AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: LM117 on October 03, 2019, 07:38:55 PM

Title: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: LM117 on October 03, 2019, 07:38:55 PM
I figured I'd go ahead and get a thread ready since AASHTO's fall meeting in St. Louis starts this Saturday and ends next Wednesday.

https://route.transportation.org (https://route.transportation.org)
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: nexus73 on October 04, 2019, 12:41:17 AM
Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: LM117 on October 04, 2019, 08:24:31 AM
I'm hoping that US-70 Bypass in Goldsboro, NC goes bye-bye, since FHWA has already given NCDOT permission to sign it as I-42.  There's no reason for the US-70 Bypass designation to exist anymore.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: sparker on October 06, 2019, 01:59:12 AM
Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick

Only if Caltrans requests it.  Considering their recent abandonment of the HDC freeway/tollway under pressure from urbanist-RE/T groups, calling attention to a freeway in any form might not be high on their priority list.  Since those groups seem to become apoplectic at the mention of the term "Interstate", Caltrans might simply wish to avoid their incessant nagging if nothing else!
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: oscar on October 06, 2019, 04:04:39 AM
Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick

Only if Caltrans requests it.  Considering their recent abandonment of the HDC freeway/tollway under pressure from urbanist-RE/T groups, calling attention to a freeway in any form might not be high on their priority list.  Since those groups seem to become apoplectic at the mention of the term "Interstate", Caltrans might simply wish to avoid their incessant nagging if nothing else!

New Interstate designations, even for uncontroversial already-built freeway corridors, have long been low on Caltrans' priority list. CA 15 and CA 905 also languish in the potential Interstate designation queue.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Roadsguy on October 06, 2019, 09:20:13 AM
Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick

Only if Caltrans requests it.  Considering their recent abandonment of the HDC freeway/tollway under pressure from urbanist-RE/T groups, calling attention to a freeway in any form might not be high on their priority list.  Since those groups seem to become apoplectic at the mention of the term "Interstate", Caltrans might simply wish to avoid their incessant nagging if nothing else!

New Interstate designations, even for uncontroversial already-built freeway corridors, have long been low on Caltrans' priority list. CA 15 and CA 905 also languish in the potential Interstate designation queue.

Isn't CA 15 still waiting on some upgrades to bring it fully to Interstate standards?
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Beltway on October 06, 2019, 02:49:14 PM
New Interstate designations, even for uncontroversial already-built freeway corridors, have long been low on Caltrans' priority list. CA 15 and CA 905 also languish in the potential Interstate designation queue.
Isn't CA 15 still waiting on some upgrades to bring it fully to Interstate standards?
How about VA-895, VA-288 and VA-164?   I provided pages of advocacy documentation 2 years ago to VDOT upper management about getting these incorporated into the Interstate system, and they weren't interested, even claimed that the first two are not built to full Interstate standards, which I disputed using AASHTO documents.

They did make the valid statement that there would be higher internal as well as FHWA responsibilities and policies associated having a route in a higher system.  More to it than just replacing the route signs.  Still, get it done and it is done once and for all.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: vdeane on October 06, 2019, 08:46:51 PM
CA 210 and CA 905 (I think CA 15 as well, but am not 100% positive) were originally built with the intention of adding them to the interstate system.  I don't think the VA examples were.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: US 89 on October 06, 2019, 09:00:55 PM
Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

If wikipoo is right, the section east of SR 259 is still not up to interstate standards.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Beltway on October 06, 2019, 11:28:18 PM
I don't think the VA examples were.

VA-895 was, that is where the number came from, why it was lifted out of the secondary system scheme (6xx and above) for use on that highway.  An Interstate connector between I-95 and I-295.

VA-288 and VA-164 were not, but at least in the case of VA-288 it conceptually is part of the same outer loop system as I-295.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: mgk920 on October 07, 2019, 01:31:28 AM
Ditto WI 441.

Mike
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: cabiness42 on October 07, 2019, 07:46:55 AM
Wondering if IN and KY will ever get around to getting IN 265/KY 841 designated as I-265 to get the two sections connected.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: LM117 on October 07, 2019, 08:03:59 AM
New Interstate designations, even for uncontroversial already-built freeway corridors, have long been low on Caltrans' priority list. CA 15 and CA 905 also languish in the potential Interstate designation queue.
Isn't CA 15 still waiting on some upgrades to bring it fully to Interstate standards?
How about VA-895, VA-288 and VA-164?   I provided pages of advocacy documentation 2 years ago to VDOT upper management about getting these incorporated into the Interstate system, and they weren't interested, even claimed that the first two are not built to full Interstate standards, which I disputed using AASHTO documents.

They did make the valid statement that there would be higher internal as well as FHWA responsibilities and policies associated having a route in a higher system.  More to it than just replacing the route signs.  Still, get it done and it is done once and for all.

Virginia's aversion to adding new interstates never really made sense to me. Having VA-288 become I-695 would be ideal.

I know people like to drop a deuce on NC for their pursuit of new interstates, but the majority of their recent additions makes sense.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Alex on October 07, 2019, 10:54:41 AM
Wondering if IN and KY will ever get around to getting IN 265/KY 841 designated as I-265 to get the two sections connected.

AASHTO approved the redesignation of them at the Spring 2019 meeting:

Quote
Item No. 9 - State: Indiana Route: I-265 Action:
Extension of an Interstate Route Between I-65 and I-71
Description: To connect routing of two lengths of freeway in Indiana and Kentucky that are currently routed as I-265. The segment in question is currently routed as Indiana State Road 265 in Indiana and Kentucky State Road 841 in Kentucky. The roadway serves as a beltway around the north, east, and south sides of Louisville.

Item No. 12 - State: Kentucky Route: I-265
Action: Extension of an Interstate Route Between I-65 and I-71
Description: To connect routing of two freeways in Kentucky and Indiana that are currently routed as 1-265. The extension in question is currently routed as Indiana State Road 265 and Kentucky State Highway 841 (Gene Snyder Freeway). The roadway serves as a Bypass around the north, east, and south sides of Louisville, Kentucky.

There have been no sign changes yet?
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: cabiness42 on October 07, 2019, 11:22:57 AM
Wondering if IN and KY will ever get around to getting IN 265/KY 841 designated as I-265 to get the two sections connected.

AASHTO approved the redesignation of them at the Spring 2019 meeting:

Quote
Item No. 9 - State: Indiana Route: I-265 Action:
Extension of an Interstate Route Between I-65 and I-71
Description: To connect routing of two lengths of freeway in Indiana and Kentucky that are currently routed as I-265. The segment in question is currently routed as Indiana State Road 265 in Indiana and Kentucky State Road 841 in Kentucky. The roadway serves as a beltway around the north, east, and south sides of Louisville.

Item No. 12 - State: Kentucky Route: I-265
Action: Extension of an Interstate Route Between I-65 and I-71
Description: To connect routing of two freeways in Kentucky and Indiana that are currently routed as 1-265. The extension in question is currently routed as Indiana State Road 265 and Kentucky State Highway 841 (Gene Snyder Freeway). The roadway serves as a Bypass around the north, east, and south sides of Louisville, Kentucky.

There have been no sign changes yet?

As of 2 weeks ago, there were no sign changes on the Indiana side.  Haven't been on the Kentucky side in a while. 
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on October 07, 2019, 02:20:36 PM
If there are no new US Routes approved on this meeting, then the 2010s will become the first decade not to see any. I'm pretty sure this will happen.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: US71 on October 08, 2019, 10:21:32 AM
If there are no new US Routes approved on this meeting, then the 2010s will become the first decade not to see any. I'm pretty sure this will happen.

Doesn't matter. States will do what they want, anyway.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: ClassicHasClass on October 08, 2019, 12:09:34 PM
Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick

Only if Caltrans requests it.  Considering their recent abandonment of the HDC freeway/tollway under pressure from urbanist-RE/T groups, calling attention to a freeway in any form might not be high on their priority list.  Since those groups seem to become apoplectic at the mention of the term "Interstate", Caltrans might simply wish to avoid their incessant nagging if nothing else!

New Interstate designations, even for uncontroversial already-built freeway corridors, have long been low on Caltrans' priority list. CA 15 and CA 905 also languish in the potential Interstate designation queue.

Isn't CA 15 still waiting on some upgrades to bring it fully to Interstate standards?

Yes, I think the CA 15-CA 94 interchange is still subpar. I also STR that there are some substandard sections of CA 210 on the old CA 30 Crosstown Fwy alignment.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Scott5114 on October 08, 2019, 03:14:08 PM
If there are no new US Routes approved on this meeting, then the 2010s will become the first decade not to see any. I'm pretty sure this will happen.

Doesn't matter. States will do what they want, anyway.

Most of US-377 in Oklahoma is still "illegal"...
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: US 89 on October 08, 2019, 03:57:30 PM
If there are no new US Routes approved on this meeting, then the 2010s will become the first decade not to see any. I'm pretty sure this will happen.

Doesn't matter. States will do what they want, anyway.

Most of US-377 in Oklahoma is still "illegal"...

Is there any particular reason AASHTO wouldn't approve that? Makes perfect sense to me, and I wouldn't mind seeing it extended further up MSR 99 either.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: usends on October 08, 2019, 05:02:15 PM
Most of US-377 in Oklahoma is still "illegal"...
Is there any particular reason AASHTO wouldn't approve that? Makes perfect sense to me, and I wouldn't mind seeing it extended further up MSR 99 either.

See the last paragraph on this page (https://www.usends.com/377.html) for a couple reasons AASHO/AASHTO gave for rejecting the US 377 extension.
Quote from: https://www.usends.com/377.html
"...a few documents related to this: one stated that an extension was not approved because the road in question needed improvements in order to be considered compliant with standards for a primary route.  But another stated that the amount of US routes in that part of Oklahoma was too dense."
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Revive 755 on October 08, 2019, 05:37:16 PM
See the last paragraph on this page (https://www.usends.com/377.html) for a couple reasons AASHO/AASHTO gave for rejecting the US 377 extension.
Quote from: https://www.usends.com/377.html
"...a few documents related to this: one stated that an extension was not approved because the road in question needed improvements in order to be considered compliant with standards for a primary route.  But another stated that the amount of US routes in that part of Oklahoma was too dense."

Considering (https://goo.gl/maps/XVMq2u52pwSGehiy9) the quality (https://goo.gl/maps/KbpVU6f9rSR5xsXt7) of some of the other (https://goo.gl/maps/PjivYEkkew2myVtaA) US routes out there . . .

And if density is a concern, why were so many US routes allowed around Kansas City and Chicago?  With the latter, there is US 6, US 52, US 34, and US 30 going basically east-west in an ~35 mile stretch.

I think this qualifies as another fine example of AASHTO hypocrisy.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Bickendan on October 08, 2019, 06:19:10 PM
Will US 87 in Wyoming be rerouted to eliminate the gap?
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 08, 2019, 08:39:09 PM
This was just posted over @ TM:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/b/ba/ba708eca603c86f1/000_USRN_Agenda_and_List_of_Applications__AM_St_Louis__MO-2019_%28nc%29.original.1570033411.pdf?1570033413
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: vdeane on October 08, 2019, 08:49:21 PM
Will US 87 in Wyoming be rerouted to eliminate the gap?
Only if the stalemate can be broken.  Wyoming wants it to go on WY 193, which AASHTO says doesn't meet standards.  AASHTO wants it to go on I-90.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Revive 755 on October 08, 2019, 10:02:13 PM
I don't agree with the I-880 in Iowa.  I find it much easier to just follow I-680 if I want an alternative to I-80.  Plus IMHO (and drifting into fictional territory) I would rather see I-880 reserved for future use.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: froggie on October 08, 2019, 10:49:39 PM
I find the US 14 MN entry intriguing since MnDOT finished that bypass 3 years ago.  They just now finally catching up with the paperwork?
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: bob7374 on October 08, 2019, 11:24:28 PM
Guess bad news for NC Interstate fans, nothing for I-885 or any other I-route. Intrigued by the US 70 relocation that appears will leave US 29 at NC 68 in Thomasville then take 68 to Wendover Avenue to go through Greensboro and get back to US 29. Will be interested to see the map of this routing on the application. Guess more sign changes for I-85 in Greensboro.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: zzcarp on October 08, 2019, 11:37:11 PM
I don't agree with the I-880 in Iowa.  I find it much easier to just follow I-680 if I want an alternative to I-80.  Plus IMHO (and drifting into fictional territory) I would rather see I-880 reserved for future use.

Agreed, why split a functional loop route into two different numbers? I assert the routes do serve different purposes, but did that many people really get confused by this arrangement?
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: sprjus4 on October 08, 2019, 11:37:26 PM
New Interstate designations, even for uncontroversial already-built freeway corridors, have long been low on Caltrans' priority list. CA 15 and CA 905 also languish in the potential Interstate designation queue.
Isn't CA 15 still waiting on some upgrades to bring it fully to Interstate standards?
How about VA-895, VA-288 and VA-164?   I provided pages of advocacy documentation 2 years ago to VDOT upper management about getting these incorporated into the Interstate system, and they weren't interested, even claimed that the first two are not built to full Interstate standards, which I disputed using AASHTO documents.

They did make the valid statement that there would be higher internal as well as FHWA responsibilities and policies associated having a route in a higher system.  More to it than just replacing the route signs.  Still, get it done and it is done once and for all.
I don’t see what VDOT’s issue is. How AASHTO is nowadays, as evident by the recent interstate additions in many states, as long as it’s a freeway conforming to basic standards of an interstate, they’ll approve it. VDOT could most likely get VA-288 and VA-164 designated as is. From what I’ve seen, the only thing “substandard” about them is the design speed in certain areas. I can say with full confidence AASHTO is not going to use that as a reason to deny it. Certainly wouldn’t be the first time a modern interstate is approved over a pre-existing route with substandard curvature. It seems to me it’s VDOT internally being strict about their own standards, not AASHTO or FHWA.

As for VA-895, that’s debatable as it’s a tolled freeway that used public funding. That’s similar to NC-540 in Raleigh not being able to be designated as I-540.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Beltway on October 08, 2019, 11:46:44 PM
How about VA-895, VA-288 and VA-164?   I provided pages of advocacy documentation 2 years ago to VDOT upper management about getting these incorporated into the Interstate system, and they weren't interested, even claimed that the first two are not built to full Interstate standards, which I disputed using AASHTO documents.
They did make the valid statement that there would be higher internal as well as FHWA responsibilities and policies associated having a route in a higher system.  More to it than just replacing the route signs.  Still, get it done and it is done once and for all.
I don’t see what VDOT’s issue is. How AASHTO is nowadays, as evident by the recent interstate additions in many states, as long as it’s a freeway conforming to basic standards of an interstate, they’ll approve it. VDOT could most likely get VA-288 and VA-164 designated as is.
As for VA-895, that’s debatable as it’s a tolled freeway that used public funding. That’s similar to NC-540 in Raleigh not being able to be designated as I-540.
They said that there was no significant local support for any of them.  That is obviously a make-or-break matter.  There was a lot of local support for making VA-44 into I-264, for example, and for making the VA-664 extension (the route from the James River to Bowers Hill) into I-664.

Route 895 had one issue cited, a 62 mph design speed on a horizontal curve in a suburban industrial area.  That meets urban Interstate highway standards.  I would not impose rural Interstate standards on that curve.

Route 288 has one issue, the 3-foot paved left shoulder on 10 miles of the route.  Should be 4 feet.

VA-164 had several issues cited.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on October 09, 2019, 04:54:53 AM
It's now official. No new US Route designations have appeared during the 2010s, the first decade in which it has happened. The last US Route created and signed to date is the current iteration of US 48 in 2002 (The Alanland highway, US 121, is from 2005 but currently not built, hence the nickname I've given to it)

I see Iowa wants to split I-680 into two, likely because of that section of I-29 that was closed for months due to floods, even though it's now open again. However this would mean saying just "I-880" would no longer refer to the Bay Area freeway unambiguously anymore.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: LM117 on October 09, 2019, 07:13:36 AM
Guess bad news for NC Interstate fans, nothing for I-885 or any other I-route. Intrigued by the US 70 relocation that appears will leave US 29 at NC 68 in Thomasville then take 68 to Wendover Avenue to go through Greensboro and get back to US 29. Will be interested to see the map of this routing on the application. Guess more sign changes for I-85 in Greensboro.

Yeah, that list was a bit of a letdown. I was hoping to see US-70 Bypass decommissioned in Goldsboro since it's officially I-42.

Then again, as far as I know, NCDOT hasn't put up I-42 shields yet, so I guess that's the hold up...I hope.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: NE2 on October 09, 2019, 07:55:16 AM
There were no new routes in the decade from 2006 to 2015. Go yawn yourself.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: usends on October 09, 2019, 10:29:51 AM
I don't agree with the I-880 in Iowa.  I find it much easier to just follow I-680 if I want an alternative to I-80.
Agreed, why split a functional loop route into two different numbers? I assert the routes do serve different purposes, but did that many people really get confused by this arrangement?

I imagine that when the average non-roadgeek in that area hears "I-680", they think only of the segment that forms a suburban bypass around Omaha's northwest quadrant.  So when people are told to avoid flooding by using (or not using) "I-680", but the segment in question might actually be the rural portion way off to the northeast of Council Bluffs, it's easy to see where the confusion would arise.  I think the new I-880 designation makes sense. 

And in the far distant future...
     * when I-880 is extended west into Nebraska, and then southward, to form an outer bypass around greater Omaha,
     * and the I-680 designation is extended east through Crescent to form a more useful bypass of Council Bluffs,
...then the wisdom of this decision will become even more apparent  ;-)
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Alex on October 09, 2019, 10:44:53 AM
Quote
Item No. 3 ‐ State: Florida Route: US 1 Action: Relocation of Existing US 1 north of I‐95 and Existing US 1 south of I‐95

Item No. 4 ‐ State: Florida Route: US 90 Action: Relocation of Existing US 90 north of I‐95 and Existing US 90 south of I‐95

Another one of those applications for approval after the fact. Yet there is nothing from Florida for the designation of U.S. 301 Alternate along the Starke Bypass. Seems there is no rhyme or reason as to what DOT's consider needing AASHTO approval versus what they will go ahead and do without it.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: US 89 on October 09, 2019, 10:58:12 AM
I don't agree with the I-880 in Iowa.  I find it much easier to just follow I-680 if I want an alternative to I-80.
Agreed, why split a functional loop route into two different numbers? I assert the routes do serve different purposes, but did that many people really get confused by this arrangement?

I imagine that when the average non-roadgeek in that area hears "I-680", they think only of the segment that forms a suburban bypass around Omaha's northwest quadrant.  So when people are told to avoid flooding by using (or not using) "I-680", but the segment in question might actually be the rural portion way off to the northeast of Council Bluffs, it's easy to see where the confusion would arise.  I think the new I-880 designation makes sense. 

I agree, also because the 680/29 overlap is almost as long as the Omaha loop portion of 680. If that much of the route is concurrent with something else, that's a situation where splitting it up is appropriate in my opinion.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 09, 2019, 12:13:58 PM
I see the remains of Bus US 51 in the Stevens Point area is officially downgraded to one of Wisconsin's more typical "locally designated" business routes.

It's a weird set up we have in WI where almost all business routes are locally signed and not considered official state or US routes.  Even though for all intents and purposes to the motoring public, they are (assuming they are signed well, which many are not).  With Stevens Point getting this treatment, I believe that just leaves the Bus US 51 in Wausau as the only business route the feds consider a US Highway.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: mvak36 on October 09, 2019, 01:10:08 PM
I'm okay with the I-880 designation. Although, I would have probably preferred an I-x29 designation of some sort and saved the 880 for something else.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: vdeane on October 09, 2019, 01:26:34 PM
I don't agree with the I-880 in Iowa.  I find it much easier to just follow I-680 if I want an alternative to I-80.
Agreed, why split a functional loop route into two different numbers? I assert the routes do serve different purposes, but did that many people really get confused by this arrangement?

I imagine that when the average non-roadgeek in that area hears "I-680", they think only of the segment that forms a suburban bypass around Omaha's northwest quadrant.  So when people are told to avoid flooding by using (or not using) "I-680", but the segment in question might actually be the rural portion way off to the northeast of Council Bluffs, it's easy to see where the confusion would arise.  I think the new I-880 designation makes sense. 

And in the far distant future...
     * when I-880 is extended west into Nebraska, and then southward, to form an outer bypass around greater Omaha,
     * and the I-680 designation is extended east through Crescent to form a more useful bypass of Council Bluffs,
...then the wisdom of this decision will become even more apparent  ;-)
Not to mention that the portion of I-680 that's becoming I-880 wasn't constructed as part of a loop around Omaha.  It was originally a connector to I-29 called I-80N.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: english si on October 09, 2019, 02:21:58 PM
I-880 -> I-29 -> I-680 would still work as an I-80 bypass if they keep the control cities signed the same as now.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Chris on October 09, 2019, 03:28:23 PM
Do people actually use I-680 (I-880) to bypass Omaha? According to the Iowa DOT, the average traffic is only 6,400 vehicles per day.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Brandon on October 09, 2019, 03:45:19 PM
I don't agree with the I-880 in Iowa.  I find it much easier to just follow I-680 if I want an alternative to I-80.
Agreed, why split a functional loop route into two different numbers? I assert the routes do serve different purposes, but did that many people really get confused by this arrangement?

I imagine that when the average non-roadgeek in that area hears "I-680", they think only of the segment that forms a suburban bypass around Omaha's northwest quadrant.  So when people are told to avoid flooding by using (or not using) "I-680", but the segment in question might actually be the rural portion way off to the northeast of Council Bluffs, it's easy to see where the confusion would arise.  I think the new I-880 designation makes sense. 

And in the far distant future...
     * when I-880 is extended west into Nebraska, and then southward, to form an outer bypass around greater Omaha,
     * and the I-680 designation is extended east through Crescent to form a more useful bypass of Council Bluffs,
...then the wisdom of this decision will become even more apparent  ;-)

I-880 isn't a bad number, but why not I-829 instead?  I-829 would be shorthand for the route that goes between I-80 and I-29.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: sparker on October 09, 2019, 05:36:00 PM
I regularly used the full length of I-680 (including the I-29 overlap, of course) to get around Omaha when I was doing I-80 cross-country trips regularly in the '80's and '90's; for some reason I always hit that area during the afternoon commute hours, so 680 came in handy.  But if I-29 is being flooded out on a regular basis (as per the last few years), the E-W portion in IA is functionally useless during those times -- so no matter what designation it carries, it becomes a local connector ending up on the bluffs during those I-29 downtimes.   The reasoning for the change is a bit dodgy -- but with a separate designation IADOT could conceivably utilize Lincoln and Sioux City as control cities at the I-80 split -- essentially reiterating the new I-880 per the old I-80N functionality, as partially a cutoff to and from northward I-29.  Once traffic hits I-29, they can simply choose either direction (provided it's not under water).   
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Henry on October 10, 2019, 10:01:56 AM
The more I see the current I-680's routing, the more sense it makes to split it into two different segments. IOW, I'm fine with making the Loveland-Minden portion I-880, and truncating I-680 to the loop itself. The I-29 concurrency is utterly pointless and a needless waste of a great 3di.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: ilpt4u on October 10, 2019, 07:56:27 PM
I’d rather an (odd)80...maybe I-580 or I-780 for the proposed I-880, but I am not opposed to the idea of breaking up I-680 to two separate segments with separate designations
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: skluth on October 10, 2019, 10:00:28 PM
See the last paragraph on this page (https://www.usends.com/377.html) for a couple reasons AASHO/AASHTO gave for rejecting the US 377 extension.
Quote from: https://www.usends.com/377.html
"...a few documents related to this: one stated that an extension was not approved because the road in question needed improvements in order to be considered compliant with standards for a primary route.  But another stated that the amount of US routes in that part of Oklahoma was too dense."

Considering (https://goo.gl/maps/XVMq2u52pwSGehiy9) the quality (https://goo.gl/maps/KbpVU6f9rSR5xsXt7) of some of the other (https://goo.gl/maps/PjivYEkkew2myVtaA) US routes out there . . .

And if density is a concern, why were so many US routes allowed around Kansas City and Chicago?  With the latter, there is US 6, US 52, US 34, and US 30 going basically east-west in an ~35 mile stretch.

I think this qualifies as another fine example of AASHTO hypocrisy.

So many in Chicago, you missed US 12 and US 14. 
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Konza on October 11, 2019, 11:42:55 AM
.
[/quote]

So many in Chicago, you missed US 12 and US 14.
[/quote]

Not to mention US 20.

It is also worth mentioning that Chicago was and continues to be a hub for many modes of transportation with a large body of water immediately to its east that is easier to go around than to cross.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: ilpt4u on October 11, 2019, 09:48:25 PM

Not to mention US 20.

It is also worth mentioning that Chicago was and continues to be a hub for many modes of transportation with a large body of water immediately to its east that is easier to go around than to cross.
Don’t forget Chicago also used to have US 54 and US 66 - the former mostly decommissioned in IL and the latter decommissioned entirely, as we all know

It is where the Great Lakes Waterway network meets the Mississippi River Waterway network (assisted by Canals), so that makes it an important Inland Waterway Hub

The central location combined with Lake Michigan forces most “Northern” route Transcontinental Rail and Road travel to Chicago as well, and also makes a good mid-continent Air Hub - hence why ORD is a Hub for both United and American (only “inland” US airport that hubs for >1 Big 3 Legacy), and MDW is one of Southwest’s busiest airports (SWA doesn’t have true “hubs” a la the Big 3 Legacies)
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Revive 755 on October 11, 2019, 11:00:51 PM
I considered mentioning US 12 and US 14, but US 6, US 52, and US 34 appeared to indicate greater density.  US 52 in particular could have been routed to bypass Chicagoland (possibly via a routing through Streator).

Although considering IL 38 was once a US route . . .
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: english si on October 12, 2019, 06:16:24 AM
The Lincoln Highway deliberately avoided Chicago because they felt there was enough roads going there already and that they could act as feeders.

It's understandable that Chicago is a hub. But Northern Indiana has a pretty high density (due to Chicago). US12, US20, US6 and US30 all run parallel in Porter County less than 10 miles apart (with gaps of ~1 mile, ~4.5 miles and ~4.5 miles along IN49). OK, they do splay out a bit further east, but do they really need to be all separate? I-80 and I-90 aren't. And I-94 could surely carry (as free unlike the turnpike) US12 and US20 like it does with US6 further west.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: ilpt4u on October 12, 2019, 05:27:12 PM
And I-94 could surely carry (as free unlike the turnpike) US12 and US20 like it does with US6 further west.
Tolls on ISTHA’s Jane Addams Tollway doesn’t stop US 51 from being put on the toll road.

Not typical, but there are Toll Road US Highway routings, beyond Toll Bridges/Tunnels
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: sprjus4 on October 12, 2019, 05:43:11 PM
And I-94 could surely carry (as free unlike the turnpike) US12 and US20 like it does with US6 further west.
Tolls on ISTHA’s Jane Addams Tollway doesn’t stop US 51 from being put on the toll road.

Not typical, but there are Toll Road US Highway routings, beyond Toll Bridges/Tunnels
US-301 in Delaware is a toll bypass of Middletown, and US-74 BVP in North Carolina is a toll bypass of Monroe and the developed US-74 strip, south of Charlotte.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on October 14, 2019, 12:21:20 AM
Do people actually use I-680 (I-880) to bypass Omaha? According to the Iowa DOT, the average traffic is only 6,400 vehicles per day.
I did it this year going eastbound toward Des Moines. In part, I wanted to go up I-680 to the Westroads Mall area for lunch, and in part I wanted to complete the loop for the first time rather than take familiar I-80. I wasn't convinced it was worth it as far as being the better route, notwithstanding the detour for food. Fortunately, I came through between flooding events along I-29.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on October 14, 2019, 05:00:26 AM
So when will the final report be posted here? I-880 in Iowa is now a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_880_(Iowa%29.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: cabiness42 on October 14, 2019, 09:08:50 AM
The Lincoln Highway deliberately avoided Chicago because they felt there was enough roads going there already and that they could act as feeders.

It's understandable that Chicago is a hub. But Northern Indiana has a pretty high density (due to Chicago). US12, US20, US6 and US30 all run parallel in Porter County less than 10 miles apart (with gaps of ~1 mile, ~4.5 miles and ~4.5 miles along IN49). OK, they do splay out a bit further east, but do they really need to be all separate? I-80 and I-90 aren't. And I-94 could surely carry (as free unlike the turnpike) US12 and US20 like it does with US6 further west.

6 and 30 are already serving different communities as far west as Lake County.  The ones that are debatable are 12 and 20.  12 could be routed along 20 as far east as the IN 212 interchange, and then follow IN 212 back to its current routing.  You might be able to keep 6 on 80 a bit farther east, to IN 49. 
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 14, 2019, 09:33:27 AM
The Lincoln Highway deliberately avoided Chicago because they felt there was enough roads going there already and that they could act as feeders.

It's understandable that Chicago is a hub. But Northern Indiana has a pretty high density (due to Chicago). US12, US20, US6 and US30 all run parallel in Porter County less than 10 miles apart (with gaps of ~1 mile, ~4.5 miles and ~4.5 miles along IN49). OK, they do splay out a bit further east, but do they really need to be all separate? I-80 and I-90 aren't. And I-94 could surely carry (as free unlike the turnpike) US12 and US20 like it does with US6 further west.

6 and 30 are already serving different communities as far west as Lake County.  The ones that are debatable are 12 and 20.  12 could be routed along 20 as far east as the IN 212 interchange, and then follow IN 212 back to its current routing.  You might be able to keep 6 on 80 a bit farther east, to IN 49. 

Just by looking at Google Maps, I think the thought of putting US 6 on the Indiana Toll Road is the reason why US 6 leaves I-80/94 at IN 51.  It would not make sense IMO to keep it on I-94 to IN 49 either.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Konza on October 14, 2019, 12:46:11 PM
The Lincoln Highway deliberately avoided Chicago because they felt there was enough roads going there already and that they could act as feeders.

It's understandable that Chicago is a hub. But Northern Indiana has a pretty high density (due to Chicago). US12, US20, US6 and US30 all run parallel in Porter County less than 10 miles apart (with gaps of ~1 mile, ~4.5 miles and ~4.5 miles along IN49). OK, they do splay out a bit further east, but do they really need to be all separate? I-80 and I-90 aren't. And I-94 could surely carry (as free unlike the turnpike) US12 and US20 like it does with US6 further west.

6 and 30 are already serving different communities as far west as Lake County.  The ones that are debatable are 12 and 20.  12 could be routed along 20 as far east as the IN 212 interchange, and then follow IN 212 back to its current routing.  You might be able to keep 6 on 80 a bit farther east, to IN 49. 

Just by looking at Google Maps, I think the thought of putting US 6 on the Indiana Toll Road is the reason why US 6 leaves I-80/94 at IN 51.  It would not make sense IMO to keep it on I-94 to IN 49 either.

US 6 used to follow Ridge Road from west of the state line through Munster, Highland, and Griffith all the way into Lake Station (which I believe used to be called East Gary).  When what is now called the Borman Expressway was built across the Calumet Region, US 6 was shifted onto it west of IN 51 (which, as you note, is approximately where the Borman or Tri-State Highway and the Indiana Toll Road cross).  Ridge Road was Business US 6 for a number of years.

Definitely agree that US 12 and US 20 could be co-routed at least as far east as Michigan City, but geez, US 12 is a nice drive west of there through the Dunes.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: cabiness42 on October 14, 2019, 12:52:09 PM
The Lincoln Highway deliberately avoided Chicago because they felt there was enough roads going there already and that they could act as feeders.

It's understandable that Chicago is a hub. But Northern Indiana has a pretty high density (due to Chicago). US12, US20, US6 and US30 all run parallel in Porter County less than 10 miles apart (with gaps of ~1 mile, ~4.5 miles and ~4.5 miles along IN49). OK, they do splay out a bit further east, but do they really need to be all separate? I-80 and I-90 aren't. And I-94 could surely carry (as free unlike the turnpike) US12 and US20 like it does with US6 further west.

6 and 30 are already serving different communities as far west as Lake County.  The ones that are debatable are 12 and 20.  12 could be routed along 20 as far east as the IN 212 interchange, and then follow IN 212 back to its current routing.  You might be able to keep 6 on 80 a bit farther east, to IN 49. 

Just by looking at Google Maps, I think the thought of putting US 6 on the Indiana Toll Road is the reason why US 6 leaves I-80/94 at IN 51.  It would not make sense IMO to keep it on I-94 to IN 49 either.

US 6 used to follow Ridge Road from west of the state line through Munster, Highland, and Griffith all the way into Lake Station (which I believe used to be called East Gary).  When what is now called the Borman Expressway was built across the Calumet Region, US 6 was shifted onto it west of IN 51 (which, as you note, is approximately where the Borman or Tri-State Highway and the Indiana Toll Road cross).  Ridge Road was Business US 6 for a number of years.

Definitely agree that US 12 and US 20 could be co-routed at least as far east as Michigan City, but geez, US 12 is a nice drive west of there through the Dunes.

US 6 actually left Ridge two blocks east of the state line, following Hohman north to 165th before turning west into Illinois.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Alex on October 14, 2019, 01:23:01 PM
So when will the final report be posted here? I-880 in Iowa is now a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_880_(Iowa%29.

See upthread:

This was just posted over @ TM:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/b/ba/ba708eca603c86f1/000_USRN_Agenda_and_List_of_Applications__AM_St_Louis__MO-2019_%28nc%29.original.1570033411.pdf?1570033413

From the meeting notes:

Quote
Item No. 5 ‐ State: Iowa Route: I‐880 Action: Establishment of an Interstate Route between I‐29/I‐680 North Interchange in Pottwattamie County and I‐80/I‐680 Interchange in
Pottawattamie County.

Description: This request pertains to the establishment of Interstate 880, and the removal of the Interstate 680 route designations from the I‐29 and I‐680 North Interchange to the I‐680 and I‐80 Interchange in Pottawattamie County. This new Interstate route is being established to help avoid routing confusion during flooding events that have occurred recently in this area.

I created a quick page for it at Interstate Guide as well https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-880-ia/
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Beltway on October 14, 2019, 03:44:34 PM
Quote
Item No. 5 ‐ State: Iowa Route: I‐880 Action: Establishment of an Interstate Route between I‐29/I‐680 North Interchange in Pottwattamie County and I‐80/I‐680 Interchange in Pottawattamie County.
Description: This request pertains to the establishment of Interstate 880, and the removal of the Interstate 680 route designations from the I‐29 and I‐680 North Interchange to the I‐680 and I‐80 Interchange in Pottawattamie County. This new Interstate route is being established to help avoid routing confusion during flooding events that have occurred recently in this area.
I created a quick page for it at Interstate Guide as well https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-880-ia/
Thanks for the webpage!  I'm still not sure why they did this.  A flooding event is an emergency situation whereby temporary detour signs need to be posted to cover the area affected.  Standard routings should not IMO be changed for such a reason.

So now instead of having a I-680 alternate/bypass to I-80 thru the Omaha area, 3 different routes need to be followed.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: hbelkins on October 14, 2019, 04:05:03 PM
Well, this gives me a retroactive clinch. On a trip years ago, we used 29 south to 680 east to 80 east. With that route now having its own number, I've clinched it.
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on October 14, 2019, 05:03:21 PM
Was there any other changes to interstate routes besides I-880?
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: english si on October 14, 2019, 06:10:51 PM
Was there any other changes to interstate routes besides I-880?
Minor relocations of both I-80 and I-29 onto parallel carriageways along their (now former) shared-section in Council Bluffs, and a 3.3 mile extension of I‐69‐E in Nueces County, TX.

It's all in the previously linked document:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/b/ba/ba708eca603c86f1/000_USRN_Agenda_and_List_of_Applications__AM_St_Louis__MO-2019_%28nc%29.original.1570033411.pdf?1570033413
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: sprjus4 on October 14, 2019, 06:56:31 PM
a 3.3 mile extension of I‐69‐E in Nueces County, TX.
The extension is simply paper work catching up, the route has been sign-posted as interstate for over a year after the project to upgrade the stretch to interstate standards was completed. Interestingly, they used "I-69" shields, not "I-69E" shields. This was also done on the segment of I-69E north of there, only plain "I-69" shields w/ no suffix.

I-69E / FM-2826 interchange in May 2018 - https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7397044,-97.699793,3a,37.5y,99.4h,72.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx-SHuDkcW5cdlV9AZ8U-bQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: english si on October 15, 2019, 03:51:03 AM
simply paper work catching up
A lot of USRN actions are.

IIRC, Arkansas (I'm pretty sure it was them) submitted paperwork dealing with changes made over 50 years ago recently (within the last couple of years) because someone new took up the job at their end and realised it had never been done!
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Alex on October 15, 2019, 08:29:58 AM
Well, this gives me a retroactive clinch. On a trip years ago, we used 29 south to 680 east to 80 east. With that route now having its own number, I've clinched it.

Same here, rode on it in 2007 and again in 2015. #instaclinched
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: Revive 755 on October 15, 2019, 05:50:05 PM
IMHO Iowa should be waiting a few years until after construction is done before playing around with the numbering on the dual divided stretch of I-80 and I-29 in Council Bluffs. Or Iowa should just sign it as Local I-29/Local I-80 and Express I-29/I-80.  Switching the two puts a few new left exits on both routes.  Perhaps a couple single lane mainline segments as well?
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: mvak36 on October 25, 2019, 11:35:30 PM
They have posted all the applications at https://route.transportation.org/committee-notices-actions-and-approvals/past-meetings/.

The new routing for US70 is posted on page 46 and 51 of this pdf (https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2019/10/005-USRN-Applications-Fall-2019-Part-4_-MN-OK.pdf).
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 26, 2019, 01:11:19 AM
They have posted all the applications at https://route.transportation.org/committee-notices-actions-and-approvals/past-meetings/.

Wow @ the ARDOT guy being a stickler for formatting. :-D
Title: Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
Post by: NE2 on October 26, 2019, 06:48:23 PM
I love how the map in Florida's application is overlaid on a basemap that shows US 1 on the surface streets parallel to I-95.