Was looking at the latest FHWA Interstate route log (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm) showing data as of January, and I noticed that the Alaska interstates appear to have had some changes to their listing.
The chart now only shows three interstates (A1, A2, A3). And A3 seems to now be the Anchorage-Fairbanks routing via Parks Highway, which had been A4. The Soldotna-Anchorage route seems to be missing from the chart completely.
Also, the mileages for A1 and A2 seem longer than previous listings. I know these FHWA charts are often ...off... on the mileage calcs, but the differences here are fairly significant. None are big enough to indicate that the route to Soldotna was "absorbed" by another route.
Wondering what happened here. There's nothing listed in the AASHTO listings about a decommissioning of A4.
DOGE strikes again.
Other errors noted in the Log Table 1:
1. Apparently I-95 in Washington, DC is now 354.7 miles in length.
2. I-73 is still listed as 99.7 miles long in NC, though it now totals 107.
3. I-74 is still listed as being only 63.85 miles in length in NC, it now totals over 130.
4. I-42 is listed with both Clayton and Goldsboro as major cities, but only the mileage of the Goldsboro Bypass is listed. (And it is not included in the list of NC interstates on Table 3).
5. In Tables 2 and 3 there's an extension of I-182 in Louisiana for all of .01 miles.
6. No mention of I-57 in Arkansas.
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 17, 2025, 11:00:10 PMThe chart now only shows three interstates (A1, A2, A3). And A3 seems to now be the Anchorage-Fairbanks routing via Parks Highway, which had been A4.
If so, Table 1's and Table 3's lists of "major cities served (Pop. larger than 5,000)" for A3 should have included Alaska's fourth-largest city Wasilla, which is on the Parks Highway. Also a puzzle is that list includes the "major city" of "Lakes", which AFAIK doesn't exist anywhere in Alaska even as a minor city.
QuoteWondering what happened here. There's nothing listed in the AASHTO listings about a decommissioning of A4.
A4 was authorized by AASHTO, after some strong-arming by Congress, especially legendary porkmeister Sen. Ted Stevens. I would think AASHTO would need to be involved in de-authorizing A4.
I wonder if whoever updated the Alaska Interstate route lists was confused by the Interstate routes being out of synch with the Alaska state routes (A3 = part of Alaska state route 1, A4 = state route 3, A1 and A2 = parts of state routes 1 and 2). This issue was raised with Alaska DOT when the original Interstate routes were approved by AASHTO in the early 1980s, but Alaska DOT stubbornly stuck with the routes it proposed.
Quote from: NE2 on March 17, 2025, 11:07:07 PMDOGE strikes again.
That would explain a lot, except the FHWA route list was "as of January 2025", when DOGE was just getting started, and probably wouldn't have had time to mess with something like FHWA.
It sounds like someone should send FHWA a strongly worded letter, pointing out the issues raised by Beeper1 and bob7374.
Quote from: oscar on March 18, 2025, 12:46:53 AMQuote from: NE2 on March 17, 2025, 11:07:07 PMDOGE strikes again.
That would explain a lot, except the FHWA route list was "as of January 2025", when DOGE was just getting started, and probably wouldn't have had time to mess with something like FHWA.
It sounds like someone should send FHWA a strongly worded letter, pointing out the issues raised by Beeper1 and bob7374.
Doubt 'DOGE' had anything to do with this.
Update was posted on 01-23-25 (https://web.archive.org/web/20250123210447/https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm), maybe even earlier and this day just happened to be the first capture of the updated site.
Overall mileage for Alaska (1,082.22) between captures stayed the same (12-17-24 (https://web.archive.org/web/20241217165122/https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm))
However, you can compare the mileage differences for each route between the two dates.
A-1: 408.23 -> 465.75
A-2: 202.18 -> 290.76
A-3: 148.12 -> 323.69
A-4: 323.69 -> 'missing'
Quote from: bob7374 on March 18, 2025, 12:22:23 AM1. Apparently I-95 in Washington, DC is now 354.7 miles in length.
The 0.13 Net Miles is 686.4 feet, so it's not a unit confusion error (ie 354ft being misread). Totally insane that would not have passed a sniff test.
Quote2. I-73 is still listed as 99.7 miles long in NC, though it now totals 107.
3. I-74 is still listed as being only 63.85 miles in length in NC, it now totals over 130.
The Rockingham bypass wasn't open when the list was updated (is that your I-73 difference? Exit 16 to exit 22. It probably is, given rounding differences)
As for I-74, they only have ~20 miles shared with I-73 (also suggesting some of I-73 is missing, though as we'd be looking at exit 22 to exit 80, that's nearly 40 miles missing, way more than they omit for I-73), so were up around the 100 mile mark with that being accurate and then its 'only' 30 miles missing, rather than over half (is this a difference between completed and connected bits of 74?)
Quote4. I-42 is listed with both Clayton and Goldsboro as major cities, but only the mileage of the Goldsboro Bypass is listed. (And it is not included in the list of NC interstates on Table 3).
There's 21.65 Net Miles, of which 31.60 are ISTEA Miles.
Goldsboro was there in January, Clayton's signing is ongoing, so not having Clayton in a January 2025 update is correct.
Quote5. In Tables 2 and 3 there's an extension of I-182 in Louisiana for all of .01 miles.
I initially thought this was a typo by you for I-12 and, while having different mileages on different tables is odd, the difference was so tiny it was strange you were bringing it up and so I checked. A 53 foot long I-182 in Louisiana was so obviously insane that you making a small mistake was more likely. But no, they had indeed gone bonkers!
I'm guessing it's something strange related to the I-10/I-49/LA182 cloverleaf that caused confusion.
Quote6. No mention of I-57 in Arkansas.
That was still future in January.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 18, 2025, 12:59:47 AMOverall mileage for Alaska (1,082.22) between captures stayed the same (12-17-24 (https://web.archive.org/web/20241217165122/https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm))
However, you can compare the mileage differences for each route between the two dates.
A-1: 408.23 -> 465.75
A-2: 202.18 -> 290.76
A-3: 148.12 -> 323.69
A-4: 323.69 -> 'missing'
2.02 miles disappeared entirely.
Quote from: kphoger on March 18, 2025, 08:43:18 AMQuote from: rickmastfan67 on March 18, 2025, 12:59:47 AMOverall mileage for Alaska (1,082.22) between captures stayed the same (12-17-24 (https://web.archive.org/web/20241217165122/https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm))
However, you can compare the mileage differences for each route between the two dates.
A-1: 408.23 -> 465.75
A-2: 202.18 -> 290.76
A-3: 148.12 -> 323.69
A-4: 323.69 -> 'missing'
2.02 miles disappeared entirely.
I was talking about the total that they show in the 'TOTAL' line. That stayed the same between each capture of the site.
I haven't heard of DOGE forcing any cuts at USDOT or FHWA yet. (The only news I've heard out of USDOT is that bizarre proposal to direct more grants to states with high birth rates.)
I always found it odd that Alaska has Interstate Highway designations, even unsigned ones. Apparently, the designations were brought into existence in 1976. Since there are very few freeways in Alaska, I would think that Interstate designations would be unnecessary. The same would go for Puerto Rico's Interstates PR-1, PR-2, and PR-3.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 18, 2025, 12:59:47 AMOverall mileage for Alaska (1,082.22) between captures stayed the same (12-17-24 (https://web.archive.org/web/20241217165122/https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm))
However, you can compare the mileage differences for each route between the two dates.
A-1: 408.23 -> 465.75
A-2: 202.18 -> 290.76
A-3: 148.12 -> 323.69
A-4: 323.69 -> 'missing'
Quote from: kphoger on March 18, 2025, 08:43:18 AM2.02 miles disappeared entirely.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 18, 2025, 11:05:33 AMI was talking about the total that they show in the 'TOTAL' line. That stayed the same between each capture of the site.
But now it says 1080.20 instead, not 1082.22 as it did previously.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 18, 2025, 11:15:17 AMI always found it odd that Alaska has Interstate Highway designations, even unsigned ones. Apparently, the designations were brought into existence in 1976. Since there are very few freeways in Alaska, I would think that Interstate designations would be unnecessary. The same would go for Puerto Rico's Interstates PR-1, PR-2, and PR-3.
It was all a funding ploy. Alaska's U.S. senator Ted Stevens was unhappy with the already high (due to Alaska's low population density) Federal share for primary state route projects, and wanted the full 90% share for Interstates. The law he got passed did not require that Alaska's Interstates meet regular Interstate standards, and to this day only a small percentage of the Alaska Interstate network comes anywhere close to meeting those standards.
Puerto Rico came along for the ride on that legislation, perhaps so Sen. Stevens could say that it wasn't just for Alaska. Alaska's porkmeisters often cut other states, etc. in on the largesse they procured.
Measuring with the Google Maps driving directions, it does appear that they did indeed measure by the state highway numbers and not the interstate numbers. Whether or not that's reflective of an actual change is harder to say. The NHS map notably goes by signed number and not interstate number for unsigned highways, so it looks like some of that might have snuck into the table.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 18, 2025, 11:15:17 AMI always found it odd that Alaska has Interstate Highway designations, even unsigned ones. Apparently, the designations were brought into existence in 1976. Since there are very few freeways in Alaska, I would think that Interstate designations would be unnecessary. The same would go for Puerto Rico's Interstates PR-1, PR-2, and PR-3.
Most of the Puerto Rico interstates are freeway.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 18, 2025, 01:11:07 PMMost of the Puerto Rico interstates are freeway.
Were they freeways when they were designated?
Quote from: kphoger on March 18, 2025, 02:45:51 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on March 18, 2025, 01:11:07 PMMost of the Puerto Rico interstates are freeway.
Were they freeways when they were designated?
I'll defer to Oscar. I have no idea on the history. But I read
The Ghostbuster's comment as that they shouldn't be interstates due to the lack of freeways. Unless I'm misremembering, only I-PR2 has a non-freeway stretch.
Quote from: kphoger on March 18, 2025, 02:45:51 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on March 18, 2025, 01:11:07 PMMost of the Puerto Rico interstates are freeway.
Were they freeways when they were designated?
I doubt it, the designations were more than four decades ago. My only first-hand experience with Puerto Rico (including travel on all the Interstates) was more than two decades ago.
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 17, 2025, 11:00:10 PMWondering what happened here. There's nothing listed in the AASHTO listings about a decommissioning of A4.
None of these are signed anyway, so who'd care what designation they carried?
Quote from: Henry on March 18, 2025, 03:17:20 PMNone of these are signed anyway, so who'd care what designation they carried?
Roadgeeks.
Quote from: kphoger on March 18, 2025, 03:22:57 PMQuote from: Henry on March 18, 2025, 03:17:20 PMNone of these are signed anyway, so who'd care what designation they carried?
Roadgeeks.
Guess I should've added "besides us (roadgeeks)" in the question, which would narrow it down to nobody.
Quote from: Henry on March 18, 2025, 03:17:20 PMQuote from: Beeper1 on March 17, 2025, 11:00:10 PMWondering what happened here. There's nothing listed in the AASHTO listings about a decommissioning of A4.
None of these are signed anyway, so who'd care what designation they carried?
Alaska DOT and FHWA
I-PR3 also has numerous sections that aren't a freeway. Notably, it follows PR 3 rather than PR 66, at least according to Travel Mapping. Just taking a wild guess without measuring, I-PR2 and I-PR3 seem to be half and half.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 18, 2025, 11:06:16 AMI haven't heard of DOGE forcing any cuts at USDOT or FHWA yet. (The only news I've heard out of USDOT is that bizarre proposal to direct more grants to states with high birth rates.)
They were impacted by the general cut of all probationary employees. A former/current coworker of mine got laid off in mid-February as a result, bounced back to her state job (as she had the foresight to go on "discretionary leave" rather than resigning immediately), only to get called back in thanks to the court order, which will force her to give up her $10,000 sign-up bonus if she wants to stay with the (more stable) state job rather than go back to the federal job which could be cut at any time if the court order is changed, her job gets affected by the "reorganization" ordered by the administration, or something else happens.
Many grants were also frozen by the administration.
Two area engineers from FHWA that I saw today were totally shell-shocked, almost in the WWI-sense. Probationary firings are only the start. A larger reduction-in-force is coming. The uncertainty is absolutely traumatizing them, as they sat there, seemingly and barely absorbing anything that was said in the meeting.
I do not see any benefit from the DOGE meat cleaver hitting FHWA and see a whole lot of harm being done to everyone's ability to progress federal-aid projects.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: kphoger on March 18, 2025, 11:16:16 AMQuote from: rickmastfan67 on March 18, 2025, 12:59:47 AMOverall mileage for Alaska (1,082.22) between captures stayed the same (12-17-24 (https://web.archive.org/web/20241217165122/https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm))
However, you can compare the mileage differences for each route between the two dates.
A-1: 408.23 -> 465.75
A-2: 202.18 -> 290.76
A-3: 148.12 -> 323.69
A-4: 323.69 -> 'missing'
Quote from: kphoger on March 18, 2025, 08:43:18 AM2.02 miles disappeared entirely.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 18, 2025, 11:05:33 AMI was talking about the total that they show in the 'TOTAL' line. That stayed the same between each capture of the site.
But now it says 1080.20 instead, not 1082.22 as it did previously.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm
Seems that change happend on 02-25-25 (https://web.archive.org/web/20250225105453/https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm). The 02-23-25 archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20250223163207/https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm) still had it as 1082.22.