May 31, 1996: a member of AASHTO's executive committee sent a letter to AASHTO's executive director. In part it read, "In San Antonio, the Route Numbering Committee dealt with a route that was designated by Congress. Since this is a new circumstance, I indicated that I would suggest some language to change AASHTO policy which would recognize congressional action." (To read the original document, go to the AASHTO archive, search for 1996, and open this document: Correspondence_DC_1996__ (2)
"San Antonio" was in reference to AASHTO's spring meeting, which had taken place there in April 1996. If we look at those meeting minutes, we can see that the following routes were discussed:
US routes: 13, 24, 30, 33, 20, 169, 151, 63, 90, 98, 71, 52, 64, 74, 264, 421, 601, 220, 29, 400, 22, 50
Interstates: 73, 74, 85, 540 (To read the original document, go to the AASHTO archive, search for 1996, and open this document: Agenda_TX_1996__
So, which route "was designated by Congress"? No new US routes were established at that meeting; they were all relocations and extensions. The letter specified "a new circumstance", but when I look at that list, all of the US routes had already existed for decades... except US 400, which had been designated two years earlier. So was that the route he was referring to?
I suppose it's possible that they dealt with a route that was not mentioned in the minutes. It also crossed my mind that maybe he was referring to an interstate route, but the following quote specifies that it was a reference to a US route:
Sep. 23, 1996: AASHTO's executive director sent a letter to the board of directors and to the Standing Committee on Highways. In part it read, "Historically, AASHTO and its Member Departments have determined the numbering to be applied to US highways, but recently the Congress has enacted legislation designating certain US routes by number. This has posed some difficulty to the states involved and to the Special Committee, and... Chairman of the Special Committee is proposing an amendment to policy statement H01 to deal with the situation." (To read the original document, go to the AASHTO archive, search for 1996, and open this document: Correspondence_DC_1996__ (2)
Alex, I'll take "History of US-220" for $1,000. "Who was Bud Shuster?" :poke:
For what it's worth, I-73 and I-74 were both designed by Congress.
US-377 in Oklahoma predates US-400 by about 5 years—was that the first route number mandated by Congress? (How AASHTO treated that implies that they didn't really know how to handle the situation—ODOT put in an application noting it was mandated by law, and AASHTO rejected it anyway. ODOT just ignored them and put the signs up.)
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 16, 2024, 07:13:05 PM
Alex, I'll take "History of US-220" for $1,000. "Who was Bud Shuster?" :poke:
Alex (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=10) doesn't handle those sorts of things; you might try Ken (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1285), though.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 16, 2024, 09:36:31 PM
US-377 in Oklahoma predates US-400 by about 5 years—was that the first route number mandated by Congress? (How AASHTO treated that implies that they didn't really know how to handle the situation—ODOT put in an application noting it was mandated by law, and AASHTO rejected it anyway. ODOT just ignored them and put the signs up.)
I'm pretty sure 377 was the first time a congressional law pointed to a specific highway and said "that will be added to the US route system". That all went down in 1988, so eight years prior to the 1996 San Antonio meeting. Francois became executive director of AASHTO in 1980 and remained until 1999, so he presided over both of those situations, and I doubt he would have forgotten about the drama with 377. But in that case, the US 377 designation already existed, and AASHTO had no problem with that number (what they had a problem with was bringing OK 99 into the US route network, because of substandard geometrics and an over-density of US routes in that area). But reading through his 1996 letter (the one I quoted at the end of my OP), he seems to be talking about an objectionable US route
number that was forced on AASHTO through congressional action.
Maybe the San Antonio discussions were in regards to how AASHTO will manage future Congressional actions similar to US-377 - hence the new policy - and the "new circumstance" isn't about a new route number, but the fact that Congress got involved with specific numbering for the first time. Maybe this was just a fancy way of saying, "in the future AASHTO will just rubber stamp Congressional decisions because we don't want to get state DOTs stuck in the middle even if we think it's a bad decision."
It is pretty vague though. But I can't see anything indicating US-400 was due to Congressional action.
I mean, if it was due to congressional action, it shouldn't be too hard to find. Search all the transportation related laws passed in that time frame for the string '400'?
Quote from: vdeane on March 16, 2024, 09:11:30 PM
For what it's worth, I-73 and I-74 were both designed by Congress.
How many engineers were in Congress at the time?
Quote from: kphoger on March 18, 2024, 02:06:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 16, 2024, 09:11:30 PM
For what it's worth, I-73 and I-74 were both designed by Congress.
How many engineers were in Congress at the time?
Considering how great I-74 is that it inspired my forum username, it is the best road ever. At least North Carolina has not turned into Suffixland like Texas. :clap:
Quote from: kphoger on March 18, 2024, 02:06:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 16, 2024, 09:11:30 PM
For what it's worth, I-73 and I-74 were both designed by Congress.
How many engineers were in Congress at the time?
Oops. :-D Designated.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 18, 2024, 04:22:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 18, 2024, 02:06:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 16, 2024, 09:11:30 PM
For what it's worth, I-73 and I-74 were both designed by Congress.
How many engineers were in Congress at the time?
Considering how great I-74 is that it inspired my forum username, it is the best road ever. At least North Carolina has not turned into Suffixland like Texas. :clap:
I'm not sure if that would have been better or worse. Maybe instead of two I-74s that will never be connected, we could have had I-73E and I-73W. They basically function that way.
Why not I-84E and I-84W for non connecting interstates? I-76W and I-76E?
I-74 is no different than I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 18, 2024, 08:39:47 PM
I-74 is no different than I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88.
I don't like those either.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 18, 2024, 08:39:47 PM
Why not I-84E and I-84W for non connecting interstates? I-76W and I-76E?
I-74 is no different than I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88.
Can't forget I-69. The one in TX most likely will never connect to the one in KY/IN/MI.
Quote from: Henry on March 18, 2024, 10:20:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 18, 2024, 08:39:47 PM
Why not I-84E and I-84W for non connecting interstates? I-76W and I-76E?
I-74 is no different than I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88.
Can't forget I-69. The one in TX most likely will never connect to the one in KY/IN/MI.
Arkansas is focused on I-49 instead. MS isn't in much of a hurry as TN is. LA I don't think cares unless AR starts building.
Yeah, it's safe to say that I-69 is another split interstate.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 18, 2024, 08:39:47 PM
Why not I-84E and I-84W for non connecting interstates? I-76W and I-76E?
I-74 is no different than I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88.
Except that those fit the grid, more or less. I-74 doesn't. Since an extension of I-74 will never be built in Ohio or West Virginia, I-74 in the Carolinas would be better numbered as a southern I-83.
Quote from: vdeane on March 18, 2024, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 18, 2024, 08:39:47 PM
I-74 is no different than I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88.
I don't like those either.
So what's your suggestion for renumbering them? And which one would you renumber? The eastern version or the western version?
I agree with you on I-87, however. 42, 46, and 48 were all available.
I-82 is out of the grid for sure. It's between 84 and 90.
I-84 in the west should be I-82 and I-82 either I-7 or I-9.
I-86 in ID should be an x15 or whatever. It's too short for a two digit.
Agreed I-87 should be I-46 or I-48.
I-74 eastern should be I-38 being WV and OH won't build their parts.
I love how a topic about US-400 has only actually had discussion about US-377 and Interstates 49, 69, 73, 74, 76, 84, and 86 through 88.
Quote from: kphoger on March 19, 2024, 01:51:37 PM
I love how a topic about US-400 has only actually had discussion about US-377 and Interstates 49, 69, 73, 74, 76, 84, and 86 through 88.
So what you're saying is that US-400 is just kind of an afterthought tacked on to other highways people are more interested in?
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 19, 2024, 06:47:48 PM
So what you're saying is that US-400 is just kind of an afterthought tacked on to other highways people are more interested in?
Quote from: kphoger on December 28, 2023, 02:30:00 PM
West of Wichita, yes. But, between Wichita and Pittsburg (approx. 157 miles), only about one-fifth of US-400 is concurrent with other established routes.