AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting  (Read 3639 times)

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2289
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 03:18:55 PM
AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« on: October 03, 2019, 07:38:55 PM »

I figured I'd go ahead and get a thread ready since AASHTO's fall meeting in St. Louis starts this Saturday and ends next Wednesday.

https://route.transportation.org
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1835
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 01:08:13 AM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2019, 12:41:17 AM »

Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2289
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 03:18:55 PM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2019, 08:24:31 AM »

I'm hoping that US-70 Bypass in Goldsboro, NC goes bye-bye, since FHWA has already given NCDOT permission to sign it as I-42.  There's no reason for the US-70 Bypass designation to exist anymore.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2019, 08:27:09 AM by LM117 »
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6165
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: December 14, 2019, 09:28:43 PM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2019, 01:59:12 AM »

Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick

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

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7029
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:53:33 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2019, 04:04:39 AM »

Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick

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

New Interstate designations, even for uncontroversial already-built freeway corridors, have long been low on Caltrans' priority list. CA 15 and CA 905 also languish in the potential Interstate designation queue.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Roadsguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1575
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Here
  • Last Login: Today at 12:06:49 AM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2019, 09:20:13 AM »

Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick

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

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

Isn't CA 15 still waiting on some upgrades to bring it fully to Interstate standards?
Logged
[thing you don't like] is better than [thing you like]

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5960
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:37:55 AM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2019, 02:49:14 PM »

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

They did make the valid statement that there would be higher internal as well as FHWA responsibilities and policies associated having a route in a higher system.  More to it than just replacing the route signs.  Still, get it done and it is done once and for all.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10600
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: December 14, 2019, 11:13:10 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2019, 08:46:51 PM »

CA 210 and CA 905 (I think CA 15 as well, but am not 100% positive) were originally built with the intention of adding them to the interstate system.  I don't think the VA examples were.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2337
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 02:11:38 AM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2019, 09:00:55 PM »

Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

If wikipoo is right, the section east of SR 259 is still not up to interstate standards.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86ID 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5960
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:37:55 AM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2019, 11:28:18 PM »

I don't think the VA examples were.

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

VA-288 and VA-164 were not, but at least in the case of VA-288 it conceptually is part of the same outer loop system as I-295.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3507
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:01:36 AM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2019, 01:31:28 AM »

Ditto WI 441.

Mike
Logged

cabiness42

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1471
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Munster, IN
  • Last Login: December 14, 2019, 01:18:07 PM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2019, 07:46:55 AM »

Wondering if IN and KY will ever get around to getting IN 265/KY 841 designated as I-265 to get the two sections connected.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2289
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 03:18:55 PM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2019, 08:03:59 AM »

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

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

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

I know people like to drop a deuce on NC for their pursuit of new interstates, but the majority of their recent additions makes sense.
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

Alex

  • Webmaster
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4812
  • Location: Tampa, FL
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 09:10:32 PM
    • AARoads
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2019, 10:54:41 AM »

Wondering if IN and KY will ever get around to getting IN 265/KY 841 designated as I-265 to get the two sections connected.

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

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

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

There have been no sign changes yet?

cabiness42

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1471
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Munster, IN
  • Last Login: December 14, 2019, 01:18:07 PM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2019, 11:22:57 AM »

Wondering if IN and KY will ever get around to getting IN 265/KY 841 designated as I-265 to get the two sections connected.

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

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

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

There have been no sign changes yet?

As of 2 weeks ago, there were no sign changes on the Indiana side.  Haven't been on the Kentucky side in a while. 
Logged

CNGL-Leudimin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2591
  • When in doubt, US 41

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Across the pond
  • Last Login: December 14, 2019, 04:19:58 PM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2019, 02:20:36 PM »

If there are no new US Routes approved on this meeting, then the 2010s will become the first decade not to see any. I'm pretty sure this will happen.
Logged
"Football", a quite ambiguous word for me. I assume "association" football instead of "American" football.

All times Eastern unless DST is in force only in the USA (Central in that case to preserve "6 hours behind my actual time") or otherwise noted

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8900
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 11:53:00 AM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2019, 10:21:32 AM »

If there are no new US Routes approved on this meeting, then the 2010s will become the first decade not to see any. I'm pretty sure this will happen.

Doesn't matter. States will do what they want, anyway.
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

ClassicHasClass

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 225
  • 0-60 in 59.999997 years

  • Location: sunny So Cal
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 11:20:50 PM
    • Floodgap Roadgap
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2019, 12:09:34 PM »

Will we finally get the full meal deal for I-210 in California?

Rick

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

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

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

Yes, I think the CA 15-CA 94 interchange is still subpar. I also STR that there are some substandard sections of CA 210 on the old CA 30 Crosstown Fwy alignment.
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8313
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:12 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2019, 03:14:08 PM »

If there are no new US Routes approved on this meeting, then the 2010s will become the first decade not to see any. I'm pretty sure this will happen.

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

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

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2337
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 02:11:38 AM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2019, 03:57:30 PM »

If there are no new US Routes approved on this meeting, then the 2010s will become the first decade not to see any. I'm pretty sure this will happen.

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

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

Is there any particular reason AASHTO wouldn't approve that? Makes perfect sense to me, and I wouldn't mind seeing it extended further up MSR 99 either.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86ID 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

usends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 554
  • usends.com

  • Location: Headwaters Hill, CO
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 03:52:13 PM
    • US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2019, 05:02:15 PM »

Most of US-377 in Oklahoma is still "illegal"...
Is there any particular reason AASHTO wouldn't approve that? Makes perfect sense to me, and I wouldn't mind seeing it extended further up MSR 99 either.

See the last paragraph on this page for a couple reasons AASHO/AASHTO gave for rejecting the US 377 extension.
Quote from: https://www.usends.com/377.html
"...a few documents related to this: one stated that an extension was not approved because the road in question needed improvements in order to be considered compliant with standards for a primary route.  But another stated that the amount of US routes in that part of Oklahoma was too dense."
Logged
usends.com - US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3751
  • Last Login: December 14, 2019, 11:07:44 PM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #21 on: October 08, 2019, 05:37:16 PM »

See the last paragraph on this page for a couple reasons AASHO/AASHTO gave for rejecting the US 377 extension.
Quote from: https://www.usends.com/377.html
"...a few documents related to this: one stated that an extension was not approved because the road in question needed improvements in order to be considered compliant with standards for a primary route.  But another stated that the amount of US routes in that part of Oklahoma was too dense."

Considering 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.
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2498
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 10:46:17 PM
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #22 on: October 08, 2019, 06:19:10 PM »

Will US 87 in Wyoming be rerouted to eliminate the gap?
Logged

rickmastfan67

  • The Invisible One
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2730
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: December 14, 2019, 04:49:50 AM

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10600
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: December 14, 2019, 11:13:10 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: AASHTO Fall 2019 meeting
« Reply #24 on: October 08, 2019, 08:49:21 PM »

Will US 87 in Wyoming be rerouted to eliminate the gap?
Only if the stalemate can be broken.  Wyoming wants it to go on WY 193, which AASHTO says doesn't meet standards.  AASHTO wants it to go on I-90.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

 


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.