Surprise!
AASHTO has uploaded some of the recent applications and minutes to the Route Numbering Archive.
https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default)
Found items from the Fall 2023 and Spring 2024 AASHTO meetings -- including minutes and applications.
Just search by year in the database and you'll find everything that has been posted.
I've posted the Spring 2024 minutes below.
The one that puzzles me is the I-695 application from Maryland.
They're seeking to add the southeast leg of I-695 -- which is already part of the Interstate Highway System, right?
Or was the section of I-695 automatically decommissioned when the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed?
Looking forward to hearing what you guys think about that...
Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering
2024 Spring Meeting Report to the Council on Highways and Streets
Members:
• Region 1: Vacant
• Region 2: Rex Vines, Arkansas DOT
• Region 3: Lyndsay Quist, Indiana DOT
• Region 4: Dwane Kailey, Montana DOT (Chair)
• AASHTO: Kevin Marshia
• AASHTO: Kimberly Floyd
Guests:
• Alexander Couch, Oklahoma DOT
• Lauren January, Oklahoma DOT
• Samuel Coldiron, Oklahoma DOT
• Brian Taylor, Oklahoma DOT
• Daniel Nguyen, Oklahoma DOT
• Michael Henry, Arkansas DOT
Activities:
Below are the results of 18 applications (5 U.S. Bike Routes, 8 U.S. Routes, and 5 Interstate Routes), from 12 member departments, that were submitted to AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) for review and approval.
• 18 Applications Received
• 16 Approved
• 2 Approved with Condition
• 0 Not Approved
Additional issues discussed:
• Need one new Region 1 representative from CHS.
• USBRS adjustment on policy #4, in the wording for connecting 2 or more states.
AASHTO 2024 SPRING MEETING ROUTE NUMBERING APPLICATIONS
FINAL BALLOT RESULTS
Ballot Item, Action, Description Decision
Item 1: Arkansas, I-42
Action: Establishment of a new route Vote:
Reason for Requested Action: The establishment of a new Comments:
Interstate route with connection to I-44/I-244 in Tulsa, OK.
Approve with Condition
As the segments are redesigned to interstate standards we will approve for each segment.
Item 2: Arkansas, USBR 51
Action: Establishment of a new U.S. Bicycle Route Vote:
Reason for Requested Action: The establishment of Comments: USBR 51.
Approve
Item 3: California, USBR 85
Action: Establishment of a new Bicycle Route Vote:
Reason for Requested Action: The establishment of Comments:
USBR 85.
Approve
Item 4: California, USBR 95
Action: Realignment of an existing U.S. Bicycle Segment Vote:
Reason for Requested Action: The realignment of Comments: segment of USBR 95.
Approve
Item 5: Florida, USBR 15
Action: Extension of a U.S. Bicycle Route Segment Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Final segment extension. Comments:
Approve
Item 6: Indiana, I-69
Action: Extension of a Segment Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Extension of I-69 along Comments:
existing I-465 to connect I-465 and I-69 interchange.
Approve
Item 7: Maryland, I-695
Action: Extension of a Segment Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: This portion of the Baltimore Comments:
Beltway provides a direct and logical connection between I-95 in Baltimore County and I-97 in Anne Arundel County and provides interchange connections to arterial roadways that directly service the Port of Baltimore.
Approve
Item 8: Minnesota, US 14
Action: Realignment of an existing route Vote: Reason for Requesting Action: New alignment of the Comments:
Roadway which is now a 4-lane freeway section of US 14.
Approve
Item 9: Minnesota, US 53
Action: Relocation of an existing route Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: 1.7 mile reroute of US 53, Comments: MNDOT did not own mineral rights.
Approve
Item 10: Nebraska, US 275
Action: Relocation of an existing route Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Widens highway from a Comments:
2-lane road to a 4-lane expressway and extends US 275.
Approve
Item 11: Oklahoma, I-42
Action: Establishment of a new route
Reason for Requesting Action: Future route will be fully Vote:
controlled access, divided, multi-lane facility with Comments: connection to interstate routes at both ends as well as I-44 and I-244 in Tulsa, Ok.
Approve with Condition
As the segments are redesigned to interstate standards we will approve for each segment.
Item 12: Pennsylvania, US 15
Action: Relocation of an existing route Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: US 15 will be moved to a Comments:
new 6.6 mile 4-lane limited access highway bypasses communities, with interchanges at its termini and with PA 61/147 in Shamokin Dam.
Approve
Item 13: Pennsylvania, Business US 15
Action: Recognition of a Business route Vote: Reason for Requesting Action: US 15 is being moved to a Comments:
new 4-lane highway to bypass two communities. The existing 6.7-mile US 15 corridor be designated as Business US 15
Approve
Item 14: Texas, I-69
Action: Extension of a segment Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Extension of the Comments:
current I-69 terminus to the new limit of U.S. 59
Approve
Item 15: Virginia, US 1
Action: Realignment of an existing route Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Route 1 through Fort Comments:
Belvoir has been widened from 4 lanes to 6 lanes to mitigate transportation impacts of additional development of Fort Belvoir.
Approve
Item 16: Virginia, Business US 460
Action: Realignment of an existing route Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Conversion to a business Comments:
route; mileposts west to east, 2-lane divided.
Approve
Item 17: Virginia, US 460
Action: Realignment of an existing route Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Realignment of US 460; Comments: 4-lane re-location, mileposts are West to east.
Approve
Item 18: Wyoming, USBR 76
Action: Establishment of a new U.S. Bicycle Route Vote: Reason for Requesting Action: USBR 76 in Wyoming will Comments: connect from Idaho to Colorado.
Approve
Quote from: ericlipford on June 01, 2024, 08:13:05 PMThe one that puzzles me is the I-695 application from Maryland.
They're seeking to add the southeast leg of I-695 -- which is already part of the Interstate Highway System, right?
Or was the section of I-695 automatically decommissioned when the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed?
Even though Maryland has long signed it as I-695, the portion from I-97 across the Key Bridge to the eastern I-95 junction has always been MD 695 officially.
FSK collapse didn't automatically get 695 decommissioned, but MD did subsequently apply for such. Discussed somewhere in that thread, including something about the issue raised by vdeane.
Quote from: ericlipford on June 01, 2024, 08:13:05 PMItem 11: Oklahoma, I-42
Action: Establishment of a new route
Reason for Requesting Action: Future route will be fully Vote:
controlled access, divided, multi-lane facility with Comments: connection to interstate routes at both ends as well as I-44 and I-244 in Tulsa, Ok.
Approve with Condition
As the segments are redesigned to interstate standards we will approve for each segment.
In the part of Public Act 117-58 included on the last page of this there's an "Interstate Route 22 spur" around Tupelo listed I don't recall previously hearing of:
Quote''(95) The Interstate Route 22 spur from the vicinity of Tupelo, Mississippi, running south generally along United States Route 45 to the vicinity of Shannon, Mississippi.
Quote from: ericlipford on June 01, 2024, 08:13:05 PMItem 1: Arkansas, I-42
Action: Establishment of a new route Vote:
Reason for Requested Action: The establishment of a new Comments:
Interstate route with connection to I-44/I-244 in Tulsa, OK.
Approve with Condition
As the segments are redesigned to interstate standards we will approve for each segment.
Why??? They already establish I-42 in North Carolina. Could they not pick another number, they have in the past despite state suggestions.
Why would they tell them to pick another number 6 months ago and then just renege at the next meeting? :no:
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 01, 2024, 10:35:53 PMWhy??? They already establish I-42 in North Carolina.
I'm pretty sure AR/OK had pencilled in the 42 number for the
41
2 corridor before AASHTO dumped it on NC in what was a very strange meeting.
QuoteCould they not pick another number, they have in the past despite state suggestions.
Indeed, including I-42 in NC (the state had submitted I-36 - and gave reasons in the submission why I-42 was not preferred), and I-87 (state had chosen I-56 if E-W, or I-89 if N-S, talked informally with AASHTO before submission and found they wanted to give this E-W highway a N-S number, so submitted I-89).
That same meeting that approved (having changed the numbers of) those interstates rejected I-14 as the number was unacceptable, despite it being written into law - I'd argue that that Spring '16 meeting (and the build up where I-56 was rejected as a N-S number was sought by AASHTO) is where the oddness happened, not this one!
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 02, 2024, 02:02:29 AMWhy would they tell them to pick another number 6 months ago and then just renege at the next meeting? :no:
They didn't tell them to pick another number 6 months ago, at least not according to the minutes!
The application was withdrawn, but was still 'Approved with Condition', which is what they gave it this time.
Quote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 08:14:04 AMI'm pretty sure AR/OK had pencilled in the 42 number for the 412 corridor before AASHTO dumped it on NC in what was a very strange meeting.
And? NC already got I-42. There is no need to duplicate an interstate when there are plenty of other numbers available. Sure, the "drop the 1" gimmick might have been fun, but as they say, you snooze, you lose. If they wanted to do such that bad, they should have requested it as soon as they came up with the idea.
Quote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 08:14:04 AMIndeed, including I-42 in NC (the state had submitted I-36 - and gave reasons in the submission why I-42 was not preferred), and I-87 (state had chosen I-56 if E-W, or I-89 if N-S, talked informally with AASHTO before submission and found they wanted to give this E-W highway a N-S number, so submitted I-89).
That same meeting that approved (having changed the numbers of) those interstates rejected I-14 as the number was unacceptable, despite it being written into law - I'd argue that that Spring '16 meeting (and the build up where I-56 was rejected as a N-S number was sought by AASHTO) is where the oddness happened, not this one!
I-42 makes more sense from a national perspective than I-36 because it's north of I-40. I-46 would work fine for US 412. The Southway certainly should be I-56, though. It's an east-west corridor by both looking at a compass and by the "north-south is parallel to the coast" convention used down there. It's perpendicular to I-95 and we all know the real purpose of this road is to connect Elizabeth City to the interstate system, not to connect Raleigh and Norfolk/Virginia Beach.
Quote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 08:14:04 AMThey didn't tell them to pick another number 6 months ago, at least not according to the minutes!
The application was withdrawn, but was still 'Approved with Condition', which is what they gave it this time.
I remember reading here that Oklahoma and Arkansas had agreed to withdraw their applications and resubmit with a different number, so I read the withdrawal/renumber as one of the conditions; if they were just going to keep this I-42 duplication nonsense anyways, why do that? Why not just have those applications stand?
This is SO frustrating. What is even the point of having AASHTO if they just rubber-stamp everything? While the interstate system has always had anomalies, those used to be the exception and small in number. Now, such instances have at least doubled in the last decade alone. Between all this and the push towards freeway removals, I feel like the interstate system I read about in my youth and practically worshiped is dead. It used to be an elegantly ordered spider-web of infrastructure covering the country and connecting most places of importance (granted, with a few gaps like NY 17 and east-west across New England, but most places). Now I feel like it's becoming difficult to recognize. :-(
Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2024, 03:07:54 PMBetween all this and the push towards freeway removals, I feel like the interstate system I read about in my youth and practically worshiped is dead.
To be fair, if you combine the I-375 (Detroit), I-895 (Bronx), and I-81 (Syracuse) removal mileage, that's pretty miniscule compared to the total system as is, right?
Quote from: TheStranger on June 02, 2024, 08:27:54 PMQuote from: vdeane on June 02, 2024, 03:07:54 PMBetween all this and the push towards freeway removals, I feel like the interstate system I read about in my youth and practically worshiped is dead.
To be fair, if you combine the I-375 (Detroit), I-895 (Bronx), and I-81 (Syracuse) removal mileage, that's pretty miniscule compared to the total system as is, right?
I-375 and I-895 may not be integral to their city's freeway systems, but I-81 is (and also to regional traffic between the Finger Lakes and points south), so it's a loss that definitely will be felt. And I hardly think the movement will stop there. I-787 could well see removal within the next decade or two, and it's pretty integral to the Albany area. I recall a push to remove I-275 in Tampa, though I'm not sure of the likelihood in the current political climate. And there's a chance I-94 could be removed in the Twin Cities. Ultimately, the New Urbanist movement is opposed to car travel, period (they don't like rural interstates either, they just don't target them for removal because they don't hurt cities). Maybe my feelings are influenced by living in a state where the New Urbanist movement is strong (in fact, if I had to guess, I would say that they're stronger in New York than anywhere else in the country, as we have just the right mix of political sensibilities, finances, and population demographics to make their influence very potent; it's very easy to give them what they want when you have politicians that love safety, net stagnant population with the people moving in wanting walkable urban areas, and can't afford to modernize the freeways anyways). As much as I feel that there should be a balance between transportation modes, I hate when reconnecting communities gets implemented as full removals.
(personal opinion)
Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2024, 03:07:54 PMThis is SO frustrating. What is even the point of having AASHTO if they just rubber-stamp everything?
The alternative, shown when they last didn't just approve/conditionally approve the requests put before them is an AASHTO that is far more frustrating and knows far less about numbering than the state DOTs!
In that meeting where they last vetoed things they showed they:
- Don't care about law - rejecting I-14, despite the number being written in law
- Don't care about duplicates - NC didn't want 42 due to the state route of the same number it intersected. There was nothing wrong with I-36 (especially as AASHTO don't care about the grid), which was geographically south of the E-W portion of I-40 in the state and only north topographically because the I-40 extension from I-85 to Wilmington runs N-S, perpendicular to it (given that number for prestige, and because there was no free odd number). Now we have interstate status delayed due to a state highway renumbering project NC shouldn't have needed to do.
- Don't care about the grid - Raleigh-Hampton Roads is mostly east of I-95, and is E-W anyway, but they insisted on an odd number below 95!
- Don't care about duplicates (2) - their insistence on making the E-W I-87 an odd interstate puts it in the most crowded group (16 odd numbers in a row used between 69 and 99) vs the emptiest group of even numbers (9 free numbers in a row between 46 and 62) - a certain duplicate rather than a range of choice.
I'd rather they rubber stamp than try and steer numbering despite not seeming to know the basics. Sure, sometimes there's errors that happen, but the states are better at due diligence than AASHTO here.
QuoteI remember reading here that Oklahoma and Arkansas had agreed to withdraw their applications and resubmit with a different number, so I read the withdrawal/renumber as one of the conditions; if they were just going to keep this I-42 duplication nonsense anyways, why do that? Why not just have those applications stand?
Hobbyists are wrong, and what you heard was, at best, hearsay - though more likely wishful thinking!
AASHTO still approved with conditions the withdrawn proposal for I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas last fall. It seems the condition was more information - the submissions this time were lengthy and much more detailed than other proposals. There were also 5 Oklahoma DOT, and 1 Arkansas DOT, representatives at the meeting as guests who didn't get a vote - I imagine they were there to present the I-42 proposal*.
Why approve it 'anyway'? Because the condition set last time was met, obviously!
Why delay approval if they were going to allow it anyway? Because they still need to jump through the hoops and tick the correct boxes - there's no point in allowing shoddy paperwork, lest others do it also and you end up having no clue what you are actually approving.
And why would they block it because it was a duplicate? Literally the last time AASHTO picked a number for a road that wasn't the state's choice was a duplicate (replacing another duplicate that the state was encouraged by AASHTO to submit instead of a non-duplicate number).
*but, as AASHTO isn't the UNECE, we don't get the slideshow used, or minutes detailing discussion had - just a proposal and a verdict. They do things so much better in Geneva!
Anyone wanna try to convince AASHTO why I-42 (NC) should be I-36 or I-46?
I'm fine with I-42 for the US-412 corridor, but pushing NCDOT towards I-42, thus driving them to renumber a portion of NC-42 to avoid confusion when I-36 is sitting right there with no route in NC to confuse it with, makes no sense whatsoever. If the whole "it's north of I-40" argument is suddenly that much of an issue to AASHTO, I-46 also works and is available, and NC-46 (which wouldn't intersect I-46) could instead be renumbered to an available NC-x46, as needed.
Hopefully the Shamokin Dam bypass will look just as glorious in real life as it does in the map in the archive.
Quote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 09:48:31 PMThe alternative, shown when they last didn't just approve/conditionally approve the requests put before them is an AASHTO that is far more frustrating and knows far less about numbering than the state DOTs!
In that meeting where they last vetoed things they showed they:
- Don't care about law - rejecting I-14, despite the number being written in law
- Don't care about duplicates - NC didn't want 42 due to the state route of the same number it intersected. There was nothing wrong with I-36 (especially as AASHTO don't care about the grid), which was geographically south of the E-W portion of I-40 in the state and only north topographically because the I-40 extension from I-85 to Wilmington runs N-S, perpendicular to it (given that number for prestige, and because there was no free odd number). Now we have interstate status delayed due to a state highway renumbering project NC shouldn't have needed to do.
- Don't care about the grid - Raleigh-Hampton Roads is mostly east of I-95, and is E-W anyway, but they insisted on an odd number below 95!
- Don't care about duplicates (2) - their insistence on making the E-W I-87 an odd interstate puts it in the most crowded group (16 odd numbers in a row used between 69 and 99) vs the emptiest group of even numbers (9 free numbers in a row between 46 and 62) - a certain duplicate rather than a range of choice.
I'd rather they rubber stamp than try and steer numbering despite not seeming to know the basics. Sure, sometimes there's errors that happen, but the states are better at due diligence than AASHTO here.
Why should they care about a state route with the same number? The interstates are the federal system, they should be supreme. The state route systems should bend around it. Only some states care about the duplication anyways; unfortunately, of those that do, they have this bone-headed belief that their numbering systems are more important and that the interstates should bend to their whims.
Congressmen have shown themselves to care even less for such things than anyone else. Quite frankly, I'd like it very much if numbers were no longer written into law and the existing ones all repealed! IMO it is not the place of Congress to butt in on such matters.
As for NC I-87, my understanding was that it was NC insisting on the north-south number, not AASHTO. What AASHTO did was change it from I-89, on the justification that I-87 would one day connect to the real one and they would be a single route. That essentially has zero chance of happening, but it's still better odds than it happening for I-42 or if NC I-87 had been I-89.
Quote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 09:48:31 PMHobbyists are wrong, and what you heard was, at best, hearsay - though more likely wishful thinking!
AASHTO still approved with conditions the withdrawn proposal for I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas last fall. It seems the condition was more information - the submissions this time were lengthy and much more detailed than other proposals. There were also 5 Oklahoma DOT, and 1 Arkansas DOT, representatives at the meeting as guests who didn't get a vote - I imagine they were there to present the I-42 proposal*.
Why approve it 'anyway'? Because the condition set last time was met, obviously!
Why delay approval if they were going to allow it anyway? Because they still need to jump through the hoops and tick the correct boxes - there's no point in allowing shoddy paperwork, lest others do it also and you end up having no clue what you are actually approving.
And why would they block it because it was a duplicate? Literally the last time AASHTO picked a number for a road that wasn't the state's choice was a duplicate (replacing another duplicate that the state was encouraged by AASHTO to submit instead of a non-duplicate number).
*but, as AASHTO isn't the UNECE, we don't get the slideshow used, or minutes detailing discussion had - just a proposal and a verdict. They do things so much better in Geneva!
IIRC AASHTO used to reject applications that didn't have enough information. I would have thought that the withdrawal/approve with condition would have been "we'll approve the addition to the interstate system, but not with that number"; it's the only option that makes sense. Sadly, little that AASHTO has done over the past decade has made sense. Why can't we have the AASHTO of the 90s/00s back? Even then, they had screwed up the numbering of the US route system beyond salvaging, but at least the interstates were still respected.
Where are the US 460 entries in Virginia?
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2024, 02:53:47 PMWhere are the US 460 entries in Virginia?
Bus route in Grundy
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2024, 01:04:13 PMQuote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 09:48:31 PMThe alternative, shown when they last didn't just approve/conditionally approve the requests put before them is an AASHTO that is far more frustrating and knows far less about numbering than the state DOTs!
In that meeting where they last vetoed things they showed they:
- Don't care about law - rejecting I-14, despite the number being written in law
- Don't care about duplicates - NC didn't want 42 due to the state route of the same number it intersected. There was nothing wrong with I-36 (especially as AASHTO don't care about the grid), which was geographically south of the E-W portion of I-40 in the state and only north topographically because the I-40 extension from I-85 to Wilmington runs N-S, perpendicular to it (given that number for prestige, and because there was no free odd number). Now we have interstate status delayed due to a state highway renumbering project NC shouldn't have needed to do.
- Don't care about the grid - Raleigh-Hampton Roads is mostly east of I-95, and is E-W anyway, but they insisted on an odd number below 95!
- Don't care about duplicates (2) - their insistence on making the E-W I-87 an odd interstate puts it in the most crowded group (16 odd numbers in a row used between 69 and 99) vs the emptiest group of even numbers (9 free numbers in a row between 46 and 62) - a certain duplicate rather than a range of choice.
I'd rather they rubber stamp than try and steer numbering despite not seeming to know the basics. Sure, sometimes there's errors that happen, but the states are better at due diligence than AASHTO here.
Why should they care about a state route with the same number? The interstates are the federal system, they should be supreme. The state route systems should bend around it.
Because its a collection of state agencies, and I don't think state agencies are going to be happy when an organization of their colleagues makes them spend money on a renumbering project when perfectly good alternatives exist.
So 10 years ago there weren't any routes numbered I-42 and now there are two. We need some road geeks to take over AASHTO and put things back in order.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 03, 2024, 02:55:27 PMQuote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2024, 02:53:47 PMWhere are the US 460 entries in Virginia?
Bus route in Grundy
That's been signed since the bypass opened; for at least 11 years.
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2024, 01:04:13 PM... bone-headed belief that their numbering systems are more important and that the interstates should bend to their whims. ...
Yep, that's basically what your whole post is expressing!
It's not that you merely want AASHTO to assert themselves - they did that when they accepted a duplicate I-42 in the Fall, despite the states withdrawing their application for it! You want AASHTO to have the same approach to numbering as you do. The problem is that they are no 'better' than the state officials (pretty obvious given they are an association of them), nor congress (I-99 being the only terrible number actually written into law, but even then I don't think AASHTO could have done better due to the grid being full there) at following the grid system, not creating duplicates, etc, etc.
QuoteIIRC AASHTO used to reject applications that didn't have enough information. I would have thought that the withdrawal/approve with condition would have been "we'll approve the addition to the interstate system, but not with that number"; it's the only option that makes sense.
That makes no sense, especially as AASHTO cannot add anything to the interstate system (FHWA does that, though this one all the official's hands have been tied by the law - and AASHTO could have been overridden, as they were with I-14*) and they reject stuff they don't like the number of rather than do that.
And given the proposal was withdrawn, they didn't need to approve or reject it at all - they didn't need to comment at all!
You wish it to have been because they didn't like the number, because you don't like the number. Clearly they had no issue with the number as they have, not very long ago, rejected numbers they didn't like to the point of insisting that a poorly-numbered I-89 proposal should instead bear the equally-poor number I-87.
*A case where Congress chose a good number that fits the grid - unlike the aggressive AASHTO at the same meeting which made a route that has 77% of its mileage east of I-95 a lower I-8x number than what was proposed. Given they were insisting on a change, and cared not about numerical duplication, they could have made it a legit-with-the-grid I-99 had they so desired. Or insisted on an E-W number.
Quote from: english si on June 04, 2024, 07:08:06 AMI-99 being the only terrible number actually written into law
I-69E/C/W? I-74? I-27E/W? I-14N/S? I-73 is wonky too, but at least it has the excuse of the grid being exhaused in the area where it's actually being built, and the totally wacko sections of that interstate will likely never be built.
Quote from: english si on June 04, 2024, 07:08:06 AMThat makes no sense, especially as AASHTO cannot add anything to the interstate system (FHWA does that, though this one all the official's hands have been tied by the law - and AASHTO could have been overridden, as they were with I-14*) and they reject stuff they don't like the number of rather than do that.
My understanding was that it was both. If it's really just FHWA on that part, why involve AASHTO at all for the routes designated in law? Why go to them twice, once to establish a number for a corridor and then again when the road is built? If all they do is numbering, then by definition they have no role to play in those scenarios.
Quote from: english si on June 04, 2024, 07:08:06 AMYou wish it to have been because they didn't like the number, because you don't like the number. Clearly they had no issue with the number as they have, not very long ago, rejected numbers they didn't like to the point of insisting that a poorly-numbered I-89 proposal should instead bear the equally-poor number I-87.
As I already explained, the I-87 decision is a result of them being under the impression that a Delmarva interstate connecting the two might one day be built.
Honestly, I wish we could go back to the way the interstate system was treated in the 50s and 60s, with national planners selecting efficient routes of national importance and the designations tied to funding. Block granting the funding of the interstate system was the worse thing to ever happen to it. And it's sad that internet hobbyists care more about this stuff than the decision-makers in charge of it.
Quote from: vdeane on June 04, 2024, 08:59:16 PMAnd it's sad that internet hobbyists care more about this stuff than the decision-makers in charge of it.
Because interstate numbering isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things.
Quote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 09:48:31 PMHobbyists are wrong, and what you heard was, at best, hearsay - though more likely wishful thinking!
What he heard was absolutely not hearsay. It was direct from the fingers of Sam Coldiron of the Oklahoma Transportation Cabinet.
QuoteThe joint Oklahoma/Arkansas I-42 Route Numbering Application was withdrawn shortly before the AASHTO Fall Meeting when we were informed that the Route Numbering Committee had concerns that an I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas might cause confusion with the proposed I-42 in North Carolina and were planning to not allow the application to go through. The Committee was also concerned that since there are no current or future plans to connect the two segments of the proposed I-42 they would remain disconnected for the foreseeable future. Typically there is a question and answer time between the States and the Route Numbering Committee while they are making their recommendations, but that was not provided this year as the Route Numbering Committee met virtually only with its members leading up to the AASHTO Fall Meeting. The decision to temporarily withdraw the application was made in conjunction with both Oklahoma and Arkansas DOT leadership. We plan to resubmit this application for the AASHTO Spring Meeting following more communication with the Route Numbering Committee.
So much for "hearsay", bruv.
Quote from: english si on June 04, 2024, 07:08:06 AM[You wish it to have been because they didn't like the number, because you don't like the number. Clearly they had no issue with the number as they have, not very long ago, rejected numbers they didn't like to the point of insisting that a poorly-numbered I-89 proposal should instead bear the equally-poor number I-87.
Again,
The joint Oklahoma/Arkansas I-42 Route Numbering Application was withdrawn shortly before the AASHTO Fall Meeting when we were informed that the Route Numbering Committee had concerns that an I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas might cause confusion with the proposed I-42 in North Carolina and were planning to not allow the application to go through. The Committee was also concerned that since there are no current or future plans to connect the two segments of the proposed I-42 they would remain disconnected for the foreseeable future. Typically there is a question and answer time between the States and the Route Numbering Committee while they are making their recommendations, but that was not provided this year as the Route Numbering Committee met virtually only with its members leading up to the AASHTO Fall Meeting. The decision to temporarily withdraw the application was made in conjunction with both Oklahoma and Arkansas DOT leadership. We plan to resubmit this application for the AASHTO Spring Meeting following more communication with the Route Numbering Committee.
Maybe there's a difference between what we thought (because it would be the reasonable assumption) and what they meant? Ie:
What we thought: they would withdraw the application, discuss with AASHTO, and resubmit with a new number
What they might have meant: they would withdraw the application, and resubmit at an in-person meeting where they could convince AASHTO to accept the I-42 number anyways
Honestly I think it's AASHTO's own fault for changing NC's application for I-36 to I-42 back in 2016. So now we'll have to live with the two I-42's.
Quote from: mvak36 on June 26, 2024, 10:58:48 AMHonestly I think it's AASHTO's own fault for changing NC's application for I-36 to I-42 back in 2016. So now we'll have to live with the two I-42's.
Perhaps NCDOT, since they've said they don't plan to sign I-42 until this fall, should go back to AASHTO and suggest it would be best for all if they were granted permission to use the I-36 number from their original application. Both to prevent duplication with OK and to not have to spend the money needed to create the NC 36 route.
Quote from: bob7374 on June 26, 2024, 12:16:10 PMQuote from: mvak36 on June 26, 2024, 10:58:48 AMHonestly I think it's AASHTO's own fault for changing NC's application for I-36 to I-42 back in 2016. So now we'll have to live with the two I-42's.
Perhaps NCDOT, since they've said they don't plan to sign I-42 until this fall, should go back to AASHTO and suggest it would be best for all if they were granted permission to use the I-36 number from their original application. Both to prevent duplication with OK and to not have to spend the money needed to create the NC 36 route.
Someone should really reach out to NCDOT and ask them to do just that.
Or maybe...just maybe...someone should tell Olkahoma, Arkansas, and hell AASHTO too, that I-42 is already taken (NC did beat them to the punch, after all) and to pick a different number...
Quote from: froggie on June 27, 2024, 04:46:01 AMOr maybe...just maybe...someone should tell Olkahoma, Arkansas, and hell AASHTO too, that I-42 is already taken (NC did beat them to the punch, after all) and to pick a different number...
Given all the duplicate numbers already in use, I don't think a different number would make any difference or eliminate any confusion for anyone.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 27, 2024, 01:22:04 PMQuote from: froggie on June 27, 2024, 04:46:01 AMOr maybe...just maybe...someone should tell Olkahoma, Arkansas, and hell AASHTO too, that I-42 is already taken (NC did beat them to the punch, after all) and to pick a different number...
Given all the duplicate numbers already in use, I don't think a different number would make any difference or eliminate any confusion for anyone.
I'm not sure about that. I drive on I-74 every day and wonder how I got to North Carolina.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 01, 2024, 10:35:53 PMWhy??? They already establish I-42 in North Carolina. Could they not pick another number, they have in the past despite state suggestions.
It's karma for NC stealing I-540 from Arkansas. Couldn't NC have picked another number?
Quote from: bugo on October 07, 2024, 12:40:37 PMQuote from: WashuOtaku on June 01, 2024, 10:35:53 PMWhy??? They already establish I-42 in North Carolina. Could they not pick another number, they have in the past despite state suggestions.
It's karma for NC stealing I-540 from Arkansas. Couldn't NC have picked another number?
As discussed above, NCDOT wanted I-36, but AASHTO would only approve I-42. Perhaps the OK I-42 issue will be discussed at the upcoming AASHTO meeting from October 29 to November 1.
Quote from: bugo on October 07, 2024, 12:40:37 PMQuote from: WashuOtaku on June 01, 2024, 10:35:53 PMWhy??? They already establish I-42 in North Carolina. Could they not pick another number, they have in the past despite state suggestions.
It's karma for NC stealing I-540 from Arkansas. Couldn't NC have picked another number?
3di duplication is fine. 2dis aren't supposed to, however. Unfortunately, what started as a weird anomaly from the elimination of the suffixes (although IMO they could have confined the issue to I-76 with some renumbering and using 3dis for some) has spread over the years, sometimes intentionally (I-87, I-42), sometimes not (I-74, I-69).
Looks like they posted the results from the annual meeting at https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default. Like the OP said, you just have to search by year.
You know, I feel in the modern days of GPS, that having suffixed numbers wouldn't be an issue. I question how many people would have confused 80S for 80, or 80N for 80. Especially when they ultimately veered off and had considerably different alignments.
Same thing here... If there are multiple 42s spread across the country, would something like 42W and 42E really cause major confusion? Or keep one 42 and the other 40N.
Quote from: Quillz on November 17, 2024, 07:26:00 PMYou know, I feel in the modern days of GPS, that having suffixed numbers wouldn't be an issue. I question how many people would have confused 80S for 80, or 80N for 80. Especially when they ultimately veered off and had considerably different alignments.
Same thing here... If there are multiple 42s spread across the country, would something like 42W and 42E really cause major confusion? Or keep one 42 and the other 40N.
Or, you know, numbers that haven't been taken. This isn't like the other cases of duplicates where there were really no better options. Plus it encourages the delusion of grandeur that forum members determine the "need/desire" for a particular number (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?msg=2680870)...
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 17, 2024, 09:52:23 PMQuote from: Quillz on November 17, 2024, 07:26:00 PMYou know, I feel in the modern days of GPS, that having suffixed numbers wouldn't be an issue. I question how many people would have confused 80S for 80, or 80N for 80. Especially when they ultimately veered off and had considerably different alignments.
Same thing here... If there are multiple 42s spread across the country, would something like 42W and 42E really cause major confusion? Or keep one 42 and the other 40N.
Or, you know, numbers that haven't been taken. This isn't like the other cases of duplicates where there were really no better options. Plus it encourages the delusion of grandeur that forum members determine the "need/desire" for a particular number (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?msg=2680870)...
Not against it being I-36. But more in general, when duplicates do arise, seems like using a suffix isn't a big deal. How many motorists are confused by 35W and 35W?
It's not so much that state route numbers should be supreme and interstate numbers should bend to them, but that route numbers created later should try to minimize the renumbering of existing routes.
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 17, 2024, 09:52:23 PMQuote from: Quillz on November 17, 2024, 07:26:00 PMYou know, I feel in the modern days of GPS, that having suffixed numbers wouldn't be an issue. I question how many people would have confused 80S for 80, or 80N for 80. Especially when they ultimately veered off and had considerably different alignments.
Same thing here... If there are multiple 42s spread across the country, would something like 42W and 42E really cause major confusion? Or keep one 42 and the other 40N.
Or, you know, numbers that haven't been taken. This isn't like the other cases of duplicates where there were really no better options. Plus it encourages the delusion of grandeur that forum members determine the "need/desire" for a particular number (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?msg=2680870)...
After reading that post you linked, I can't help but feel:
A lot of today's issues regarding the Interstate grid - and going even as far back as the 1960s-1980s suffixed spur era (i.e. I-80N and I-80S)...
Are a direct result of the number allocation being:
1. tilted towards the east-of-the-Mississippi area, before large population centers emerged in the west
2. applied differently than the US system (which is fine to a degree) which used 2dus routes in a fill-in basis in some areas, completely off-grid (i.e. US 44, US 46, the current US 96) - not that that's the most logical use of a grid, but it seems AASHO at the time thought of "Hey, we have these spare numbers, let's just use them"
3. overly focused towards defining what is a "major" route with no regard as to the effects on the future grid (I-45 and I-30).
Not that "the freeways paralleling US 11 need to be one number" given 11's diagonal route from upstate New York to New Orleans, BUT using 2 different Interstate numbers (I-59, I-81) as a whole to follow most of 11 probably wasn't efficient.
I-45 being intrastate wasn't a great use of that number allocation, as isn't I-12 and the western I-86.
I get the whole "don't want duplicate Interstate and US numbers in same state" rule, but even early on this was already broken with I-24 and US 24 in Illinois. (Wonder if being less strict on this might have significantly altered California's 1964 renumbering - and with that, the fates of several US routes from that era)
This is not to say I am one of those folks that thinks about "how should the system be changed to be more logical?" now - younger me might have thought up of this - but more just to see how we ended up with the I-42s, the southern I-87, the suffixed I-69 spurs in Texas, etc. Arguably Bud Shuster's I-99 is also a side effect of the way the original Interstate grid was laid out, with zero free north-south numbers at the time between I-75 and I-97.
In that vein, I've always been in favor of suffixed loop routes (i.e. the I-35 pairs and the old I-15E in Riverside/San Bernardino and I-5W in Oakland) given their long-established use in the US route system (US 31W/31E the one I'm most familiar with), and in particular I-5W would have been useful in the Bay Area long-term for a few key reasons:
- would have saved I-580 usage (and had 5 stayed on the 99 corridor, also would have probably supplanted today's I-205, as instead the Route 132 expressway in Modesto would be part of the I-5W routing as likely planned originally)
- would have also allowed for the usage of I-305/I-705 in the Bay Area to add two more possible 3di routings, and the aforementioned 205 even
- would have made it more obvious that 5 is the high-speed Bay Area to LA route, instead of the "take 580 if you're going to Los Angeles" signs that very occasionally show up near the MacArthur Maze.
The problem with suffixed routes is that if you tell a normal person "get on I-35W south" it causes their brain to explode because they cannot comprehend whether you're telling them to go west or south. Sat-nav devices don't fix this.
If you have to use letter suffixes, the thing to do is to start at A and go in order, skipping E/N/S/W (and of course I/O). Not only is this less confusing, but you have 20 suffixes available, rather than just two (or three if you think 69C isn't a case of highway dumbering).
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 18, 2024, 05:30:13 AMThe problem with suffixed routes is that if you tell a normal person "get on I-35W south" it causes their brain to explode because they cannot comprehend whether you're telling them to go west or south. Sat-nav devices don't fix this.
If you have to use letter suffixes, the thing to do is to start at A and go in order, skipping E/N/S/W (and of course I/O). Not only is this less confusing, but you have 20 suffixes available, rather than just two (or three if you think 69C isn't a case of highway dumbering).
I can see New York's state highway logic with this.
This does make me wonder though: in the places where the suffixed routes are established (i.e. 99E/99W near Portland, 31E/31W in Louisville/Nashville), are the locals just used to them and aren't as confused by the route designations?
Quote from: TheStranger on November 18, 2024, 06:24:36 AMThis does make me wonder though: in the places where the suffixed routes are established (i.e. 99E/99W near Portland, 31E/31W in Louisville/Nashville), are the locals just used to them and aren't as confused by the route designations?
From what I can tell from DFW, yes. It also helps that there it's pronounced "35-dubya" and "35-eee" since they know they go north/south and saying east/west is liable to be confusing. But those from elsewhere won't necessarily know that.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 18, 2024, 07:52:23 AMQuote from: TheStranger on November 18, 2024, 06:24:36 AMThis does make me wonder though: in the places where the suffixed routes are established (i.e. 99E/99W near Portland, 31E/31W in Louisville/Nashville), are the locals just used to them and aren't as confused by the route designations?
From what I can tell from DFW, yes. It also helps that there it's pronounced "35-dubya" and "35-eee" since they know they go north/south and saying east/west is liable to be confusing. But those from elsewhere won't necessarily know that.
I have thought about trying to create tons of NC suffixed routes in a fictional setting, but I never got beyond the brainstorming these of it.
I've said this before, but the interstate system should have treated 3dis like 3dus routes. There are numerous short interstates that would be just fine as 3dis, but since it was always implied that they be loops or short spurs, many of those numbers just aren't used.
For instance, I-39 in Wisconsin could be I-194. I-88 in Illinois could be I-380. Etc.
I'd be fine with suffixes if they were treated more like NY's system. What I hate about them is how they cause the route to split. As long as there's a mainline that is clearly the "real" route, they can go wild as far as I'm concerned (just look at NY 9N... and then there's the interesting case of NY 12E being entirely west of NY 12).
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2024, 09:36:17 AMI've said this before, but the interstate system should have treated 3dis like 3dus routes. There are numerous short interstates that would be just fine as 3dis, but since it was always implied that they be loops or short spurs, many of those numbers just aren't used.
For instance, I-39 in Wisconsin could be I-194. I-88 in Illinois could be I-380. Etc.
I could see a case where 3di numbers were used for longer spurs and suffixes for loops. Not sure how shorter spurs would be handled in that system, though. As long as it doesn't devolve like the 3dus routes did, with few of them bearing any relationship at all to their "parent".
Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2024, 12:46:43 PMI'd be fine with suffixes if they were treated more like NY's system. What I hate about them is how they cause the route to split. As long as there's a mainline that is clearly the "real" route, they can go wild as far as I'm concerned (just look at NY 9N... and then there's the interesting case of NY 12E being entirely west of NY 12).
So are you completely fine with US 70N, US 70, and US 70S in Central TN?
Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2024, 12:46:43 PMI'd be fine with suffixes if they were treated more like NY's system. What I hate about them is how they cause the route to split. As long as there's a mainline that is clearly the "real" route, they can go wild as far as I'm concerned (just look at NY 9N... and then there's the interesting case of NY 12E being entirely west of NY 12).
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2024, 09:36:17 AMI've said this before, but the interstate system should have treated 3dis like 3dus routes. There are numerous short interstates that would be just fine as 3dis, but since it was always implied that they be loops or short spurs, many of those numbers just aren't used.
For instance, I-39 in Wisconsin could be I-194. I-88 in Illinois could be I-380. Etc.
I could see a case where 3di numbers were used for longer spurs and suffixes for loops. Not sure how shorter spurs would be handled in that system, though. As long as it doesn't devolve like the 3dus routes did, with few of them bearing any relationship at all to their "parent".
But is that necessarily a problem? If the interstate system was similar to the US system, and Wisconsin's I-39 was actually something like I-742, I don't see much of a problem.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 18, 2024, 01:18:45 PMQuote from: vdeane on November 18, 2024, 12:46:43 PMI'd be fine with suffixes if they were treated more like NY's system. What I hate about them is how they cause the route to split. As long as there's a mainline that is clearly the "real" route, they can go wild as far as I'm concerned (just look at NY 9N... and then there's the interesting case of NY 12E being entirely west of NY 12).
So are you completely fine with US 70N, US 70, and US 70S in Central TN?
Having looked at that, I am. Certainly much better than full splits like US 11E and US 11W which leave interesting questions about what, exactly, one needs to do to clinch US 11.
Quote from: Quillz on November 17, 2024, 07:26:00 PMYou know, I feel in the modern days of GPS, that having suffixed numbers wouldn't be an issue. I question how many people would have confused 80S for 80, or 80N for 80. Especially when they ultimately veered off and had considerably different alignments.
Arguably the reverse is also true. Why not just use another number when no one but roadgeeks pays attention to the numbering scheme or where the route originated or where it goes anyways? It's not like the old days where it was important for motorists to know that 80N and 80S were alternates of the same route. If anything, these days suffixes create more confusion than they solve.
Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2024, 08:55:11 PMQuote from: 74/171FAN on November 18, 2024, 01:18:45 PMQuote from: vdeane on November 18, 2024, 12:46:43 PMI'd be fine with suffixes if they were treated more like NY's system. What I hate about them is how they cause the route to split. As long as there's a mainline that is clearly the "real" route, they can go wild as far as I'm concerned (just look at NY 9N... and then there's the interesting case of NY 12E being entirely west of NY 12).
So are you completely fine with US 70N, US 70, and US 70S in Central TN?
Having looked at that, I am. Certainly much better than full splits like US 11E and US 11W which leave interesting questions about what, exactly, one needs to do to clinch US 11.
That's easy. If you're driving south on US 11, once you get to the split in Bristol, you take whatever route you choose (the fastest route would be I-81 and I-40) to Knoxville, where you then resume driving on US 11. There is a gap in the routing, and 11E and 11W are two completely separate routes independent from US 11. Now, if you want to clinch 11, 11E and 11W, you proceed south from Bristol on one of the routes, turn around in Knoxville and proceed north on the other route, then you turn around again and take the interstate back south to Knoxville.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2024, 04:58:13 PMThat's easy. If you're driving south on US 11, once you get to the split in Bristol, you take whatever route you choose (the fastest route would be I-81 and I-40) to Knoxville, where you then resume driving on US 11. There is a gap in the routing, and 11E and 11W are two completely separate routes independent from US 11. Now, if you want to clinch 11, 11E and 11W, you proceed south from Bristol on one of the routes, turn around in Knoxville and proceed north on the other route, then you turn around again and take the interstate back south to Knoxville.
I'd love to know what you'd consider hard, then. :-D
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 18, 2024, 07:52:23 AMQuote from: TheStranger on November 18, 2024, 06:24:36 AMThis does make me wonder though: in the places where the suffixed routes are established (i.e. 99E/99W near Portland, 31E/31W in Louisville/Nashville), are the locals just used to them and aren't as confused by the route designations?
From what I can tell from DFW, yes. It also helps that there it's pronounced "35-dubya" and "35-eee" since they know they go north/south and saying east/west is liable to be confusing. But those from elsewhere won't necessarily know that.
See, I figured that was normal. I never have once said "35 West" and "35 East," I just say "35 W" and "35 E." So to me, hearing "go north on 35W" wouldn't confuse me. But I guess if most people do actually say "35 West," then hearing "North 35 West" could cause confusion.
Which is probably the reason why I have never had a major issue with suffixed routes. I think when used sparingly, they're fine. The main issue with them is the ambiguity. Why couldn't Ft. Worth and St. Paul just been assigned 3di? Why did Riverside at one point have a 15E only to later be changed to 215? Without any clear guidelines for why they get chosen over auxiliaries, it's always going to be arbitrary.
Quote from: Quillz on November 20, 2024, 06:49:39 AMSee, I figured that was normal. I never have once said "35 West" and "35 East," I just say "35 W" and "35 E." So to me, hearing "go north on 35W" wouldn't confuse me. But I guess if most people do actually say "35 West," then hearing "North 35 West" could cause confusion.
I'm not sure if it's people so much as turn by turn directions.
Quote from: Quillz on November 20, 2024, 06:49:39 AMWhy did Riverside at one point have a 15E only to later be changed to 215? Without any clear guidelines for why they get chosen over auxiliaries, it's always going to be arbitrary.
With regards to I-15E: During the 8 years (1974-1982) it existed, the route had a hidden state route designation of 194, much like how Business 80 in Sacramento has a hidden designation as Route 51 to this day.
But that also begs the question, how is it that defining a route as "15E" is somehow impossible in California's legislative mechanism to number routes?
15E along the US 395 corridor also was originally I-15 straight up, before the state decided to apply Interstate funding to what had been the new-terrain Route 31 freeway project + an upgrade of existing Route 71 (which itself includes a part of former US 395).
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 18, 2024, 07:52:23 AMFrom what I can tell from DFW, yes. It also helps that there it's pronounced "35-dubya" and "35-eee" since they know they go north/south and saying east/west is liable to be confusing.
Similar vernacular (except we fully pronounce the "double-U") in the Twin Cities. Similar situation in that the locals get it and it's the out-of-towners that occasionally get confused.
Quote from: Quillz on November 20, 2024, 06:49:39 AMWhy couldn't Ft. Worth and St. Paul just been assigned 3di?
As with most things Interstate, it's a prestige thing. In both cases (Texas and Minnesota), you have two large cities. None wanted to be "devalued", so there was never any agreement on how to drop the suffix.
Why is North Carolina so gung-ho on Interstates? Because they're effectively a brand. Why did they push for I-87 when I-495 would have worked just fine (and been appropriate) on the busier section between Raleigh and Rocky Mount? Because 2-digit Interstates have more "prestige" than 3-digit routes.
Quote from: froggie on November 21, 2024, 08:25:40 AMAs with most things Interstate, it's a prestige thing. In both cases (Texas and Minnesota), you have two large cities. None wanted to be "devalued", so there was never any agreement on how to drop the suffix.
Why is North Carolina so gung-ho on Interstates? Because they're effectively a brand. Why did they push for I-87 when I-495 would have worked just fine (and been appropriate) on the busier section between Raleigh and Rocky Mount? Because 2-digit Interstates have more "prestige" than 3-digit routes.
In the case of DFW, Dallas already had I-45, so allowing Fort Worth to have I-35 and having I-35E to be a mix of I-45 and a 3di would have been a good compromise. In the case of the Twin Cities, not only is Minneapolis better known to the point where it's basically shorthand for both, I-35E doesn't allow trucks, so that's a good justification for having I-35 follow I-35W and make I-35E a 3di.
Quote from: vdeane on November 21, 2024, 12:42:50 PMQuote from: froggie on November 21, 2024, 08:25:40 AMAs with most things Interstate, it's a prestige thing. In both cases (Texas and Minnesota), you have two large cities. None wanted to be "devalued", so there was never any agreement on how to drop the suffix.
Why is North Carolina so gung-ho on Interstates? Because they're effectively a brand. Why did they push for I-87 when I-495 would have worked just fine (and been appropriate) on the busier section between Raleigh and Rocky Mount? Because 2-digit Interstates have more "prestige" than 3-digit routes.
In the case of DFW, Dallas already had I-45, so allowing Fort Worth to have I-35 and having I-35E to be a mix of I-45 and a 3di would have been a good compromise. In the case of the Twin Cities, not only is Minneapolis better known to the point where it's basically shorthand for both, I-35E doesn't allow trucks, so that's a good justification for having I-35 follow I-35W and make I-35E a 3di.
I can't remember who had the idea of "sharing" the main route among both cities, but someone did have the idea to run mainline I-35 along I-94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul, then having the other portions of those routes become 3DIs. It could work along I-30 in DFW, too.
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 21, 2024, 02:23:26 PMI can't remember who had the idea of "sharing" the main route among both cities, but someone did have the idea to run mainline I-35 along I-94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul, then having the other portions of those routes become 3DIs. It could work along I-30 in DFW, too.
Brilliant idea for the Twin Cities, but IMO too much backtracking for DFW. But the Twin Cities doesn't have another x5, while DFW does.
It's interesting how the "prestige" idea has never gone away. The US highways were like that, too. US-60 being seen as more prestigious than US-66 (even though history ended up reversing that).
Seems California did that, too. Deliberating assigning lower route numbers in the more populated areas of the state as of 1934. So 1/5/13/21 were all in the Bay Area instead of starting somewhere else, like the northwest corner of the state.
I think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.
Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMIt's interesting how the "prestige" idea has never gone away. The US highways were like that, too. US-60 being seen as more prestigious than US-66 (even though history ended up reversing that).
Seems California did that, too. Deliberating assigning lower route numbers in the more populated areas of the state as of 1934. So 1/5/13/21 were all in the Bay Area instead of starting somewhere else, like the northwest corner of the state.
I think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.
Which of course begs the question: why haven't the DOTs involved took the opportunities and asked for I-50 and I-60? They wasted huge opportunities. Does Skuluth actually have a say in DOT/FHWA decisions or is it just that they don't know? Is there a moratorium on them we aren't aware of?
Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMI think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.
* stands clear while grid purists' heads explode *
Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMIt's interesting how the "prestige" idea has never gone away.
One difference is that as the Interstate grid filled up, pretty much "any Interstate number" became the prestige designation, as noticeably seen with North Carolina's freeway expansion rush of the last 25 years, and the general approaches of the I-69 and I-27 extensions of late.
(Probably because the x0/x5 routes are already pretty set in stone!)
This is really where using I-45 on an intrastate route and I-30 on esesntially a US 67 connector between I-20 and I-40 was not great usage of number allocation at all.
For that matter, 1950s California's suggestions of Interstate numbering (i.e. I-76 along the US 40 corridor that is now I-80, I-12 along what is now I-10, and I want to say I-30 for what is now I-40) were designed to try to originally work with the existing US and state route number set in place then; the feds rejecting those number requests indirectly led to the 1964 renumbering.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 22, 2024, 09:45:37 AMQuote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMI think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.
* stands clear while grid purists' heads explode *
I don't mind lack of grid if that's how it was from the start. What I hate is when states have an organized system, then later change to "numbers as we need them" (i.e. post-1964 California).
Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 05:20:02 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on November 22, 2024, 09:45:37 AMQuote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMI think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.
* stands clear while grid purists' heads explode *
I don't mind lack of grid if that's how it was from the start. What I hate is when states have an organized system, then later change to "numbers as we need them" (i.e. post-1964 California).
It's weird thinking "I've been in roadgeek circles for 26+ years" but yeah, I step back and look at numbering this way:
- Grids are really nice for organization, but I also can see where you have a ton of similar-sounding numbers nearby that may not be the best for differentiation, I felt this when I drove in Florda in 2021
- That being said, some of the new numbers instituted in California were geographic clusters (different from the every-four system of 1934) -
13 near then-17 and then-21 in the East Bay
31 crossing what was then 30 in Ontario
unsigned 51 adjacent to US 50
52/54/56 in San Diego
57 parallel to 57 in Orange County
62 somewhat close to 60
former 65 becoming 69 briefly
72 and 73 being added near 74
76 near 78 (though that was added in 1952)
82, 84, 85, 87 in the Bay Area
90 adjacent to 91
92 and (unsigned) 93 in the Bay Area
(unsigned) 109, 112 and 114 (and 117) as short Bay Area routes
143 and 148 as planned freeways in metro Sacramento
original 163 and 165 as short routes near LA, not far from unsigned 164
After that, it starts to get a bit more sparse for geographic assignment:
186 and 188 border crossings
202 and 204 both in Kern County
212, 213, 214 in Southern California (along with the original 215)
224 and 225 near 101 in Santa Barbara County
227 and 229 in San Luis Obispo County
unbuilt 230, 1960s 231 in San Francisco
231/241/261 Orange County (are these the newest new-designation state routes in California?)
unbuilt 234/235 in Stockton
236, 237, 238 all along former Route 9
254 and 255 up north near/around US 101
263, 265, 273 along former US 99 routings up north
- More important than "which number" is "how well is the route signed"...which has notably been up and down here, especially with signing being tied to state maintenance rather than marking out a navigational route. My preferences that numbering should be first and foremost a navigational tool are pretty known here (i.e. the 14 year saga of the Route 1/Rice Avenue realignment in Oxnard).
Quote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMIt's interesting how the "prestige" idea has never gone away. The US highways were like that, too. US-60 being seen as more prestigious than US-66 (even though history ended up reversing that).
Seems California did that, too. Deliberating assigning lower route numbers in the more populated areas of the state as of 1934. So 1/5/13/21 were all in the Bay Area instead of starting somewhere else, like the northwest corner of the state.
I think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.
Yes. The San Francisco Bay Area having 8 different interstate routes ending in _80 makes the metropolitan area more confusing to navigate than it had to be.
Quote from: TheStranger on November 22, 2024, 02:10:17 PMI-30 on esesntially a US 67 connector between I-20 and I-40 was not great usage of number allocation
IIRC, one of the proposals for the "Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Freeway" in decades past was to be a potential extension of I-30. Don't believe the proposal ever got too far off the drawing board though.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 22, 2024, 08:18:51 PMQuote from: TheStranger on November 22, 2024, 02:10:17 PMI-30 on esesntially a US 67 connector between I-20 and I-40 was not great usage of number allocation
IIRC, one of the proposals for the "Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Freeway" in decades past was to be a potential extension of I-30. Don't believe the proposal ever got too far off the drawing board though.
Was it on the radar when the original interstates were being planned?
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 22, 2024, 08:28:38 PMQuote from: freebrickproductions on November 22, 2024, 08:18:51 PMQuote from: TheStranger on November 22, 2024, 02:10:17 PMI-30 on esesntially a US 67 connector between I-20 and I-40 was not great usage of number allocation
IIRC, one of the proposals for the "Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Freeway" in decades past was to be a potential extension of I-30. Don't believe the proposal ever got too far off the drawing board though.
Was it on the radar when the original interstates were being planned?
Don't think so? The photos I saw of a local presentation about the proposal I believe were from the 70s, though they may have been from the 60s or 80s. Would have to dig-up the Facebook post about it, it was in a local road group and posted by a local historian.
Quote from: kkt on November 22, 2024, 08:03:46 PMQuote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMIt's interesting how the "prestige" idea has never gone away. The US highways were like that, too. US-60 being seen as more prestigious than US-66 (even though history ended up reversing that).
Seems California did that, too. Deliberating assigning lower route numbers in the more populated areas of the state as of 1934. So 1/5/13/21 were all in the Bay Area instead of starting somewhere else, like the northwest corner of the state.
I think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.
Yes. The San Francisco Bay Area having 8 different interstate routes ending in _80 makes the metropolitan area more confusing to navigate than it had to be.
At least one would have not existed at all (I-580) had I-5W remained as a designation!
That being said, the only original x80s in the Bay Area as of 1964 were I-280, the former I-480, I-680, and I-80 itself. The rest all came afterwards:
I-380: Interstate funding for what had been a planned state highway spur, Route 186 to the airport, opened in the 1970s
I-580: former I-5W (and after 1984, also former Route 17 north of Albany), designation started in 1964
I-780: former portion of I-680 that gained its number in 1976
I-880: 1984 designation for former Route 17 from Oakland to San Jose; number had been used in the Sacramento area from the 60s to 1982
I-980: Interstate funding for the final 2 miles of what was planned as Route 24 between the MacArthur and Nimitz freeways
The comparable region to this for same-parent 3dis would be the Newport News area and all the I-64 auxiliary routes.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 22, 2024, 08:30:15 PMQuote from: Molandfreak on November 22, 2024, 08:28:38 PMQuote from: freebrickproductions on November 22, 2024, 08:18:51 PMQuote from: TheStranger on November 22, 2024, 02:10:17 PMI-30 on esesntially a US 67 connector between I-20 and I-40 was not great usage of number allocation
IIRC, one of the proposals for the "Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Freeway" in decades past was to be a potential extension of I-30. Don't believe the proposal ever got too far off the drawing board though.
Was it on the radar when the original interstates were being planned?
Don't think so? The photos I saw of a local presentation about the proposal I believe were from the 70s, though they may have been from the 60s or 80s. Would have to dig-up the Facebook post about it, it was in a local road group and posted by a local historian.
Then how would it have any effect on the original numbering? I-30 was always meant to be a short connector, nothing more. That was a mistake, especially since it was unlikely to be a number that conflicted with US 30.
Actually now that I think about it, sending I-30 to California instead of I-40 might have had the same effect on the 1964 renumbering that the California's proposed changes (I-76 and I-12) did. Now they'd only have to get rid of the conflict with 80, which isn't necessarily impossible.
Quote from: kkt on November 22, 2024, 08:03:46 PMQuote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMIt's interesting how the "prestige" idea has never gone away. The US highways were like that, too. US-60 being seen as more prestigious than US-66 (even though history ended up reversing that).
Seems California did that, too. Deliberating assigning lower route numbers in the more populated areas of the state as of 1934. So 1/5/13/21 were all in the Bay Area instead of starting somewhere else, like the northwest corner of the state.
I think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.
Yes. The San Francisco Bay Area having 8 different interstate routes ending in _80 makes the metropolitan area more confusing to navigate than it had to be.
Which I find ironic because Caltrans wanted as many interstates in the area as possible. But I think they were looking at the shield more than the numbers. The "brand name recognition," so to speak. At least that's the logic behind I-238.
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 22, 2024, 08:38:05 PMActually now that I think about it, sending I-30 to California instead of I-40 might have had the same effect on the 1964 renumbering that the California's proposed changes (I-76 and I-12) did. Now they'd only have to get rid of the conflict with 80, which isn't necessarily impossible.
I think I-30 was also a California submission, I mentioned it earlier in the thread but let me find a source:
https://cahighways.org/ROUTE040.html
QuoteApproved as chargeable Interstate on 7/7/1947. In August 1957, this was tentatively approved as I-40; however, in November 1957 the California Department of Highways suggested that it be designated as I-30 to eliminate confusion with the existing US 40 in California. This was rejected by AASHTO, and was probably one of the factors leading to the "great renumbering".
Quote from: TheStranger on November 23, 2024, 01:29:56 PMQuote from: Molandfreak on November 22, 2024, 08:38:05 PMActually now that I think about it, sending I-30 to California instead of I-40 might have had the same effect on the 1964 renumbering that the California's proposed changes (I-76 and I-12) did. Now they'd only have to get rid of the conflict with 80, which isn't necessarily impossible.
I think I-30 was also a California submission, I mentioned it earlier in the thread but let me find a source:
https://cahighways.org/ROUTE040.html
QuoteApproved as chargeable Interstate on 7/7/1947. In August 1957, this was tentatively approved as I-40; however, in November 1957 the California Department of Highways suggested that it be designated as I-30 to eliminate confusion with the existing US 40 in California. This was rejected by AASHTO, and was probably one of the factors leading to the "great renumbering".
Was someone involved in the planning process from Dallas? The metro just
had to collect them all. Having I-30 along IRL I-40 and I-40 on, say, I-44 and I-64 would have been better.
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 23, 2024, 02:13:56 PMHaving I-30 along IRL I-40 and I-40 on, say, I-44 and I-64 would have been better.
If the intention was to minimize confusion between different highway types having the same route number, this would have made the situation worse, as you'd have had three states (MO/IL/IN) instead of one with both US 40 and "I-40", including having both within the same metropolitan area.
Quote from: froggie on November 23, 2024, 02:28:24 PMQuote from: Molandfreak on November 23, 2024, 02:13:56 PMHaving I-30 along IRL I-40 and I-40 on, say, I-44 and I-64 would have been better.
If the intention was to minimize confusion between different highway types having the same route number, this would have made the situation worse, as you'd have had three states (MO/IL/IN) instead of one with both US 40 and "I-40", including having both within the same metropolitan area.
Forgot about that. But I-40 could have also been skipped or ended in West Virginia.
But does that even matter now with the states that have duplicate Interstate and US numbers (not counting I/US 41 in Wisconsin, as that's really the same route)?
Quote from: Bickendan on November 25, 2024, 02:07:58 AMBut does that even matter now with the states that have duplicate Interstate and US numbers (not counting I/US 41 in Wisconsin, as that's really the same route)?
Wasn't the US 24 and I-24 duplication in Illinois allowed very early on in the history of the system?
The 41 saga actually unintentionally echoes the UK limited access route numbering scheme (A designations usually retaining the number as a M designation when upgraded to motorway)
Quote from: Quillz on November 23, 2024, 08:32:19 AMQuote from: kkt on November 22, 2024, 08:03:46 PMQuote from: Quillz on November 22, 2024, 07:47:56 AMIt's interesting how the "prestige" idea has never gone away. The US highways were like that, too. US-60 being seen as more prestigious than US-66 (even though history ended up reversing that).
Seems California did that, too. Deliberating assigning lower route numbers in the more populated areas of the state as of 1934. So 1/5/13/21 were all in the Bay Area instead of starting somewhere else, like the northwest corner of the state.
I think that's one of the advantages of having a more random assortment, kind of like what Texas does. Just assign routes as they are thought of and remove any semblance of prestige.
Yes. The San Francisco Bay Area having 8 different interstate routes ending in _80 makes the metropolitan area more confusing to navigate than it had to be.
Which I find ironic because Caltrans wanted as many interstates in the area as possible. But I think they were looking at the shield more than the numbers. The "brand name recognition," so to speak. At least that's the logic behind I-238.
Yes, I-238 to I-880 is the preferred truck route for trucks from Altamont Pass to Oakland and it's easier to encourage that with an interstate shield. But I'm sure interstate funding was also a consideration.
California had leftover interstate money from the cancellation of I-80 west of US 101 and the cancellation of I-480, so they applied it to a bunch of smaller road projects which then needed interstate numbers.
Quote from: kkt on November 25, 2024, 01:00:37 PMCalifornia had leftover interstate money from the cancellation of I-80 west of US 101 and the cancellation of I-480, so they applied it to a bunch of smaller road projects which then needed interstate numbers.
IIRC, the chargeable mileage for the two SF cancellations you listed went directly to the I-105/Century Freeway project. (This is also how the I-80 segment between US 101 and the Bay Bridge - the 1950s US 40/50 San Francisco Skyway - ended up not being officially part of the Interstate system after the 1960s)
I mentioned it in another thread, but the later-day interstate submissions in California go chronologically like this:
1976: I-780 replacing former I-680 after 680 was rerouted to the east to fully take over former Route 21
1981: I-980 along planned Route 24 extension, modern I-110 along the Harbor Freeway
1982: Decommissioning of I-880 in Sacramento as part of the nixing of the I-80 realignment near Arden. 80 moved to 880, hidden 305 taking over former I-80 from West Sacramento to E Street, while the portion that was built as US 99E in the 1940s-1950s from E Street to old I-880 being removed from the Interstate system permanently
1983-1984: I-880 along Nimitz Freeway/middle segment of Route 17, I-238 on the San Lorenzo connector between the MacArthur and Nimitz, I-580 west extension (incorporating existing I-80/former I-5W, and the then-north segment of Route 17/proposed I-180), and I-710. ALSO - state route 15 south of I-8 was submitted and approved by AASHTO as a future Interstate, though still unclear when signage for this will occur.
1986: Creation of Future I-905 (not sure when this will actually be signed as such) along former southern segment of Route 75/former Route 117/former southernmost portion of Route 125.
1999: AASHTO nixing California's submission at that time of State Route 210/former Route 30 as an extension of I-210.
Quote from: Bickendan on November 25, 2024, 02:07:58 AMBut does that even matter now with the states that have duplicate Interstate and US numbers (not counting I/US 41 in Wisconsin, as that's really the same route)?
I think the issue is how close are they and could they be confused for one another. No one is getting confused between I-24 and US-24 in Illinois because they are no where close.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 26, 2024, 09:20:41 AMQuote from: Bickendan on November 25, 2024, 02:07:58 AMBut does that even matter now with the states that have duplicate Interstate and US numbers (not counting I/US 41 in Wisconsin, as that's really the same route)?
I think the issue is how close are they and could they be confused for one another. No one is getting confused between I-24 and US-24 in Illinois because they are no where close.
That could have worked for California. The odds of anyone confusing US-80 and I-80 are minimal. Same with US-40 and I-40.
I still think what could have worked with modern hindsight was not having an interstate grid at all, but rather just upgrading portions of US highways and giving them interstate badges. Which is not to far off from what Australia does. So instead of I-80, it would just be US-40 and then the "old" alignments could have been renumbered to auxiliaries. Or suffixed spurs. I dunno.
Quote from: Quillz on November 27, 2024, 05:56:33 AMI still think what could have worked with modern hindsight was not having an interstate grid at all, but rather just upgrading portions of US highways and giving them interstate badges. Which is not to far off from what Australia does. So instead of I-80, it would just be US-40 and then the "old" alignments could have been renumbered to auxiliaries. Or suffixed spurs. I dunno.
The UK also uses this with the AxxxM numbers, right?
The challenge is when one gets to the truly new terrain Interstates, what would have happened then (specifically I-80 in PA, maybe I-70 west of US 6 in Utah).
On the other hand, imagine I-59/I-81 only being just Upgraded US 11 of some sort...
Quote from: TheStranger on November 27, 2024, 06:10:37 AMThe UK also uses this with the AxxxM numbers, right?
Yes, but Axxx(M) numbers can also be spurs of the main A road (A3(M), A8(M) (GB), A48(M), A308(M), A329(M)), as well as being in the middle (A38(M), A57(M), A58(M), A66(M), A627(M)) or end (A8(M) (NI), A64(M), A74(M), A194(M), A404(M), A823(M), A1077(M)) of the route.
A better analogy would be countries like Ireland, or Poland, where the route has one number and then sections are motorway or not and have different prefix (M vs N in Ireland, A or S vs no signed prefix in Poland).
That would be the Australia approach as well (letter prefix indicating road class, from M to A/B/C and Detour).