http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/USRN%20Report%20to%20SCOH%20Oct%2015%202011.pdf
All were approved.
Indiana: relocation of US 31 (South Bend) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=521)
Indiana: elimination of US 136 (Indianapolis) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=522)
Indiana: relocation of US 52 and 231 (Lafayette) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=523) (extra PDF)
Indiana: relocation of US 231 (Lafayette) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=563)
Indiana: relocation of US 52 (Lafayette) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=562)
Kansas: elimination of US 81 Business (Lindsborg) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=524)
Kentucky: establishment of I-69 (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=525)
Louisiana: recognition of US 79 Bypass (Homer) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=526)
Maine: relocation of US 1A (Bangor) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=527)
Missouri: cover sheet (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=557)
Missouri: relocation of US 67 (Butler County) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=528)
Missouri: extension of US 160 (Butler County) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=530)
Missouri: relocation of US 67 (Madison, Wayne, and Butler Counties) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=531)
Missouri: recognition of US 67 Business (Greenville) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=536)
Missouri: relocation of US 63 (Adair County) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=537)
Missouri: relocation of US 63 (Macon County) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=539)
Missouri: relocation of US 63 (Randolph County) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=540)
Missouri: establishment of I-49 (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=541) (FHWA letter (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=553), FHWA agreement (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=554), letter to Arkansas (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=555), letter to Louisiana (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=556))
Missouri: recognition of I-49 Business (Butler) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=542)
Missouri: recognition of I-49 Business (Joplin) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=543)
Missouri: recognition of I-49 Business (Neosho) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=546)
Missouri: recognition of I-49 Business (Nevada) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=547)
Missouri: elimination of US 71 Business (Butler) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=549)
Missouri: elimination of US 71 Business (Joplin) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=550)
Missouri: elimination of US 71 Business (Neosho) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=551)
Missouri: elimination of US 71 Business (Nevada) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=552)
North Carolina: relocation of US 701 Business (Whiteville) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=558)
Oregon: relocation of US 199 (Grants Pass) (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=559)
Texas: establishment of I-69 (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=599)
I'm surprised NY didn't submit I-86 from NY 17K to I-84. Why prolong the period of covered signs?
No mention of Business US 71 or Business I-49 at Anderson / Pineville ?
Also: No mention of Business US 64 at Vilonia? I thought it would have been open by now?
Quote from: deanej on October 26, 2011, 11:27:24 AM
I'm surprised NY didn't submit I-86 from NY 17K to I-84. Why prolong the period of covered signs?
why not just uncover the damn things? how does it benefit the driving public to have the shields covered?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 26, 2011, 11:36:43 AM
why not just uncover the damn things? how does it benefit the driving public to have the shields covered?
Well, AASHTO does put in those applications that the states guarantee in good faith that they will not erect any signs without getting AASHTO's approval. And AASHTO might use its regulatory powers to put New York on double secret probation if it acts prematurely. :-D
(That merits a :-D because AASHTO has no regulatory powers.)
AASHTO owns the trademark to the Interstate shield: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question22 so they could play hardball if they wanted.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 26, 2011, 12:51:34 PM
Well, AASHTO does put in those applications that the states guarantee in good faith that they will not erect any signs without getting AASHTO's approval.
why is AASHO's bureaucracy more important than the actual purpose of numbered routes, which is to aid navigation?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 26, 2011, 01:27:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 26, 2011, 12:51:34 PM
Well, AASHTO does put in those applications that the states guarantee in good faith that they will not erect any signs without getting AASHTO's approval.
why is AASHO's bureaucracy more important than the actual purpose of numbered routes, which is to aid navigation?
Because that bureaucracy is probably better at getting good results than if the states could post whatever Interstates they wanted.
Quote from: NE2 on October 26, 2011, 01:30:39 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 26, 2011, 01:27:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 26, 2011, 12:51:34 PM
Well, AASHTO does put in those applications that the states guarantee in good faith that they will not erect any signs without getting AASHTO's approval.
why is AASHO's bureaucracy more important than the actual purpose of numbered routes, which is to aid navigation?
Because that bureaucracy is probably better at getting good results than if the states could post whatever Interstates they wanted.
In that vein, does AASHTO consider US 377 in Oklahoma on its logs, or is that still only unilaterally recognized by that state?
(Kinda reminds me of the bizarre "not quite I-80 anymore" segment of signed I-80 in San Francisco, and what CalTrans signs as I-110 on the Harbor Freeway between I-10 and the Four Level/US 101 in downtown Los Angeles.)
Quote from: hbelkins on October 26, 2011, 12:51:34 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 26, 2011, 11:36:43 AM
why not just uncover the damn things? how does it benefit the driving public to have the shields covered?
Well, AASHTO does put in those applications that the states guarantee in good faith that they will not erect any signs without getting AASHTO's approval. And AASHTO might use its regulatory powers to put New York on double secret probation if it acts prematurely. :-D
(That merits a :-D because AASHTO has no regulatory powers.)
Someone should point the probation officer in Oregon's direction then, as I'm fairly certain this US 199 change has been signed as such for several years already.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 26, 2011, 07:38:39 PM
Someone should point the probation officer in Oregon's direction then, as I'm fairly certain this US 199 change has been signed as such for several years already.
Both Oregon and Washington have been guilty of some very tardy after-the-fact submissions to AASHTO lately.
Out of curiosity -- I know of the US 197 truncation -- any others in Washington you had in mind?
US 101 Alternate in far southwestern Washington.
There were three in 2006, so I guess it was longer ago than it seemed to me. Besides 197, the others were the establishment of ALT 101 near Ilwaco and the relocation of US 12 onto I-182. Of course, all of those actions had actually been done years earlier.
US 26 in downtown Portland.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 26, 2011, 07:38:39 PM
Someone should point the probation officer in Oregon's direction then, as I'm fairly certain this US 199 change has been signed as such for several years already.
I was just there about two weeks ago (the day of the AASHTO meeting, in fact). US 199 was already signed on the new route, but there are also lots of US 199 signs on the old route. That was confusing.
Quote from: oscar on October 27, 2011, 08:08:56 AM
I was just there about two weeks ago (the day of the AASHTO meeting, in fact). US 199 was already signed on the new route, but there are also lots of US 199 signs on the old route. That was confusing.
US 199 has been signed on the "new" route (Grants Pass Parkway) since 1990. It's actually the dual signage with OR 99 that's newer and reaches farther north than US 199 ever ran on those streets.