AASHTO Spring 2019

[kphoger]

^ Goes against long-standing AASHTO policy.

So does US 412, US 400, and US 425.

I believe those three were a special case and originally intended to be temporary numbers, although the actual evidence of that has proven to be somewhat sparse.

[Mapmikey]

^ Goes against long-standing AASHTO policy.

So does US 412, US 400, and US 425.

I believe those three were a special case and originally intended to be temporary numbers, although the actual evidence of that has proven to be somewhat sparse.

412 and 425 were not likely meant to be temporary, as 427 was also requested (but approved as 371).  Can't speak to 400 though...

[froggie]

Nothing in AASHTO's US route numbering policy implies that 400, 412, and 425 are bad numbers or against policy.  The policy clearly stipulates, though, that no new split routes shall be approved and existing routes shall be eliminated as soon as they can come to agreement with the respective state DOT's.

[hbelkins]

Nothing in AASHTO's US route numbering policy implies that 400, 412, and 425 are bad numbers or against policy.  The policy clearly stipulates, though, that no new split routes shall be approved and existing routes shall be eliminated as soon as they can come to agreement with the respective state DOT's.

I wonder if costs for changes (public costs such as signage, private costs such as address changes on promotional materials, etc.) make it unlikely that any of the split routes now in existence will ever be eliminated.

[froggie]

^ It would make it unlikely, yes.  But not impossible.  Similar "costs for changes" arguments have been made in several states regarding changing exit numbers from sequential to milepost-based and it hasn't stopped some DOTs from proceeding.

[Avalanchez71]

So how is the signage on the new US 63?  Did they take all of the old ones down on the former section?