AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents  (Read 66213 times)

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 949
  • Why not?

  • Age: -63
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: March 23, 2023, 03:49:55 PM
AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« on: September 22, 2020, 01:56:10 PM »

In talking with someone at AASHTO, they provided a link to look at past Interstate, U.S., and Bike Route applications. In perusing through some of the applications and correspondence, I found some pretty interesting ideas.

Among them are:

US-78 extension to Denver, CO circa 1954

US-24 extension to St. George, UT circa 1955

US-200 establishment between Missoula, MT and Duluth, MN, circa 1961

US-64 extension to California via a lengthy concurrency with US-66 (1933 correspondence)

There are also other applications/correspondence that we know about as well. I canít seem to get direct links to the individual applications, but here is the link to the database:

https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default

Just enter in the number, state, and/or year youíre looking for and you should be able to find these documents pretty easily.
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 18167
  • Nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

  • Age: 33
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 06:38:04 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2020, 02:31:06 PM »

Nice! This sheds some light on what the hell actually happened with US-377 in Oklahoma, where, before, all we knew was there was a string of applications that were rejected. Turns out that Rep. Wes Watkins had been the one trying to get the extension done (at the behest of a local Highway 99 Association). AASHTO at the time had a point-scoring system and 377 never reached the required score (based on quality of the road, perceived over-density of US routes, being rejected before, and the designation being pushed by someone outside the highway departmentódefinitely not a criterion that would stand up in the modern day!)

What we do know is that in 1988 ODOT mysteriously started posting US-377 without AASHTO approval, as noted in their own documentation. So prevailing wisdom has been that was an instance of ODOT being ODOT and not playing by the rules. Turns out the truth is much less interesting...Wes Watkins wrote the designation into the Department of Transportation and Related Appropriations Act, 1988 (which was signed in December 1987). ODOT to submitted an application to AASHTO for rubber-stamping. AASHTO disapproved it in June 1988. ODOT shrugged, looked at the law, and posted the signs anyway. Can't say I blame them.

Oh, by the way, according to the bill, the official terminus of US-377 is at I-44, not OK-66. Oklahoma just sucks at road signs.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2020, 02:35:39 PM by Scott5114 »
Logged

CNGL-Leudimin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4096
  • When in doubt, US 41

  • Age: 29
  • Location: Across the pond
  • Last Login: Today at 05:27:41 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2020, 03:36:05 PM »

I wonder who was the shortminded who proposed the number I-238 without checking if there was a I-38 first. Oh, wait...

I like how Texas, New Mexico and Arizona tried to extend US 90 all the way to San Diego. California, on the other hand, didn't got along as they couldn't find a suitable alternate to US 80.

Oh, and I like how Rand McNally really cared about route numbering. Surely they didn't release their road atlases in April back then.
Logged
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11959
  • Last Login: Today at 04:54:06 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2020, 03:40:47 PM »



I wonder who was the shortminded who proposed the number I-238 without checking if there was a I-38 first. Oh, wait...


I believe it was a CA state route and they didn't want another I-x80.

Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4119
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: Today at 05:49:54 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2020, 03:51:25 PM »

In talking with someone at AASHTO, they provided a link to look at past Interstate, U.S., and Bike Route applications. In perusing through some of the applications and correspondence, I found some pretty interesting ideas.

Among them are:

US-78 extension to Denver, CO circa 1954

US-24 extension to St. George, UT circa 1955

US-200 establishment between Missoula, MT and Duluth, MN, circa 1961

US-64 extension to California via a lengthy concurrency with US-66 (1933 correspondence)

There are also other applications/correspondence that we know about as well. I canít seem to get direct links to the individual applications, but here is the link to the database:

https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default

Just enter in the number, state, and/or year youíre looking for and you should be able to find these documents pretty easily.


This is awesome...thank you for posting the link...learning a ton already
Logged

Eth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2837
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Georgia
  • Last Login: Today at 02:00:57 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2020, 04:54:26 PM »

Don't think I was previously aware of this: a 1961 proposal to extend US 13 all the way to New Orleans.

In Georgia, this was to follow GA 72 from South Carolina to Athens, then US 78 to Atlanta, then US 19/41 and GA 85 to Columbus, hopping on US 80 into Alabama.

Rejected, according to the document, because "certain sections" (not necessarily in GA, may have been in other states on the routing) were "not up to the required standards", along with "not enough through traffic" on the route.
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4119
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: Today at 05:49:54 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2020, 05:36:01 PM »

US 5 was requested to replace US 13 and US 17 all the way to Punta Gorda FL!

Other things Iíve found spending 45 minutes with this:

US 319 extension to Clarksville VA
US 220 extension to Charleston via SC 41
US 158 extension to Jonesville SC
US 313 from Elizabethtown NC to Charleston using 41
US 33 as a real N-S route from Rogersville TN northward
Lengthy US 1 Alt from Columbia SC to southeast GA (AASHO said improve the roads and move US 1. This would use SC 3 and US 301.
US 23 extension to St Petersburg
2 other US 13 to SC attempts
Logged

paulthemapguy

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6722
  • nobody asked me

  • Age: 33
  • Location: Illinois
  • Last Login: March 23, 2023, 09:54:39 PM
    • Paul Across America
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2020, 06:05:20 PM »

US 5 was requested to replace US 13 and US 17 all the way to Punta Gorda FL!

Hey!  I have had that idea too, totally separately!

This is a really awesome find.  The exact kind of thing I hoped to discover when joining this forum.
Logged
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 357/424. Only 67 route markers remain!

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 22168
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 05:58:29 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2020, 06:08:06 PM »



I wonder who was the shortminded who proposed the number I-238 without checking if there was a I-38 first. Oh, wait...


I believe it was a CA state route and they didn't want another I-x80.

They didnít want to renumber CA 180 and the rest of the X80s were used up at the time.
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9851
  • Age: 67
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:16:58 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2020, 07:06:11 PM »

I wonder who was the shortminded who proposed the number I-238 without checking if there was a I-38 first. Oh, wait...

I-238/CA 238 is rather like your favorite Interstate, I-41/US 41. California generally takes the approach of "one route, one number", even if the shape of the route marker changes from Interstate to some other kind mid-route (as with routes 15, 110, and 210). Wisconsin and (nominally) Illinois did something similar with their portions of U.S. 41. I'm pleased that AASHTO didn't get overly fussy about either situation, like it can be on other things.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

formulanone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11826
  • Age: 49
  • Location: HSV
  • Last Login: Today at 07:26:04 AM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2020, 08:16:45 PM »

Wow, great find!

In the year 2000, Alabama submitted their application to move US 29 over to I-85. The point-to-point mileage was submitted in what appears to be Comic Sans:



(Spoiler alert: Yes, it was approved.)
Logged

kurumi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2410
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:25 PM
    • kurumi.com
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2020, 10:28:22 PM »

Well, there goes my evening :-)

Thank you Rover_0!

Mods, maybe we could pin this somehow as a good source of information?
Logged

Alex

  • Webmaster
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5114
  • Location: Tampa, FL
  • Last Login: March 23, 2023, 07:43:16 AM
    • AARoads
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2020, 10:47:28 PM »

Well, there goes my evening :-)

Thank you Rover_0!

Mods, maybe we could pin this somehow as a good source of information?

Done!

I will be digging into this some more, but not tonight as it will keep me up late!

One thing I found was a 1955 application by NC/SC to extend US 220 south from Rockingham along SC 381, SC 9, SC 57 and SC 41 to US 17 near Mt Pleasant via Dillon and Mullins.

kurumi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2410
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:25 PM
    • kurumi.com
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2020, 10:56:59 PM »

We know that CT/MA I-395 was conceived as I-290 for a while, but this was new to me:

Quote
Some previous correspondence has referred to the possibility of this Route being designated as Interstate 290; however, the State of Massachusetts feels that such a number would be misleading since it indicates a closed loop off I-90 under AASHTO guidelines. Although the proposed Interstate connects two major Interstate routes, FHWA off≠icials in Washington were not receptive to a two digit number being used when the two states first approached them about designating route 52 as an Interstate highway. I-99 may be the only available two digit number which substantially meets AASHTO guidelines, but its use would require renumbering Connecticut 99 which traverses six towns in this state and is of considerable length. Connecticut would not accept this number.

Aw man CT, you could have renumbered CT 99 and had I-99. CT 99 is really only in 3 towns. You could have called it 299 and no one would shed a tear.

(And I-99 could have extended to Leominster and beyond...)
Logged

cl94

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6464
  • Helping to break everyone's Sierra clinches

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Northern Nevada
  • Last Login: Today at 11:02:28 AM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2020, 11:25:23 PM »

Merry Christmas, everyone!

I found an early NY 3DI numbering plan. This has some stuff we never knew existed.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

brad2971

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 395
  • Native Roadgeeking Son of the Great Plains

  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, CO
  • Last Login: Today at 04:17:33 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2020, 11:42:08 PM »

In talking with someone at AASHTO, they provided a link to look at past Interstate, U.S., and Bike Route applications. In perusing through some of the applications and correspondence, I found some pretty interesting ideas.

Among them are:

US-78 extension to Denver, CO circa 1954

US-24 extension to St. George, UT circa 1955

US-200 establishment between Missoula, MT and Duluth, MN, circa 1961

US-64 extension to California via a lengthy concurrency with US-66 (1933 correspondence)

There are also other applications/correspondence that we know about as well. I canít seem to get direct links to the individual applications, but here is the link to the database:

https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default

Just enter in the number, state, and/or year youíre looking for and you should be able to find these documents pretty easily.


It was quite interesting to see that in 1974, both North and South Dakota requested US 85 from Deadwood to Canada be renumbered as...US 385. AASHTO rejected it due to everyone in both states being used to having US 85 on that road through Belle Fourche, Buffalo, Bowman, Belfield, Watford City, and Williston.

I suspect a similar type of renumbering would be met with a similar rejection, especially considering the substantial oil industry at the north end of the route.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14366
  • fuck

  • Age: 14
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: March 23, 2023, 05:52:16 PM
Logged
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".

I agree to indemnify Belkin against unauthorized use of its MiniVak vacuum.

kurumi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2410
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:25 PM
    • kurumi.com
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2020, 12:23:43 AM »

Blueprint of CT state numbering plan, late 1931: https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=fb748934-c1d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true

This has some wild stuff that was revised before the 1932 renumbering.

* CT 17 from Granby to Old Saybrook (became CT 9 in 1932)
* CT 9 from New Haven to Union and Mass Line via Middletown, East Hartford, Stafford (became CT 15)
* CT 180, Glastonbury (94)
* and lots of smaller stuff: 171, 192, 155, etc. in odd places
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 18167
  • Nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

  • Age: 33
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 06:38:04 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2020, 01:49:27 AM »

Sadly, it looks like there's no way to link to anything without it 404ing. Or at least not in the usual way.
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4119
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: Today at 05:49:54 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2020, 06:57:35 AM »

New corridors (no number discussed):

Savannah GA to Marble NC
Norfolk to Hatteras NC
Gauley Bridge WV to Ashtabula OH
Pascagoula MS to Jackson TN
As part of US 52 extension to Bluefield a request to connect US 23 and US 52 with a US route (likely what became US 119 later)

US 219 was truncated from Princeton WV in 1966 (solves a mystery)

Have not yet found proof MSR 121 was a requested US route, though all of SC 121 (still SC 19 then) was in the US 319 extension request.

Also found proof that US 15 did exist south of Walterboro briefly.  And that SC really wanted US 17E and US 17W but knew it would be rejected.

Found proof US 52 did go into Huntington WV prior to 1932.

Found proof that Virginia did sign VA 301 prior to US 301 extension to Baltimore.

Not only was US 33 through KY-TN out there, it had a US 33E and US 33W split

Tennessee REALLY did not want to change most of their suffixed routes.

The answer to what was I-B59 in Alabama is about is in there.

I-72 on the Baltimore Beltway

Some states (esp. TN) sent their entire official maps with early submissions.

There were 3 attempts to extend US 58 to E St Louis (Illinois even had a US 58 ALT) and 2 more to extend it to Chattanooga TN.

So much to learn...barely scratched the surface.
Logged

CNGL-Leudimin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4096
  • When in doubt, US 41

  • Age: 29
  • Location: Across the pond
  • Last Login: Today at 05:27:41 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2020, 08:05:54 AM »

US 241 (the second) was proposed to run all the way up to Michigan City. US 131 was proposed to run all the way down to the Gulf coast, although I haven't seen where exactly because the last pages of that discussion failed to load (I suspect down what is now US 231 and US 331 in Alabama and Florida, ending at Santa Rosa Beach). Not bad.

Also, US 86 was briefly proposed for "The Appalachian Corridor" in Alabama. I wonder to what that refers, since Corridors V and X were already US 72 and US 78 (now I-22) respectively.
Logged
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13982
  • Age: 48
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 02:51:25 PM
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2020, 09:18:59 AM »

New Jersey is largely devoid of much documentation.  One of the more recent documents show what many believed was true: I-95/I-295 around Trenton was to become I-195, and this decision was made well before most of us saw it on maps.  Yet, there's nothing to document how this eventually became 295.  PA's database doesn't shed any light on this either.

Another, more localized change near me that's not documented:  US 322 was moved from its original routing to a bypass in Mullica Hill, NJ.  I've never seen anything that shows NJ submitted this request to any federal organization for approval, and this database doesn't reveal such documentation either.
Logged

Alex

  • Webmaster
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5114
  • Location: Tampa, FL
  • Last Login: March 23, 2023, 07:43:16 AM
    • AARoads
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2020, 09:31:58 AM »

So I ended up staying up late and sifting through this afterall.  :coffee:

Delaware proposed redesignating U.S. 202 from I-95 at Exit 8, 1.31 miles north to the original end of SR 141 at Fairfax as temporary I-195 in 1978.

Quote
When the section is rebuilt to proper standards we will request permanent designation of I-195.

The following year Delaware recommended eliminating Temporary I-195:

Quote
This section is only 1.31 mile and serves mainly short trip, local orientated traffic, and designation of temporary I-195 needs to be eliminated to avoid traffic confusion.

There's a number of applications from Delaware also for renumbering I-95 as I-395/595 before settling for I-895 during the major widening/reconstruction project through Wilmington.



For Florida, there was a request to extend U.S. 431 south in 1961 from Dothan to Panama City Beach. The route was proposed along SR 77, SR 277 and SR 79 south to U.S. 98. It was denied because of redundancy with U.S. 231 and it not being the most direct route, etc via AASHO's point scoring system.

Interstate 195 was originally submitted on August 8, 1958 for the "Bayshore Connector". It was deleted and 195 reassigned to the current route between Miami and Miami Beach in 1959.



Interstate 220 in Jackson, Mississippi was originally referenced as Route A20

Interstate 420 in Monroe, Louisiana was approved in 1958, as was the full I-410 loop in Baton Rouge.

AASHO did question whether the proposals for I-10/610 in New Orleans, as to whether they should be reversed.

Quote
The route carrying the major traffic stream should be allotted the two digit number and I am sure that you have considered this matter. However, Route 10 seems to be rather circuitous.

The Louisiana Department of Highways responded on September 3, 1958:

Quote
...concluded that the two digit number should be assigned to the route indicated in our submission of July 25, since this routing will carry the vast majority of the Interstate traffic entering the city of New Orleans. Furthermore, the section showing numbered as 610 will not be constructed in the early years of the program, and for continuity of routing, the proposal as submitted by this office is believed to be appropriate.



The Texas urban submissions in 1958 outlined:

  • "Interstate Highway F 20" - IH 820 as a three quarter loop missing the NW quadrant
  • "Interstate Highway H 45" - IH 610 without the portion between IH 45 and IH 10 to the east
  • "Interstate Highway S 10" - IH 410 without the segment between IH 10 and IH 35 to the north.
  • "Interstate Highway D 35E" - IH 635 was the same.

Texas initially outlined IH 20 as overlapping with IH 10 west all the way to El Paso.

Quote
In view of the instructions in Guide Number 6 in Purpose and Policy of Marking for the Interstate System, we are wondering if Interstate 20 in Texas should be considered terminated at its junction with U.S. 290 which is 40 miles west of Pecos, or should it continue in conjunction with Interstate 10 to a major control point, the city of El Paso.

A circumferential route around Texarkana was recommended for approval in November 1958. No number was assigned.

The alignment of IH 20 through Dallas/Fort Worth was outlined in 1958 as following what is now IH 30 east to IH 35W, then US 277 southeast to IH 820 and then the present alignment east into Dallas. Within Dallas, IH 20 followed US 67 northeast to an overlap with IH 35E to Downtown, and then IH 30 and US 80.

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4119
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: Today at 05:49:54 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2020, 10:02:08 AM »


Also, US 86 was briefly proposed for "The Appalachian Corridor" in Alabama. I wonder to what that refers, since Corridors V and X were already US 72 and US 78 (now I-22) respectively.

Just found a 1933 Virginia request to establish US 86 from Norfolk to Roanoke.  Included was a request to establish US 33 from Danville to Reedville.  I guess AASHO said they can have 460 and 360 instead...

This would also be the second or third attempt at a US 33 that is not what ultimately became US 33 in Virginia alone...
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5792
  • 189 to Evanston

  • Location: Tallahassee, FL
  • Last Login: March 23, 2023, 01:44:05 PM
    • Utah Highways
Re: AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2020, 10:06:38 AM »

Quote from: (redacted for privacy)
This is like fucking Christmas.

 


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.