Poll
Question:
How long until the Route Numbering committee results from the Fall 2021 meeting are released?
Option 1: Immediately!
votes: 0
Option 2: Within two weeks
votes: 1
Option 3: Within three months
votes: 3
Option 4: Just in time for the Spring 2022 meeting
votes: 15
Option 5: Never!
votes: 4
It's that time again...the AASHTO Fall 2021 meeting is being held this week. Of course we are all interested to see what route changes occur and if any new routes are born...
Feel free to vote in the poll!
I wonder if this is the meeting we'll finally see the first new US Route designation since 2005 :sombrero:.
But of course, that won't happen, along with any of the following:
- I-894 decomissioned
- I-515 absorbed by I-11
- I-338 designated on a yet-to-be-built one way bridge into the San Francisco Bay
- I-366 designated along VA 28
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 28, 2021, 03:20:14 PM
- I-338 designated on a yet-to-be-built one way bridge into the San Francisco Bay
One of my favorite roadgeek in-jokes.
Though let's be honest, after a few weeks it, too, would be congested as the pile of cars would back up onto the bridge and all the way to The Nimitz Freeway. :-D
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 28, 2021, 03:20:14 PM
I wonder if this is the meeting we'll finally see the first new US Route designation since 2005 :sombrero:.
But of course, that won't happen, along with any of the following:
- I-894 decomissioned
- I-515 absorbed by I-11
- I-338 designated on a yet-to-be-built one way bridge into the San Francisco Bay
- I-366 designated along VA 28
Can we please take this mierda to fictional?
Now that the meeting is over, let the wait begin for the results...
One item that is likely to be included this time around: I-885 in North Carolina, as the East End Connector is nearly finished.
Quote from: Crown Victoria on October 30, 2021, 02:32:06 PM
Now that the meeting is over, let the wait begin for the results...
One item that is likely to be included this time around: I-885 in North Carolina, as the East End Connector is nearly finished.
I didn't get a picture, but last weekend I saw at least one standing I-885 shield on NC 147 south of Durham. There are also a whole lot of new covered-up signs in that area that I'm assuming have a bunch of 885 references on them...
Quote from: Crown Victoria on October 30, 2021, 02:32:06 PM
Now that the meeting is over, let the wait begin for the results...
One item that is likely to be included this time around: I-885 in North Carolina, as the East End Connector is nearly finished.
I'm waiting for I-42 in Goldsboro.
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 02:31:38 PMI-42 was just submitted to AASTHO. Approval anticipated in January.
Quote from: US 89 on October 30, 2021, 05:47:01 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on October 30, 2021, 02:32:06 PM
Now that the meeting is over, let the wait begin for the results...
One item that is likely to be included this time around: I-885 in North Carolina, as the East End Connector is nearly finished.
I didn't get a picture, but last weekend I saw at least one standing I-885 shield on NC 147 south of Durham. There are also a whole lot of new covered-up signs in that area that I'm assuming have a bunch of 885 references on them...
The one beyond the Glover Road overpass?
(https://www.aaroads.com/nc/885/i-885-s-exit-008-2.jpg)
Pic from 5/31/21
More routes = more pictures for later.
Isn't there also like that weird Interstate 67 proposal in Indiana? I think I saw it on like interstate-guide a while ago but it doesn't exist and idk if it's even in the works or not.
Note that just because something is proposed by local politicians doesn't mean it will get so far as to reach the AASHTO approval stage. Most of the time, it has to be built first, for Interstates at least.
This article about the approval of extending I-555 in Jonesboro AR appeared last week:
https://katv.com/newsletter-daily/highway-63-in-jonesboro-re-designated-as-i-555 (https://katv.com/newsletter-daily/highway-63-in-jonesboro-re-designated-as-i-555)
Given that the article indicates AASHTO approval, perhaps this means the USRN Committee has met recently, and perhaps results will be posted in the not too distant future.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 29, 2021, 10:57:48 PM
This article about the approval of extending I-555 in Jonesboro AR appeared last week:
https://katv.com/newsletter-daily/highway-63-in-jonesboro-re-designated-as-i-555 (https://katv.com/newsletter-daily/highway-63-in-jonesboro-re-designated-as-i-555)
Given that the article indicates AASHTO approval, perhaps this means the USRN Committee has met recently, and perhaps results will be posted in the not too distant future.
AASHTO Annual Meeting was on October 26-29, 2021 in San Diego, California. We are all just waiting for someone from AASHTO or some other organization to post the meeting minutes.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 29, 2021, 10:57:48 PM
This article about the approval of extending I-555 in Jonesboro AR appeared last week:
https://katv.com/newsletter-daily/highway-63-in-jonesboro-re-designated-as-i-555 (https://katv.com/newsletter-daily/highway-63-in-jonesboro-re-designated-as-i-555)
Given that the article indicates AASHTO approval, perhaps this means the USRN Committee has met recently, and perhaps results will be posted in the not too distant future.
I was looking through the old AASHTO meeting minutes and it looks like this particular one was approved back in Spring 2016. Here are the Meeting Minutes (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/USRN%20Meeting%20Minutes%20May25%2c2016.pdf) and Arkansas' Application (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Interstate_Routes_Binder.pdf).
Quote from: mvak36 on November 30, 2021, 11:25:08 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 29, 2021, 10:57:48 PM
This article about the approval of extending I-555 in Jonesboro AR appeared last week:
https://katv.com/newsletter-daily/highway-63-in-jonesboro-re-designated-as-i-555 (https://katv.com/newsletter-daily/highway-63-in-jonesboro-re-designated-as-i-555)
Given that the article indicates AASHTO approval, perhaps this means the USRN Committee has met recently, and perhaps results will be posted in the not too distant future.
I was looking through the old AASHTO meeting minutes and it looks like this particular one was approved back in Spring 2016. Here are the Meeting Minutes (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/USRN%20Meeting%20Minutes%20May25%2c2016.pdf) and Arkansas' Application (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Interstate_Routes_Binder.pdf).
I thought it had been approved already too but went back in the AASHTO minutes only to 2018, not far enough, I guess. A very late breaking news article? Something must have caused the article to be published though, either FHWA approved the request 5 years later or Arkansas finally is getting around to signing it. In any case, the agenda for the Fall 2021 AASHTO Meeting did not include any mention of a meeting by the the USRN. So they may have not met since the spring, guess we'll find out eventually. :-/
Quote from: bob7374 on December 01, 2021, 12:07:57 AM
Quote from: mvak36 on November 30, 2021, 11:25:08 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 29, 2021, 10:57:48 PM
This article about the approval of extending I-555 in Jonesboro AR appeared last week:
https://katv.com/newsletter-daily/highway-63-in-jonesboro-re-designated-as-i-555 (https://katv.com/newsletter-daily/highway-63-in-jonesboro-re-designated-as-i-555)
Given that the article indicates AASHTO approval, perhaps this means the USRN Committee has met recently, and perhaps results will be posted in the not too distant future.
I was looking through the old AASHTO meeting minutes and it looks like this particular one was approved back in Spring 2016. Here are the Meeting Minutes (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/USRN%20Meeting%20Minutes%20May25%2c2016.pdf) and Arkansas' Application (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Interstate_Routes_Binder.pdf).
I thought it had been approved already too but went back in the AASHTO minutes only to 2018, not far enough, I guess. A very late breaking news article? Something must have caused the article to be published though, either FHWA approved the request 5 years later or Arkansas finally is getting around to signing it. In any case, the agenda for the Fall 2021 AASHTO Meeting did not include any mention of a meeting by the the USRN. So they may have not met since the spring, guess we'll find out eventually. :-/
Yeah. I have been checking at least once a week hoping to see something but I am wondering if they had any meeting this time. Along with the agenda thing you mentioned, they haven't updated their homepage. It still says the next meeting is Spring 2021.
Quote from: mvak36 on December 01, 2021, 02:29:09 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 01, 2021, 12:07:57 AM
Quote from: mvak36 on November 30, 2021, 11:25:08 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 29, 2021, 10:57:48 PM
This article about the approval of extending I-555 in Jonesboro AR appeared last week:
https://katv.com/newsletter-daily/highway-63-in-jonesboro-re-designated-as-i-555 (https://katv.com/newsletter-daily/highway-63-in-jonesboro-re-designated-as-i-555)
Given that the article indicates AASHTO approval, perhaps this means the USRN Committee has met recently, and perhaps results will be posted in the not too distant future.
I was looking through the old AASHTO meeting minutes and it looks like this particular one was approved back in Spring 2016. Here are the Meeting Minutes (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/USRN%20Meeting%20Minutes%20May25%2c2016.pdf) and Arkansas' Application (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Interstate_Routes_Binder.pdf).
I thought it had been approved already too but went back in the AASHTO minutes only to 2018, not far enough, I guess. A very late breaking news article? Something must have caused the article to be published though, either FHWA approved the request 5 years later or Arkansas finally is getting around to signing it. In any case, the agenda for the Fall 2021 AASHTO Meeting did not include any mention of a meeting by the the USRN. So they may have not met since the spring, guess we'll find out eventually. :-/
Yeah. I have been checking at least once a week hoping to see something but I am wondering if they had any meeting this time. Along with the agenda thing you mentioned, they haven't updated their homepage. It still says the next meeting is Spring 2021.
People misname files all the time, however the Spring 2021 applications link is https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/08/USRN-Applications_Compiled_2021.pdf with no mention of Spring or Fall.
Quote from: rschen7754 on December 01, 2021, 10:16:33 PM
People misname files all the time, however the Spring 2021 applications link is https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/08/USRN-Applications_Compiled_2021.pdf with no mention of Spring or Fall.
Unless I'm missing something, it says Spring 2021 on the first page itself (right underneath the AASHTO at the top of the page)
This is the letter they have on the homepage: https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/03/Email-BOD-Solicit-US-Routing-Applications-Spring-Meeting-2021.pdf. It hasn't been updated since the Spring.
A few US Bicycle Route changes: https://www.adventurecycling.org/members/news/usbrs-adds-new-route-on-eastern-seaboard-and-150-miles/
Finally!
https://route.transportation.org/past-meetings/
As always:
AL US 90 realignment (removal of corner cut at Loxley)
DE US 9 Truck (Georgetown) realignment
IA US 151 Business (Cascade) realignment
MO US 54 Business (Lake Ozark) deletion
MO I-44 Business (Lebanon) deletion - application is missing
NC I-42 - application is missing
NC US 264 Alternate partial deletion, replaced by realigned US 264 (approved!)
OK I-240 extension - application is missing
FL USBR 90 realignment (major change between Tallahassee and Palatka)
MD USBR 1
MI USBR 20 realignment (Midland-Bay City)
OH USBR 21 realignment (minor)
All were approved, except that I-42 and I-240 need FHWA concurrence.
What's the typical lag time between AASHTO approval and FHWA concurrence?
Depends on if the facility is ready and if the relevant DOT has submitted the proper paperwork to FHWA for review.
AASHTO just gives the route number. FHWA determines if the facility is up to spec enough to actually add to the system, and has final say-so on if it's added or not.
Quote from: froggie on February 14, 2022, 12:01:36 AM
Depends on if the facility is ready and if the relevant DOT has submitted the proper paperwork to FHWA for review.
AASHTO just gives the route number. FHWA determines if the facility is up to spec enough to actually add to the system, and has final say-so on if it's added or not.
NCDOT already publicized they had gotten federal approval for I-42 on the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass, they have not mentioned the Clayton Bypass as of yet. Don't know whether this means FHWA turned them down or that they haven't gotten around to submitting paperwork for that segment yet.
I had already read Oklahoma wanted to make I-240 into a loop. Although I feel the Kickapoo Turnpike is a bit too far out IMO, it should have gone roughly around Hiawassee Road.
Coming in to chime after 7 months, but I did get a reply from AASHTO with PDFs for Spring and Fall of 2021; I'm just not sure how to upload either to directly link here (if the decisions haven't already been posted on AASHTO's site).
EDIT: The new link for AASHTO past meetings are now found here (http://route.transportation.org/past-meetings/) (if it already hasn't been posted).
Some things from last fall:
I-240 in Oklahoma has been conditionally approved for an extension to become a full beltway
I-42 has at least a couple segments conditionally approved
US-301 Alt. in Florida has been approved
I-375 in Michigan has been conditionally eliminated
I-81 realigned, I-481 eliminated in Syracuse NY (conditionally)
I thought that they were going to do the BUS LOOP I-81 thing in NY.
Another rubber stamp committee.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on September 26, 2022, 10:22:52 PM
I thought that they were going to do the BUS LOOP I-81 thing in NY.
NY is. I don't see how what AASHTO did was contrary to the plan...especially when I know NYSDOT's representative... :D
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on September 26, 2022, 10:50:04 PM
Another rubber stamp committee.
AASHTO has no power. It's a voluntary group. There's no reason they shouldn't approve what a state wants. And a state can defy them, or bypass their approval process entirely, without any repercussions.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2022, 10:17:34 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on September 26, 2022, 10:50:04 PM
Another rubber stamp committee.
AASHTO has no power. It's a voluntary group. There's no reason they shouldn't approve what a state wants. And a state can defy them, or bypass their approval process entirely, without any repercussions.
IMHO, AASHTO lost whatever route integrity credibility they once had when they approved Colorado's truncating US 85 to an overpass over I-25 with no exit or signage. Yes, they have "no power" but it seems like they could look at an application from the "does this make sense" perspective and at least send some of the more ridiculous ones back for review.
I wonder how much it took to grease a palm to approve US 412 as "412"?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on September 30, 2022, 12:18:47 AM
I wonder how much it took to grease a palm to approve US 412 as "412"?
Exactly. US 412 could be an x64, US 425 should be an x65, and US 400 should be a state route :poke: (or really an x-50 or x-54 or even a newly-commissioned x66).
Perhaps the real question is how to get more roadgeeks into the DOTs and appointed as AASHTO reps to strengthen the integrity of the system. I'm too far into my private site civil engineering career to switch to transportation/route planning with a state DOT, but maybe some of the younger folks on this forum could take that on. Maybe we need a private advocacy group pressuring our DOTs and AASHTO. I don't know the answer but I'd love to hear other's thoughts.
Quote from: zzcarp on September 30, 2022, 10:55:27 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on September 30, 2022, 12:18:47 AM
I wonder how much it took to grease a palm to approve US 412 as "412"?
Exactly. US 412 could be an x64, US 425 should be an x65, and US 400 should be a state route :poke: (or really an x-50 or x-54 or even a newly-commissioned x66).
Perhaps the real question is how to get more roadgeeks into the DOTs and appointed as AASHTO reps to strengthen the integrity of the system. I'm too far into my private site civil engineering career to switch to transportation/route planning with a state DOT, but maybe some of the younger folks on this forum could take that on. Maybe we need a private advocacy group pressuring our DOTs and AASHTO. I don't know the answer but I'd love to hear other's thoughts.
The "integrity of the system?" The system is by and large just fine...as is US-412.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2022, 12:20:12 PM
Quote from: zzcarp on September 30, 2022, 10:55:27 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on September 30, 2022, 12:18:47 AM
I wonder how much it took to grease a palm to approve US 412 as "412"?
Exactly. US 412 could be an x64, US 425 should be an x65, and US 400 should be a state route :poke: (or really an x-50 or x-54 or even a newly-commissioned x66).
Perhaps the real question is how to get more roadgeeks into the DOTs and appointed as AASHTO reps to strengthen the integrity of the system. I'm too far into my private site civil engineering career to switch to transportation/route planning with a state DOT, but maybe some of the younger folks on this forum could take that on. Maybe we need a private advocacy group pressuring our DOTs and AASHTO. I don't know the answer but I'd love to hear other's thoughts.
The "integrity of the system?" The system is by and large just fine...as is US-412.
I guess changing how people view the system would be something an advocacy group would do. I tend to think of the interstate system as the backbone of automotive transportation in this country, and the numbering as a valuable navigational tool that adds a sense of place to every spot in the system, but it seems like even here that's a minority view, and a practically unheard of view elsewhere - people outside this forum tend to see interstates, at best, as corridors that happen to meet certain standards and political will to get the red, white, and blue shield, or worse, a brand meant to promote business development.
As a DOT employee, I can't form such a group or help run it, but I believe I made a similar comment in the past.
(personal opinion)
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2022, 12:20:12 PM
The "integrity of the system?" The system is by and large just fine...as is US-412.
You know, the system that, since the beginning, has had two separate routes numbered US-2. And US-41 to the east of US-31 all the way from Nashville to the Gulf. And US-17 to the east of US-1 for–well, for its entirety, right? Yep, that's the numbering system whose integrity needs to be maintained.
Quote from: kphoger on September 30, 2022, 01:06:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2022, 12:20:12 PM
The "integrity of the system?" The system is by and large just fine...as is US-412.
You know, the system that, since the beginning, has had two separate routes numbered US-2. And US-41 to the east of US-31 all the way from Nashville to the Gulf. And US-17 to the east of US-1 for–well, for its entirety, right? Yep, that's the numbering system whose integrity needs to be maintained.
Exactly.
Quote from: vdeane on September 30, 2022, 01:01:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2022, 12:20:12 PM
Quote from: zzcarp on September 30, 2022, 10:55:27 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on September 30, 2022, 12:18:47 AM
I wonder how much it took to grease a palm to approve US 412 as "412"?
Exactly. US 412 could be an x64, US 425 should be an x65, and US 400 should be a state route :poke: (or really an x-50 or x-54 or even a newly-commissioned x66).
Perhaps the real question is how to get more roadgeeks into the DOTs and appointed as AASHTO reps to strengthen the integrity of the system. I'm too far into my private site civil engineering career to switch to transportation/route planning with a state DOT, but maybe some of the younger folks on this forum could take that on. Maybe we need a private advocacy group pressuring our DOTs and AASHTO. I don't know the answer but I'd love to hear other's thoughts.
The "integrity of the system?" The system is by and large just fine...as is US-412.
I guess changing how people view the system would be something an advocacy group would do. I tend to think of the interstate system as the backbone of automotive transportation in this country, and the numbering as a valuable navigational tool that adds a sense of place to every spot in the system, but it seems like even here that's a minority view, and a practically unheard of view elsewhere - people outside this forum tend to see interstates, at best, as corridors that happen to meet certain standards and political will to get the red, white, and blue shield, or worse, a brand meant to promote business development.
Your opinion is your opinion and that's fine, but advocating for the "integrity of the system" seems very anachronistic to me in this day and age when people care much more about the items you list in your last sentence. (And I don't think there is anything wrong with using interstates as a brand for economic development.)
With regards to US-412, at this point the ship has sailed, docked at a foreign port, come back, sailed again, been put in drydock for repair, been sold, bought, sailed again, etc...
What I want is just an explanation of why the number 412 was chosen! Even if it's a dumb reason, I just want to know why that number!