Print

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

[LM117]

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

[nexus73]

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

Rick

[LM117]

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.

[sparker]

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!

[oscar]

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.

[Roadsguy]

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?

[Beltway]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[US 89]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[mgk920]

Ditto WI 441.

Mike

[cabiness42]

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.

[LM117]

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.

[Alex]

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:

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]

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:

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. 

[CNGL-Leudimin]

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.

[US71]

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.

[ClassicHasClass]

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.

[Scott5114]

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"...

[US 89]

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.

[usends]

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.

"...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."

[Revive 755]

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.

[Bickendan]

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

[rickmastfan67]

This was just posted over @ TM:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/b/ba/ba708eca603c86f1/000_USRN_Agenda_and_List_of_Applications__AM_St_Louis__MO-2019_%28nc%29.original.1570033411.pdf?1570033413

[vdeane]

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.