http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/10-29-2010%20USRN%20Minutes%20Biloxi,%20MS.pdf
Some of the shockers:
I-85 Western Extension to I-20 approved (pending FHWA approval letter).
I-685 in AL. Will take over part of old I-85 in Montgomery (pending FHWA approval letter).
I-840 NC approval (pending FHWA approval letter), so it might be posted as real interstate and no longer as a Future one (maybe they'll also post I-73 as a real Interstate along I-840 since they already have approval for it).
If you want to see maps of the changes, you need to download this file (http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/USRN%20AM%202010%20applications%20and%20contacts.docx) also. That's the only place they have links to the PDF's w/ maps.
Can AASHTO ever renumber I-99 to an x80 3di and thus save 99 for when it might be needed on the East Coast?
Quote from: Quillz on November 02, 2010, 09:18:58 PM
Can AASHTO ever renumber I-99 to an x80 3di and thus save 99 for when it might be needed on the East Coast?
Only an act of congress can change that number.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 02, 2010, 09:19:25 PM
Only an act of congress can change that number.
or AASHO telling PennDOT "go sign it I-780; we're the ones in charge of disbursing the federal funds anyway"
congress can suck it. meet the new idiots: same as the old idiots.
Quote from: Quillz on November 02, 2010, 09:18:58 PM
Can AASHTO ever renumber I-99 to an x80 3di and thus save 99 for when it might be needed on the East Coast?
Swap it with 73. It's not like 73 will ever extend west of I-81.
Since Schuster is out of office, I'm fairly sure a quick, unanimous resolution could be passed if brought forward by a Pennsylvania representative vetoing that number. Of course, convincing a Penna rep to spend time doing that would be a pain
Here are the links in that document:
AL FHWA Administrator Letter - to review interstat... (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=186)
USRN_Electronic Application Form Future I-85 _2_.p... (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=187)
AL FHWA Administrator Letter - to review interstat... (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=190)
USRN_Electronic Application Form I-685.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=191)
USBRS Application_Alaska Sept 2010 Signed.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=192)
USBRS Map_Alaska Sept 2010.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=193)
Full US93AASHTOapp-AZDirLtr.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=195)
Georgia U.S 19 relocation.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=196)
US24 Indiana.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=197)
US 40 Indiana.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=198)
US20 Application Form.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=199)
US30 Application Form.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=200)
US30Bus Application.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=201)
AASHTO application US60A Jefferson.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=202)
AASHTO application US 68 Marion Boyle.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=203)
AASHTO Application US 150 Washington County.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=204)
AASHTO Application US 150 Bus Washington County.pd... (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=205)
LA Application letter US84.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=206)
US 84 Rt Desc.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=209)
LA Application letter US84BUS.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=207)
LA Application letter US 171.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=208)
AASHTO Missouri Submittal LetterUS50 Jackson Co.pd... (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=210)
AASHTO Missouri Submittal LetterUS50 Moniteau&Cole... (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=211)
AASHTO - Recognition of BUS 50 - Moniteau Co. - FI... (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=212)
AASHTO - US 50 Relocation - Osage Co. - FINAL.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=213)
AASHTO Route 63 Final.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=216)
AASHTO Map - Bus Rt. 63.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=217)
USRN_Electronic Application Form_Aug 2009.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=218)
US93 - AASHTO APPLICATION.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=231)
NC Guilford Co application I-840.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=220)
Letter to AASHTO.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=223)
Letter to AASHTO.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=222)
NC Guilford Co.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=230)
US20 Oregon-Eddyville app.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=224)
US 190.PDF (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=225)
US 380.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=226)
img-923112611-0001.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=227)
2010 USBRS Application _USBR 1 in Occoquan_.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=228)
Does this mean that soon work on 85 will begin, or just that it is authorized to happen?
Thanks for digging up all of the links and for the overall thread, I always look forward to seeing what petitions are submitted at each meeting.
Quote from: njroadhorse on November 02, 2010, 11:25:19 PM
Does this mean that soon work on 85 will begin, or just that it is authorized to happen?
http://www.i85extension.com/
The authorization is for signing it as I-85.
Quoteor AASHO telling PennDOT "go sign it I-780; we're the ones in charge of disbursing the federal funds anyway"
That would be FHWA, not AASHTO.
QuoteDoes this mean that soon work on 85 will begin, or just that it is authorized to happen?
Just that it's authorized. ALDOT doesn't have the money to begin work, and they're banking on the next transportation bill to direct money to the project. If the Republicans managed to take back control of the Senate yesterday, count on Sen. Sessions and especially Sen. Shelby to "bring home the bacon".
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 02, 2010, 09:19:25 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 02, 2010, 09:18:58 PM
Can AASHTO ever renumber I-99 to an x80 3di and thus save 99 for when it might be needed on the East Coast?
Only an act of congress can change that number.
Right...and frankly not many people really care all that much about the numbering system anyway. It's over and done. Resigning it would just be a waste of money.
Quote from: froggie on November 03, 2010, 08:18:13 AM
Quoteor AASHO telling PennDOT "go sign it I-780; we're the ones in charge of disbursing the federal funds anyway"
That would be FHWA, not AASHTO.
wait, why is AASHO in charge of coming up with route numbers, and FHWA in charge of enforcing them? Sounds like a system of checks and balances that is frankly unnecessary. mmm... bureaucracy.
Quote from: froggie on November 03, 2010, 08:18:13 AM
If the Republicans managed to take back control of the Senate yesterday, count on Sen. Sessions and especially Sen. Shelby to "bring home the bacon".
Well, it won't happen that way.
Of course, since pork barrel spending is a party agnostic activity, it might still come up if Sessions' or Sheby's votes are needed on some bill or other.
Quote from: corco on November 02, 2010, 09:48:28 PM
Since Schuster is out of office, I'm fairly sure a quick, unanimous resolution could be passed if brought forward by a Pennsylvania representative vetoing that number. Of course, convincing a Penna rep to spend time doing that would be a pain
I doubt that. Even if any representative cared enough to bring it up, why would any one in a I-99 (or future I-99) area vote in favor of reunumbering.
I'll admit I don't know any of them personally (and the election has probably shaken it up a bit anyway), but I doubt any of them are "road-geek" enough to care at all about I-99's out-of-place nature. And, conversely, would not want to remove any benefit (real or simply perceived) from the designation. Also, I think New York state is now expecting to have a "piece" of I-99 too (once they get US-15 finished)
Quote from: corco on November 02, 2010, 09:48:28 PM
Since Schuster is out of office, I'm fairly sure a quick, unanimous resolution could be passed if brought forward by a Pennsylvania representative vetoing that number. Of course, convincing a Penna rep to spend time doing that would be a pain
Bud Shuster, who dreamed up the number, is out of office. But his son, Bill Shuster, is now represeenting that Pennsylvania district in Congress, and indeed was easily reelected yesterday. Like his father before him, he's a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which has jurisdiction over highway bills. He's also in the House Republican leadership (http://www.house.gov/shuster/content/about_bill/bio.htm).
So I don't think so.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 03, 2010, 10:35:54 AM
wait, why is AASHO in charge of coming up with route numbers, and FHWA in charge of enforcing them? Sounds like a system of checks and balances that is frankly unnecessary. mmm... bureaucracy.
AASHTO is not a federal government agency. It is an independent organization of state highway and transportation officials.
Quotewait, why is AASHO in charge of coming up with route numbers, and FHWA in charge of enforcing them? Sounds like a system of checks and balances that is frankly unnecessary. mmm... bureaucracy.
You specifically referenced Federal funds in your previous post. FHWA distributes those, not AASHTO. And it's not AASHTO (or FHWA for that matter) that comes up with route numbers. The respective states come up with the route numbers, then go to AASHTO (and FHWA too in the case of Interstates) for approval.
in that case FHWA needs to say "we'll pay for I-780 shields but not 99", like they told Florida that they would not contribute to colored US route markers a few years ago.
then the route can be legislatively 99 and signed 780.
(what? it's worked brilliantly in California since the 30s! hey, stop laughing!)
Okay, with this extension, I-85 really has no business having an odd number.
Quote from: corco on November 02, 2010, 09:48:28 PMSince Schuster is out of office, I'm fairly sure a quick, unanimous resolution could be passed if brought forward by a Pennsylvania representative vetoing that number. Of course, convincing a Penna rep to spend time doing that would be a pain
It would be an exercise in futility because they wouldn't want to eliminate an Interstate designation.
I didn't like the designation at first, because of the person who had the audacity to sign it into law and name it after himself, but I mellowed. I don't understand why, after 15 years, this number is still an issue.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 03, 2010, 08:31:26 PM
Okay, with this extension, I-85 really has no business having an odd number.
Maybe there's still time to lobby FHWA to instead recognize the extension as the first segment of I-14..... :-D
I've never gotten why I-85 has the number it does in the first place. It's hardly transcontinental, and it would be perfectly happy as an east-west road even without the extension. I-81 would be much more appropriate as a transcontinental than I-85.
^^^
Particularly if you connected it to I-59 via I-40, I-40/75, I-75 and I-24.
Then I-81 would be pretty much an end-to-end replacement for US 11.
Quote from: deanej on November 04, 2010, 10:52:54 AM
I've never gotten why I-85 has the number it does in the first place. It's hardly transcontinental, and it would be perfectly happy as an east-west road even without the extension. I-81 would be much more appropriate as a transcontinental than I-85.
Neither I-45 nor I-85 should have the number they have.
45 should be 310 or something similar to represent that it indeed connects 10 to 35 but isn't generally all that long.
then again, 27 should be 140.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 04, 2010, 04:08:01 PM
45 should be 310 or something similar to represent that it indeed connects 10 to 35 but isn't generally all that long.
Or I-39, I-41, or I-43. The I-49 corridor is more worthy of an I-x5 than today's I-45 corridor.
Quote from: deanej on November 04, 2010, 10:52:54 AM
I've never gotten why I-85 has the number it does in the first place. It's hardly transcontinental, and it would be perfectly happy as an east-west road even without the extension. I-81 would be much more appropriate as a transcontinental than I-85.
I-85 isn't that much more skewed than I-81. The north-south of the Southeast is much more of a northeast-southwest, so you have routes like I-26 crossing I-85 at a 90 degree angle. I think it's done consistently enough that I won't complain.
Even I-74's not as bad as US 52.
Quote from: NE2 on November 04, 2010, 06:22:09 PM
Even I-74's not as bad as US 52.
Aren't US highways that end in 2, 4, 6 generally supposed to run in a diagonal fashion? All the ones I can think of off the top of my head, such as US-6, US-52 and US-54 all run diagonal.
Nope: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1926us.jpg
52 and 54 are already somewhat diagonal, but 6 is east-west, as are other routes like 2, 4, and 64.
not much of a correlation. two of the more diagonal routes in the system are 68 and 79.
62 and 42 are diagonal.
22 is not. (well, not much, anyway - NYC to Cincy)
Why weren't NC DOT's Interstate applications systematically rejected (according to tradition)?
Interestingly US 42 and I-71 have the same endpoints and take similar routes, but one is even and the other odd.
Quote from: NE2 on November 04, 2010, 07:41:55 PM
Nope: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1926us.jpg
52 and 54 are already somewhat diagonal, but 6 is east-west, as are other routes like 2, 4, and 64.
I wouldn't call 6 a true east-west route, it's very diagonal. And I believe that's the reason it was numbered 6 as opposed to something else, like 60.
originally 6 terminated in Pennsylvania (where 6N ends now) - it just received a radical extension in the 30s. Dunno why they chose that route to extend over 32 and 38 - combining the two and extending that westward would've made quite a bit of sense as well.
Yes, check out the map I linked.
6 was extended as an outgrowth of the auto trail movement. Before 1926 residents of northern Pennsylvania created the Roosevelt Highway, and when it became US 6 they simply co-opted the number and pushed for extension as a transcontinental highway.
where did the routing of 6 converge with the Midland Trail? I know from Denver on west it is nearly identical to it, but what about east of there?
US 6 ended in Erie utilizing the current PA 97 alignment between there and Union City.