AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: Grzrd on May 09, 2013, 12:45:34 PM

Title: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2013, 12:45:34 PM
The Applications (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Binder-all%20applications%20May%202013.pdf) have been posted and it looks like the May 5, 2013 Report will be posted in the near future, as indicated on this page (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx).

An application for I-2 in Texas has caught my eye.

edit

The Actions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf) are now posted.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Brandon on May 09, 2013, 01:02:23 PM
The Applications (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Binder-all%20applications%20May%202013.pdf) have been posted and it looks like the May 5, 2013 Report will be posted in the near future, as indicated on this page (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx).

An application for I-2 in Texas has caught my eye.

Yeah, that is interesting.  I don't know if it necessarily needs an interstate number, or if a 3di might be better for a 46 mile freeway.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: vdeane on May 09, 2013, 01:12:47 PM
Is there a summary of the applications somewhere?  Chrome is choking on the size of that PDF.  I'm curious is NY has anything.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: wxfree on May 09, 2013, 01:39:48 PM
Is there a summary of the applications somewhere?  Chrome is choking on the size of that PDF.  I'm curious is NY has anything.

If the file is opening inside the browser and causing difficulty, right click on the link and select "Save link as..."  You can then open the file in Adobe Reader outside the browser.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: texaskdog on May 09, 2013, 02:00:43 PM
Took forever but it opened for me, 377 pages later :)  Looks great!! I-2!!!
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: english si on May 09, 2013, 02:18:33 PM
Yeah, that is interesting.  I don't know if it necessarily needs an interstate number, or if a 3di might be better for a 46 mile freeway.
What is odd is that it is the FHWA forwarding it - they don't seem to want to veto (as is their prerogative) such a number.

I also like how NC I-495 will link two I-x40s and nothing else for the time being (though I can't see it being implemented without the future interstate designation to I-95).
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: NE2 on May 09, 2013, 02:21:36 PM
List of applications:
AR-MS US 82 (new bridge)
IL US 41 (LSD extension under construction)
KS US 50 (Holcomb-Garden City, chickenshit realignment that didn't need to be submitted)
KS US 54 (Cunningham bypass - they forgot US 400)
KS US 59 (Ottawa-Lawrence)
KS US 77 (Blue Rapids - more chickenshit)
KS US 166/169 (Coffeyville)
KY US 60 (new Tennessee River bridge at Paducah)
KY USBR 76 (reaffirmation of existing mostly-unsigned route with some changes)
MN USBR 45 (Elk River-Hastings)
MO USBR 76
NC I-495 (I-440 to I-540)
NC I-495 Future (I-540 to I-95)
NC US 421 (Sanford bypass)
NC US 421 Biz (Sanford)
ND US 85 (Williston bypass)
OH US 24 (Fort to Port)
SC US 21 Biz (Rock Hill elimination)
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
TX US 67-377 (Dublin bypass)
TX US 67 Biz (Dublin)
WA I-90 Biz (Spokane Valley)
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: corco on May 09, 2013, 02:35:30 PM
Really surprising to see Washington going for an I-90 Business, given that the state more or less ignores the existing business routes on the books
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: oscar on May 09, 2013, 02:39:48 PM
Really surprising to see Washington going for an I-90 Business, given that the state more or less ignores the existing business routes on the books
Including one in Spokane, right next to the proposed new business route in Spokane Valley.  The Spokane BL has really good signage at the junction with US 2, but zip at its junctions with I-90, or anywhere else along the route.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: corco on May 09, 2013, 02:42:22 PM
That's right- although that's more over by the airport if I remember right. I think the one in Moses Lake is the only one really consistently signed- the one in Castle Rock has good signage along the loop itself but I can't remember if there's signage from I-5
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 02:59:53 PM
The Applications (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Binder-all%20applications%20May%202013.pdf) have been posted and it looks like the May 5, 2013 Report will be posted in the near future, as indicated on this page (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx).

An application for I-2 in Texas has caught my eye.

Yeah, that is interesting.  I don't know if it necessarily needs an interstate number, or if a 3di might be better for a 46 mile freeway.
You are forgetting that its the same AASHTO that approved I-97.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Molandfreak on May 09, 2013, 03:08:26 PM
The Applications (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Binder-all%20applications%20May%202013.pdf) have been posted and it looks like the May 5, 2013 Report will be posted in the near future, as indicated on this page (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx).

An application for I-2 in Texas has caught my eye.

Yeah, that is interesting.  I don't know if it necessarily needs an interstate number, or if a 3di might be better for a 46 mile freeway.
No. There's no other place for an I-2.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 03:16:50 PM
No. There's no other place for an I-2.

future I-49 south of I-10 would be better with that number. 

Mission can have I-269 or the like.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Molandfreak on May 09, 2013, 03:19:14 PM
No. There's no other place for an I-2.

future I-49 south of I-10 would be better with that number. 

Mission can have I-269 or the like.
Meh. That's north of I-4, so that should be I-6. And anyway, Texas I-2 could be extended. I'd go to Del Rio or Eagle Pass.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 03:24:13 PM
there is precedent for widely separated interstates being misaligned on the grid.  I-97 is west of I-87, 89, 91, and 93, for example, and both I-86es are entirely north of the western I-88.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2013, 03:32:03 PM
The Actions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf) are now posted.  Regarding the Texas applications, the Special Committee disapproved on the basis that the applications conflict with AASHTO Policy HO21.  Federal legislation be damned!  BUT ... SCOH overruled the Special Committee and approved the applications, with the AASHTO Board of Directors accepting the SCOH decision on May 7.

edit

Here's a screen shot of the relevant language from the Special Committee Report (page 1/8 of pdf);

(http://i.imgur.com/LLevCEm.jpg)
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Molandfreak on May 09, 2013, 03:45:19 PM
The Actions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf) are now posted.  Regarding the Texas applications, the Special Committee disapproved on the basis that the applications conflict with AASHTO Policy HO21.  Federal legislation be damned!  BUT ... SCOH overruled the Special Committee and approved the applications, with the AASHTO Board of Directors accepting the SCOH decision on May 7.
Ok, that explains I-69E, but why the hate on I-2?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 03:51:05 PM
The Actions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf) are now posted.  Regarding the Texas applications, the Special Committee disapproved on the basis that the applications conflict with AASHTO Policy HO21.  Federal legislation be damned!  BUT ... SCOH overruled the Special Committee and approved the applications, with the AASHTO Board of Directors accepting the SCOH decision on May 7.

I don't speak legalese.  will there, or won't there, be an I-2?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 09, 2013, 03:56:49 PM
I also like how NC I-495 will link two I-x40s and nothing else for the time being (though I can't see it being implemented without the future interstate designation to I-95).

Suggested name for the new N.C. I-495 - "Lizard Lick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizard_Lick,_North_Carolina) Freeway."  ;-)
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2013, 04:04:18 PM
I don't speak legalese.  will there, or won't there, be an I-2?

Yes, it is officially AASHTO-approved. At first glance, it appears that FHWA has already approved that section of US 83 as meeting interstate standards (official FHWA approval is necessary before it can be designated as I-2).  The final formality needs to be approval by the Texas Transportation Commission.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 04:06:34 PM
The final formality needs to be approval by the Texas Transportation Commission.

I would assume that they're the ones who requested it, no?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2013, 04:12:26 PM
The final formality needs to be approval by the Texas Transportation Commission.
I would assume that they're the ones who requested it, no?

They provided the authority for TxDOT to submit the application.  Now that it has been approved, they need to rubberstamp AASHTO's decision.  It seems like an inefficient way to do things.  They have followed this procedure with prior I-69 Corridor designations.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 09, 2013, 04:27:19 PM
The Actions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf) are now posted.  Regarding the Texas applications, the Special Committee disapproved on the basis that the applications conflict with AASHTO Policy HO21.  Federal legislation be damned!  BUT ... SCOH overruled the Special Committee and approved the applications, with the AASHTO Board of Directors accepting the SCOH decision on May 7.

So does that mean we will see from west to east I-69, I-69C, I-69E or I-69W, I-69C, I-69E?  I'm all for all three corridors having some type of Interstate designation.  I think unfortunately the Chamber of Commerce, Political Folks, and others are clinging too much to the I-69 Brand vs. being part of an entire Interstate system, regardless of the number

I have no issue with I-2.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 09, 2013, 04:28:13 PM
The Applications (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Binder-all%20applications%20May%202013.pdf) have been posted and it looks like the May 5, 2013 Report will be posted in the near future, as indicated on this page (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx).

An application for I-2 in Texas has caught my eye.

edit

The Actions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf) are now posted.

I am disappointed that in the summary of actions they don't describe what the request was, establishment, relocation, elimination, extension, etc.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 04:30:35 PM
I most object to the "C" designation.  never since the beginning of numbered routes have I heard of a C suffix being used like this.

the only thing we can use as precedent is Tennessee (US-70N, 70, 70-S) and Oregon (US-99E, 99, 99W) and neither used a C.

I-2 is pretty silly but if it will be extended further along the Rio Grande then I object to it less.  I can even claim to have clinched it, if it follows the US-83 freeway.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 04:31:30 PM
I am disappointed that in the summary of actions they don't describe what the request was, establishment, relocation, elimination, extension, etc.

I am disappointed that the summary of actions is damn near incomprehensible, and does not unequivocally state for the viewing public such basic facts as "there will be an I-2".  instead, it does a better job of naming every useless last damn subcommittee than a NASCAR winner.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: NE2 on May 09, 2013, 04:59:59 PM
The actions also mention temporary US 89 in Arizona.

Also, apparently FHWA must approve Interstate business routes. But the I-35 Biz in Minnesota from fall 2012 didn't require FHWA approval. Zuh.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2013, 05:14:12 PM
I am disappointed that the summary of actions is damn near incomprehensible, and does not unequivocally state for the viewing public such basic facts as "there will be an I-2".  instead, it does a better job of naming every useless last damn subcommittee than a NASCAR winner.

AASHTO ("Alanland Association of Seriously Habromanic Transportation Oblasts")  :hmmm:
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on May 09, 2013, 05:20:15 PM
I most object to the "C" designation.  never since the beginning of numbered routes have I heard of a C suffix being used like this.

the only thing we can use as precedent is Tennessee (US-70N, 70, 70-S) and Oregon (US-99E, 99, 99W) and neither used a C.

I-2 is pretty silly but if it will be extended further along the Rio Grande then I object to it less.  I can even claim to have clinched it, if it follows the US-83 freeway.
Perhaps instead of I-2, they can extend the I-69 suffix madness by making the route marking the end of these branches I-69T.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: wxfree on May 09, 2013, 05:23:26 PM
I was just viewing far south Texas on Google Maps.  When I started, it showed US 77 and US 83 from Harlingen to Brownsville.  When I zoomed in, it showed US 83 and US 69.  When I zoomed further in, it showed US 77, US 83, and I-69.  Zooming back out, US 69 is displayed on one level but I-69 is shown on most zoom levels.  I just now noticed I-69C along US 281.

I don't think those routes have been designated by TTC.  I was looking at it earlier and didn't notice the red-white-and-blue markers.  Did this just happen?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 05:23:40 PM
given that it will connect three branches, the correct letter is Ш.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Molandfreak on May 09, 2013, 05:30:12 PM
I most object to the "C" designation.  never since the beginning of numbered routes have I heard of a C suffix being used like this.

the only thing we can use as precedent is Tennessee (US-70N, 70, 70-S) and Oregon (US-99E, 99, 99W) and neither used a C.

I-2 is pretty silly but if it will be extended further along the Rio Grande then I object to it less.  I can even claim to have clinched it, if it follows the US-83 freeway.
Perhaps instead of I-2, they can extend the I-69 suffix madness by making the route marking the end of these branches I-69T.
What would the T stand for?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 05:35:33 PM
I most object to the "C" designation.  never since the beginning of numbered routes have I heard of a C suffix being used like this.

the only thing we can use as precedent is Tennessee (US-70N, 70, 70-S) and Oregon (US-99E, 99, 99W) and neither used a C.

I-2 is pretty silly but if it will be extended further along the Rio Grande then I object to it less.  I can even claim to have clinched it, if it follows the US-83 freeway.
Perhaps instead of I-2, they can extend the I-69 suffix madness by making the route marking the end of these branches I-69T.
What would the T stand for?

Talanland.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: NE2 on May 09, 2013, 05:36:25 PM
Google Maps
Problem found.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: oscar on May 09, 2013, 06:19:35 PM
I-2 is pretty silly but if it will be extended further along the Rio Grande then I object to it less.  I can even claim to have clinched it, if it follows the US-83 freeway.
The I-2 designation would include only the US 83 freeway, and its west end is where the freeway ends.  So the designation could be extended later, if the freeway is extended.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on May 09, 2013, 07:25:09 PM
I most object to the "C" designation.  never since the beginning of numbered routes have I heard of a C suffix being used like this.

the only thing we can use as precedent is Tennessee (US-70N, 70, 70-S) and Oregon (US-99E, 99, 99W) and neither used a C.

I-2 is pretty silly but if it will be extended further along the Rio Grande then I object to it less.  I can even claim to have clinched it, if it follows the US-83 freeway.
Perhaps instead of I-2, they can extend the I-69 suffix madness by making the route marking the end of these branches I-69T.
What would the T stand for?
Obviously from my use of "suffix madness" I was being sardonic (or is it sarcastic, I never can tell the difference). But I was envisioning a series of T interchanges that the notional I-2 would have. Not sure how to pronounce the "Ш" Agent Steel proposed instead. Enron?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 07:28:42 PM
Obviously from my use of "suffix madness" I was being sardonic (or is it sarcastic, I never can tell the difference). But I was envisioning a series of T interchanges that the notional I-2 would have. Not sure how to pronounce the "Ш" Agent Steel proposed instead. Enron?

it's "sh"; part of the Cyrillic alphabet.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: vdeane on May 09, 2013, 08:08:07 PM
I don't speak legalese.  will there, or won't there, be an I-2?

Yes, it is officially AASHTO-approved. At first glance, it appears that FHWA has already approved that section of US 83 as meeting interstate standards (official FHWA approval is necessary before it can be designated as I-2).  The final formality needs to be approval by the Texas Transportation Commission.
But the PDF specifically says that is was denied by AASHTO.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 08:36:22 PM
I would think that I-2 would be better suited for the I-69 Spur that is planned to follow TX SH 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi.  From the I-69 alliance map it shows that freeway to be longer than the current US 83 freeway. 

I do see that the Texarkana Spur will be I-369 and that maybe US 83 should be another x69 and save the I-2 for that would be less of a waste of a number.  I doubt they would ever extend it west to Laredo so it would be a short run as per planned now.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: ssummers72 on May 09, 2013, 08:39:47 PM
The problem with I-69E, I-69C and I-69 is they were all signed into legislation by congress and the president under public law:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18

According to the FHWA, they must be signed as such, according to federal legislation.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: NE2 on May 09, 2013, 09:24:14 PM
But the PDF specifically says that is was denied by AASHTO.
Denied by one subcommittee (SCRN) but overruled by the committee (SCOH) and accepted by AASHTO as a whole. But I-2 did not violate Policy HO2 anyway.

According to the FHWA, they must be signed as such, according to federal legislation.
Yes and no and goat.
Quote
(i) DESIGNATION- The routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69. A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central. The State of Texas shall erect signs identifying such routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-69.
A strict reading says that they shall be signed as I-69 East, I-69 Central, and I-69 (no 'west' to Laredo), but also as future I-69 period. The suffixes do not appear in the law. I-94 east of Chicago shall also be signed as I-69.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: mrose on May 10, 2013, 12:44:28 AM
I'm confused... does this mean the new suffixes aren't happening, or they are? I'd rather they didn't. I'd rather see them use, say, 31 and 33 or have two x69s.

As for I-2, an interstate there seems a little redundant but I guess there's really no other place it'll ever exist, so I don't have a problem with it. I seriously doubt we'll ever see a glut of E/W interstates ever get built south of I-10.

Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: NE2 on May 10, 2013, 12:54:04 AM
I'm confused... does this mean the new suffixes aren't happening, or they are?
They are, and they are. No goat.

My only quibble with I-2 is that Mexico has their 2 just across the border.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Rover_0 on May 10, 2013, 01:38:56 AM
The more I think about it, the more I feel that Victoria-Laredo should be something like an I-6. Using the number 6 would keep some kind of continuity for I-69 drivers while avoiding this suffix madness. Of course, you could have I-6 be George West-Laredo while splitting I-69 into I-69E (US-77) and I-69W (US-59 between Victoria and George West, then US-281). That would at least keep the suffixing reasonable.

It's good to be hearing that there will be an Interstate 2, because, as said above, where else is there going to be one (unless you count I-H2)? There's also the (slim) chance that US-83 gets upgraded all the way to Laredo, more fully justifying the number.

Here's one way I'd align the branches:

Victoria-Laredo: I-6
Corpus Christy-Freer: I-106
Victoria-Brownsville: I-69
George West-McAllen: I-169* (weren't signs already ordered?)
US-83: I-2


*Even though, under this scenario, I-169 wouldn't directly connect to I-69, it's a more appropriate number (as it is a branch of I-69) than either I-102 or I-106.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 10, 2013, 01:48:05 AM
That's right- although that's more over by the airport if I remember right. I think the one in Moses Lake is the only one really consistently signed- the one in Castle Rock has good signage along the loop itself but I can't remember if there's signage from I-5

Just drove to Portland and back today.  IIRC, there's signage on I-5 NB at the south end of the business loop, but that's it.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: texaskdog on May 10, 2013, 10:45:19 AM
I'm confused... does this mean the new suffixes aren't happening, or they are?
They are, and they are. No goat.

My only quibble with I-2 is that Mexico has their 2 just across the border.

It will cause confusion with those people who don't know what country they are in.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Henry on May 10, 2013, 10:55:16 AM
I-2 in TX??? Never dreamed in a million years that I would see that!

And it looks like NC will get another new interstate to add to its growing inventory (I-495); good for them.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: nexus73 on May 10, 2013, 06:01:04 PM
Any word on when state route 210 becomes I-210 in SoCal?

Rick
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: corco on May 10, 2013, 06:07:19 PM
Quote
It will cause confusion with those people who don't know what country they are in.

Maybe that's part of the plan- illegals swim across the border, see a "2" and assume they must have gone the wrong direction.

That would be a terrible plan.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: andy3175 on May 10, 2013, 06:13:13 PM
Any word on when state route 210 becomes I-210 in SoCal?

Rick

I've wondered the same thing and have heard nothing. Significant progress has been made at the I-215 and California SR 210 interchange, with several ramps opening recently, but I don't know if all of the planned improvements to 210 in that vicinity are complete yet, nor do I know if those improvements are delaying the process. Perhaps I should email SANBAG (San Bernardino local assoc of governments) and see what the plan is.

Regards,
Andy

Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on May 10, 2013, 07:10:54 PM
Any word on when state route 210 becomes I-210 in SoCal?
Rick

I was also disappointed to see that there was neither an application for I-22 in Mississippi nor an application for I-69 through Houston inside of I-610.

The lack of an application(s) for I-49 in Arkansas was expected, but still disappointing.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 10, 2013, 08:35:13 PM
MN USBR 45 (Elk River-Hastings)

The hell is this?  It makes no sense.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: oscar on May 10, 2013, 08:54:22 PM
MN USBR 45 (Elk River-Hastings)

The hell is this?  It makes no sense.

U.S. Bicycle Route, part of another route network AASHTO oversees.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Speedway99 on May 10, 2013, 09:05:37 PM
Why not reroute I-95 through Raleigh, overlapping I-40 from Raleigh to Benson, and sign the current I-95 around Raleigh as I-495? Being in the top 50 in the US by city proper, it deserves another 2di. Also, I've come to think that the 2di's should go through the big cities, and I-95 just doesn't serve enough big cities between Richmond and Jacksonville (Except Fayetteville and Savannah).
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Takumi on May 10, 2013, 09:06:50 PM
what
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 10, 2013, 09:43:05 PM
MN USBR 45 (Elk River-Hastings)

The hell is this?  It makes no sense.

U.S. Bicycle Route, part of another route network AASHTO oversees.

Ah.
I saw "BR" and immediately thought "business route" completely failing to notice the syntax NE2 was using for those in his list.  Derp.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: myosh_tino on May 11, 2013, 03:44:38 AM
Any word on when state route 210 becomes I-210 in SoCal?

Rick

I've wondered the same thing and have heard nothing. Significant progress has been made at the I-215 and California SR 210 interchange, with several ramps opening recently, but I don't know if all of the planned improvements to 210 in that vicinity are complete yet, nor do I know if those improvements are delaying the process. Perhaps I should email SANBAG (San Bernardino local assoc of governments) and see what the plan is.

Regards,
Andy
If you're going to ask about Route 210, how about 905?  From what I understand, all of 905 is now freeway right?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: txstateends on May 11, 2013, 09:38:22 AM
Any word on when state route 210 becomes I-210 in SoCal?
Rick

I was also disappointed to see that there was neither an application for I-22 in Mississippi nor an application for I-69 through Houston inside of I-610.

The lack of an application(s) for I-49 in Arkansas was expected, but still disappointing.

So when is the next AASHTO numbering meeting (or however they get together for what they do), November?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on May 11, 2013, 09:55:03 AM
So when is the next AASHTO numbering meeting (or however they get together for what they do), November?

From a recent email from Marty Vitale of AASHTO:

Quote
... the next round of applications that will be due by mid-September.  We shall meet on or before October 17, 2013 in Denver, CO.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 12, 2013, 12:56:47 AM
what

I-95 should also go through Alanland, and not through Alanland.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Interstate275Fla on May 13, 2013, 07:15:37 PM
Presently Interstate 4 in Florida is the lowest east-west Interstate route number in the 48 contiguous United States.  Now that AASHTO has given their blessing (with the concurrence of FHWA and TxDOT (Texas Transportation Commission)), Texas will soon be home to the lowest east-west Interstate route number in the United States, Interstate 2.

As a suggestion, here is what I would do with a new Interstate 2 in the Rio Grande Valley, which I understand will replace US 83 as it is Interstate standard and being the terminuses of Interstate 69:

1. Extend Interstate 2 west to Laredo and let it connect with Interstate 35.  At the same time, extend Interstate 35 south to let it become a free flowing Interstate highway straight to the international bridge and to Mexico, much like Interstate 5 in San Ysidro.  Presently Interstate 35 ends in Laredo at Victoria Street (south of Victoria Street, southbound from Interstate 35 is Santa Ursula Avenue and northbound to Interstate 35 is San Dario Avenue) and motorists wanting to head south into Nuevo Laredo and points south in Mexico (i.e., Monterrey) have to go through a couple of traffic signals on Santa Ursula to get to the international bridge.

2.  After Laredo, extend Interstate 2 further west to Del Rio, passing by Eagle Pass on the way.  From Eagle Pass to Del Rio use the right of way of US 277.  Interstate 2 would go around Del Rio using TX Loop 79 in order to meet US 90 northwest of Del Rio.

3.  After Del Rio, extend Interstate 2 yet further west using the right of way of US 90 to Van Horn and Interstate 10.

The only acquisition of right of way in my suggestion would be for the segment of Interstate 2 from Laredo west to Eagle Pass.  That way, right of way acquisition costs can be held down and TxDOT - known for the frontage roads on their Interstate highways - can construct frontage roads on US 277 and US 90 through the more populous areas in order to keep existing roadside businesses going.

I would welcome the Interstate 2 idea for the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas, as long as if there were plans to extend the highway westward towards an eventual connection with Interstate 10 at Van Horn to El Paso and points west.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: DTComposer on May 13, 2013, 10:07:15 PM
Why not reroute I-95 through Raleigh, overlapping I-40 from Raleigh to Benson, and sign the current I-95 around Raleigh as I-495? Being in the top 50 in the US by city proper, it deserves another 2di. Also, I've come to think that the 2di's should go through the big cities, and I-95 just doesn't serve enough big cities between Richmond and Jacksonville (Except Fayetteville and Savannah).

San Jose, Austin, San Francisco, El Paso, Las Vegas, Fresno, Long Beach, Virginia Beach, and Colorado Springs all respectfully ask Raleigh to get in line and wait for them to get their second (...or first) 2di.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Speedway99 on May 14, 2013, 10:35:29 PM
Why not reroute I-95 through Raleigh, overlapping I-40 from Raleigh to Benson, and sign the current I-95 around Raleigh as I-495? Being in the top 50 in the US by city proper, it deserves another 2di. Also, I've come to think that the 2di's should go through the big cities, and I-95 just doesn't serve enough big cities between Richmond and Jacksonville (Except Fayetteville and Savannah).

San Jose, Austin, San Francisco, El Paso, Las Vegas, Fresno, Long Beach, Virginia Beach, and Colorado Springs all respectfully ask Raleigh to get in line and wait for them to get their second (...or first) 2di.

I don't mean to offend you, and I hope I don't, but I consider Long Beach a suburb, since it is part of the metro area of the much bigger Los Angeles, which already has 2 2dis, and I-3 could be a 3rd one for that metro, and it can go through San Jose and San Francisco. They should extend I-80 south on I-280 to end in San Jose at future I-3. Las Vegas is getting I-11 soon, and Houston and Austin need an interstate connecting each other, and when that is built, Austin would become a 2di crossroad. They can extend it to Abilene and Lubbock to I-27, and extend this I-27 to Colorado Springs. I also want an El Paso-Lubbock-Wichita-Topeka highway built, and I-20 and 25 rerouted to El Paso, like how they should've gone in the first place. US 1 can be upgraded from Rockingham at future I-73 to Raleigh, then go to Norfolk and VA Beach as I-38 or I-42. Fresno can get CA 99 upgraded to I-7, then using CA 41, an I-9 to Reno. Bakersfield can have I-5 rerouted to downtown using CA 99 and the future westside parkway, I-40 on CA 58, and another highway to Las Vegas. Those are just my ideas, I think the 2dis should go through the big cities. I also brought up my idea for I-95 through Raleigh since they were discussing a spur/loop at the meeting, I figured, why not route I-95 through the city, making I-495 the bypass? Maybe to avoid an I-40/95 overlap from Raleigh to Benson, I-40 could go to Greenville, giving Wilmington a 3di. Then Wilmington can have an extended I-20, and make a coastal I-97 or 99 when those numbers are freed. Again, just my suggestions, I hope they become real.

EDIT: Maybe this should be moved to Fictional Highways?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: WichitaRoads on May 15, 2013, 12:36:04 AM
Why not reroute I-95 through Raleigh, overlapping I-40 from Raleigh to Benson, and sign the current I-95 around Raleigh as I-495? Being in the top 50 in the US by city proper, it deserves another 2di. Also, I've come to think that the 2di's should go through the big cities, and I-95 just doesn't serve enough big cities between Richmond and Jacksonville (Except Fayetteville and Savannah).

San Jose, Austin, San Francisco, El Paso, Las Vegas, Fresno, Long Beach, Virginia Beach, and Colorado Springs all respectfully ask Raleigh to get in line and wait for them to get their second (...or first) 2di.

I don't mean to offend you, and I hope I don't, but I consider Long Beach a suburb, since it is part of the metro area of the much bigger Los Angeles, which already has 2 2dis, and I-3 could be a 3rd one for that metro, and it can go through San Jose and San Francisco. They should extend I-80 south on I-280 to end in San Jose at future I-3. Las Vegas is getting I-11 soon, and Houston and Austin need an interstate connecting each other, and when that is built, Austin would become a 2di crossroad. They can extend it to Abilene and Lubbock to I-27, and extend this I-27 to Colorado Springs. I also want an El Paso-Lubbock-Wichita-Topeka highway built, and I-20 and 25 rerouted to El Paso, like how they should've gone in the first place. US 1 can be upgraded from Rockingham at future I-73 to Raleigh, then go to Norfolk and VA Beach as I-38 or I-42. Fresno can get CA 99 upgraded to I-7, then using CA 41, an I-9 to Reno. Bakersfield can have I-5 rerouted to downtown using CA 99 and the future westside parkway, I-40 on CA 58, and another highway to Las Vegas. Those are just my ideas, I think the 2dis should go through the big cities. I also brought up my idea for I-95 through Raleigh since they were discussing a spur/loop at the meeting, I figured, why not route I-95 through the city, making I-495 the bypass? Maybe to avoid an I-40/95 overlap from Raleigh to Benson, I-40 could go to Greenville, giving Wilmington a 3di. Then Wilmington can have an extended I-20, and make a coastal I-97 or 99 when those numbers are freed. Again, just my suggestions, I hope they become real.

EDIT: Maybe this should be moved to Fictional Highways?

I'm okay with the El Paso to Wichita route along current US 54... there's already sporadic places along the route where you could say it is at standard... that makes sense to me. But, not sure about to Topeka... you can pick up I-35 in Wichita to head to Topeka. What would you propose the route to be numbered?

ICTRds
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Speedway99 on May 15, 2013, 08:23:21 PM
Why not reroute I-95 through Raleigh, overlapping I-40 from Raleigh to Benson, and sign the current I-95 around Raleigh as I-495? Being in the top 50 in the US by city proper, it deserves another 2di. Also, I've come to think that the 2di's should go through the big cities, and I-95 just doesn't serve enough big cities between Richmond and Jacksonville (Except Fayetteville and Savannah).

San Jose, Austin, San Francisco, El Paso, Las Vegas, Fresno, Long Beach, Virginia Beach, and Colorado Springs all respectfully ask Raleigh to get in line and wait for them to get their second (...or first) 2di.

I don't mean to offend you, and I hope I don't, but I consider Long Beach a suburb, since it is part of the metro area of the much bigger Los Angeles, which already has 2 2dis, and I-3 could be a 3rd one for that metro, and it can go through San Jose and San Francisco. They should extend I-80 south on I-280 to end in San Jose at future I-3. Las Vegas is getting I-11 soon, and Houston and Austin need an interstate connecting each other, and when that is built, Austin would become a 2di crossroad. They can extend it to Abilene and Lubbock to I-27, and extend this I-27 to Colorado Springs. I also want an El Paso-Lubbock-Wichita-Topeka highway built, and I-20 and 25 rerouted to El Paso, like how they should've gone in the first place. US 1 can be upgraded from Rockingham at future I-73 to Raleigh, then go to Norfolk and VA Beach as I-38 or I-42. Fresno can get CA 99 upgraded to I-7, then using CA 41, an I-9 to Reno. Bakersfield can have I-5 rerouted to downtown using CA 99 and the future westside parkway, I-40 on CA 58, and another highway to Las Vegas. Those are just my ideas, I think the 2dis should go through the big cities. I also brought up my idea for I-95 through Raleigh since they were discussing a spur/loop at the meeting, I figured, why not route I-95 through the city, making I-495 the bypass? Maybe to avoid an I-40/95 overlap from Raleigh to Benson, I-40 could go to Greenville, giving Wilmington a 3di. Then Wilmington can have an extended I-20, and make a coastal I-97 or 99 when those numbers are freed. Again, just my suggestions, I hope they become real.

EDIT: Maybe this should be moved to Fictional Highways?

I'm okay with the El Paso to Wichita route along current US 54... there's already sporadic places along the route where you could say it is at standard... that makes sense to me. But, not sure about to Topeka... you can pick up I-35 in Wichita to head to Topeka. What would you propose the route to be numbered?

ICTRds

So Topeka gets another 2di. This would eat I-335. I'm thinking of making I-35 south of Wichita I-31, and taking this 31 up into Salina. Current I-35 from Wichita to Emporia and I-335 to Topeka get the El Paso US 54 interstate number, Emporia to Olathe gets a 3di. I want I-35 to go from Brownsville to Dallas via Corpus Christi and Houston, then to Tulsa and Olathe, and replacing I-29 to Omaha, Sioux Falls, Fargo, and Winnipeg. I-35 from KC to Duluth, and I-49 become the new I-45.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 15, 2013, 08:57:30 PM
Sooo....when is NJDOT going to put in for US-9 to be moved to the Garden State Parkway across Great Egg Harbor?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: WichitaRoads on May 16, 2013, 12:31:27 AM
Why not reroute I-95 through Raleigh, overlapping I-40 from Raleigh to Benson, and sign the current I-95 around Raleigh as I-495? Being in the top 50 in the US by city proper, it deserves another 2di. Also, I've come to think that the 2di's should go through the big cities, and I-95 just doesn't serve enough big cities between Richmond and Jacksonville (Except Fayetteville and Savannah).

San Jose, Austin, San Francisco, El Paso, Las Vegas, Fresno, Long Beach, Virginia Beach, and Colorado Springs all respectfully ask Raleigh to get in line and wait for them to get their second (...or first) 2di.

I don't mean to offend you, and I hope I don't, but I consider Long Beach a suburb, since it is part of the metro area of the much bigger Los Angeles, which already has 2 2dis, and I-3 could be a 3rd one for that metro, and it can go through San Jose and San Francisco. They should extend I-80 south on I-280 to end in San Jose at future I-3. Las Vegas is getting I-11 soon, and Houston and Austin need an interstate connecting each other, and when that is built, Austin would become a 2di crossroad. They can extend it to Abilene and Lubbock to I-27, and extend this I-27 to Colorado Springs. I also want an El Paso-Lubbock-Wichita-Topeka highway built, and I-20 and 25 rerouted to El Paso, like how they should've gone in the first place. US 1 can be upgraded from Rockingham at future I-73 to Raleigh, then go to Norfolk and VA Beach as I-38 or I-42. Fresno can get CA 99 upgraded to I-7, then using CA 41, an I-9 to Reno. Bakersfield can have I-5 rerouted to downtown using CA 99 and the future westside parkway, I-40 on CA 58, and another highway to Las Vegas. Those are just my ideas, I think the 2dis should go through the big cities. I also brought up my idea for I-95 through Raleigh since they were discussing a spur/loop at the meeting, I figured, why not route I-95 through the city, making I-495 the bypass? Maybe to avoid an I-40/95 overlap from Raleigh to Benson, I-40 could go to Greenville, giving Wilmington a 3di. Then Wilmington can have an extended I-20, and make a coastal I-97 or 99 when those numbers are freed. Again, just my suggestions, I hope they become real.

EDIT: Maybe this should be moved to Fictional Highways?

I'm okay with the El Paso to Wichita route along current US 54... there's already sporadic places along the route where you could say it is at standard... that makes sense to me. But, not sure about to Topeka... you can pick up I-35 in Wichita to head to Topeka. What would you propose the route to be numbered?

ICTRds

So Topeka gets another 2di. This would eat I-335. I'm thinking of making I-35 south of Wichita I-31, and taking this 31 up into Salina. Current I-35 from Wichita to Emporia and I-335 to Topeka get the El Paso US 54 interstate number, Emporia to Olathe gets a 3di. I want I-35 to go from Brownsville to Dallas via Corpus Christi and Houston, then to Tulsa and Olathe, and replacing I-29 to Omaha, Sioux Falls, Fargo, and Winnipeg. I-35 from KC to Duluth, and I-49 become the new I-45.

I think I'm following you. I'd continue I-31 past I-70, and run it to I-80 at York, NE. I always thought I-135 should go further north. So, from Dallas, I-35 would follow which route to Tulsa, then to Olathe? US 169? Still, what number would you give this new route overlaying 54? One idea I had was to make that 54 corridor part of the possible I-66 that might follow US 400 from SE KS into East Wichita.

ICTRds
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: bugo on May 16, 2013, 01:32:54 PM
*cough* Fictional Highways *cough*
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: texaskdog on May 16, 2013, 03:36:02 PM
I wonder if we had our own "fictional highways aashto" if we'd ever agree on anything.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: DTComposer on May 16, 2013, 09:00:40 PM
San Jose, Austin, San Francisco, El Paso, Las Vegas, Fresno, Long Beach, Virginia Beach, and Colorado Springs all respectfully ask Raleigh to get in line and wait for them to get their second (...or first) 2di.

I don't mean to offend you, and I hope I don't, but I consider Long Beach a suburb, since it is part of the metro area of the much bigger Los Angeles...

None taken, and while arguments can be made about Long Beach (it doesn't function like the traditional definition of a suburb, and didn't certainly develop as one), it is indeed now part of the same urban area - but that's all for some other thread.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Alps on May 17, 2013, 12:02:26 AM
I wonder if we had our own "fictional highways aashto" if we'd ever agree on anything.
There are three camps:
Those who want Interstate designations for everything that's remotely a freeway or could be made one
Those who want to keep everything exactly as it is because state route freeways are exciting
Those who would apply rational judgment
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: corco on May 17, 2013, 12:10:27 AM
What about those that would try to annex the rest of North America, or is that the first camp
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Molandfreak on May 17, 2013, 07:56:33 AM
I wonder if we had our own "fictional highways aashto" if we'd ever agree on anything.
There are three camps:
Those who want Interstate designations for everything that's remotely a freeway or could be made one
Those who want to keep everything exactly as it is because state route freeways are exciting
Those who would apply rational judgment
What about the people who think decades ahead?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: froggie on May 17, 2013, 08:08:52 AM
Quote
What about the people who think decades ahead?

Doesn't really apply in this case, plus they tend to be in the first camp anyway.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Brandon on May 17, 2013, 09:13:21 AM
Quote
What about the people who think decades ahead?

Doesn't really apply in this case, plus they tend to be in the first camp anyway.


Not always.  Some of us are in the third category.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 17, 2013, 09:35:12 AM
Let's take away the numbering for a second.

What should be looked at is the Interstate Highway System as a network of roads/corridors that serve various transportation needs/purposes.  Not as a grid of numbers - which too may in the hobby/forum seem to get caught up in.

If a road is built to Interstate standards, and fits into the overall network, why shouldn't it be signed an interstate? 

As our transportation corridors evolve and change - the need for Interstate standard highways in those areas increase.  If the additional transportation corridors and Interstate System of today existed the same way 55 years ago - I am sure many routes would have different numbers, but it isn't.

The solution isn't to renumber I-4 to I-6 so the proposed I-2 can now become I-4 or whatever the altruistic suggestions that have been made upthread are.

So you have an interstate highway proposal:

Questions in order:

1) Does it meet standards?
2) Does it fill a gap or make a logical expansion of the Interstate Highway system (Network)?

If yes to both,

Then numbering:
1) With the numbers (key word here) AVAILABLE  (/key word here)- What numbering options make the most sense?



Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: froggie on May 17, 2013, 09:47:40 AM
Quote
Not always.  Some of us are in the third category.

If this were the case, then those who are "thinking decades ahead" would notice that the trend is lower VMT, not higher.  Nationally, VMT peaked even before the 2008 recession, and all indications are that it will remain that way.  Under which case, the current system is more or less adequate (local mileage may vary).
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Molandfreak on May 17, 2013, 11:00:34 AM
Quote
Not always.  Some of us are in the third category.

If this were the case, then those who are "thinking decades ahead" would notice that the trend is lower VMT, not higher.  Nationally, VMT peaked even before the 2008 recession, and all indications are that it will remain that way.  Under which case, the current system is more or less adequate (local mileage may vary).



Let's take away the numbering for a second.

What should be looked at is the Interstate Highway System as a network of roads/corridors that serve various transportation needs/purposes.  Not as a grid of numbers - which too may in the hobby/forum seem to get caught up in.

If a road is built to Interstate standards, and fits into the overall network, why shouldn't it be signed an interstate? 

As our transportation corridors evolve and change - the need for Interstate standard highways in those areas increase.  If the additional transportation corridors and Interstate System of today existed the same way 55 years ago - I am sure many routes would have different numbers, but it isn't.

The solution isn't to renumber I-4 to I-6 so the proposed I-2 can now become I-4 or whatever the altruistic suggestions that have been made upthread are.

So you have an interstate highway proposal:

Questions in order:

1) Does it meet standards?
2) Does it fill a gap or make a logical expansion of the Interstate Highway system (Network)?

If yes to both,

Then numbering:
1) With the numbers (key word here) AVAILABLE  (/key word here)- What numbering options make the most sense?
This. And the only extensions to the current system I would presently work on are I-49 as planned and Austin-Houston. I would consider Columbus-Frindlay and maybe the I-11 corridor in a decade or two. Most of planned I-73, 74, 69, and 66 (Kentucky) are just stupid. Also, forgive me for not wanting an I-98 over 300 freaking miles from the Canadian border (WIS 29)

Decades ahead can be rational if linking major cities. And now this is just getting too fictional.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Brandon on May 17, 2013, 11:16:05 AM
Quote
Not always.  Some of us are in the third category.

If this were the case, then those who are "thinking decades ahead" would notice that the trend is lower VMT, not higher.  Nationally, VMT peaked even before the 2008 recession, and all indications are that it will remain that way.  Under which case, the current system is more or less adequate (local mileage may vary).

Don't bet that things will be in the future as they are currently.  VMT is depressed right now due to the current depression and the higher fuel prices.  Once the economy gets going again, and fuel prices drop (either by physically dropping or by more fuel-efficient vehicles), expect VMT to rise again.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: english si on May 17, 2013, 01:26:47 PM
There are three camps:
Those who want Interstate designations for everything that's remotely a freeway or could be made one
Those who want to keep everything exactly as it is because state route freeways are exciting
Those who would apply rational judgment
More like 5, sorted by the size of their interstate network:
Those who want Interstate designations for everything*
Those who want Interstate designations for everything that's remotely a freeway or could be made one
Those who would apply rational judgement
Those who want to keep everything exactly as it is because state route freeways are exciting
Those who think there are too many interstates and want some to revert to US/State freeways

*This first group should be referred to as "yellow stoners".
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: froggie on May 18, 2013, 03:58:58 AM
Quote
Don't bet that things will be in the future as they are currently.  VMT is depressed right now due to the current depression and the higher fuel prices.  Once the economy gets going again, and fuel prices drop (either by physically dropping or by more fuel-efficient vehicles), expect VMT to rise again.

Don't bet on the increase.  Even factoring out the recession and fuel economy, all indications are that the younger generations are driving noticeably less than in previous years.  Today's young adults just don't drive as much as the young adults of even 10 years ago.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Brandon on May 18, 2013, 10:06:14 AM
Quote
Don't bet that things will be in the future as they are currently.  VMT is depressed right now due to the current depression and the higher fuel prices.  Once the economy gets going again, and fuel prices drop (either by physically dropping or by more fuel-efficient vehicles), expect VMT to rise again.

Don't bet on the increase.  Even factoring out the recession and fuel economy, all indications are that the younger generations are driving noticeably less than in previous years.  Today's young adults just don't drive as much as the young adults of even 10 years ago.


They don't own cars currently for a few factors.

1. Cars, even used ones are expensive now.  It's easier to drive mom and dad's vehicles and not report it as "owning" a car.

2. They quite often don't have the jobs necessary to buy vehicles currently.  Can you buy a $10k used car while flipping burgers?

3. The above *are* directly related to the economy.

I'll bet on an increase instead of a decrease based on that and what's occurred in the past, thankyouverymuch.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Revive 755 on May 18, 2013, 11:22:38 AM
Quote
Not always.  Some of us are in the third category.

If this were the case, then those who are "thinking decades ahead" would notice that the trend is lower VMT, not higher.  Nationally, VMT peaked even before the 2008 recession, and all indications are that it will remain that way.  Under which case, the current system is more or less adequate (local mileage may vary).

And what of truck traffic volumes, either separately or as part of the national VMT measure?  Given a likely increase in internet sales, I don't think truck traffic growth will stall out.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: vdeane on May 18, 2013, 04:54:10 PM
Quote
Don't bet that things will be in the future as they are currently.  VMT is depressed right now due to the current depression and the higher fuel prices.  Once the economy gets going again, and fuel prices drop (either by physically dropping or by more fuel-efficient vehicles), expect VMT to rise again.

Don't bet on the increase.  Even factoring out the recession and fuel economy, all indications are that the younger generations are driving noticeably less than in previous years.  Today's young adults just don't drive as much as the young adults of even 10 years ago.


They don't own cars currently for a few factors.

1. Cars, even used ones are expensive now.  It's easier to drive mom and dad's vehicles and not report it as "owning" a car.

2. They quite often don't have the jobs necessary to buy vehicles currently.  Can you buy a $10k used car while flipping burgers?

3. The above *are* directly related to the economy.

I'll bet on an increase instead of a decrease based on that and what's occurred in the past, thankyouverymuch.
Also, lets ask those people about car ownership a decade or two from now.  Living in the big city and re-creating your college experience is one thing when you're right out of college, and another when you're trying to raise a family.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: deathtopumpkins on May 18, 2013, 07:32:22 PM
Quote
Don't bet that things will be in the future as they are currently.  VMT is depressed right now due to the current depression and the higher fuel prices.  Once the economy gets going again, and fuel prices drop (either by physically dropping or by more fuel-efficient vehicles), expect VMT to rise again.

Don't bet on the increase.  Even factoring out the recession and fuel economy, all indications are that the younger generations are driving noticeably less than in previous years.  Today's young adults just don't drive as much as the young adults of even 10 years ago.


They don't own cars currently for a few factors.

1. Cars, even used ones are expensive now.  It's easier to drive mom and dad's vehicles and not report it as "owning" a car.

2. They quite often don't have the jobs necessary to buy vehicles currently.  Can you buy a $10k used car while flipping burgers?

3. The above *are* directly related to the economy.

I'll bet on an increase instead of a decrease based on that and what's occurred in the past, thankyouverymuch.
Also, lets ask those people about car ownership a decade or two from now.  Living in the big city and re-creating your college experience is one thing when you're right out of college, and another when you're trying to raise a family.

Many people of this generation don't want to raise a family.

I for one would be very happy living out my adult life in an urban apartment with no kids. Practically, I can live with no car too. I already do for most of the year. It would be nice to have one for fun though. It's kinda hard to be a roadgeek without one.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: DTComposer on May 18, 2013, 08:07:12 PM
Also, lets ask those people about car ownership a decade or two from now.  Living in the big city and re-creating your college experience is one thing when you're right out of college, and another when you're trying to raise a family.

Many people of this generation don't want to raise a family.

I for one would be very happy living out my adult life in an urban apartment with no kids. Practically, I can live with no car too. I already do for most of the year. It would be nice to have one for fun though. It's kinda hard to be a roadgeek without one.

With all due respect, I think you're playing right into his point. It's very easy to make broad-brushstroke decisions about your life at age 19. I'm in the generation right above yours, and a great many of my high school and college and young adult friends wanted the urban, no-child lifestyle. Many of them (myself included) lived that lifestyle throughout our 20s and into our 30s. Over time and with experience, however, perspective changes, and most (certainly not all) have moved into some sort of raising-a-family lifestyle (although many of us have stayed in "urban" vs. "suburban" areas).

You personally may very well continue in your situation throughout your life, but if I were to hazard a guess, the vast majority of your generation will create families, like all generations before them.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: J N Winkler on May 19, 2013, 01:53:06 AM
There are three camps:

Those who want Interstate designations for everything that's remotely a freeway or could be made one

Those who want to keep everything exactly as it is because state route freeways are exciting

Those who would apply rational judgment

There is a difference between the second and third camps?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Alps on May 19, 2013, 01:53:18 PM
There are three camps:

Those who want Interstate designations for everything that's remotely a freeway or could be made one

Those who want to keep everything exactly as it is because state route freeways are exciting

Those who would apply rational judgment

There is a difference between the second and third camps?
:P I live right off I-578. That and I-395 (NJ 55) are the only conversions I'd make in this state.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: PHLBOS on May 20, 2013, 03:16:28 PM
Also, lets ask those people about car ownership a decade or two from now.  Living in the big city and re-creating your college experience is one thing when you're right out of college, and another when you're trying to raise a family.

Many people of this generation don't want to raise a family.

I for one would be very happy living out my adult life in an urban apartment with no kids. Practically, I can live with no car too. I already do for most of the year. It would be nice to have one for fun though. It's kinda hard to be a roadgeek without one.

With all due respect, I think you're playing right into his point.
Her point.  Vdeane is one of AAroads female members.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: texaskdog on May 20, 2013, 04:01:18 PM
Also, lets ask those people about car ownership a decade or two from now.  Living in the big city and re-creating your college experience is one thing when you're right out of college, and another when you're trying to raise a family.

Many people of this generation don't want to raise a family.

I for one would be very happy living out my adult life in an urban apartment with no kids. Practically, I can live with no car too. I already do for most of the year. It would be nice to have one for fun though. It's kinda hard to be a roadgeek without one.

With all due respect, I think you're playing right into his point.
Her point.  Vdeane is one of AAroads female members.

There are women on AAroads?  So that's why my fiancee doesn't like me being on the forums!!!
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Brandon on May 20, 2013, 06:52:26 PM
Also, lets ask those people about car ownership a decade or two from now.  Living in the big city and re-creating your college experience is one thing when you're right out of college, and another when you're trying to raise a family.

Many people of this generation don't want to raise a family.

I for one would be very happy living out my adult life in an urban apartment with no kids. Practically, I can live with no car too. I already do for most of the year. It would be nice to have one for fun though. It's kinda hard to be a roadgeek without one.

With all due respect, I think you're playing right into his point.
Her point.  Vdeane is one of AAroads female members.

There are women on AAroads?  So that's why my fiancee doesn't like me being on the forums!!!

Of all amazing things, female roadgeeks do exist!  They are not some fantasy.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Alps on May 20, 2013, 09:07:46 PM
Also, lets ask those people about car ownership a decade or two from now.  Living in the big city and re-creating your college experience is one thing when you're right out of college, and another when you're trying to raise a family.

Many people of this generation don't want to raise a family.

I for one would be very happy living out my adult life in an urban apartment with no kids. Practically, I can live with no car too. I already do for most of the year. It would be nice to have one for fun though. It's kinda hard to be a roadgeek without one.

With all due respect, I think you're playing right into his point.
Her point.  Vdeane is one of AAroads female members.

There are women on AAroads?  So that's why my fiancee doesn't like me being on the forums!!!

Of all amazing things, female roadgeeks do exist!  They are not some fantasy.
Ever seen a meet photo? (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/vt/bennington/m.jpg)
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: vtk on May 20, 2013, 09:21:26 PM
Quote
Don't bet that things will be in the future as they are currently.  VMT is depressed right now due to the current depression and the higher fuel prices.  Once the economy gets going again, and fuel prices drop (either by physically dropping or by more fuel-efficient vehicles), expect VMT to rise again.

Don't bet on the increase.  Even factoring out the recession and fuel economy, all indications are that the younger generations are driving noticeably less than in previous years.  Today's young adults just don't drive as much as the young adults of even 10 years ago.


In the long term, population growth will drown out generation-to-generation noise in VMT. Personal aircraft will not replace ground vehicles as long as they waste energy forcing air downwards to stay aloft. If trains become a dominant mode, they'll probably mirror where we have freeways now, and we'll have similar discussions about numbering train routes.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: texaskdog on May 21, 2013, 08:32:59 AM
Quote
Don't bet that things will be in the future as they are currently.  VMT is depressed right now due to the current depression and the higher fuel prices.  Once the economy gets going again, and fuel prices drop (either by physically dropping or by more fuel-efficient vehicles), expect VMT to rise again.

Don't bet on the increase.  Even factoring out the recession and fuel economy, all indications are that the younger generations are driving noticeably less than in previous years.  Today's young adults just don't drive as much as the young adults of even 10 years ago.


In the long term, population growth will drown out generation-to-generation noise in VMT. Personal aircraft will not replace ground vehicles as long as they waste energy forcing air downwards to stay aloft. If trains become a dominant mode, they'll probably mirror where we have freeways now, and we'll have similar discussions about numbering train routes.

and all that expensive gas
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: NE2 on May 21, 2013, 10:44:07 AM
If trains become a dominant mode, they'll probably mirror where we have freeways now, and we'll have similar discussions about numbering train routes.
http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/42434-amtrak-train-numbers/ :bigass:
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: texaskdog on May 21, 2013, 01:12:00 PM
of course they even number bike routes :P
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Alex on June 21, 2013, 11:31:54 AM
Was trying to find out more on that Spokane Valley business loop addition, but http://www.transportation.org/ doesn't work. I looked a week or two ago and the site did not work then as well. Is their site ko'd?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on June 21, 2013, 01:34:40 PM
^ It just worked for me. Try this link for the Applications:

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Binder-all%20applications%20May%202013.pdf

and the Actions Report to SCOH:

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: texaskdog on June 21, 2013, 01:35:48 PM
Well in the "perfect grid" the 50 longest roads each direction would be 2-dis
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Alex on June 21, 2013, 03:03:06 PM
^ It just worked for me. Try this link for the Applications:

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Binder-all%20applications%20May%202013.pdf

and the Actions Report to SCOH:

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf

Both links timed out, and I get this message from Chrome:
Quote
The connection to route.transportation.org was interrupted.
and
Quote
Error 101 (net::ERR_CONNECTION_RESET): The connection was reset.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on June 21, 2013, 03:27:13 PM
^ Try emailing Marty Vitale at mvitale@aashto.org and tell (I think) her the problems you are experiencing.  Maybe something weird is going on at their end. I just got into Actions, but got timed out on Applications.  If nothing else, she might be able to attach the files to an email response.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: NE2 on June 21, 2013, 03:35:29 PM
Also, apparently FHWA must approve Interstate business routes. But the I-35 Biz in Minnesota from fall 2012 didn't require FHWA approval. Zuh.

Never mind.
Quote
This should not have been listed. Interstate Business Routes are not part of the Interstate System and do not require FHWA approval.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 27, 2013, 03:27:22 PM
Why not just wrap I-69 around to make it I-69 with the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W running off of it?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Molandfreak on June 27, 2013, 03:37:26 PM
Why not just wrap I-69 around to make it I-69 with the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W running off of it?
what
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Alps on June 27, 2013, 06:58:26 PM
Why not just wrap I-69 around to make it I-69 with the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W running off of it?
what
yawn
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: FightingIrish on July 04, 2013, 10:35:14 PM
Why not reroute I-95 through Raleigh, overlapping I-40 from Raleigh to Benson, and sign the current I-95 around Raleigh as I-495? Being in the top 50 in the US by city proper, it deserves another 2di. Also, I've come to think that the 2di's should go through the big cities, and I-95 just doesn't serve enough big cities between Richmond and Jacksonville (Except Fayetteville and Savannah).

San Jose, Austin, San Francisco, El Paso, Las Vegas, Fresno, Long Beach, Virginia Beach, and Colorado Springs all respectfully ask Raleigh to get in line and wait for them to get their second (...or first) 2di.

I don't mean to offend you, and I hope I don't, but I consider Long Beach a suburb, since it is part of the metro area of the much bigger Los Angeles, which already has 2 2dis, and I-3 could be a 3rd one for that metro, and it can go through San Jose and San Francisco. They should extend I-80 south on I-280 to end in San Jose at future I-3. Las Vegas is getting I-11 soon, and Houston and Austin need an interstate connecting each other, and when that is built, Austin would become a 2di crossroad. They can extend it to Abilene and Lubbock to I-27, and extend this I-27 to Colorado Springs. I also want an El Paso-Lubbock-Wichita-Topeka highway built, and I-20 and 25 rerouted to El Paso, like how they should've gone in the first place. US 1 can be upgraded from Rockingham at future I-73 to Raleigh, then go to Norfolk and VA Beach as I-38 or I-42. Fresno can get CA 99 upgraded to I-7, then using CA 41, an I-9 to Reno. Bakersfield can have I-5 rerouted to downtown using CA 99 and the future westside parkway, I-40 on CA 58, and another highway to Las Vegas. Those are just my ideas, I think the 2dis should go through the big cities. I also brought up my idea for I-95 through Raleigh since they were discussing a spur/loop at the meeting, I figured, why not route I-95 through the city, making I-495 the bypass? Maybe to avoid an I-40/95 overlap from Raleigh to Benson, I-40 could go to Greenville, giving Wilmington a 3di. Then Wilmington can have an extended I-20, and make a coastal I-97 or 99 when those numbers are freed. Again, just my suggestions, I hope they become real.

EDIT: Maybe this should be moved to Fictional Highways?

Not to veer widely off topic into fantasyland,  but...

1.  I always thought I-580 in California should have been a separate 2di from I-5 to I-80 in Oakland. How about I-58? Or I-38 to make the roadgeeks happy. ;)

2.  People talk about renaming US 101 to I-3. NOOOOOOOOOO! US 101 is too legendary to carve up, and there's no way all of it could be turned into interstate.

3.  As I understand, CA 99 will become I-9.  I-7 probably fits better but I-9 just seems right. And forget about that Fresno to Reno interstate. No way is California going to build a new interstate across mountains and national parks. That's part of what killed the idea of a coast-to-coast I-66.

4.  The I-97 numbering makes no damn sense,  but I'm preaching to the choir here.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Quillz on July 05, 2013, 02:08:55 AM
I most object to the "C" designation.  never since the beginning of numbered routes have I heard of a C suffix being used like this.

the only thing we can use as precedent is Tennessee (US-70N, 70, 70-S) and Oregon (US-99E, 99, 99W) and neither used a C.

I-2 is pretty silly but if it will be extended further along the Rio Grande then I object to it less.  I can even claim to have clinched it, if it follows the US-83 freeway.
I agree with this, it's silly to have three splits of I-69 when 3di will do just fine. (I-169, I-269, etc... why not use them?)

And I have no issues with I-2, even though I don't see it as particularly necessary.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 05, 2013, 10:29:18 AM
I wonder if we had our own "fictional highways aashto" if we'd ever agree on anything.
There are three camps:
Those who want Interstate designations for everything that's remotely a freeway or could be made one
Those who want to keep everything exactly as it is because state route freeways are exciting
Those who would apply rational judgment

And naturally, everyone you might ask is in the third category.

Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 05, 2013, 10:32:18 AM
So I do understand that the suffixed I-69s are all written into law like I-99 and I-86.  But knowing that there has been a 40-year effort not to do this, did the Texas people who pushed this law just figure, "We're Texas, screw the silly Washington standard"?  I mean, at a certain point, what's the point in having professional guidelines if they're just legislated around?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: FightingIrish on July 05, 2013, 11:15:05 AM
So I do understand that the suffixed I-69s are all written into law like I-99 and I-86.  But knowing that there has been a 40-year effort not to do this, did the Texas people who pushed this law just figure, "We're Texas, screw the silly Washington standard"?  I mean, at a certain point, what's the point in having professional guidelines if they're just legislated around?

The I-69s (along with I-99, etc.) are essentially congressional pork tacked on to other bills. But one wonders how a law could be passed if parts of it (numbering) violate the guidelines set forth by another government agency. Welcome to Congress!
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: tdindy88 on July 05, 2013, 11:30:18 AM
I thought it was mentioned on the I-69 in Texas thread, but doesn't the three I-69s boil down to three communities that each HAD to have I-69 end there?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 05, 2013, 01:18:55 PM
I thought it was mentioned on the I-69 in Texas thread, but doesn't the three I-69s boil down to three communities that each HAD to have I-69 end there?

Someone was smart enough to figure out the suffix thing if that was the case.  Sounds like a road nerd came up with that one.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: kkt on July 05, 2013, 01:51:47 PM
Not to veer widely off topic into fantasyland,  but...

Too late   ;-)

Quote
1.  I always thought I-580 in California should have been a separate 2di from I-5 to I-80 in Oakland. How about I-58? Or I-38 to make the roadgeeks happy. ;)

Meh.  It's not the longest 3di, and it's a very mnemonic number.  I don't think it's worth changing.

Quote
2.  People talk about renaming US 101 to I-3. NOOOOOOOOOO! US 101 is too legendary to carve up, and there's no way all of it could be turned into interstate.

Part of 101 has already been truncated and replaced by I-5. 

It gets down to what an interstate should mean.  101 from L.A. to the S.F. area mostly meets interstate standards for geometric design, and where it doesn't it should be upgraded.  It certainly carries enough traffic to be an interstate.  If you want to keep historic numbers the same, why should US-66 or US-99 or any routes at all have been renumbered when interstates were made?

Quote
3.  As I understand, CA 99 will become I-9.  I-7 probably fits better but I-9 just seems right. And forget about that Fresno to Reno interstate. No way is California going to build a new interstate across mountains and national parks. That's part of what killed the idea of a coast-to-coast I-66.

Yes.  People from flat parts of the country don't seem to realize how expensive it is to keep a freeway across 8000 foot+ passes open year round.  California already has I-80 and US-50.  They were chosen because they're the least difficult passes, both to build and to keep open.  We don't need another pass, especially one that would be even more expensive.

Quote
4.  The I-97 numbering makes no damn sense,  but I'm preaching to the choir here.

It makes some sense.  The decision to make it a 2di is questionable, but having decided that I-97 fits in the grid fine.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Scott5114 on July 05, 2013, 02:47:40 PM
My guess is that the I-69 suffixes came from someone in Texas looking at I-35E/W in DFW as an example to follow, never realizing that split is the only one in the country and new ones aren't supposed to be done.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 05, 2013, 03:25:57 PM
My guess is that the I-69 suffixes came from someone in Texas looking at I-35E/W in DFW as an example to follow, never realizing that split is the only one in the country and new ones aren't supposed to be done.

Wait, did they get rid of I-35W and I-35E in Minnesota?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 05, 2013, 04:14:18 PM
My guess is that the I-69 suffixes came from someone in Texas looking at I-35E/W in DFW as an example to follow, never realizing that split is the only one in the country and new ones aren't supposed to be done.

Wait, did they get rid of I-35W and I-35E in Minnesota?

I've always assumed that since those two pairs go through side-by-side cities that were unwilling to be the "secondary" destination, politics forced the E-W to remain.  I don't think Brownsville, Laredo, and Pharr (Pharr?) are in quite the same situation.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Quillz on July 05, 2013, 04:15:56 PM
Is there a good map yet showing the entire proposed length of I-69, including the three splits in Texas? I've not been able to find any yet.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 05, 2013, 04:23:23 PM
Is there a good map yet showing the entire proposed length of I-69, including the three splits in Texas? I've not been able to find any yet.

Pieces of I-69E and I-69C (along with I-2) are in Google Maps already.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 05, 2013, 04:31:25 PM
Is there a good map yet showing the entire proposed length of I-69, including the three splits in Texas? I've not been able to find any yet.

Pieces of I-69E and I-69C (along with I-2) are in Google Maps already.

He said a good map.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on July 05, 2013, 04:51:11 PM
Is there a good map yet showing the entire proposed length of I-69, including the three splits in Texas? I've not been able to find any yet.

Not quite sure how well this January 2013 map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) will work for you. (pp. 7-8/122 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/wSGwd7B.jpg)

Quote
As Texas is currently exploring an east‐west connection along State Highway (SH) 44 from U.S. Highway (US) 59 in the City of Freer to US 77 in the City of Robstown as an alternative to SIU 31, this alignment is included in Table 1 as 31 Alt.

edit

I-2/US 83 is not part of the statutory I-69 Corridor, but Texas officials like to consider it as part of the I-69 "system".

It's difficult to see on my snip of the map, but the tiny, easternmost "fourth prong", SIU 32, is SH 550 from the Port of Brownsville to I-69E/US 77, and can be more easily seen at the linked version of the map.  There are no current plans to put interstate shields on SH 550, but there may be a remote possibility that it will one day become an eastward extension of I-2.

SIU 9B is I-269, SIU 28 is the I-69 Connector/Future I-530, and SIU 29 includes the recently designated I-369.

Also, the I-69 statute technically includes a section from the Port of Corpus Christi to I-69E/US 77. I think that is I-37 and have emailed FHWA to see if that is correct (no response yet). Any insight here on that question will be appreciated, but I suspect that is why it is not included as part of the "blue line" "I-69 Corridor" on the map. However, if it is I-37, then it will make for a great trivia question: What was the first interstate designation given to a part of the I-69 Corridor in Texas?  :sombrero:
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 05, 2013, 05:02:54 PM
Why is I-69 not signed on the Purchase Parkway?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Speedway99 on July 05, 2013, 06:13:50 PM
Why is I-69 not signed on the Purchase Parkway?

I believe the FHWA and/or AASHTO describe it as "close to, but not at" interstate standards, meaning a few upgrades are necessary.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Speedway99 on July 05, 2013, 06:20:56 PM


Not to veer widely off topic into fantasyland,  but...

1.  I always thought I-580 in California should have been a separate 2di from I-5 to I-80 in Oakland. How about I-58? Or I-38 to make the roadgeeks happy. ;)

2.  People talk about renaming US 101 to I-3. NOOOOOOOOOO! US 101 is too legendary to carve up, and there's no way all of it could be turned into interstate.

3.  As I understand, CA 99 will become I-9.  I-7 probably fits better but I-9 just seems right. And forget about that Fresno to Reno interstate. No way is California going to build a new interstate across mountains and national parks. That's part of what killed the idea of a coast-to-coast I-66.

4.  The I-97 numbering makes no damn sense,  but I'm preaching to the choir here.
[/quote]

Why wouldn't San Jose, 10th largest US city, not want a 2(or 1)di. Call me crazy, but to me, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and even Birmingham look much bigger than San Jose on a road map. Or, to fix that, maybe have I-80 eat I-280. Then we free up that number, allowing it to be put on I-238.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 05, 2013, 06:25:40 PM
As I understand, CA 99 will become I-9.  I-7 probably fits better but I-9 just seems right. And forget about that Fresno to Reno interstate. No way is California going to build a new interstate across mountains and national parks. That's part of what killed the idea of a coast-to-coast I-66.

If this happens, what will be the new largest city not served by an Interstate?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: kkt on July 05, 2013, 07:19:56 PM
As I understand, CA 99 will become I-9.  I-7 probably fits better but I-9 just seems right. And forget about that Fresno to Reno interstate. No way is California going to build a new interstate across mountains and national parks. That's part of what killed the idea of a coast-to-coast I-66.

If this happens, what will be the new largest city not served by an Interstate?

It looks like if they made CA 99 into Interstate, Oxnard CA would be the largest U.S. city not on an interstate.  If they also made US 101 south of San Francisco into Interstate, Santa Rosa CA would be the largest.  If they also made US 101 north of San Francisco into Interstate, we get to Brownsville TX.  If and when I-69 goes to Brownsville, we're at Palmdale CA.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php/topic/32062-largest-us-cities-not-directly-on-an-interstate-highway/ (http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php/topic/32062-largest-us-cities-not-directly-on-an-interstate-highway/)
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: oscar on July 05, 2013, 07:46:10 PM
I-69E is already AASHTO-approved for Brownsville TX (see discussion upthread).  The approved segment is already freeway, so might be little or nothing to wait for but putting up the signs.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on July 05, 2013, 08:41:39 PM
the I-69 statute technically includes a section from the Port of Corpus Christi to I-69E/US 77. I think that is I-37 and have emailed FHWA to see if that is correct (no response yet). Any insight here on that question will be appreciated
I-69E is already AASHTO-approved for Brownsville TX (see discussion upthread).  The approved segment is already freeway, so might be little or nothing to wait for but putting up the signs.

From the FHWA Statutory Listing of Corridors (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm), do you have any info about this segment?:

Quote
18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan ....
D.In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall ....
iii. include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181

I'm not sure what the reference to the "Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor" means.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: NE2 on July 06, 2013, 12:19:42 AM
I'm not sure what the reference to the "Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor" means.
The red road here, I think: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.8373&lon=-97.4984&zoom=13&layers=M
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on July 06, 2013, 09:34:47 AM
^ NE2, thanks.

Interesting. Maybe it is a statutory cousin to MS 8, previously discussed near the bottom of this post (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4783.msg127410#msg127410), in that it is intended to be a non-interstate grade part of the I-69 Corridor.  I will post if and when FHWA provides their answer.

edit

As recently posted in the I-69 in TX thread (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg235241#msg235241), NE2 guessed correctly.



if it is I-37, then it will make for a great trivia question: What was the first interstate designation given to a part of the I-69 Corridor in Texas?  :sombrero:

Since the routing on your map incorporates part of I-37, I think I-37 survives as the answer to the proposed trivia question.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: NE2 on July 06, 2013, 09:41:58 AM
It survives anyway, because I-37 and actual I-69(E) will overlap...
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on July 06, 2013, 09:58:48 AM
... which will lead to a trivia question about I-37 having overlapped with both I-69E and the "Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor".  I-37 really gets around, but never quite overlapped with I-69 ...

edit

I may have prematurely impugned I-37's honor. I think it would be more accurate to say that I-37 currently connects to the "Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor". No current overlap.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on July 06, 2013, 10:13:55 AM
It survives anyway, because I-37 and actual I-69(E) will overlap...

Does "Excluding multi-interstate shield overlaps, what was the first interstate designation given to a part of the I-69 Corridor in Texas?" work?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: NE2 on July 06, 2013, 10:25:22 AM
No, since the I-37/69E overlap is currently only I-37. Consider if they made the Corpus Christi thing into I-569 (like the Texarkana spur is I-369) - then you'd have a similar overlap between I-37 and I-569.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on July 06, 2013, 11:12:37 AM
No, since the I-37/69E overlap is currently only I-37. Consider if they made the Corpus Christi thing into I-569 (like the Texarkana spur is I-369) - then you'd have a similar overlap between I-37 and I-569.

I think it would be more likely that there would be an I-x37 designation that would connect to I-37 instead of creating a useless I-x69 overlap.  Nevertheless, your scenario must be considered in crafting a trivia question.

How about "Excluding currently projected overlaps of I-69, I-69C, and I-69E with currently signed parts of the currently existing interstate system, what was the first interstate designation given to a part of the I-69 Corridor in Texas?"?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Alps on July 06, 2013, 01:52:04 PM
No, since the I-37/69E overlap is currently only I-37. Consider if they made the Corpus Christi thing into I-569 (like the Texarkana spur is I-369) - then you'd have a similar overlap between I-37 and I-569.

I think it would be more likely that there would be an I-x37 designation that would connect to I-37 instead of creating a useless I-x69 overlap.  Nevertheless, your scenario must be considered in crafting a trivia question.

How about "Excluding currently projected overlaps of I-69, I-69C, and I-69E with currently signed parts of the currently existing interstate system, what was the first interstate designation given to a part of the I-69 Corridor in Texas?"?
US 59. It's an interstate highway.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on July 06, 2013, 03:07:57 PM
US 59. It's an interstate highway.

I can only imagine the disputes on Trivia Nights ....

If you insist, how about "Excluding currently projected overlaps of I-69, I-69C, and I-69E with currently signed parts of the currently existing Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, and further excluding non-Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways designations on overlaps with other routes, what was the first interstate-shield designation given to a part of the I-69 Corridor in Texas?"?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Road Hog on July 12, 2013, 07:43:58 AM
The letters on that Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor shield are gonna be mighty narrow.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 12, 2013, 02:23:15 PM
I am surprised that they did not make I-2, I-69S.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: texaskdog on July 12, 2013, 04:19:15 PM
I am surprised that they did not make I-2, I-69S.

no kidding, and they could change I-37 to I-69N
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: bugo on July 12, 2013, 08:05:07 PM
I-35 could be renamed I-69X.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: vtk on July 13, 2013, 01:55:03 AM
I guess I-94 would then have to be I-69T.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Roadsguy on July 13, 2013, 11:04:27 AM
And something in Germany would be I-69. :)
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: english si on July 13, 2013, 03:52:17 PM
Too close to B?

Latin extended is clearly the way to go* after all the suffixes are used up, except looking, there's not that many that would be different enough: Ǝ, ʔ and is all I can see that are upper case.

*before Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Thai, Korean, Japanese, that cool Canadian arctic tribe alphabet, Sanskrit, wiggles, etc.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on July 13, 2013, 04:32:52 PM
Latin extended is clearly the way to go after all the suffixes are used up, except looking, there's not that many that would be different enough: Ǝ, ʔ and is all I can see that are upper case.

An I-69 shield would undoubtedly be one of the more popular dorm room shields.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Alps on July 16, 2013, 10:42:07 PM
How about I-69#?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Bickendan on July 17, 2013, 12:32:12 AM
So southern Texas will be known as the I-69Δ?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Brandon on July 17, 2013, 10:55:01 AM
So southern Texas will be known as the I-69Δ?

Isn't that one in Mississippi?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Grzrd on July 17, 2013, 12:47:15 PM
Since there is the occasional complaint that I-11 really does not fit the grid, why not change and go with another gridbuster that is more Vegas-centric: I-69$.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Rover_0 on July 17, 2013, 01:34:55 PM
Since there is the occasional complaint that I-11 really does not fit the grid, why not change and go with another gridbuster that is more Vegas-centric: I-69$.

Ka-ching! :P

Of course, I-17 (routed up I-11 with I-19 essentially up I-17) could kinda play into the whole "lucky 7" mentality. Or another grid-buster number that works even better is I-7, or I-777.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: vtk on July 17, 2013, 04:12:03 PM
Since there is the occasional complaint that I-11 really does not fit the grid, why not change and go with another gridbuster that is more Vegas-centric: I-69$.

Makes me think of prostitution.  But hey, that's legal in Nevada.  Better make sure there's a business route along the streets with the most sex workers.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Scott5114 on July 18, 2013, 01:35:36 AM
Since there is the occasional complaint that I-11 really does not fit the grid, why not change and go with another gridbuster that is more Vegas-centric: I-69$.

A more fitting one would be I-69-01. (Obscure joke, many slot floors use an A-12-34 type addressing scheme for the machines, where the letter designates the zone, the first two numbers are the bank/row, and the last two numbers are the machine position on that bank.)
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Rover_0 on July 18, 2013, 05:24:03 PM
Since there is the occasional complaint that I-11 really does not fit the grid, why not change and go with another gridbuster that is more Vegas-centric: I-69$.
A more fitting one would be I-69-01. (Obscure joke, many slot floors use an A-12-34 type addressing scheme for the machines, where the letter designates the zone, the first two numbers are the bank/row, and the last two numbers are the machine position on that bank.)

Would it be too late (with the whole I-11 legislation) to make I-11 an I-19 extension, should these Tucson plans happen?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 24, 2013, 12:05:26 AM
Since there is the occasional complaint that I-11 really does not fit the grid, why not change and go with another gridbuster that is more Vegas-centric: I-69$.
A more fitting one would be I-69-01. (Obscure joke, many slot floors use an A-12-34 type addressing scheme for the machines, where the letter designates the zone, the first two numbers are the bank/row, and the last two numbers are the machine position on that bank.)

Would it be too late (with the whole I-11 legislation) to make I-11 an I-19 extension, should these Tucson plans happen?
Call your Congressman and ask them.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: FightingIrish on July 24, 2013, 08:09:04 PM
Since there is the occasional complaint that I-11 really does not fit the grid, why not change and go with another gridbuster that is more Vegas-centric: I-69$.
A more fitting one would be I-69-01. (Obscure joke, many slot floors use an A-12-34 type addressing scheme for the machines, where the letter designates the zone, the first two numbers are the bank/row, and the last two numbers are the machine position on that bank.)

Would it be too late (with the whole I-11 legislation) to make I-11 an I-19 extension, should these Tucson plans happen?

Why? Just to please a few fussy roadgeeks?

I think I-11 is a fine number. And yes, it does fit the grid (considering that I-15 is diagonal from southern Utah to Los Angeles, if you want to get technical). And why shouldn't a freeway connecting Arizona and Nevada get its own number? Not like the western states are going to run out of interstate numbers anytime soon.

If the powers-that-be intended I-19 to be a different number, they would have signed it as a continuation of I-17. But as it currently stands, I think they all work as intended.

Besides, if I were to harass Congress about anything, I'd tell 'em to stop all that partisan gridlock bullshit and start getting things done in D.C. I get it, the Republicans are pissed Obama won. Hey, Democrats didn't like Bush either. Stop acting like babies!

<stepping off soapbox>
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Molandfreak on July 24, 2013, 08:25:16 PM
Since there is the occasional complaint that I-11 really does not fit the grid, why not change and go with another gridbuster that is more Vegas-centric: I-69$.
A more fitting one would be I-69-01. (Obscure joke, many slot floors use an A-12-34 type addressing scheme for the machines, where the letter designates the zone, the first two numbers are the bank/row, and the last two numbers are the machine position on that bank.)

Would it be too late (with the whole I-11 legislation) to make I-11 an I-19 extension, should these Tucson plans happen?

Why? Just to please a few fussy roadgeeks?

I think I-11 is a fine number. And yes, it does fit the grid (considering that I-15 is diagonal from southern Utah to Los Angeles, if you want to get technical). And why shouldn't a freeway connecting Arizona and Nevada get its own number? Not like the western states are going to run out of interstate numbers anytime soon.

If the powers-that-be intended I-19 to be a different number, they would have signed it as a continuation of I-17. But as it currently stands, I think they all work as intended.

Besides, if I were to harass Congress about anything, I'd tell 'em to stop all that partisan gridlock bullshit and start getting things done in D.C. I get it, the Republicans are pissed Obama won. Hey, Democrats didn't like Bush either. Stop acting like babies!

<stepping off soapbox>
The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three. And the fussy roadgeeks who like the grid too much will have a fit about that one, too, because I-17 would be east of I-19. I agree that the grid should be used only for reference and not everything has to be exactly correct, but this is an instance where it is better just to extend one number, rather than use something new.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: NE2 on July 24, 2013, 08:32:22 PM
The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three.
Then why not reroute I-15 so there's one number - on both sides of the border?

Frankly, I don't give a shit about the latest big corridor or giving it one number. I-69 should not be one number. Neither should USBR 76.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Molandfreak on July 24, 2013, 08:52:22 PM
The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three.
Then why not reroute I-15 so there's one number - on both sides of the border?

Frankly, I don't give a shit about the latest big corridor or giving it one number. I-69 should not be one number. Neither should USBR 76.
That I-15 re-route would actually be ideal in my book. Agreed that I-69 shouldn't have been one number (or built at all in northern Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, or Mississippi). Even though it screws up the grid, the I-19 extension is ideal because it requires minimal number-changing on ADOT?'s part, and saves I-11 for another day (which obviously won't happen, but meh...) If you could extend an existing interstate reasonably, why not?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: vtk on July 24, 2013, 09:07:58 PM
The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three.
Then why not reroute I-15 so there's one number - on both sides of the border?

I'm pretty sure I suggested that once before.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: kkt on July 24, 2013, 11:27:16 PM
Not like the western states are going to run out of interstate numbers anytime soon.

Maybe not soon, but I can envision running out of N-S interstates in the foreseeable future:

I-1 cannot use, would duplicate CA-1
US-101 from L.A. to S.F. -> I-3
I-5 in use
US-97 -> I-7
CA-99 from the Grapevine to Sacramento -> I-9
CA-14 and US-395 from San Fernando to Reno -> I-11  oops, wait...

All of which would be more worthwhile projects than Phoenix to Las Vegas.  Well, okay, maybe not US-97.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: FightingIrish on July 25, 2013, 10:41:35 AM
The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three. And the fussy roadgeeks who like the grid too much will have a fit about that one, too, because I-17 would be east of I-19. I agree that the grid should be used only for reference and not everything has to be exactly correct, but this is an instance where it is better just to extend one number, rather than use something new.

You're absolutely right! With the random nature of some routes (i.e. diagonals), it would be impossible to route everything 100% to the grid. So yes, there will be a few areas of contention.

Not like the western states are going to run out of interstate numbers anytime soon.

Maybe not soon, but I can envision running out of N-S interstates in the foreseeable future:

I-1 cannot use, would duplicate CA-1
US-101 from L.A. to S.F. -> I-3
I-5 in use
US-97 -> I-7
CA-99 from the Grapevine to Sacramento -> I-9
CA-14 and US-395 from San Fernando to Reno -> I-11  oops, wait...

All of which would be more worthwhile projects than Phoenix to Las Vegas.  Well, okay, maybe not US-97.

I would think SR99 and the Phoenix to Las Vegas are very important routes, and are both at the front of the line. As for the others, like I said, I really don't think they'll run out of numbers, unless hoards of people begin a mass exodus to live in the California desert. And even then, by the time those other routes get upgraded to interstates, we'll likely all be dead.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: vdeane on July 25, 2013, 08:44:54 PM
The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three. And the fussy roadgeeks who like the grid too much will have a fit about that one, too, because I-17 would be east of I-19. I agree that the grid should be used only for reference and not everything has to be exactly correct, but this is an instance where it is better just to extend one number, rather than use something new.
I very much doubt I-11 would ever be a CANAMEX corridor.  Not enough traffic across Nevada.  Besides, numbers like I-11 and I-69 aren't valid transcontinental numbers; for that you need an x5.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Molandfreak on July 25, 2013, 10:21:18 PM
The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three. And the fussy roadgeeks who like the grid too much will have a fit about that one, too, because I-17 would be east of I-19. I agree that the grid should be used only for reference and not everything has to be exactly correct, but this is an instance where it is better just to extend one number, rather than use something new.
I very much doubt I-11 would ever be a CANAMEX corridor.  Not enough traffic across Nevada.  Besides, numbers like I-11 and I-69 aren't valid transcontinental numbers; for that you need an x5.
(http://www.itd.idaho.gov/transporter/2002/080202_Trans/080202_CanamexA.jpg)

http://www.itd.idaho.gov/transporter/2002/080202_Trans/080202_CanaMex.html
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Alps on July 26, 2013, 07:19:12 PM
The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three. And the fussy roadgeeks who like the grid too much will have a fit about that one, too, because I-17 would be east of I-19. I agree that the grid should be used only for reference and not everything has to be exactly correct, but this is an instance where it is better just to extend one number, rather than use something new.
I very much doubt I-11 would ever be a CANAMEX corridor.  Not enough traffic across Nevada.  Besides, numbers like I-11 and I-69 aren't valid transcontinental numbers; for that you need an x5.
(http://www.itd.idaho.gov/transporter/2002/080202_Trans/080202_CanamexA.jpg)

http://www.itd.idaho.gov/transporter/2002/080202_Trans/080202_CanaMex.html
That says to me "route 15 down the proposed corridor and turn the rest into 11"
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: NE2 on July 26, 2013, 07:28:08 PM
That's what I said. Bonus: Mexico's side is also 15.

I'm not a big fan of the hard turn at Vegas, but any farther east and you get into the mountains, not good for heavy trucks hauling Mexicanadians with calves the size of cantaloupes. The only reasonable alternative seems to be 89-160-191-6, which saves only 12 miles (and may have issues north of Price).
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: kkt on July 26, 2013, 07:39:08 PM
That says to me "route 15 down the proposed corridor and turn the rest into 11"

It would make the grid neater.  But of the traffic from St. George to Vegas, I bet 99% of it continues toward California.

US-93 is a fine route number.  If it had to be interstate, I-515 would also be fine.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Molandfreak on July 26, 2013, 07:53:08 PM
I'm not a big fan of the hard turn at Vegas,
If you really wanted to get rid of that crap, you could also straighten out that stupid little hairpin curve at Great Falls. Not that it really matters.



US-93 is a fine route number.  If it had to be interstate, I-515 would also be fine.
To make another I-476? Uh, no thank you.



It would make the grid neater.  But of the traffic from St. George to Vegas, I bet 99% of it continues toward California.
And I bet 99% of the traffic from Memphis to Chicago has no intention of going through St. Louis. But that didn't stop them from routing I-55 through all three.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: kkt on July 27, 2013, 12:36:20 PM
US-93 is a fine route number.  If it had to be interstate, I-515 would also be fine.
To make another I-476? Uh, no thank you.

What aspect of I-476 are you objecting to?  I assume not its bitter environmental opposition.  Just that it's long for a 3di?  There's lots of space between cities in the intermountain west, I don't see length by itself justifying a low traffic 2di.

Quote


It would make the grid neater.  But of the traffic from St. George to Vegas, I bet 99% of it continues toward California.
And I bet 99% of the traffic from Memphis to Chicago has no intention of going through St. Louis. But that didn't stop them from routing I-55 through all three.

There's significant traffic from Chicago to St. Louis, which has not been demonstrated for Las Vegas-Phoenix.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Molandfreak on July 27, 2013, 12:50:52 PM
US-93 is a fine route number.  If it had to be interstate, I-515 would also be fine.
To make another I-476? Uh, no thank you.

What aspect of I-476 are you objecting to?  I assume not its bitter environmental opposition.  Just that it's long for a 3di?  There's lots of space between cities in the intermountain west, I don't see length by itself justifying a low traffic 2di.
Creating a 300-mile 3di just because it has low traffic? I know you want all those other corridors to become interstates, but couldn't one of them use I-13 in lieu of I-11?



Quote
Quote
Quote
It would make the grid neater.  But of the traffic from St. George to Vegas, I bet 99% of it continues toward California.
And I bet 99% of the traffic from Memphis to Chicago has no intention of going through St. Louis. But that didn't stop them from routing I-55 through all three.

There's significant traffic from Chicago to St. Louis, which has not been demonstrated for Las Vegas-Phoenix.
The point is that the interstate system has a lot of areas where the road doesn't necessarily follow, or continue on, the way you want to go. I-94 is a better example of this.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: corco on July 27, 2013, 01:22:23 PM
Quote
There's significant traffic from Chicago to St. Louis, which has not been demonstrated for Las Vegas-Phoenix.

It hasn't?
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: kkt on July 27, 2013, 09:19:45 PM
US-93 is a fine route number.  If it had to be interstate, I-515 would also be fine.
To make another I-476? Uh, no thank you.
What aspect of I-476 are you objecting to?  I assume not its bitter environmental opposition.  Just that it's long for a 3di?  There's lots of space between cities in the intermountain west, I don't see length by itself justifying a low traffic 2di.
Creating a 300-mile 3di just because it has low traffic? I know you want all those other corridors to become interstates, but couldn't one of them use I-13 in lieu of I-11?

I'm not advocating an interstate there at all.  Let Arizona build whatever they want, but interstate route numbers should be allocated more objectively.

So, I-13 is too unlucky for Nevada and Arizona, but it would be just fine for the losers on the coast?  Using number I-13 for one of the other possible interstates I mentioned would be even worse for the grid than I-11 is already.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
It would make the grid neater.  But of the traffic from St. George to Vegas, I bet 99% of it continues toward California.
And I bet 99% of the traffic from Memphis to Chicago has no intention of going through St. Louis. But that didn't stop them from routing I-55 through all three.
There's significant traffic from Chicago to St. Louis, which has not been demonstrated for Las Vegas-Phoenix.
The point is that the interstate system has a lot of areas where the road doesn't necessarily follow, or continue on, the way you want to go. I-94 is a better example of this.

So there are other cases of the interstate not following the traveled route.  Does that mean we should create even more instances of it?

Quote
There's significant traffic from Chicago to St. Louis, which has not been demonstrated for Las Vegas-Phoenix.

It hasn't?

http://mpd.azdot.gov/data/aadt.asp (http://mpd.azdot.gov/data/aadt.asp)

Check the 2010 and 2030 AADT columns.  There are three busy spots:  Hoover Dam,  right next to I-40, and approaching the Phoenix end.  At the moment, everywhere else is well under 10,000 AADT; even by 2030 only from I-40 to Hoover Dam and the area around Phoenix are projected to be over 10,000.  Doesn't need to be an interstate.

In a previous post above, I said US-97 probably doesn't need to be interstate either, but it's closer than US-93.  At least there are more than three spots with heavy traffic. 

It's up to Arizona what they build, but if it were up to me I'd just reserve right of way for future construction of freeway from I-40 to Hoover Dam and build a bypass for Phoenix, and leave the rest alone.
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: Scott5114 on July 28, 2013, 03:08:17 AM
This is not Fictional Highways . . .
Title: Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
Post by: vdeane on July 28, 2013, 07:35:46 PM
So, I-13 is too unlucky for Nevada and Arizona, but it would be just fine for the losers on the coast?  Using number I-13 for one of the other possible interstates I mentioned would be even worse for the grid than I-11 is already.
The reason luck factored into I-11's number is because Las Vegas is built on gambling.