 9 relocation (closed ramp in Albany)
NC I-587 establishment
NC US 64B establishment (Asheboro)
NC US 64 relocation (Asheboro)
MI I-375 elimination
SD US 18By elimination (Hot Springs)
SD US 18 relocation (Hot Springs)
SD US 385 extension (Hot Springs) - but nothing is changing with 385
KY US 68 relocation, US 68B establishment (Millersburg)
AR US 70 elimination, relocation (Little Rock)
AR US 412B establishment (Paragould)
AR US 412 relocation (Paragould) - replaces US 412S
https://route.transportation.org/past-meetings/ also has the bike routes:
CA USBR 66 establishment
CA USBR 50 relocation (Forni Road -> El Dorado Trail/Oriental Street near Diamond Springs)
CA USBR 95 establishment
FL USBR 1 relocation (Key West)
IN USBR 235 establishment
OH USBR 21 establishment
OH USBR 25, 225 establishment
OH USBR 30, 230 establishment
WA USBR 40 establishment
OH USBR 44 establishment
WA USBR 20 establishment
WA USBR 81 establishment
WA USBR 281 establishment
UT USBR 70 relocation (error correction only?)
UT USBR 77 establishment
UT USBR 79 extension
UT USBR 677 establishment
UT USBR 679 establishment
UT USBR 877 establishment
Quote from: NE2 on August 17, 2021, 01:37:31 PM
UT USBR 70 relocation (error correction only?)
From what I can tell, nothing about USBR 70 actually changed with this round of applications. The old definition was Cedar City to Colorado via 14-Mammoth Creek-143-89-12-24-95-191-491, and that is still the case in these new documents. All that changed was that it is now concurrent with USBR 79 between Cedar City and the US 89/SR 12 junction.
So NYSDOT didn't even submit the application to relocate US 9 until after the ramp was permanently closed. Pfft.
^ Wouldn't be the first time a DOT submitted an application after the fact...
Regarding the USBRs, Kentucky is signing 21 now.
Quote from: cl94 on August 19, 2021, 10:11:37 PM
So NYSDOT didn't even submit the application to relocate US 9 until after the ramp was permanently closed. Pfft.
But managed to do the Syracuse stuff 6 years in advance. Michigan's I-375 downgrade application required clarification as it wasn't clear when this was happening with a similar timeframe as Syracuse (2027).
Didn't one state submit a load of applications a couple of years ago as bypasses built in the 60s and 70s hadn't been submitted and so the reality and what AASHTO had had been wrong for about half-a-century?
Not AASHTO, but Hungary submitted an application to the UNECE Committee on Road Transport to extend E66 to get the OK a couple of years before they were going to do it. It was accepted, they did it, they then submitted a very similar application after they had done it as they forgotten they had already done it ~5 years previously (which was then withdrawn as it was pointed out that it had been done).
QuoteDidn't one state submit a load of applications a couple of years ago as bypasses built in the 60s and 70s hadn't been submitted and so the reality and what AASHTO had had been wrong for about half-a-century?
That was Arkansas.
Connecticut's case of US 44A was not so much willful noncompliance, but details falling through the cracks; but in the eyes of AASHTO, US 44A never existed: https://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/us44a.html
Are there any sanctions if states just sign something without AASHTO approval?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 20, 2021, 03:46:05 PM
Are there any sanctions if states just sign something without AASHTO approval?
US 377 in Oklahoma says hello. Like the name says, it's just an association of state highway officials; the organization doesn't really have the authority to enforce anything.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 20, 2021, 03:46:05 PM
Are there any sanctions if states just sign something without AASHTO approval?
Ridicule by us, on here.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 20, 2021, 03:46:05 PM
Are there any sanctions if states just sign something without AASHTO approval?
You're forced to spend a week in Orleans County, NY, debating the feasibility of the Chicago hypotenuse.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 20, 2021, 06:41:54 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 20, 2021, 03:46:05 PM
Are there any sanctions if states just sign something without AASHTO approval?
You're forced to spend a week in Orleans County, NY, debating the feasibility of the Chicago hypotenuse.
:bigass:
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 20, 2021, 06:37:27 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 20, 2021, 03:46:05 PM
Are there any sanctions if states just sign something without AASHTO approval?
Ridicule by us, on here.
And that's the harshest punishment of all.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 20, 2021, 06:41:54 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 20, 2021, 03:46:05 PM
Are there any sanctions if states just sign something without AASHTO approval?
You're forced to spend a week in Orleans County, NY, debating the feasibility of the Chicago hypotenuse.
With Joe Biden, I assume. He'd look real bad if he didn't show up.
Quote from: usends on August 20, 2021, 04:29:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 20, 2021, 03:46:05 PM
Are there any sanctions if states just sign something without AASHTO approval?
US 377 in Oklahoma says hello. Like the name says, it's just an association of state highway officials; the organization doesn't really have the authority to enforce anything.
The AASHTO archive shows that it was a little more complicated than ODOT just signing it without AASHTO approval–the designation was actually written into law a few years prior (years before I-99), but AASHTO declined it anyway. Faced with the decision to comply with federal law or with AASHTO, they went with federal law.
I need to put this into the US-377 Wikipedia article so it's better publicized what actually happened.
Quote from: kphoger on August 20, 2021, 07:29:12 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 20, 2021, 06:41:54 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 20, 2021, 03:46:05 PM
Are there any sanctions if states just sign something without AASHTO approval?
You're forced to spend a week in Orleans County, NY, debating the feasibility of the Chicago hypotenuse.
With Joe Biden, I assume. He'd look real bad if he didn't show up.
Especially since some members of the Eureka PD are planning on having a roundtable discussing the Immigration Freedomway with him, afterwords.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 20, 2021, 10:04:05 PM
Quote from: usends on August 20, 2021, 04:29:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 20, 2021, 03:46:05 PM
Are there any sanctions if states just sign something without AASHTO approval?
US 377 in Oklahoma says hello. Like the name says, it's just an association of state highway officials; the organization doesn't really have the authority to enforce anything.
The AASHTO archive shows that it was a little more complicated than ODOT just signing it without AASHTO approval–the designation was actually written into law a few years prior (years before I-99), but AASHTO declined it anyway. Faced with the decision to comply with federal law or with AASHTO, they went with federal law.
I need to put this into the US-377 Wikipedia article so it's better publicized what actually happened.
Federal law or state law?
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2021, 10:24:09 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 20, 2021, 10:04:05 PM
Quote from: usends on August 20, 2021, 04:29:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 20, 2021, 03:46:05 PM
Are there any sanctions if states just sign something without AASHTO approval?
US 377 in Oklahoma says hello. Like the name says, it's just an association of state highway officials; the organization doesn't really have the authority to enforce anything.
The AASHTO archive shows that it was a little more complicated than ODOT just signing it without AASHTO approval—the designation was actually written into law a few years prior (years before I-99), but AASHTO declined it anyway. Faced with the decision to comply with federal law or with AASHTO, they went with federal law.
I need to put this into the US-377 Wikipedia article so it's better publicized what actually happened.
Federal law or state law?
Federal law. One of Oklahoma’s congressmen threw it into some bill I believe.
Edit: see Scott’s post in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.msg2535910#msg2535910).
Yep. Rep. Wes Watkins wrote it into the 1988 transportation appropriations bill (actually signed into law in 1987).
Quote from: cl94 on August 19, 2021, 10:11:37 PM
So NYSDOT didn't even submit the application to relocate US 9 until after the ramp was permanently closed. Pfft.
New Jersey still has never applied to reroute US-9 off the Beesley's Point Bridge, which has been gone for years.
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works. Among the changes confirmed are:
I-587 in North Carolina has been conditionally approved.
An update on this for anyone interested: NCDOT just posted a press release today announcing FHWA approval for I-587 between I-95 and Greenville. I-587 shields will be posted sometime next year.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-16-i-587-designation-approved.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-16-i-587-designation-approved.aspx)