News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

AASHTO meeting October 13, 2011

Started by NE2, October 26, 2011, 10:18:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

NE2

October 26, 2011, 10:18:36 AM  
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

vdeane

#1
October 26, 2011, 11:27:24 AM  
I'm surprised NY didn't submit I-86 from NY 17K to I-84.  Why prolong the period of covered signs?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

US71

#2
October 26, 2011, 11:35:28 AM  

No mention of Business US 71 or Business I-49 at Anderson / Pineville ?

Also: No mention of Business US 64 at Vilonia? I thought it would have been open by now?
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

agentsteel53

#3
October 26, 2011, 11:36:43 AM  
Quote from: deanej on October 26, 2011, 11:27:24 AM
I'm surprised NY didn't submit I-86 from NY 17K to I-84.  Why prolong the period of covered signs?

why not just uncover the damn things?  how does it benefit the driving public to have the shields covered?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

hbelkins

#4
October 26, 2011, 12:51:34 PM  
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 26, 2011, 11:36:43 AM

why not just uncover the damn things?  how does it benefit the driving public to have the shields covered?

Well, AASHTO does put in those applications that the states guarantee in good faith that they will not erect any signs without getting AASHTO's approval. And AASHTO might use its regulatory powers to put New York on double secret probation if it acts prematurely.  :-D

(That merits a  :-D because AASHTO has no regulatory powers.)


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

NE2

#5
October 26, 2011, 01:23:06 PM  
AASHTO owns the trademark to the Interstate shield: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question22 so they could play hardball if they wanted.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

agentsteel53

#6
October 26, 2011, 01:27:41 PM  
Quote from: hbelkins on October 26, 2011, 12:51:34 PM
Well, AASHTO does put in those applications that the states guarantee in good faith that they will not erect any signs without getting AASHTO's approval.

why is AASHO's bureaucracy more important than the actual purpose of numbered routes, which is to aid navigation?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

NE2

#7
October 26, 2011, 01:30:39 PM  
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 26, 2011, 01:27:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 26, 2011, 12:51:34 PM
Well, AASHTO does put in those applications that the states guarantee in good faith that they will not erect any signs without getting AASHTO's approval.

why is AASHO's bureaucracy more important than the actual purpose of numbered routes, which is to aid navigation?

Because that bureaucracy is probably better at getting good results than if the states could post whatever Interstates they wanted.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

TheStranger

#8
October 26, 2011, 02:20:23 PM  
Quote from: NE2 on October 26, 2011, 01:30:39 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 26, 2011, 01:27:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 26, 2011, 12:51:34 PM
Well, AASHTO does put in those applications that the states guarantee in good faith that they will not erect any signs without getting AASHTO's approval.

why is AASHO's bureaucracy more important than the actual purpose of numbered routes, which is to aid navigation?

Because that bureaucracy is probably better at getting good results than if the states could post whatever Interstates they wanted.

In that vein, does AASHTO consider US 377 in Oklahoma on its logs, or is that still only unilaterally recognized by that state?

(Kinda reminds me of the bizarre "not quite I-80 anymore" segment of signed I-80 in San Francisco, and what CalTrans signs as I-110 on the Harbor Freeway between I-10 and the Four Level/US 101 in downtown Los Angeles.)

Chris Sampang

Kacie Jane

#9
October 26, 2011, 07:38:39 PM  
Quote from: hbelkins on October 26, 2011, 12:51:34 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 26, 2011, 11:36:43 AM

why not just uncover the damn things?  how does it benefit the driving public to have the shields covered?

Well, AASHTO does put in those applications that the states guarantee in good faith that they will not erect any signs without getting AASHTO's approval. And AASHTO might use its regulatory powers to put New York on double secret probation if it acts prematurely.  :-D

(That merits a  :-D because AASHTO has no regulatory powers.)

Someone should point the probation officer in Oregon's direction then, as I'm fairly certain this US 199 change has been signed as such for several years already.

xonhulu

#10
October 26, 2011, 07:47:27 PM  
Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 26, 2011, 07:38:39 PM
Someone should point the probation officer in Oregon's direction then, as I'm fairly certain this US 199 change has been signed as such for several years already.

Both Oregon and Washington have been guilty of some very tardy after-the-fact submissions to AASHTO lately.

Kacie Jane

#11
October 26, 2011, 07:56:19 PM  
Out of curiosity -- I know of the US 197 truncation -- any others in Washington you had in mind?

NE2

#12
October 26, 2011, 08:17:17 PM  
US 101 Alternate in far southwestern Washington.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

xonhulu

#13
October 26, 2011, 08:36:29 PM  
There were three in 2006, so I guess it was longer ago than it seemed to me.  Besides 197, the others were the establishment of ALT 101 near Ilwaco and the relocation of US 12 onto I-182.  Of course, all of those actions had actually been done years earlier.

Bickendan

#14
October 27, 2011, 03:42:45 AM  
US 26 in downtown Portland.

oscar

#15
October 27, 2011, 08:08:56 AM  
Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 26, 2011, 07:38:39 PM
Someone should point the probation officer in Oregon's direction then, as I'm fairly certain this US 199 change has been signed as such for several years already.

I was just there about two weeks ago (the day of the AASHTO meeting, in fact).  US 199 was already signed on the new route, but there are also lots of US 199 signs on the old route.  That was confusing.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

xonhulu

#16
October 27, 2011, 08:49:48 PM  
Quote from: oscar on October 27, 2011, 08:08:56 AM
I was just there about two weeks ago (the day of the AASHTO meeting, in fact).  US 199 was already signed on the new route, but there are also lots of US 199 signs on the old route.  That was confusing.

US 199 has been signed on the "new" route (Grants Pass Parkway) since 1990.  It's actually the dual signage with OR 99 that's newer and reaches farther north than US 199 ever ran on those streets.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions

Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.