Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Revive 755]

I don't agree with the I-880 in Iowa.  I find it much easier to just follow I-680 if I want an alternative to I-80.  Plus IMHO (and drifting into fictional territory) I would rather see I-880 reserved for future use.

[froggie]

I find the US 14 MN entry intriguing since MnDOT finished that bypass 3 years ago.  They just now finally catching up with the paperwork?

[bob7374]

Guess bad news for NC Interstate fans, nothing for I-885 or any other I-route. Intrigued by the US 70 relocation that appears will leave US 29 at NC 68 in Thomasville then take 68 to Wendover Avenue to go through Greensboro and get back to US 29. Will be interested to see the map of this routing on the application. Guess more sign changes for I-85 in Greensboro.

[zzcarp]

I don't agree with the I-880 in Iowa.  I find it much easier to just follow I-680 if I want an alternative to I-80.  Plus IMHO (and drifting into fictional territory) I would rather see I-880 reserved for future use.

Agreed, why split a functional loop route into two different numbers? I assert the routes do serve different purposes, but did that many people really get confused by this arrangement?

[sprjus4]

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

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

How about VA-895, VA-288 and VA-164?   I provided pages of advocacy documentation 2 years ago to VDOT upper management about getting these incorporated into the Interstate system, and they weren't interested, even claimed that the first two are not built to full Interstate standards, which I disputed using AASHTO documents.

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

I don’t see what VDOT’s issue is. How AASHTO is nowadays, as evident by the recent interstate additions in many states, as long as it’s a freeway conforming to basic standards of an interstate, they’ll approve it. VDOT could most likely get VA-288 and VA-164 designated as is. From what I’ve seen, the only thing “substandard” about them is the design speed in certain areas. I can say with full confidence AASHTO is not going to use that as a reason to deny it. Certainly wouldn’t be the first time a modern interstate is approved over a pre-existing route with substandard curvature. It seems to me it’s VDOT internally being strict about their own standards, not AASHTO or FHWA.

As for VA-895, that’s debatable as it’s a tolled freeway that used public funding. That’s similar to NC-540 in Raleigh not being able to be designated as I-540.

[Beltway]

How about VA-895, VA-288 and VA-164?   I provided pages of advocacy documentation 2 years ago to VDOT upper management about getting these incorporated into the Interstate system, and they weren't interested, even claimed that the first two are not built to full Interstate standards, which I disputed using AASHTO documents.
They did make the valid statement that there would be higher internal as well as FHWA responsibilities and policies associated having a route in a higher system.  More to it than just replacing the route signs.  Still, get it done and it is done once and for all.

I don’t see what VDOT’s issue is. How AASHTO is nowadays, as evident by the recent interstate additions in many states, as long as it’s a freeway conforming to basic standards of an interstate, they’ll approve it. VDOT could most likely get VA-288 and VA-164 designated as is.
As for VA-895, that’s debatable as it’s a tolled freeway that used public funding. That’s similar to NC-540 in Raleigh not being able to be designated as I-540.

They said that there was no significant local support for any of them.  That is obviously a make-or-break matter.  There was a lot of local support for making VA-44 into I-264, for example, and for making the VA-664 extension (the route from the James River to Bowers Hill) into I-664.

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

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

VA-164 had several issues cited.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

It's now official. No new US Route designations have appeared during the 2010s, the first decade in which it has happened. The last US Route created and signed to date is the current iteration of US 48 in 2002 (The Alanland highway, US 121, is from 2005 but currently not built, hence the nickname I've given to it)

I see Iowa wants to split I-680 into two, likely because of that section of I-29 that was closed for months due to floods, even though it's now open again. However this would mean saying just "I-880" would no longer refer to the Bay Area freeway unambiguously anymore.

[LM117]

Guess bad news for NC Interstate fans, nothing for I-885 or any other I-route. Intrigued by the US 70 relocation that appears will leave US 29 at NC 68 in Thomasville then take 68 to Wendover Avenue to go through Greensboro and get back to US 29. Will be interested to see the map of this routing on the application. Guess more sign changes for I-85 in Greensboro.

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

Then again, as far as I know, NCDOT hasn't put up I-42 shields yet, so I guess that's the hold up...I hope.

[NE2]

There were no new routes in the decade from 2006 to 2015. Go yawn yourself.

[usends]

I don't agree with the I-880 in Iowa.  I find it much easier to just follow I-680 if I want an alternative to I-80.

Agreed, why split a functional loop route into two different numbers? I assert the routes do serve different purposes, but did that many people really get confused by this arrangement?

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

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

[Alex]

Item No. 3 ‐ State: Florida Route: US 1 Action: Relocation of Existing US 1 north of I‐95 and Existing US 1 south of I‐95

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

Another one of those applications for approval after the fact. Yet there is nothing from Florida for the designation of U.S. 301 Alternate along the Starke Bypass. Seems there is no rhyme or reason as to what DOT's consider needing AASHTO approval versus what they will go ahead and do without it.

[US 89]

I don't agree with the I-880 in Iowa.  I find it much easier to just follow I-680 if I want an alternative to I-80.

Agreed, why split a functional loop route into two different numbers? I assert the routes do serve different purposes, but did that many people really get confused by this arrangement?

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

I agree, also because the 680/29 overlap is almost as long as the Omaha loop portion of 680. If that much of the route is concurrent with something else, that's a situation where splitting it up is appropriate in my opinion.

[triplemultiplex]

I see the remains of Bus US 51 in the Stevens Point area is officially downgraded to one of Wisconsin's more typical "locally designated" business routes.

It's a weird set up we have in WI where almost all business routes are locally signed and not considered official state or US routes.  Even though for all intents and purposes to the motoring public, they are (assuming they are signed well, which many are not).  With Stevens Point getting this treatment, I believe that just leaves the Bus US 51 in Wausau as the only business route the feds consider a US Highway.

[mvak36]

I'm okay with the I-880 designation. Although, I would have probably preferred an I-x29 designation of some sort and saved the 880 for something else.

[vdeane]

I don't agree with the I-880 in Iowa.  I find it much easier to just follow I-680 if I want an alternative to I-80.

Agreed, why split a functional loop route into two different numbers? I assert the routes do serve different purposes, but did that many people really get confused by this arrangement?

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

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

Not to mention that the portion of I-680 that's becoming I-880 wasn't constructed as part of a loop around Omaha.  It was originally a connector to I-29 called I-80N.

[english si]

I-880 -> I-29 -> I-680 would still work as an I-80 bypass if they keep the control cities signed the same as now.

[Chris]

Do people actually use I-680 (I-880) to bypass Omaha? According to the Iowa DOT, the average traffic is only 6,400 vehicles per day.

[Brandon]

I don't agree with the I-880 in Iowa.  I find it much easier to just follow I-680 if I want an alternative to I-80.

Agreed, why split a functional loop route into two different numbers? I assert the routes do serve different purposes, but did that many people really get confused by this arrangement?

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

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

I-880 isn't a bad number, but why not I-829 instead?  I-829 would be shorthand for the route that goes between I-80 and I-29.

[sparker]

I regularly used the full length of I-680 (including the I-29 overlap, of course) to get around Omaha when I was doing I-80 cross-country trips regularly in the '80's and '90's; for some reason I always hit that area during the afternoon commute hours, so 680 came in handy.  But if I-29 is being flooded out on a regular basis (as per the last few years), the E-W portion in IA is functionally useless during those times -- so no matter what designation it carries, it becomes a local connector ending up on the bluffs during those I-29 downtimes.   The reasoning for the change is a bit dodgy -- but with a separate designation IADOT could conceivably utilize Lincoln and Sioux City as control cities at the I-80 split -- essentially reiterating the new I-880 per the old I-80N functionality, as partially a cutoff to and from northward I-29.  Once traffic hits I-29, they can simply choose either direction (provided it's not under water).   

[Henry]

The more I see the current I-680's routing, the more sense it makes to split it into two different segments. IOW, I'm fine with making the Loveland-Minden portion I-880, and truncating I-680 to the loop itself. The I-29 concurrency is utterly pointless and a needless waste of a great 3di.

[ilpt4u]

I’d rather an (odd)80...maybe I-580 or I-780 for the proposed I-880, but I am not opposed to the idea of breaking up I-680 to two separate segments with separate designations

[skluth]

See the last paragraph on this page for a couple reasons AASHO/AASHTO gave for rejecting the US 377 extension.

"...a few documents related to this: one stated that an extension was not approved because the road in question needed improvements in order to be considered compliant with standards for a primary route.  But another stated that the amount of US routes in that part of Oklahoma was too dense."

Considering the quality of some of the other US routes out there . . .

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

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

So many in Chicago, you missed US 12 and US 14. 

[Konza]

.
[/quote]

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

Not to mention US 20.

It is also worth mentioning that Chicago was and continues to be a hub for many modes of transportation with a large body of water immediately to its east that is easier to go around than to cross.

[ilpt4u]

Not to mention US 20.

It is also worth mentioning that Chicago was and continues to be a hub for many modes of transportation with a large body of water immediately to its east that is easier to go around than to cross.

Don’t forget Chicago also used to have US 54 and US 66 - the former mostly decommissioned in IL and the latter decommissioned entirely, as we all know

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

The central location combined with Lake Michigan forces most “Northern” route Transcontinental Rail and Road travel to Chicago as well, and also makes a good mid-continent Air Hub - hence why ORD is a Hub for both United and American (only “inland” US airport that hubs for >1 Big 3 Legacy), and MDW is one of Southwest’s busiest airports (SWA doesn’t have true “hubs” a la the Big 3 Legacies)

[Revive 755]

I considered mentioning US 12 and US 14, but US 6, US 52, and US 34 appeared to indicate greater density.  US 52 in particular could have been routed to bypass Chicagoland (possibly via a routing through Streator).

Although considering IL 38 was once a US route . . .